Rural Electrification And Development

Social And Economic Impact In Costa Rica And Colombia

John Saunders, J. Michael Davis, Galen Moses, James E Ross

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2019
• eBook ISBN: 9781000310405
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politik & Internationale Beziehungen
• Subtopic: Internationale Beziehungen

Financing distribution of electric energy to rural areas in developing countries is a relatively recent activity. The United States Agency for International Development (AID) was the first to loan funds for this purpose. In 1963 it authorized $400, 000 to establish an electric cooperative in Nicaragua. Since then 15 loans have been made by AID for establishing or expanding electric service in nonurban areas of nine countries in Latin America. In this book, the emphasis has been placed on identifying benefits and, within the time and resources available, developing social indicators to place beside economic measurements. The authors have attempted to write this report in as nontechnical a style as possible and to provide a full exposition of all variables and methods employed so as to make it accessible to a general audience.

1. Introduction

It is evident that in the United States rural electrification has had a significant impact in rural areas. The availability of electric energy has meant labor saving electrical appliances could be used within the home alleviating burdens of the homemaker and permitting her to engage in other activities with the time thus saved. Especially in certain types of agricultural operations, such as dairy and poultry production, electricity has become an important, if not indispensable, factor in the efficiency of production. Industries have been able to locate in rural areas by virtue of the availability of electricity. It is safe to say that rural electrification in the United States contributed substantially to the improvement of the quality of life in rural areas and to the efficiency of agricultural production.

In general, the benefits of rural electrification were taken for granted in the United States and the advisability of extending electric distribution lines throughout the countryside was rarely questioned. The economic means to finance electrification projects was created through the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 and potential users of electricity in rural areas worked diligently to organize cooperatives and contribute to construction costs to whatever extent possible. The introduction of electricity into homes and onto farms resulted in ever more diverse uses for electric energy. At a national level, the other demands placed upon the body politic for the provision of services to the population were not such as to compete seriously with the demand for electricity in rural areas, nor was the expenditure for rural electrification of such a magnitude as to require the serious curtailment of other projects in a nation that was already highly developed and which had relatively few pressing needs for investments in the social or economic infrastructure.

It must be remembered that the Rural Electrification Administration (REA) was created in a depression period and developed following World War II -- both conditions were influential in American agriculture. On the technological front, the payoff from research initiated by the land grant colleges and experiment stations began to be felt. The war effort created a demand for labor off the farm and thus made it more economical to utilize labor-saving electrical equipment in farming operations. Rising farm incomes also permitted the purchase of more farm machinery and home appliances.

The developing nations of Latin America do not, at present, enjoy these favorable circumstances. Development funds are in short supply and alternative uses of available resources must be carefully considered. Multiple demands for investments in new industry, roads, health services, educational services, colonization projects and a multitude of other developmental endeavors clearly point to the advisability of careful assessment of the economic and social consequences of each kind of investment, given the scarcity of resources. While this study in no way attempts to compare the returns of rural electrification with those of other investments, it does attempt to answer questions concerning the impact of rural electrification in social and economic terms.

Because, on the one hand, the value of rural electrification was never seriously questioned in the United States and, on the other, rural electrication began during a period when survey research methodology was in its infancy, systematic studies of the consequences of rural electrification were never undertaken in the United States. The need for such investigations did not, however, go unnoticed. One of the few papers written on rural electrification from a sociological perspective, when only 22 percent of United States farms were electrified (Rose, 1940), consists of a series of questions which the author believed should be answered. The abstract of the paper and some of the questions he raised are instructive.

Nearly 2,000,000 of our farms now use central stations electric power. Not only is much of this farm electrification very recent, but the social aspects and implications of this new factor in rural life have received very little objective investigation. Does electrification increase farm income and farm value? What are its effects upon tenant mobility and city-ward migration of youth? Why do a considerable number of farmers along the lines not use electricity, and what are the social implications of such non-use in juxtaposition with neighboring use?

The research challenge posed by Rose was never accepted. With regard to the United States, the questions are unanswerable since electricity has by now penetrated into practically every nook and cranny of rural America, and no longer is an important differentiating factor in rural life. The answers to these and other questions, can, however, be discovered in the context of newly established rural electrification programs in developing countries.

Studies of Rural Electrification in the United States

Three kinds of reports have been published dealing with rural electrification in the United States. (1) Accounts written either by employees of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) or by persons sympathetic with its goals. These reports are very supportive of the objectives of the NRECA and emphasize improvements in rural life which, it is claimed, resulted from electrification (e.g., Muller, 1944). (2) Reports of the history and activities of the Tennessee Valley Authority (e.g., Lilienthal, 1944). These studies are primarily concerned with the new applications of electrical energy rather than with the economic or social impact per se of electrical energy use. (3) Agricultural -economic studies (e.g., J. E. Davis, 1956). Regardless of the nature of writing on the subject, the body of published literature is small. Not one research report with a sociological perspective of rural electrification was found.

In general, writings on rural electrification are rife with untested assumptions stated as fact concerning its benefits. Some of the more conservative follow: (1) Increasing agricultural productivity resulting from the use of labor-saving electrical equipment. (2) Changing crop patterns resulting from the use of seasonal labor-saving equipment and/or the use of electric pumps to provide irrigation water; (3) Development of rural industries; especially those related to the processing of agricultural commodities in rural areas; (4) Increasing per capita income resulting from increased agricultural productivity and the development of industrial employment opportunities; (5) Reduction in household labor through the use of electrical appliances; (6) Reduction in rural-urban migration of families and young people as rural living conditions improve and employment opportunities are created through industrial development and expansion; (7) Improvements in household sanitary conditions and family health resulting from the use of electricity for water systems, refrigeration, ventilation and lighting; (8) Relating to rural electric cooperatives; improved sense of community participation and involvement resulting from work on a self-help project; development of community leadership training; (9) Increased levels of living resulting from the availability and use of electricity; (10) Reduction in household energy expenditures with the substitution of electricity for candles, kerosene, gas and wood; (11) Increased satisfaction with life resulting from amenities available following electrification.

The Study of Rural Electrification in Latin America

Rural electrification projects in Latin America are few and relatively new. Consequently, there has been little to investigate. Those studies which have been done deal more with construction of electrical distribution networks than with examining their impact (e.g., Banco do Nordeste do Brasil, 1959).

In addition to Costa Rica, only a few other Latin American nations have rural electrification networks. The cooperative system for the distribution of rural electricity in Chile is described in. Carvallo (1950). The foundation, growth and current activities of the Corporacion Autonoma Regional del Cauca (Autonomous Regional Corporation of Cauca), (CVC), which distributes electricity in the Cauca River Valley of Colombia, are documented in Posada and Posada (1966). Torres, Lichtenstein, and Spector (1968) conducted a research project under the auspices of the Agency for International Development on the placing of small diesel generators in several Colombian villages. Ross (1972) provided benchmark data from the examination of either functioning or planned rural electric distribution cooperatives in Colombia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica. His data were drawn mainly from feasibility and pre-electrification in Costa Rica deal only tangentially with the impact of electricity use in rural areas.

Studies of rural electrification in Costa Rica deal mainly with the construciton of generating and distribution projects and with economic feasibility. The evaluation of the impact of energy in rural areas has been of secondary importance. Moses(1969) analyzed social and economic characteristics affected by both present and expected electrical use in rural areas. Since his work focused on the projected utilization of electric current, his treatment of the actual impact of centrally distributed current was limited. It is summarized in Ross (1972).

The present study is the only one known to the authors which attempts systematically to assess the social and economic consequences of rural electrification projects after energization.

2. Research Procedures

Research Design

Since the research team was limited to a one-time cross sectional measurement, an ex-post-facto experimental design was decided upon and an appropriate area for its application identified in each country. In Costa Rica the La Fortuna area of Canton San Carlos was selected. The lower (southern) half of the area (see figure 2.1) is supplied with power generated by the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (Costa Rica Institute of Electricity)(ICE) and distributed by the Cooperativa de Electrificacion Rural de San Carlos (San Carlos Rural Electric Cooperative) (COOPELESCA). This area has been electrified for three to four years and is, in effect, and experimental area. The upper portion of the San Carlos study area is not served by a central electric distribution system. Since the entire study area is essentially homogeneous, this upper or northern portion is used as a control in what is a naturally occurring experimental situation.

The independent variable of greatest importance to the study is dichotomous: the use or non-use of electricity. However, because not everyone beyond the reach of COOPELESCA lines is a nonuser and not everyone within their reach is a user, two categories each of users and nonusers were identified. There are users who are connected to the cooperative distribution system (users) and those who, being located beyond its reach, are supplied by private generating plants or small private distribution systems (alternate users). Similarly, there are nonusers who although located within reach of COOPELESCA lines have not become connected to them (nonadopters) and nonusers beyond the reach of these lines who do not utilize any source of electrical energy (inaccessibles).

The impact of electrical use should be most clearly revealed by comparing those who have connected to COOPELESCA, the users, with those who, although they had the opportunity, did not, the nonadopters. The nonusers who do not have an opportunity to use this source of power, the inaccessibles, should have characteristics which differ from those of the users and nonadopters. They are, in reality, a control group included in the research design. Because of the small number of cases of alternate users found, 32 in Costa Rica and 10 in Colombia they were eliminated from the analysis.

FIGURE 2.1
Rural Electrification Study Area, Costa Rica

The same research design was employed an Colombia, but in an area served by a state owned distribution system, the Corporacion Regional Autonoma del Cauca (CVC), not far from the city of Cali. Geographically, the users, nonadopters, inaccessibles and alternate users are more interspersed among each other given the different nature of the area and different arrangement of the distribution lines (see figure 2.2).

Survey Schedulers

Much of the data analyzed in this monograph were gathered by means of an interview survey. The interview survey schedule used in Costa Rica was developed between June and August, 1972. The initial draft of the schedule was written in Gainesville and taken to Costa Rica where it was revised substantially for the field test. After this it was again revised to produce the final draft. Victor Hugo Cespedes and Alvaro Vargas of the University of Costa Rica aided greatly in making the final revisions. Of special importance was their familiarity with local Spanish usage so that the questions were made intelligible to the respondents.

FIGURE 2.2
Rural Electrification Study Area, Colombia

The schedule was designed so that it would take approximately one hour to administer, for experience has shown the respondent fatigue sets in after about 45 minutes, affecting the quality of the data obtained.* A single schedule was devised for use in all of the interviews. It included a variety of filter questions, enabling the interviewer to bypass certain subsequent questions. No one individual was asked all of the questions contained in the schedule. For example, those who did not use electricity were not asked to answer questions dealing with the use of electricity; and merchants who owned no land were not questioned about agricultural production. The schedules, as the term indicates, were filled out by trained interviewers and not by the respondents. This procedure, allied with the careful training of interviewers, assured that uniformity of responses would be maximized. Ease of interviewing was enhanced by arranging questions in logical sequences and using simple statements to introduce each section. The first questons elicited concrete information which the respondent could readily and easily divulge. The more thought-provoking questions were placed near the end of the section.

*The actual length of the interviews varied between 25 minutes and two hours. The average time was approximately 40 minutes.

The schedule contained questions which provided demographic data for the head of the household and its members. These included relationship to head of the household, sex, age, last complete year of education, occupation, place of residence of children living away from home, place of birth, location of last residence, length of time lived in the present residence, and plans to move and employment.

Exposure to mass media has been found to be associated with the adoption of technological innovations (Rogers and Sehoemaker, 1971, and Ryan, 1969). Therefore, questions were asked about exposure to radio and television as well as about programs which were considered to be of value. Finally, information was secured about the number and types of newspapers and magazines read. Although the area studied was devoted primarily to agricultural and pastoral activities, it was important to learn about the types of businesses which furnished services to the households surveyed. Accordingly, data were obtained about b...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Tables
• List of Figures
• List of Acronyms
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• 1 INTRODUCTION
• 2 RESEARCH PROCEDURES
• 3 COSTA RICA
• 4 COLOMBIA
• 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
• References