Reactions to the Market: Small Farmers in the Economic Reshaping of Nicaragua, Cuba, Russia, and China

Appendix B: My Research Methodology

     As described in the text, a survey of small farmers was carried out in four rural municipalities in both Nicaragua and Cuba. However, the strategies employed for constructing the survey sample differed in the two cases, given the varying circumstances characterizing the organization of agricultural production in Nicaragua and in Cuba in the s. In Nicaragua, a snowball sampling procedure was adopted for the survey’s construction. This strategy was chosen because there was no comprehensive list of Nicaragua’s small farmers (or of the small farmers in each of these municipalities), thereby making the construction of a random sample of the population beyond the possibilities of this study. In each municipality, the entrée for beginning the ‘‘snowball’’ was slightly different. In Esquipulas and San Dionisio, my research assistant and I began with a list of the small farmers who were interviewed by the research team of a Nicaraguan nongovernmental organization that had conducted a survey addressing ‘‘development needs’’ in the Department of Matagalpa. So as not to duplicate its sample, we only drew a few names from their lists for each of the municipalities and then asked these individuals for more suggestions of whom we might speak with. This process was repeated until we had succeeded in interviewing fifteen small farmers from each of these municipalities. In selecting those who would compose the sample, we made sure to cover multiple rural zones within each municipality, so that our data would reflect the situation throughout the municipalities, rather than in just one or two communities . However, a number of zones were inaccessible because of the activities of armed bands (the armados) or because of their distance from roads, which would have entailed several days of back-and-forth travel by foot. In Malpaisillo and Santa Rosa del Peñon, our entrée was provided by representatives from a local development project, who put us in contact with a few individuals in each rural hamlet. These individuals were the starting point for our snowball. Here, too, we made sure to cover a number of different rural zones. However, because of Santa Rosa’s lack of infrastructure, the sample there was limited to those small farmers whose land was located within reach of roads; within an easy hike (e.g., several miles) of a road; within a mule ride that was no more than three hours in each direction; or to those who   had come into the municipal capital and were willing to be interviewed there. The broadening out of the snowball was repeated until we had interviewed fifteen small farmers in each municipality. In Cuba, as mentioned in the ‘‘Introduction,’’ I interviewed farmers from all of the nonstate sectors of agriculture (i.e., members of UBPCs, CPAs, CCSs, and parceleros). Before interviewing the members selected for inclusion in my sample, in each UBPC, CPA, and CCS, I interviewed one or more members of the Junta Directiva to obtain general information about it as well as entrée to its members. These totaled twenty-one ‘‘preliminary’’ interviews. The cooperatives included in the survey were selected from the pool of cooperatives in each municipality that met the basic criteria prescribed for this study: their emphasis was on domestically oriented production. Beyond that criteria, in some cases, selection was based on my prior experience with them, and in others, distinct factors such as proximity (given the problem of transportation between locations) and willingness to have me visit them came into play. Once at each cooperative, the individual informants were chosen on a similar basis. The parceleros interviewed were selected from a list of parceleros in the municipality on the basis of proximity and willingness to be interviewed. The breakdown of informants included in my survey was the following: Provincia de la Habana Güira de Melena San Antonio de los Baños* —CPA members —CPA members —CCS members —CCS members —UBPC members —UBPC members —Parceleros Provincia de Santiago de Cuba Palma Soriano** Santiago de Cuba*** —CPA members —CPA members —CCS members —CCS members —UBPC members —Parceleros * San Antonio de los Baños’ parceleros were not accessible for interview, given that they were not under the auspices of the organizations that I had access to there (ANAP and the municipality). I opted to include two additional CCS members in their stead. ** Two of the CCS members interviewed in Palma Soriano were parceleros. *** All of Santiago’s parceleros were affiliated with CCSs. Thus, two CCS members I included were parceleros. I was unable to interview...