16.1 Introduction
According to the 2013–2018 National Development Plan, ‘‘in Mexico, 46.2 % of
the population lives in poverty and 10 % in extreme poverty. According to the
CONEVAL [Mexico’s National Council for the Evaluation of Social Development
Policy], between 2008 and 2010, in a scenario of economic crisis and volatility of
international food prices, the only social deficiency that increased in incidence was
that of food’’ (PND 2013, p. 44). One of the biggest challenges in the construction
of a just, equitable, and developed nation lies in the ability of the Government and
of its institutions, as well as of society and its various sectors, to create multiple
proposals that are innovative and diverse, for the promotion of comprehensive
processes for well-being that are relevant to development at all levels of society.
Since 1950, discourse regarding well-being and development has promoted
various programs sponsored by the nation states, in order to boost economic
development and a sense of unity in all regions of their territory. In Latin America,
the development agenda has worked for, among other goals, the creation of the
nation as an entity capable of generating unity, stability, order, and progress, while
also functioning as an economic strategy for the initiation of the expansion of
markets on a global scale.
Many of the intervention processes related to policies for the well-being and
development of societies considered impoverished or marginal have been linked to
the promotion of productivity and economic activity. In our country, the majority
of these policies were aimed at rural sectors, both peasant and indigenous; hence,
the institution of the tradition/modernity dichotomy.
Through programs such as the Green Revolution, the Government created an
ideology in which knowledge driven by science and technology became real,
effective, and productive knowledge. These ideas permeated the core of society
and became an argument that discredited traditional knowledge and technologies,
promoting the belief ‘‘that peasant knowledge of production is a set of understandings, practices, and beliefs that do not change […] and as it is traditional, it is
static and therefore stagnant’’ (Díaz et al. 2011, p. 235).
In the case of Mexico, there are various experiences documented (Chontalpa in
Tabasco, Chacc in Yucatán, Pujal Coy in San Luis Potosí) that resulted in
asymmetric economic relations, technological and corporate cronyism, indebtedness and definitive migration, the devastation of ecosystems, and deterioration in
the biophysical relationships had by water, soil, and topsoil.
The years have passed and the country’s rural sector remains an important topic
of discussion in terms of the ways in which it is possible to achieve development
and equity. Facing this scenario, it is worth asking: Is it possible to generate a model
of rural development in order to create processes that would revert and attenuate
poverty, inequality, and the desertification of ecosystems? How should this model
be built and what are the social conditions and participants essential for its correct
functioning? Is it possible that universities and academia could be added to this
456
A. Vázquez-Estrada and A. Terven-Salinas
According to the 2013–2018 National Development Plan, ‘‘in Mexico, 46.2 % of
the population lives in poverty and 10 % in extreme poverty. According to the
CONEVAL [Mexico’s National Council for the Evaluation of Social Development
Policy], between 2008 and 2010, in a scenario of economic crisis and volatility of
international food prices, the only social deficiency that increased in incidence was
that of food’’ (PND 2013, p. 44). One of the biggest challenges in the construction
of a just, equitable, and developed nation lies in the ability of the Government and
of its institutions, as well as of society and its various sectors, to create multiple
proposals that are innovative and diverse, for the promotion of comprehensive
processes for well-being that are relevant to development at all levels of society.
Since 1950, discourse regarding well-being and development has promoted
various programs sponsored by the nation states, in order to boost economic
development and a sense of unity in all regions of their territory. In Latin America,
the development agenda has worked for, among other goals, the creation of the
nation as an entity capable of generating unity, stability, order, and progress, while
also functioning as an economic strategy for the initiation of the expansion of
markets on a global scale.
Many of the intervention processes related to policies for the well-being and
development of societies considered impoverished or marginal have been linked to
the promotion of productivity and economic activity. In our country, the majority
of these policies were aimed at rural sectors, both peasant and indigenous; hence,
the institution of the tradition/modernity dichotomy.
Through programs such as the Green Revolution, the Government created an
ideology in which knowledge driven by science and technology became real,
effective, and productive knowledge. These ideas permeated the core of society
and became an argument that discredited traditional knowledge and technologies,
promoting the belief ‘‘that peasant knowledge of production is a set of understandings, practices, and beliefs that do not change […] and as it is traditional, it is
static and therefore stagnant’’ (Díaz et al. 2011, p. 235).
In the case of Mexico, there are various experiences documented (Chontalpa in
Tabasco, Chacc in Yucatán, Pujal Coy in San Luis Potosí) that resulted in
asymmetric economic relations, technological and corporate cronyism, indebtedness and definitive migration, the devastation of ecosystems, and deterioration in
the biophysical relationships had by water, soil, and topsoil.
The years have passed and the country’s rural sector remains an important topic
of discussion in terms of the ways in which it is possible to achieve development
and equity. Facing this scenario, it is worth asking: Is it possible to generate a model
of rural development in order to create processes that would revert and attenuate
poverty, inequality, and the desertification of ecosystems? How should this model
be built and what are the social conditions and participants essential for its correct
functioning? Is it possible that universities and academia could be added to this
456
A. Vázquez-Estrada and A. Terven-Salinas