Impacts of Aquaculture
Development on CommunitiesSocial Status Stratification
This may correspond to property
ownership patterns and especially to land
tenure. Large landowners, local officials
and relatively better educated persons
often become leaders and exert
disproportionate influence on the adoption
of innovations.
Social stratification with respect to
wealth and authority can either impede or
facilitate the adoption and sustainment of
innovation, depending on local
circumstances. In some cases, other factors
being equal, the more homogeneous a
community the more likely is an innovation
to be widely adopted (Oxby 1983).
On the other hand, participation or
sponsorship by widely respectedelitesmay
legitimize an undertaking and encourage
broad participation, as in parts of Mala&,
where adoption of aquaculture by better-
off households is perceived to reduce the
element ofrisk for the poorer ones. Further,
elites may provide technical leadership,
ensure good management, and monitor
the distribution of benefits (Molnar et al.
1985). In other cases this may evolve into
or reinforce a dependency relationship,
rather than fostering self-reliant
community development. Further,
depending on the nature of the client-
patron relationship and the existence or
not of paternalism andlor personalism,
households may participate in an
aquaculture project for political reasons
rather than from true commitment.
Whereas elites generally support
innovations that they perceive as offering
additional opportunities for them to fulfill
their duties (and thereby enhance their
social status) as generous insurers of
general community welfare, as in
aquaculture developments in Zomba
District, Southern MalaGi (Mills 1989),
they can also undermine projects to thwart
perceived diminishment of their own
status. Any innovation may be perceived
by large landowners as a threat to apool of
cheap and readily available labor, for
example, and so might be undermined to
remove competition, to monopolize access
to a new resource, or to achieve other
personal ends.Authority-Power Strucfures
and Leadership
Many developing-country societies are
characterized by hierarchical social
organization, which ranges from a regional
leaderltribal chief through an individual
family member. Commonly, this is reflected
in the spatial organization ofthe territories
with which each social unit is associated.
In general, the highest level commonly
has three main categories of duty toward
his followers: land allocation, judicial
matters, and ritual and religious
responsibilities. The second level is
frequently that of the village headman,
whose various social roles mirror at the
village level those of the regional leader1
tribal chief. Dispute settlement is
invariably a major duty, particularly
concerning rights to and conflict over the
use of land, water and other resources.
Village headmen are also responsible for
representingthe interests oftheir villagers
in dealings with other groups.
The structure of authority and
leadership in matrilineal societies is
relatively complex, because while
resources are controlled through the female
line, villages are governed according to
principles ofmale leadership. This leads to
several inherent paradoxes and tensions
within the social system. Among the most
important of these are: the competition
between a husband and his spouse's
brother for control of both his wife and
children; the ambivalent position of a man
in his wife's village; the conflict between