Search results

This doctoral research aims to contribute to a better understanding of the effects of development projects on the improvement of living conditions and livelihoods of rural households in Benin. It begins with the analysis of development trends in Atacora known about the last three decades. It is focused on matching between the dynamics promoted by intervention devices and those endogenous or emerging to lead a part in the consideration of the productive trajectories and performance of family farms and also in the analysis of effects of development projects on food security, living standards and poverty of rural households. The post-development theories and the various conceptions of poverty have served as a guideline for research work. The intervention mechanisms conducted in Atacora (north-western Benin) by the various cooperations (bilateral and multilateral) between 1990 and 2010 constituted the research object of this thesis. The empirical phase took place in the communes of Cobly (West) and Péhunco (East). These communes were selected from their contrasting agro-ecological and socio-economic situations and socio-economic indicators on the one hand and on the other on a typology of the concentration of development projects and the perception of their effects by local people. A stratified sample of 344 households (respectively 214 in Cobly and 130 in Péunco) was formed for the characterization survey. Later, a thorough investigation on living conditions and livelihood of households followed and involved 208 households (129 Cobly; 79 Péhunco). Finally 16 case studies (8 per commune) were conducted on the trajectories of evolution and accumulation of property and wealth of households and farms. Due to the empirical research, special attention was given to primary data collection which lasted more than three (3) years. Qualitative and quantitative tools (including PSM) were combined for the analysis of collected data through individual and group interviews. Results show that the development interventions do not always promote the endogenous dynamics but they generate and maintain, in rural areas, pathways that allow the integration and participation of producers in the world market for agricultural products. And to benefit from various promotional activities, producers adopt supported crops, this have some positive and negative consequences. The integration and participation of rural producers of Atacora to international trade, promote the increase of production and crop yields while further increasing their dependence on the world prices of agricultural products. So while the income of producers is increasing their vulnerability to food insecurity is also increasing because many of the food crops, already insufficient (because of the share of the cotton planted and the cotton production quotas established by the government) to cover food needs, are substracted from consumption to be sold on the market to meet urgent liquidity needs. Thereby, Atacora's rural households, despite the increase of their food production, suffered a rupture of food stocks resulting to annual food crises of at least 4 months (16 weeks) which strikes indiscriminately both recipient households than non-project beneficiaries. However with the increase of sources and income level of recipient households (36% of households of the study sites), those beneficiaries improve their homes and food consumption and invest more in the education of their children. This marks a significant difference between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of development projects. Indeed, installed with the same resources, we counted, in 2014, twice more prosperous households and fewer poor among beneficiaries than non-beneficiaries. Furthermore farms and households beneficiaries of assistance have accumulated and hold more productive assets (land, farm equipment, livestock rearing), economic assets and holdines (transportation measures, housing, plots and houses to rent, etc.) than non-beneficiaries with a highly significant difference at 1%. However the level of improvements and living conditions induced by development interventions are still inadequate and insecure, as reduced to the equivalent adult,income as well as capital show no significant difference between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. Thus, households (even beneficiaries) remain vulnerable to crises so that any natural disaster (flood, drought, pest invasion, etc.), illness, injury and death of a member of the household, provokes the rapid degradation of living standards and the fall into poverty. This is compounded by the fact that farms owners' don't invest really in the restoration and enhancement of the capital '' land fertility ''; mainly in Cobly where the soil fertility level experienced a drastic decline with a consequent increasing use of chemical fertilizers that degrade the soil structure furthermore. It follows that any action aimed at poverty reduction should allow a sustainable improvement in conditions and livelihoods of rural producers by the preservation and restoration of soil fertility on the one hand and the increased resilience to crises on the other hand. Actions to identify specific needs with measures and solutions adapted to each category of producers and households with mainly particular mechanisms of management and restoration of the fertility of agricultural land shall be considered and implemented. ; La présente recherche doctorale vise à contribuer à une meilleure connaissance des effets des projets de développement sur l'amélioration des conditions de vie et d'existence des ménages ruraux du Bénin. Elle démarre par l'analyse des tendances d'évolution ducontexte socioéconomique et du système agraire de l'Atacora sur ces trois dernières décennies pour se focaliser sur l'adéquation entre les dynamiques promues par les dispositifs d'intervention et celles endogènes ou émergentes. Cette recherche aboutit d'une part à l'examen des trajectoires et performances productives des exploitations agricoles familiales et d'autre part à l'analyse des effets des dispositifs d'intervention sur la situation alimentaire, le niveau de vie et de pauvreté des ménages ruraux. Les théories de développement et plus précisément celle du post-développement renforcée par les considérations théoriques liées aux diverses conceptions de la pauvreté ont servi de fil conducteur aux travaux de recherche. Les dispositifs d'intervention conduits dans l'Atacora (au Nord-Ouest du Bénin) par les différentes coopérations (bilatérales et multilatérales) entre 1990 et 2010 ont constitué l'objet de recherche de cette thèse. La phase empirique s'est déroulée dans les communes de Cobly (à l'Ouest) et de Péhunco (à l'Est) du département. Ces communesont été retenues à partir de leurs situations agro-écologiques et socioéconomiques contrastées et des indicateurs socio-économiques d'une part et d'autre part d'une typologie à dire d'acteurs relative à la concentration des projets de développement et à la perception de leurs effets par les populations locales. Après un recensement des ménages, un échantillon stratifié, de 344 ménages (214 à Cobly et 130 à Péunco) a été constitué pour l'enquête de caractérisation. Ensuite, l'enquête approfondie sur les conditions de vie et d'existence des ménages a suivi et a concerné 208 ménages (129 à Cobly ; 79 à Péhunco). Enfin 16 études de cas (8 par commune) ont été conduites sur les trajectoires d'évolution et d'accumulation de biens et patrimoine des ménages et exploitations agricoles. Vu le caractère empirique de la recherche, une attention particulière a été accordée aux données primaires dont la collecte a duré plus de trois (3) ans. Des outils qualitatifs et quantitatifs (dont le PSM) ont été combinés pour l'analyse des données collectées par des entretiens individuels et de groupes. Les résultats révèlent que les dispositifs d'intervention ne promeuvent pas toujours les dynamiques endogènes mais qu'ils suscitent et entretiennent, dans les milieux ruraux, les filières qui permettent l'intégration et la participation des producteurs au marché mondial des produits agricoles. Ainsi pour bénéficier des diverses actions de promotion de filières (mise en place des intrants etde crédits, formation et renforcement de capacités techniques et organisationnelles, facilitation de l'accès aux équipements etdes aménagements hydro-agricoles, l'accès aux nouveaux marchés d'écoulement, etc.) mises en place par les dispositifs d'intervention, les producteurs adoptent les spéculations soutenues avec des conséquences à la fois positives et négatives. L'intégration et la participation des producteurs ruraux de l'Atacora au commerce international favorisent l'accroissement de la production agricole et des rendements culturaux tout en augmentant davantage la dépendance de ces derniers aux cours mondiaux des produits agricoles. Ainsi pendant que le revenu des producteursconnaît un accroissement, leur vulnérabilité à l'insécurité alimentaire augmente également car une bonne partie des productions vivrières, déjà insuffisantes (à cause du poids des emblavures en coton et de la politique gouvernementale de quota de production cotonnière à chaque commune) pour couvrir les besoins alimentaires, est soustraite à la consommation pour être vendue sur les marchés afin de répondre aux besoins urgents de liquidités. De ce fait, les ménages ruraux de l'Atacora, malgré l'accroissement de leurs productions vivrières, subissent une rupture des stocks vivriers avec pour conséquence une soudure alimentaire annuelle d'au moins 4 mois (soit 16 semaines) qui frappe indifféremment aussi bien les ménages bénéficiaires que ceux non bénéficiaires des projets. Toutefois avec l'augmentation des sources et du niveau de revenu des ménages bénéficiaires (soit 36% des ménages des sites d'étude), ces derniers améliorent leurs habitations, l'autoconsommation alimentaire et investissent davantage dans l'éducation de leurs enfants ; ceci marque une différence significative entre les bénéficiaires et les non bénéficiaires des projets de développement. En effet, installés avec les mêmes ressources, en 2014 on décompte deux fois plus de ménages prospères et moins de pauvres parmi les bénéficiaires que les non bénéficiaires. Par ailleurs les exploitations et ménages agricoles bénéficiaires des interventions ont accumulé et détiennent plus de capitaux productifs (foncier, équipements agricoles, cheptels d'élevage), économiques et patrimoine (moyens de transport, logement, parcelles et maisons mises en location, etc.) que les non bénéficiaires avec une différence hautement significative au seuil de 1%. Seulement les améliorations de niveau et conditions d'existence induites par les dispositifs d'intervention restent encore insuffisantes et précaires de sorte que ramenés à l'équivalent adulte aussi bien le revenu que les capitaux ne présentent pas de différence significative entre bénéficiaires et non bénéficiaires. Ainsi, les ménages (même les bénéficiaires) restent vulnérables aux crises et chocs de sorte qu'à la moindre catastrophe naturelle (inondation, sécheresse, envahissement des ravageurs, etc.), maladie, accident et décès d'un membre ou proche du ménage, le niveau de vie se dégrade rapidement et ils retombent dans la pauvreté. Cette situation est aggravée par le fait que les exploitations agricoles investissent très peu dans la restauration et l'amélioration du capital ''fertilité des terres '' cultivées surtout à Cobly où le niveau de fertilité des sols connaît une baisse drastique avec pour conséquence une utilisation de plus en plus accrue, par les producteurs, des engrais chimiques qui dégradent davantage la structure des sols. Il s'ensuit que toute action visant la réduction de la pauvreté doit permettre une amélioration durable des conditions et moyens d'existence des producteurs ruraux en vue de la préservation et de la restauration de la fertilité des terres d'une part et l'accroissement de la résilience aux crises d'autre part. Des actions d'identification des besoins spécifiques assortis de mesures et de solutions adaptées à chaque catégorie de producteurs et/ou ménages avec au centre des mécanismes particuliers de gestion et de restauration de la fertilité des terres agricoles devront être envisagées et mises en œuvre.

Michail Bakhtin's philosophy of act is considered as a metaphysical project. Bakhtin's conception is explored in a wider context of the metaphysical project of Russian existentialism. Interpretations of the term "truth", which correspond to different versions of existentialism, are compared. Shestov's existentialist particularism, Berdiaev's actualistic personalism, Bakhtin's ethical existentialism are analysed. Existentialist implications of Gregory Palama's metaphysics of light are considered. ; В статье рассматривается философия поступка Михаила Бахтина как проект метафизики действия. Концепция Бахтина исследуется в контексте метафизического проекта русского экзистенциализма. Сравниваются интерпретации термина «истина» в различных версиях экзистенциализма. Исследуются экзистенциальный партикуляризм Шестова, ктуалистический персонализм Бердяева, этический экзистенциализм Бахтина. Рассматриваются экзистенциалистские импликации метафизики света Григория Паламы. ЛИТЕРАТУРА Бахтин как философ / Под ред. П.С. Гуревича, Л.А. Гоготишвили. — М.: Наука, 1992. Бахтин М.М. К философии поступка // Философия и социология науки и техники. Ежегодник. 1984-1985. – М.: Наука, 1986. Бердяев Н.А. О рабстве и свободе человека. Опыт персоналистической философии [1939] // Бердяев Н. А. Царство духа и царство кесаря. – М.: Республика, 1995. Бердяев Н.А. Алексей Степанович Хомяков [1912] // Бердяев Н. Собрание сочинений. – Т. V. – Париж: YMCA-Press, 1997. Бердяев Н.А. Истина и откровение. – СПб.: Изд-во Русского Христианского гумани- тарного института, 1996. Бердяев Н.А. О назначении человека. – М.: Республика, 1993. Бердяев Н.А. Самопознание (опыт философской автобиографии). – М.: Международ- ные отношения, 1990. Бузгалин А. В., Булавка Л. А. Следующие сто лет М. Бахтина: диалектика диалога versus метафизика постмодернизма // Вопросы философии. – 2000. – № 6. – С. 119–132. Даль В.И. Толковый словарь живого великорусского языка. – М.: М. О. Вольф, 1903– 1909; Репр. т. 1–4, «Пять континентов», 1954. Етимологічний словник української мови: у 7-ми тт. – Т.2. – К.: Наукова Думка, 1985. Махлин В.Л. Михаил Михайлович Бахтин. – М.: РОССПЭН, 2010. Назинцев В.В. Мыслитель Бахтин и теоретик Хайдеггер // М. Бахтин и философская культура ХХ века. – СПб.: Образование, 1991. – Вып. 1., ч. 1. – С. 102–112. Російсько-український словник / За ред. А.Е. Кримського. – Т.1. – Київ, Червоний Шлях: 1924. Словарь української мови / Упорядкував Борис Грінченко. – Київ, 1907-1909. Соловьев В. С. Теоретическая философия // Собрание сочинений в 8 т. – Т. 8. – СПб.: 1903. Трубецкой Е. Н. Свет Фаворский и преображение ума // Русская идея / ред. M.A. Мас- лин. – М.: Республика, 1992. Фасмер М. Этимологический словарь русского языка: в 4-х тт. – М.: Прогресс, 1986. Флоренский П. А. Столп и утверждение истины [1914]. – Т. 1. – М.: Правда, 1990. Хоружий С. С. О старом и новом. – СПб.: Алетейя, 2000. Шестов Л. Афины и Иерусалим // Сочинения в 2-х т. – Т. 1. – М.: Наука, 1993. Bialostosky D.H. Liberal Education, Writing, and the Dialogic Self // Landmark Essays on Bakhtin, Rhetoric, and Writing / Ed. Frank Farmer. – Mahwah, New Jersey: Hermagoras-Erlbaum, 1998. – P. 187–196. Brandist C. The Bakhtin Circle: Philosophy, Culture and Politics. – London: Pluto Press, 2002. De Andia Y. L'Union à Dieu chez Denys l'Aréopagite. – Leiden: Brill, 1996. Dentith S. Bakhtin versus Rhetoric? // Face to Face: Bakhtin in Russia and the West / Ed. C. Adlam, R. Falconer, V. Makhlin, and A. Renfrew. – Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. – P. 311–325. Emerson C. The First Hundred Years of Mikhail Bakhtin. – Princeton: Princeton UP, 1997. Erdinast-Vulcan D. Between the Face and the Voice: Bakhtin meets Levinas // Continental Philosophy Review. – Vol. 41, No.1 (2008). – P. 43–58. Evans F. Genealogy and the problem of affirmation in Nietzsche, Foucault and Bakhtin // Philosophy and Social Criticism. – Vol. 27, No. 3 (2001). – P. 41–65. Herman L.J. A Dictionary of Slavic Word Families. – New York: Columbia UP, 1975. Hirschkop K. Mikhail Bakhtin: An Aesthetic for Democracy. – Oxford: Oxford UP, 1999. Holquist M. Dialogism: Bakhtin and His World. New Accents. – London: Routledge, 1990. Lossky V. À l'image et à la ressemblance de Dieu. – Paris: Aubier-Montaigne, 1967. MacCannell J. F. The Temporality of Textuality: Bakhtin and Derrida // Modern Language Notes. – Vol. 100, No. 5 (Dec., 1985). – P. 968–988. Machek V. Etymologický slovnik jazyka českého a slovenskeho. – Praha: Nakladatelství Československé Akademie Vĕd, 1957. Morson G.S., Emerson С. Mikhail Bakhtin: Creation of a Prosaics. – Stanford: Stanford UP, 1990. Mraovic B. Bakhtin's theory of speech as human agency // Social Responsibility Journal. – Vol. 4, No. 3 (2004). – P. 283–296. Owens J. The Doctrine of Being in the Aristotelian 'Metaphysics'. – Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1978. Patterson D. Literature and Spirit: Essays on Bakhtin and His Contemporaries. – Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1988. Pierson S. W. A Bibliographic Note and Bibliography on Bakhtinian Studies in Poetry (March 15, 2012) // Електронний ресурс. Режим доступу: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2023643 Sandler S. Kierkegaard and Bakhtin's Philosophical Motivation / XIV International Mikhail Bakhtin Conference, University of Bologna, Bertinoro, Italy, July 2011 // Електрон- ний ресурс. Режим доступу: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2045694 The Annotated Bakhtin Bibliography / Ed. by C. Adlam, D. Shepherd. – London: Modern Humanities Research Association, 2000. Tiupa V. "Dialogue of Agreement" as Mikhail Bakhtin's Neo-Rhetoric Project // Russian Journal of Communication. – Vol. I. – No. 3 (2008). – P. 323–330. Todorov T. Mikhaïl Bakhtine, le principe dialogique. – Paris : Seuil, 1981. Vasylchenko A. A. Equivocity of human being in the Aristotelian metaphysics: a personalist version // Філософська думка: спецвипуск Sententiae I Антична і середньовічна філософія. – 2010. – № 1. – С. 20–38. Vasylchenko A. Rorty et Bakhtine: deux visions de la communauté // Hermès. – No. 23-24 (1999). – P. 311–316. Vocabulaire Européen des Philosophies / Sous la direction de Barbara Cassin. – Paris: Seuil & Le Robert, 2004. White E. J. Assessment as Aesthetic Activity: a Bakhtinian Approach / Conference Presentation. – Manuscript: Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia, 2007. Zappen J. P. The Rebirth of Dialogue: Bakhtin, Socrates, and the Rhetorical Tradition. – Albany: SUNY Press, 2004. ; У статті розглядається філософія вчинку Михайла Бахтіна як проект мета фізики дії. Концепція Бахтіна досліджується в контексті метафізичного проекту російського екзистенціалізму. Порівнюються інтерпретації терміна «істина» в різних версіях екзистенціалізму. Досліджуються екзистенційний партикуляризм Шестова, актуалістичний персоналізм Бердяєва, етичний екзистенціалізм Бахтіна. Розглядаються екзистенціалістичні імплікації метафізики світла Григорія Палами. ЛІТЕРАТУРА Бахтин как философ / Под ред. П.С. Гуревича, Л.А. Гоготишвили. — М.: Наука, 1992. Бахтин М.М. К философии поступка // Философия и социология науки и техники. Ежегодник. 1984-1985. – М.: Наука, 1986. Бердяев Н.А. О рабстве и свободе человека. Опыт персоналистической философии [1939] // Бердяев Н. А. Царство духа и царство кесаря. – М.: Республика, 1995. Бердяев Н.А. Алексей Степанович Хомяков [1912] // Бердяев Н. Собрание сочинений. – Т. V. – Париж: YMCA-Press, 1997. Бердяев Н.А. Истина и откровение. – СПб.: Изд-во Русского Христианского гумани- тарного института, 1996. Бердяев Н.А. О назначении человека. – М.: Республика, 1993. Бердяев Н.А. Самопознание (опыт философской автобиографии). – М.: Международ- ные отношения, 1990. Бузгалин А. В., Булавка Л. А. Следующие сто лет М. Бахтина: диалектика диалога versus метафизика постмодернизма // Вопросы философии. – 2000. – № 6. – С. 119–132. Даль В.И. Толковый словарь живого великорусского языка. – М.: М. О. Вольф, 1903– 1909; Репр. т. 1–4, «Пять континентов», 1954. Етимологічний словник української мови: у 7-ми тт. – Т.2. – К.: Наукова Думка, 1985. Махлин В.Л. Михаил Михайлович Бахтин. – М.: РОССПЭН, 2010. Назинцев В.В. Мыслитель Бахтин и теоретик Хайдеггер // М. Бахтин и философская культура ХХ века. – СПб.: Образование, 1991. – Вып. 1., ч. 1. – С. 102–112. Російсько-український словник / За ред. А.Е. Кримського. – Т.1. – Київ, Червоний Шлях: 1924. Словарь української мови / Упорядкував Борис Грінченко. – Київ, 1907-1909. Соловьев В. С. Теоретическая философия // Собрание сочинений в 8 т. – Т. 8. – СПб.: 1903. Трубецкой Е. Н. Свет Фаворский и преображение ума // Русская идея / ред. M.A. Мас- лин. – М.: Республика, 1992. Фасмер М. Этимологический словарь русского языка: в 4-х тт. – М.: Прогресс, 1986. Флоренский П. А. Столп и утверждение истины [1914]. – Т. 1. – М.: Правда, 1990. Хоружий С. С. О старом и новом. – СПб.: Алетейя, 2000. Шестов Л. Афины и Иерусалим // Сочинения в 2-х т. – Т. 1. – М.: Наука, 1993. Bialostosky D.H. Liberal Education, Writing, and the Dialogic Self // Landmark Essays on Bakhtin, Rhetoric, and Writing / Ed. Frank Farmer. – Mahwah, New Jersey: Hermagoras-Erlbaum, 1998. – P. 187–196. Brandist C. The Bakhtin Circle: Philosophy, Culture and Politics. – London: Pluto Press, 2002. De Andia Y. L'Union à Dieu chez Denys l'Aréopagite. – Leiden: Brill, 1996. Dentith S. Bakhtin versus Rhetoric? // Face to Face: Bakhtin in Russia and the West / Ed. C. Adlam, R. Falconer, V. Makhlin, and A. Renfrew. – Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. – P. 311–325. Emerson C. The First Hundred Years of Mikhail Bakhtin. – Princeton: Princeton UP, 1997. Erdinast-Vulcan D. Between the Face and the Voice: Bakhtin meets Levinas // Continental Philosophy Review. – Vol. 41, No.1 (2008). – P. 43–58. Evans F. Genealogy and the problem of affirmation in Nietzsche, Foucault and Bakhtin // Philosophy and Social Criticism. – Vol. 27, No. 3 (2001). – P. 41–65. Herman L.J. A Dictionary of Slavic Word Families. – New York: Columbia UP, 1975. Hirschkop K. Mikhail Bakhtin: An Aesthetic for Democracy. – Oxford: Oxford UP, 1999. Holquist M. Dialogism: Bakhtin and His World. New Accents. – London: Routledge, 1990. Lossky V. À l'image et à la ressemblance de Dieu. – Paris: Aubier-Montaigne, 1967. MacCannell J. F. The Temporality of Textuality: Bakhtin and Derrida // Modern Language Notes. – Vol. 100, No. 5 (Dec., 1985). – P. 968–988. Machek V. Etymologický slovnik jazyka českého a slovenskeho. – Praha: Nakladatelství Československé Akademie Vĕd, 1957. Morson G.S., Emerson С. Mikhail Bakhtin: Creation of a Prosaics. – Stanford: Stanford UP, 1990. Mraovic B. Bakhtin's theory of speech as human agency // Social Responsibility Journal. – Vol. 4, No. 3 (2004). – P. 283–296. Owens J. The Doctrine of Being in the Aristotelian 'Metaphysics'. – Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1978. Patterson D. Literature and Spirit: Essays on Bakhtin and His Contemporaries. – Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1988. Pierson S. W. A Bibliographic Note and Bibliography on Bakhtinian Studies in Poetry (March 15, 2012) // Електронний ресурс. Режим доступу: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2023643 Sandler S. Kierkegaard and Bakhtin's Philosophical Motivation / XIV International Mikhail Bakhtin Conference, University of Bologna, Bertinoro, Italy, July 2011 // Електрон- ний ресурс. Режим доступу: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2045694 The Annotated Bakhtin Bibliography / Ed. by C. Adlam, D. Shepherd. – London: Modern Humanities Research Association, 2000. Tiupa V. "Dialogue of Agreement" as Mikhail Bakhtin's Neo-Rhetoric Project // Russian Journal of Communication. – Vol. I. – No. 3 (2008). – P. 323–330. Todorov T. Mikhaïl Bakhtine, le principe dialogique. – Paris : Seuil, 1981. Vasylchenko A. A. Equivocity of human being in the Aristotelian metaphysics: a personalist version // Філософська думка: спецвипуск Sententiae I Антична і середньовічна філософія. – 2010. – № 1. – С. 20–38. Vasylchenko A. Rorty et Bakhtine: deux visions de la communauté // Hermès. – No. 23-24 (1999). – P. 311–316. Vocabulaire Européen des Philosophies / Sous la direction de Barbara Cassin. – Paris: Seuil & Le Robert, 2004. White E. J. Assessment as Aesthetic Activity: a Bakhtinian Approach / Conference Presentation. – Manuscript: Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia, 2007. Zappen J. P. The Rebirth of Dialogue: Bakhtin, Socrates, and the Rhetorical Tradition. – Albany: SUNY Press, 2004.

Russian' survey of 2005 was conducted under the auspices of Russian Research. Fieldwork took place between 23 March and 20 April 2005. The number of respondents was 2000, selected according to the agency's normal sampling procedures; it was representative of the population aged 18 and over, using a multistage proportional method with a random route method of selecting households. Interviews were conducted face to face in respondents' homes. The sample was then weighted in accordance with sex, age and education in each region. The agency's standard procedures were employed to check the completion of questionnaires and the logical consistency of the data. Our 1993 survey was conducted by ROMIR between November 1993 and January 1994 (n=2141) with the financial support of the Economic and Social Research Council under grant R233538 to William L. Miller, Stephen White and Paul Heywood; a full account appears in Miller et al. (1998). In Belarus, our 2006 survey was conducted by the Centre for Sociological and Political Research of the Belarusian State University between 5 and 19 June 2006, n=1000, drawn from 57 different settlements. Respondents were interviewed face to face in their homes, and 12 per cent of interviews were checked by a second visit. The sample was designed on the basis of the 2005 Belarusian statistical yearbook, and then weighted by gender, age, education and place of residence. Our 2006 survey in Ukraine was conducted by Russian Research on similar principles between 24 April and 12 May 2006, n=1600. There were 385 sampling points and 163 interviewers with an average number of interviews in each case of 10; 20 per cent of the interviews were randomly selected for verification. Our 2005 Russian survey has been deposited with the UK Data Archive, where the data files and documentation may be consulted; our 2006 surveys will be deposited in the same repository. Overall, we find that communist nostalgia matters. Most Russians (but not most Belarasians or Ukrainians) regret the demise of the USSR, without necessarily wishing to return to it. President Putin has himself described the collapse of the USSR as the 'greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century' (Rossiiskaya gazeta 26 Apr 2005: 4), and surveys have found a consistently positive view of the USSR in retrospect, and of a closer degree of integration in the future. Belarusians and Ukrainians are less concerned about the demise of the USSR (it was obviously incompatible with the independence they had obtained in 1991), and less likely to support the formation of a unitary state of CIS member countries, but they strongly supported a closer degree of cooperation; very few, in any case, thought the CIS should be dissolved. Generally, it was a 'more democratic Soviet system' that was the most strongly supported form of government across the three countries, but a broadly market-based economy had more support than a command economy of the traditional kind. This was a differentiated, not a simple view of the communist legacy. But wherever the mass public offered support to the Soviet state and the economic and political principles on which it had been based, those who regretted the demise of the USSR were even more likely to do so. More than could be explained by random variation, they were more likely than other respondents to favour the restoration of a wholly Soviet system of government, more likely to favour a Soviet-type economy, and more likely (almost by definition) to support the formation of a unitary state on the basis of the CIS member countries. Regretting the demise of the USSR also made a strong contribution, all other things being equal, to the patterns of electoral support that were apparent at the 2003 Russian and 2006 Ukrainian parliamentary elections. Nostalgics were much more likely to support parties of the left, or at least those that favoured public ownership, a Soviet or at least 'more democratic Soviet' system of government, and a closer association among the former Soviet republics; they were much less likely to support the parties that favoured a 'civilised divorce', a wholly market economy, and Western-style democracy. 'Communist nostalgia', at the same time, had to be disaggregated. There were very different views about the restoration of a unitary state in Russia and in Belarus and Ukraine, where it was incompatible with their newly acquired independence. There was support for a 'more democratic Soviet' system of government, but at the same time for the principles of the market economy. In the Baltic republics there were particularly low levels of nostalgia for the days of the USSR, but relatively high levels of support for a 'strong man' who would govern without much reference to elected institutions. Not many, in the postcommunist or indeed in the late Soviet period, wanted a single party that exercised a political monopoly, or restrictions on what they could say. But there was a much larger constituency for full employment, low prices, comprehensive social welfare, and a state that took direct responsibility for economic management. In none of these three countries had there been a widely supported movement for the overthrow of Soviet rule; in each of them there was considerable support, in retrospect, for many of the principles on which it had been based; and attitudes of this kind had a substantial influence on the choices that were made when elections offered an opportunity to express a view about the future direction of national policy. ; Russian' survey of 2005 was conducted under the auspices of Russian Research. Fieldwork took place between 23 March and 20 April 2005. The number of respondents was 2000, selected according to the agency's normal sampling procedures; it was representative of the population aged 18 and over, using a multistage proportional method with a random route method of selecting households. Interviews were conducted face to face in respondents' homes. The sample was then weighted in accordance with sex, age and education in each region. The agency's standard procedures were employed to check the completion of questionnaires and the logical consistency of the data. Our 1993 survey was conducted by ROMIR between November 1993 and January 1994 (n=2141) with the financial support of the Economic and Social Research Council under grant R233538 to William L. Miller, Stephen White and Paul Heywood; a full account appears in Miller et al. (1998). In Belarus, our 2006 survey was conducted by the Centre for Sociological and Political Research of the Belarusian State University between 5 and 19 June 2006, n=1000, drawn from 57 different settlements. Respondents were interviewed face to face in their homes, and 12 per cent of interviews were checked by a second visit. The sample was designed on the basis of the 2005 Belarusian statistical yearbook, and then weighted by gender, age, education and place of residence. Our 2006 survey in Ukraine was conducted by Russian Research on similar principles between 24 April and 12 May 2006, n=1600. There were 385 sampling points and 163 interviewers with an average number of interviews in each case of 10; 20 per cent of the interviews were randomly selected for verification. Our 2005 Russian survey has been deposited with the UK Data Archive, where the data files and documentation may be consulted; our 2006 surveys will be deposited in the same repository. Overall, we find that communist nostalgia matters. Most Russians (but not most Belarasians or Ukrainians) regret the demise of the USSR, without necessarily wishing to return to it. President Putin has himself described the collapse of the USSR as the 'greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century' (Rossiiskaya gazeta 26 Apr 2005: 4), and surveys have found a consistently positive view of the USSR in retrospect, and of a closer degree of integration in the future. Belarusians and Ukrainians are less concerned about the demise of the USSR (it was obviously incompatible with the independence they had obtained in 1991), and less likely to support the formation of a unitary state of CIS member countries, but they strongly supported a closer degree of cooperation; very few, in any case, thought the CIS should be dissolved. Generally, it was a 'more democratic Soviet system' that was the most strongly supported form of government across the three countries, but a broadly market-based economy had more support than a command economy of the traditional kind. This was a differentiated, not a simple view of the communist legacy. But wherever the mass public offered support to the Soviet state and the economic and political principles on which it had been based, those who regretted the demise of the USSR were even more likely to do so. More than could be explained by random variation, they were more likely than other respondents to favour the restoration of a wholly Soviet system of government, more likely to favour a Soviet-type economy, and more likely (almost by definition) to support the formation of a unitary state on the basis of the CIS member countries. Regretting the demise of the USSR also made a strong contribution, all other things being equal, to the patterns of electoral support that were apparent at the 2003 Russian and 2006 Ukrainian parliamentary elections. Nostalgics were much more likely to support parties of the left, or at least those that favoured public ownership, a Soviet or at least 'more democratic Soviet' system of government, and a closer association among the former Soviet republics; they were much less likely to support the parties that favoured a 'civilised divorce', a wholly market economy, and Western-style democracy. 'Communist nostalgia', at the same time, had to be disaggregated. There were very different views about the restoration of a unitary state in Russia and in Belarus and Ukraine, where it was incompatible with their newly acquired independence. There was support for a 'more democratic Soviet' system of government, but at the same time for the principles of the market economy. In the Baltic republics there were particularly low levels of nostalgia for the days of the USSR, but relatively high levels of support for a 'strong man' who would govern without much reference to elected institutions. Not many, in the postcommunist or indeed in the late Soviet period, wanted a single party that exercised a political monopoly, or restrictions on what they could say. But there was a much larger constituency for full employment, low prices, comprehensive social welfare, and a state that took direct responsibility for economic management. In none of these three countries had there been a widely supported movement for the overthrow of Soviet rule; in each of them there was considerable support, in retrospect, for many of the principles on which it had been based; and attitudes of this kind had a substantial influence on the choices that were made when elections offered an opportunity to express a view about the future direction of national policy.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide, and has a strong heritable basis. We report a genome-wide association analysis of 34,627 CRC cases and 71,379 controls of European ancestry that identifies SNPs at 31 new CRC risk loci. We also identify eight independent risk SNPs at the new and previously reported European CRC loci, and a further nine CRC SNPs at loci previously only identified in Asian populations. We use in situ promoter capture Hi-C (CHi-C), gene expression, and in silico annotation methods to identify likely target genes of CRC SNPs. Whilst these new SNP associations implicate target genes that are enriched for known CRC pathways such as Wnt and BMP, they also highlight novel pathways with no prior links to colorectal tumourigenesis. These findings provide further insight into CRC susceptibility and enhance the prospects of applying genetic risk scores to personalised screening and prevention. ; At the Institute of Cancer Research, this work was supported by Cancer Research UK (C1298/A25514). Additional support was provided by the National Cancer Research Network. In Edinburgh, the work was supported by Programme Grant funding from Cancer Research UK (C348/A12076) and by funding for the infrastructure and staffing of the Edinburgh CRUK Cancer Research Centre. In Birmingham, funding was provided by Cancer Research UK (C6199/A16459). We are grateful to many colleagues within UK Clinical Genetics Departments (for CORGI) and to many collaborators who participated in the VICTOR, QUASAR2 and SCOT trials. We also thank colleagues from the UK National Cancer Research Network (for NSCCG). Support from the European Union [FP7/207–2013, grant 258236] and FP7 collaborative project SYSCOL and COST Action in the UK is also acknowledged [BM1206]. The COIN and COIN-B trials were funded by Cancer Research UK and the Medical Research Council and were conducted with the support of the National Institute of Health Research Cancer Research Network. COIN and COIN-B translational studies were supported by the Bobby Moore Fund from Cancer Research UK, Tenovus, the Kidani Trust, Cancer Research Wales and the National Institute for Social Care and Health Research Cancer Genetics Biomedical Research Unit (2011–2014). We thank the High-Throughput Genomics Group at the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics (funded by Wellcome Trust grant reference 090532/Z/09/Z) and the Edinburgh Clinical Research Facility (ECRF) Genetics Core, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, for the generation of genotyping data. We thank the Lothian Birth Cohorts' members, investigators, research associates, and other team members. We thank the Edinburgh Clinical Research Facility (ECRF) Genetics Core, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, for genotyping. Lothian Birth Cohorts' data collection is supported by the Disconnected Mind project (funded by Age UK), and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC, for genotyping; BB/F019394/1) and undertaken within the University of Edinburgh Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology (funded by the BBSRC and Medical Research Council RC as part of the LLHW [MR/K026992/1]). ET was supported by Cancer Research UK CDF (C31250/A22804). This research has been conducted using the UK Biobank Resource under Application Number 7441. Generation Scotland received core support from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates [CZD/16/6] and the Scottish Funding Council [HR03006]. Genotyping of the GS:SFHS samples was carried out by the Genetics Core Laboratory at the Clinical Research Facility, University of Edinburgh and was funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the Wellcome Trust (Wellcome Trust Strategic Award "STratifying Resilience and Depression Longitudinally" (STRADL) [104036/Z/14/Z]). CFR was supported by a Marie Sklodowska-Curie Intra-European Fellowship Action and received considerable help from many staff in the Department of Endoscopy at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford. In Finland, this work was supported by grants from the Academy of Finland [Finnish Center of Excellence Program 2012–2017, 250345 and 2018–2025, 312041], the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation, the Finnish Cancer Society [personal grant to K.P.], the European Research Council [ERC; 268648], the Sigrid Juselius Foundation, SYSCOL, the Nordic Information for Action eScience Center (NIASC), the Nordic Center of Excellence financed by NordForsk [project 62721, personal grant to K.P.] and State Research Funding of Kuopio University Hospital [B1401]. We acknowledge the computational resources provided by the ELIXIR node, hosted at the CSC–IT Center for Science, Finland, and funded by the Academy of Finland [grants 271642 and 263164], the Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland. V.S. was supported by the Finnish Academy [grant number 139635] and the Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research. J.-P.M. was funded by The Finnish Cancer Foundation and The Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation. Sample collection and genotyping in the Finnish Twin Cohort has been supported by the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, ENGAGE—European Network for Genetic and Genomic Epidemiology, FP7-HEALTH-F4–2007; [grant agreement number 201413], the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [grants AA-12502 and AA-00145; to R.J.R. and K02AA018755 to D.M.D.] and the Academy of Finland [grants 100499, 205585, 265240 and 263278 to J.K.]. The work of the Colon Cancer Family Registry (CCFR) was supported by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under Award number U01 CA167551. The CCFR Illumina GWAS was supported by the NCI/NIH under Award Numbers U01 CA122839 and R01 CA143237 to G.C. The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the NCI or any of the collaborating centres in the CCFR, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the US Government or the CCFR. The CORSA study was funded by FFG BRIDGE (grant 829675, to A.G.), the "Herzfelder'sche Familienstiftung" (grant to A.G.) and was supported by COST Action BM1206. We kindly thank all individuals who agreed to participate in the CORSA study. Furthermore, we thank all cooperating physicians and students and the Biobank Graz of the Medical University of Graz. The DACHS study was supported by grants from the German Research Council (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, BR 1704/6–1, BR 1704/6–3, BR 1704/6–4, BR 1704/6–6 and CH 117/1–1), and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01KH0404, 01ER0814, 01ER0815 and 01ER1505A, 01ER1505B). We thank all participants and cooperating clinicians, and Ute Handte-Daub, Ansgar Brandhorst, Muhabbet Celik and Ursula Eilber for excellent technical assistance. The Croatian study was supported through the 10,001 Dalmatians Project, and institutional support of University Hospital for Tumours, Sestre milosrdnice University Hospital Center. James East and Simon Leedham were funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). The views expressed not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. We acknowledge use of genotype data from the British 1958 Birth Cohort DNA collection, which was funded by the Medical Research Council Grant G0000934 and the Wellcome Trust Grant 068545/Z/02. A full list of the investigators who contributed to the generation of the data is available from http://www.wtccc.org.uk. The BCAC study would not have been possible without the contributions of the following: Manjeet K. Bolla, Qin Wang, Kyriaki Michailidou and Joe Dennis. BCAC is funded by Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A16563). For the BBCS study, we thank Eileen Williams, Elaine Ryder-Mills, Kara Sargus. The BBCS is funded by Cancer Research UK and Breast Cancer Now and acknowledges NHS funding to the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) and the National Cancer Research Network (NCRN). We thank the participants and the investigators of EPIC (European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition). The coordination of EPIC is financially supported by the European Commission (DG-SANCO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The national cohorts are supported by: Ligue Contre le Cancer, Institut Gustave Roussy, Mutuelle Générale de l'Education Nationale, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) (France); German Cancer Aid, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) (Germany); the Hellenic Health Foundation, the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (Greece); Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro-AIRC-Italy and National Research Council (Italy); Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); Health Research Fund (FIS), PI13/00061 to Granada, PI13/01162 to EPIC-Murcia, Regional Governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia and Navarra, ISCIII RETIC (RD06/0020) (Spain); Cancer Research UK (14136 to EPIC-Norfolk; C570/A16491 and C8221/A19170 to EPIC-Oxford), Medical Research Council (1000143 to EPIC-Norfolk, MR/M012190/1 to EPIC-Oxford) (United Kingdom). We thank the SEARCH and EPIC teams, which were funded by a programme grant from Cancer Research UK (C490/A10124) and supported by the UK NIHR BRC at the University of Cambridge. We thank Breast Cancer Now and the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) for support and funding of the UKBGS, and the study participants, study staff, and the doctors, nurses and other health-care providers and health information sources who have contributed to the study. Genotyping of the PRACTICAL consortium OncoArray was funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) [U19 CA 148537 for ELucidating Loci Involved in Prostate cancer SuscEptibility (ELLIPSE) project and X01HG007492 to the Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR) under contract number HHSN268201200008I]. Additional analytic support was provided by NIH NCI U01 CA188392 (PI: Schumacher). The PRACTICAL consortium was supported by Cancer Research UK Grants C5047/A7357, C1287/A10118, C1287/A16563, C5047/A3354, C5047/A10692, C16913/A6135, European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme grant agreement n° 223175 (HEALTH-F2–2009–223175), and The National Institute of Health (NIH) Cancer Post-Cancer GWAS initiative grant: No. 1 U19 CA 148537–01 (the GAME-ON initiative). We would also like to thank the following for funding support: The Institute of Cancer Research and The Everyman Campaign, The Prostate Cancer Research Foundation, Prostate Research Campaign UK (now Prostate Action), The Orchid Cancer Appeal, The National Cancer Research Network UK, The National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) UK. We are grateful for support of NIHR funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, the Spanish Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII) an initiative of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Innovation (Spain), and the Xunta de Galicia (Spain).

A comparative study between Asian agricultural development during the Green Revolution in food production and the current problematic agricultural situation in sub-Saharan Africa is presented. Case studies of eight African (viz. Ghana, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Uganda and Zambia) and seven Asian (Japan, Taiwan, Korea Republic, the Philippines, Indonesia, India and Bangladesh) countries (focusing on the early part of the Green Revolution) are also presented. A causal and explanatory model of Asian green revolutions is presented, as well as a discussion on why this phenomenon occurred in Asia and not in Africa. This book will be of significant interest to researchers on agricultural economics, rural sociology and development studies.