Modernizing the Countryside: The Agrarian Extension Service in Francoist Spain (1955 -

1975)

Alba Díaz Geada & Daniel Lanero TáboasHISTAGRA Research Group

University of Santiago de Compostela (Spain)

Objectives Our aim is to present the main characteristics

of agrarian extensionism in Spain, -its origins, objectives, methods and evolution- during the last decades (1955 – 1975) of the francoist dictatorship.

We are going to focus our attention on the important role of Rural Sociology in the theory behind the AES, in the training process of the extension agents, and in how they interact with rural communities.

Some background. Franco's dictatorship (1936-1975)

The 1940s: autarchy as a goal The 1950s: a new period for agriculture The end of the autarchy ideal and the beginning of an economic

recovery process based on price liberalization and structural transformation with one objective in mind: to increase agricultural productivity through technical improvements.

Main lines of action: land consolidation, reforestation and colonization policies; introduction of large-scale machinery and chemical fertilization. Protagonism of agrarian experts: agronomy engineers took centre stage.

The relationship with farmers: Agrarian experts came back into touch with farmers, but…the experts perceived the farmers as being incapable of recognizing their own interests, and thus paid no attention to counterproposals or misgivings based on economic or reproductive rationale.

The Agrarian Extension Service (AES)

The Agrarian Extension Service (AES) was created in 1955 in areas of land consolidation in order to teach farmers how to achieve a more modern agriculture.

The sociology of the AES: the AES was composed mainly of mid-level technical experts, that facilitated a less hierarchical and distant relationship between the technicians and the farmers.

The AES was influenced by the Green Revolution and the North American cooperative Extension model (assessments of Economic Missions, research stays of Spanish experts in the USA).

The theoretical framework Initially, the model consisted of Transferring Technology for productivity

purposes (the modernization of farming developments and increased market orientation). During the 1960s the model became more complex, incorporating more social elements.

Rural sociology provided the theoretical and methodological resources to allow this modernization to develop in a manner that adapted better to the particularities of each rural community.

With the creation (1966) of the Community Development Agency, headed

by Salvador Chico (influenced by the ideas of Paulo Freire), sociologists joined the work of the AES agencies.

Personal qualities (social skills) were given just as much importance as technical knowledge on extension in the training of agents: the ability to identify the problems of rural families and communities and attempt to resolve them, counting on farmers' contributions. The development had to be achieved with the farmers.

The theoretical framework The work focus of the AES in the 1960s was known as

the ‘four arms’ of the Extension service: a) agricultural services, b) youth, c) family and home services, d) cooperativism and community development.

The priority of the first branch was to incorporate new farming technology and management training through offering seminars on specific topics. Youth work was built for training and carrying out cooperative projects. To reach rural women, the AES began a new section comprising female personnel, who were Home Economists. Community work involved neighbourhood projects such as constructing footpaths etc… to encourage and demonstrate cooperation.

The ‘four arms’ in action…

The relationship with farmers In the 60s a different dynamic developed between

the experts and the farmers: the two groups advanced towards each other in a new model, where the experts came to see themselves as permanent consultants to the farmers. In contrast to the prior period, the aim was to make the agrarian expert available to the farmer.

However, the relationship was still understood as one where the former guided the latter. From a functional perspective of social change, the AES sought to be a ‘civilizing agent’. The birth of new peasants with new values had been entrusted to technological transfer.

CONCLUSIONS During the development of the AES between 1955 - 75, an

evolution took place within the paradigm of the Transfer of Technology, moving towards a model with greater social sensibility. However, Sociology also served the goal of modernizing. Sharing the background of the modernizing theory, Sociology provided the resources to identify and understand the rural logic, whilst maintaining the ultimate goal of transformation.

The experience of working with the community and the day-to-day contact with its people, drove changes from the top that reflected a better understanding of the local reality. All of this made the AES different (better accepted) from other institutions actively present in Franco's rural Spain (compulsory agricultural associations, councils…).

CONCLUSIONS Despite the participative and dynamic character of the AES's

methods, we should not lose sight of the context. In Spain, the Green Revolution industrial-agrarian development model was imposed by coercion.

Though the objectives were clear, the results were less than clear: was it technical or social improvement that they were actually achieving?

This was the inner dilemma of many former AES agents, who wondered if their work had actually contributed to improving peasant quality of life or if they had served more as transmitters in the process of shifting the agrarian population to the industrial sector.

All the photographs in this presentation from: GÓMEZ BENITO, C. (2006), Imágenes de un mundo rural: 1955 – 1980, Madrid, MAPA.

BIBLIOGRAPHY DÍAZ GEADA, A; LANERO TÁBOAS, D.; FERNÁNDEZ PRIETO, L.; CABANA IGLESIA, A.

(2012),”Agricultural Extension Programmes in Postwar Europe: A Comparative Study of Two Extreme Cases: Spain and the Netherlands (1946 - 1973)”, in IX ESSHC, Glasgow, April, 11 – 14th 2012.

FERNÁNDEZ PRIETO, L. (2007),El apagón tecnológico del franquismo. Estado e innovación en la agricultura española del siglo XX, Valencia, Tirant lo Blanch – Ministerio de Cultura.

FERNÁNDEZ PRIETO, L. (2009), “A extensión Agraria como instrumento da revolución verde en España”, in LÓPEZ DÍAZ, M. (ed.), Historia y Cultura. Estudios de Homenaje al profesor J.M. Pérez García, Vigo, Universidade de Vigo, pp. 151-170.

GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, G.L.; GARCÍA GUTIÉRREZ, J.; RODRÍGUEZ TRONCOSO, A. (2009), El Servicio de Extensión Agraria. Vivencias, recuerdos y vigencia, Madrid, Centro de Publicaciones

del Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino, Madrid, 2009. GÓMEZ BENITO, C. (1996), Políticos, burócratas y expertos: un estudio de la política agraria y

la sociología rural en España (1936-1959), Madrid, Siglo XXI de España. GÓMEZ BENITO, C. (2006), Imágenes de un mundo rural: 1955 – 1980, Madrid, MAPA. GÓMEZ BENITO, C.; LUQUE PULGAR, E., “Modernización agraria, modernización

administrativa y franquismo. El modelo educativo y administrativo del Servicio de Extensión Agraria (1955-1986)”, Areas, 26, 2007.

SÁNCHEZ DE PUERTA T, F., (1996),Extensión agraria y desarrollo rural, Madrid, MAPA. SÁNCHEZ DE PUERTA, F., (1997), “Estado y agricultura: La extensión agraria” en GÓMEZ

BENITO, C.; GONZÁLEZ RODRÍGUEZ, J.J., (coords.): Agricultura y Sociedad en la España contemporánea, Madrid, CIS, pp. 913 – 947.