Registan.net

Uzbekistan’s cotton monoculture is, one could argue, the worst feature of the country. It has had and continues to have disastrous effects on the environment and the Uzbek state. It takes students out of school for long stretches of time in the autumn. State control of cotton exports encourages corruption. And the importance of cotton leads to central and local abuse of farmers, who end up tied to the land in a modern form of manorialism.

As IWPR reports, some farmers have decided to simply ignore orders to grow cotton or wheat, and instead are growing crops like fruits and vegetables that will net them profits. When the time comes for these farmers to sell their cotton or wheat quotas to the state, they usually have to scramble to buy up others’ excess crops at market prices.

This comes at a cost - farmers who resorted to this measure last year said the amount they got from the government was half what they had paid for the crops they bought on the open market.

But even this may be worth it given the skewed economics of Uzbek agriculture. Farmers have realised that the opportunity cost of growing high-earning cash crops more than offsets the bribes and other outlays involved in topping up their cotton or grain quota.

Authorities are furious that farmers are not planting enough cotton and wheat, and are considering bringing criminal charges against some of the farm heads who have decided to grow profitable crops. The trouble is, it appears that the farmers who refuse to meet their quotas are not exactly doing anything wrong.

The prosecutor’s office intends to make an example of the farmers if they are charged. But it is unclear whether the authorities have the legal powers to do so – it is not a criminal offence to plant other crops instead of cotton. And a law on monopolies prohibits the state authorities from interfering in independent commercial entities, such as these farms.

…

“A free market economy has been declared a priority,” he said. “But the authorities flagrantly violate the principles of this by forcing farmers to sign contracts from which they will see no profit.”

Surely, the ingenious officials, who will likely themselves be made to suffer should their district fail to meet this year’s production targets, will find a way to explain why the breach of an unfair contract is a crime. But the lack of the rule of law, coupled with the way the agricultural sector is organized, is part of why Uzbekistan looks a little feudalistic, and why abolishing state control of agriculture would be one of the best reforms Uzbekistan’s government could make.

(h/t Bonnie Boyd)

Stumble it!