Book Reviews 191

of quasi-governmental organizations in ‘advising’ govern- ment on policv (p. 102) is not followed up. and connection is not made w’ith an earlier chapter on the role of pressure groups in influencing government and departmental think- ing (p. 21). The ‘public’. which we may take to be everyone except the 6000 people in the central list (p. 49) and the 7% of the electorate who are seriously interested in politics (p. 17). is left out of the description of decision- making. The ‘public’ reappears later in a reactive relation- ship to the State. in excellent discussions of accountability. participation and complaints procedures.

Despite these reservations, this is a useful and readable book. pulling together many of the current administrative and political issues of government in Britain.

SUE WRIGHT University of Sussex. U. K.

Environmental Economics, 3rd edn, J.J. Seneca and M.K Taussig. 1985, Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, f32.05

In the early pages of this book, now in its third edition, the authors make quite plain their own conviction in the primary importance of proficiency in a single discipline - in this case economics - in making effective headway in environmental analysis. The firmness of this conviction, along with the authors’ undoubted disciplinary knowledge and teaching experience, makes them eminently well placed to deliver an advanced undergraduate or post- graduate textbook on environmental economics. For a book of this kind, it is written well enough and reasonably structured, and it covers with some proficiency the standard principles of cost-benefit analysis, and the basic economic theory of market economics and externalities, of public goods, and of distributional aspects. It also draws on aspects of water pollution, air quality and hazardous wastes. by way of contextual material. If one is to quibble about the range of its technical content, then the absence of material on multi-attribute utility analysis, fast growing in popularity as an alternative or complement to cost- benefit analysis, might be considered an undesirable omission.

But the reasons why I will not be recommending this book as a core text for my own students of environmental analysis go much further than technical omissions, or, for that matter, the book’s price (f32.05), though this cannot be a point in its favour. They have to do with my concern that the book is about economics more than it is about the world. There is a continual preference for hypothetical, not actual, case studies in the text’s narrative (is it really impossible to find farmers who determine their waste disposal options in the given way?); there is a similar preference for hypotheticality in the very familiar-looking graphs of supply, demand, price and cost (is there no real data which approximates the required shape of the graphs?); there are relatively superficial discussions of valuing life, health and aesthetic quality, before the monetary calculus takes over once more; there is the all too noticeable separation of the bulk of the discussion of economic decision aids (in the early part of the book) from social realities and the institutional and political contexts (later in the book) in which they would have to operate, and the way these contexts are described seems rather tame.

It would be wrong to suggest that this book is not an effective text on environmental economics per se. Indeed, the authors‘ own experience of the popularity of the subject, the publisher’s acknowledgement of this book’s success (in issuing a third edition). and the pleasing absence of the indigestable differential calculus that some environmental economists seem to find so much favour with, all stand to its advantage. So, for someone really committed to teaching environmental economics the book can be recommended. But the grip of economics in the teaching of environmental analysts and management is not one that I am prepared to condone. I simply cannot accept the authors’ conviction of the single disciplinary approach as the primary point of entry into environmental analysis. What seems more important is to advance the craft of eclecticism from the heritages of many disciplines, together with a broadening awareness of the world through sensitively-portrayed studies. This needs rather different kinds of teaching and reference material than are given in this book.

SALLY MACGILL Scllool of Geography,

University of Lee&, U.K.

Agrarian Change in Egypt: an Anatomy of Rural Poverty, S. Radwan and E. Lee, 1985, ILO-WEP Croom Helm, London, f15.95

Egypt has long had one of the most intensive forms of agriculture supporting a very high level of population per unit of land. Nasser introduced a radical institutional change aimed at achieving a more equitable distribution of land, while under Sadat technocratic reforms affecting marketing, prices and agricultural investment were im- plemented. Yet this book reveals that despite these reforms the Egyptian farmer today has become highly proletarianised and rural inequalities have increased.

The core of the book is a survey of 1000 households in 18 villages carried out in February 1977. The selection of villages was based on stratification by major agro- ecological zones and by settlement size. The questionnaire was unusual in that it was designed specifically to generate data on the major correlates of rural poverty. Unfor- tunately the authors were able to complete village profiles for only one village and were unable to make return visits to their sample households to identify seasonal fluctu- ations in rural poverty. The survey methodology is described in detail and the results presented clearly in a series of tables, but the delay of almost a decade in publication, despite a final chapter which attempts to relate the results to the 1980s reduces the usefulness of the survey. The results of the survey focus on economic data such as employment, and sources of income, and also on consumption patterns. There is no attempt to look at inter-household variation in income distribution and consumption and discussion and aggregation of data to the community level is minimal.

The purpose of the survey, according to the authors, was threefold: to provide up-to-date information on rural development; to evaluate the impact of various State policies on the rural poor and to suggest policy im- plications. In terms of these aims the authors are not very successful. The situation in the villages has changed considerably since the 1977 survey and their analysis of

193 Book Reviews

government policy tends to be anecdotai. However. the survey does provide us vvitk a fascinating snapshot of rural life in a rapidly urbanising society. The data on incomes reveal that most households utilise multiple survival strategies. In most cases these families live in a very open society with close links with cities and vvirk employment opportunities eisewkere in the Arab world. The survey found that household assets explained only 30% of rural income variation and that only 50% of the total income came from agriculture with wages supplying 46% of household income. Onlv 60% of the rural workforce was directly employed in agiiculture and 23% of the surveyed households depended on remittances sent by relatives working elsewhere.

Perhaps the most interesting contribution of the book towards an understanding of contemporary rural life in Egypt comes from the problems identified almost paren- thetically in the text. The authors note that the female economic activity rate is very low despite tke increase in the number of female-headed households as a result of male migration. Their survey shows that 72% of the households headed by housewives live below the poverty line. However. they do not deveiop this theme although they have ciearly identified a target group who urgently need to be considered by government policy-makers. They also isolate environmental and political constraints noting that 60% of cultivated land is affected by drainage problems and that change tends to be inhibited by the bureaucracy but they do not link these ideas to their survey findings.

This book provides a wealth of data on rural Egypt, marred somewhat by an unacceptably high level of typographic errors. In their conclusion the authors point out that the performance of Egyptian agriculture has continued to decline so that the agricultural trade balance which was in surplus in 197-l was in deficit by 1981. They blame this on m&e migration overseas and low prices to producers. Clearly a resurvey of rural households is now needed which can build on this baseline 1977 survey.

JANET HBNSHALL ~O~S~N University of Newwsrle upntz Tyne, U.K.

Farming in t&z Clouds, R. Body. 1984, Temple Smirk, London, f3.50

Working the Land, C. Pye-Smith and R. North, 1984, Temple Smith, London, f3.95

The objective of ~~r~~~lg in he Clods is to make a case for a repatriated British agricultural policy, the emphasis of which would be on the environmental goals of beauty, animal welfare, health and good husbandry and not on

inducing output. The book, however, is mainly concerned with the defects of the present system of agricultural support. Particular attention is given to the effects on empfoyment within and outside agriculture, the quality of food consumption, in terms of its range and the effects on health, and on relations With other countries. from both self-interested and humanitarian perspectives. A recurrent underlying theme is a desire for a different pattern of farming, smaller in scale, more labour-intensive. with more livestock, run by craftsmen rather than entre- preneurs and much less dependent on purchased inputs. The tone is polemical but the book contains a good deal of facts and analysis as well as anecdote.

Richard Body presents some widely-accepted criticisms of agriculturat policy in a fresh and arresting way. The absorption of the income effects of price support by land values and the esternal costs of the effects of support on input use are central themes which can certainly bear repetition by such an a~campl~shed publicist. Also con- vincinglv made are some more original points. for example on how-free trade contributes to world peace.

iMany of his other arguments are tarnished by being overstated or evtn m&-stated. The Common Agricultural Policy is sometimes held responsible for changes which have been much more the result of developments in technology, the ratio of wages to interest rates, consumer taste or national government policies. An outstanding example is the reduced employment in agriculture. Indeed, it could well be argued that by increasing the value of labour at the margin the net effect of CAP has been to retain labour in ag&ulture that would otherwise have been forced out. The effect of the CAP on off-farm unemployment is atso exaggerated. Lower protection for agriculture, by, improving resource allocation, would certainly have gtven a useful boost to economic growth but would not have materially increased the capacity of labour markets to adjust 10 external shocks. Similarly overdrawn is the potential effect of liberalised agricultural trade on the world economy. To take a different example, it seems wrong to ascribe changes in the British pattern of food consumption during the seventies mainly to EEC price distortions. when very similar changes took place in the American diet.

On narrower ism~s, the analyses are sometimes dubious or factually incorrect. In seeking to convict agricultural policies of leading to both animal cruelty and an unhealthy diet, Body argues that they have encouraged intensive as opposed to grazing livestock production. This is to unreasonably downplay the effects of discrimination in capital grants against pig and poultry farming and the effective absence of intervention support as well as of hill livestock grants. the attractions of land as an appreciating investment and the high protection given to feed grains in relation to nitrogen fertilirer. In consjdering farmer welfare and political attitudes. the author seems insuf- ficiently aware that the levels of living of fifty years ago would be unacceptable to contemporary farmers and that rises in land valnes are beneficial to owner-occupiers and their reversal would be strongly resisted. 1loreover, the pressures of competition and the requirements of econ- omic efficiency are not always properly recognised. A cut in prices of feed grains would not permanently improve the incomes of feed converters. Likewise. supermarket chains can determine the prices they pay only within very narrow limits. Depreciation allowances against tax per se (and not merely accelerations) seem to be regarded as subsidies, In the evaluation of land use the land classi- fication is given unwarranted status.

There are also some significant factual errors: for example consumption per head of pork and eggs in Britain is not lower than that of before the Second World War, nor is

use (per hectare) of fertiliser greater than in most other EEC countries. In international trade the United States is not a national dairy exporter: on the contrary, the level of protection is similar to that in the EEC. Likewise, imports of beef from Argentina to Britain were restricted before entry into the EEC. On the technological front it is surely incorrect to suggest that most beef in Britain is intensively produced. Even on political matters Body is not infallible.