Critique of “The Scaling Down of SAGCOT Public-Private Partnerships” by Pauline et al. (2023)

By Juma Msafiri

The study “The Scaling Down of SAGCOT Public-Private Partnerships: From Large-Scale Blueprint Ideals to Small-Scale Pragmatism” by Noah M. Pauline, Victor Mbande, and Lowe Börjeson (2023) provides a detailed examination of the Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania (SAGCOT) initiative. The authors critically assess the shift from the original ambition of attracting large-scale agricultural investments to a more pragmatic focus on smaller, pre-existing enterprises. While this study offers valuable insights into the evolution of SAGCOT, it is not without significant limitations. The following critique aims to provide constructive feedback on various aspects of the research, highlighting areas that could benefit from further exploration and refinement.

1. Scope and Focus

Limited Scope and Generalizability

One of the primary limitations of this study is its narrow geographical focus on the SAGCOT corridor. By concentrating exclusively on this region, the authors limit the generalizability of their findings to other regions in Tanzania or similar contexts in Africa. The challenges and successes of public-private partnerships (PPPs) in agricultural development can vary significantly across different geographical and socio-economic settings. Broadening the scope to include other regions in Tanzania, or even other African countries with similar initiatives, could have provided a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics involved in these partnerships.

Limited Timeframe and Relevance

The study examines SAGCOT’s evolution up to 2018, which is a considerable oversight given its publication in 2023. This gap of five years leaves the study potentially outdated and incomplete. Agricultural policies and initiatives are subject to rapid changes due to evolving political, economic, and environmental factors. The study risks missing crucial shifts and trends that could have significantly impacted its conclusions by not including developments and policy adjustments from the past five years. The authors could have addressed this limitation by extending the timeframe of their analysis or conducting a follow-up study, thereby providing a more accurate and up-to-date assessment of SAGCOT’s impact.

Overemphasis on Large-Scale Investments

While the study rightfully emphasizes the shift away from large-scale investments, it fails to balance this with a thorough analysis of the potential and limitations of small-scale PPPs. The authors miss an opportunity to explore whether small-scale partnerships, despite their more modest scope, could offer a more sustainable and inclusive model for agricultural development. By focusing almost exclusively on the shortcomings of large-scale investments, the study overlooks the possibility that small-scale enterprises could be the key to driving long-term agricultural growth in Tanzania. This oversight limits the depth and applicability of the study’s conclusions.

2. Methodology

Overreliance on Qualitative Data

The study’s methodology is another area of concern. The research heavily relies on qualitative data gathered from interviews and SAGCOT’s own reporting. While these sources provide valuable insights into stakeholder perspectives and policy evolution, they are not sufficient to draw broad and conclusive results about the effectiveness of SAGCOT’s PPPs. Incorporating more quantitative data on agricultural production, income levels, employment, and environmental impact would have offered a more robust and objective assessment of SAGCOT’s outcomes. The absence of quantitative data leaves readers with an incomplete understanding of the actual impact of SAGCOT’s policies.

Limited Sample Size and Potential Bias

The limited sample size further weakens the study’s findings. The authors rely on a small number of interviews with stakeholders, which raises concerns about the representativeness and validity of the conclusions drawn. Additionally, the reliance on interviews introduces the risk of social desirability bias, where respondents might provide answers they believe are expected or favorable, particularly given the political and economic sensitivities surrounding SAGCOT. To mitigate these issues, the study could have employed triangulation methods or anonymous surveys, ensuring a more accurate and balanced analysis.

3. Analysis and Interpretation

Limited Discussion of Underlying Factors

While the study identifies the shift in SAGCOT’s policy, it falls short in exploring the underlying factors driving this change. The authors briefly mention challenges such as land acquisition difficulties and the presence of smallholder farmers but do not delve deeply into the political, economic, and social factors that have influenced SAGCOT’s evolution. A more nuanced analysis of these factors would provide a richer understanding of why SAGCOT’s original vision has not been realized. By failing to explore these underlying causes, the study leaves readers with more questions than answers, limiting its explanatory power.

Lack of Comparative Analysis

The study also misses an opportunity to place SAGCOT’s experience in a broader context by comparing it with other PPP initiatives in Tanzania or other African countries. Such a comparative analysis could have highlighted unique challenges, best practices, and lessons learned, offering valuable insights for policymakers and practitioners. The absence of this comparative perspective limits the study’s contribution to the broader literature on PPPs in agricultural development. Without this context, it is difficult to gauge whether SAGCOT’s challenges are unique or part of a broader trend in African agricultural development.

Insufficient Attention to Environmental Impacts

Although the study mentions environmental management as one of SAGCOT’s guiding principles, it does not thoroughly analyse the environmental impacts of large- and small-scale agricultural investments. This omission is particularly concerning given Tanzania’s significant environmental challenges, such as deforestation, soil degradation, and water scarcity. A more in-depth exploration of the environmental consequences of SAGCOT’s policies would have added a critical dimension to the study’s analysis. The lack of attention to ecological impacts undermines the study’s relevance in the context of sustainable development.

4. Implications and Recommendations

Need for More Specific and Actionable Recommendations

The study’s recommendations, while valuable, are somewhat general and lack specificity. The authors could have provided more actionable recommendations for policymakers and practitioners, offering concrete steps to address the challenges identified in the research. For example, rather than simply suggesting that SAGCOT should learn from its experiences, the study could have outlined specific strategies for improving land acquisition processes, enhancing stakeholder engagement, or integrating environmental sustainability into PPPs. More specific recommendations would have enhanced the practical relevance of the research, making it more useful for those involved in similar initiatives.

Limited Consideration of Alternative Models

The study acknowledges the limitations of the large-scale investment model but does not explore alternative models for agricultural development and commercialization in more depth. Farmer cooperatives, community-based initiatives, or agroecological approaches could offer viable alternatives to the PPP model. By not considering these alternatives, the study limits its scope and misses an opportunity to contribute to the ongoing debate about the most effective strategies for agricultural development in Africa. The inclusion of alternative models would have provided a more comprehensive and forward-looking analysis, offering policymakers a broader array of options to consider.

Lack of Long-Term Perspective

Finally, the study’s focus on SAGCOT’s evolution up to 2018 limits its ability to assess the long-term sustainability and impact of the initiative. Given the ambitious goals of SAGCOT, a longitudinal study or a follow-up assessment would have been invaluable in evaluating the initiative’s success over time. The agricultural sector is subject to various dynamic factors, including climate change, market fluctuations, and evolving policy landscapes. Without this long-term perspective, the study’s conclusions are necessarily provisional and may not fully capture the long-term outcomes of SAGCOT’s PPPs. A more extended analysis would have provided a deeper understanding of the initiative’s long-term implications for agricultural development in Tanzania.

5. Overall Contribution to the Field

Despite its limitations, “The Scaling Down of SAGCOT Public-Private Partnerships” is a well-written and organized study that makes a valuable contribution to the growing body of literature on PPPs in agricultural development. Its focus on the shift in SAGCOT’s policy and its implications provides important insights for policymakers and practitioners. However, the study’s limitations in scope, methodology, analysis, and recommendations suggest that there is significant room for further research and refinement. By addressing these limitations, future studies could build on the foundation of Pauline et al. and contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of PPPs in agricultural development, particularly in Africa’s rapidly changing agricultural landscape.

The study provides a useful critique of SAGCOT’s evolution, it could have explored the underlying causes of the initiative’s challenges, offered specific and actionable recommendations, and considered alternative models for agricultural development. By doing so, it would have provided a more robust and comprehensive analysis of the role of PPPs in transforming agriculture in Tanzania and beyond.