Concept 13: Locking-in through economic, political, paradigm, and institutional factors

Rice farmers can become locked-in to particular forms of pest management for a variety of reasons, including lack of labour, lack of information about alternatives, or because government or bank loan policies require them to adopt a particular form of pest management.  Similarly, government programmes can become locked-in on promoting particular strategies, associated with the powerful influence of chemical companies, the need for reducing the cost of staff salaries, because there are serious political risks in attempting to change the strategy or where the prime objective becomes institutional survival rather than improving pest management as such..

Research scientists and extension agents can also get locked-in on particular strategies, their decisions and activities being influenced directly or indirectly by dominant science paradigms.  John Perkin's (1982) study of the history of agricultural entomology in the USA identified three paradigms that have had, and still do have, a significant influence on the development and adoption of IPM.  These paradigm’s are paraphrased below -   

• Chemical control paradigm - "The major tool for controlling insects is the application of toxic chemicals to them"

• Integrated pest management (IPM) paradigm - "Because pest organisms are capable of countering control efforts (e.g. pesticide resistance), we must understand nature's methods of regulating populations and maximise their application" (C.B.Huffaker)

• Total Pest Management (TPM) paradigm - "I have great confidence in the ingenuity of young scientists to perfect the technology necessary to put sound principles of insect suppression into practice ... reducing total populations on an ecosystem basis in an organised and coordinated way" (E.F.Knipling)

In rice, the idea of putting the “Science in the seed” through various breeding activities, is another powerful paradigm that has had a strong influence on approaches to improving rice production, including pest management.  Perhaps this paradigm is once again being strengthened by the potential role that biotechnology and transgenic possibilities may offer in the future.

The implications of a particular scientific paradigm being dominant is that it will have a considerable influence on which projects are likely to be supported by institutions and by funding agencies.  The research questions asked and the approaches funded are "pre-conditioned" by the predominant paradigm.  

In this context, perhaps I can argue the case here for a more objective approach to the problem of improving pest management.  I would like to see us avoiding pre-conceived notions, based on predominant paradigms, of how improvements can best be achieved.  Rather, the paradigm I would like to see adopted is one which is concerned with defining the overall dimensions of the pest problem, specifying the constraints to improvement, and only then looking for appropriate solutions.  The fifth key concept is related to this idea, that the key components and processes affecting the problem need to be understood first.