Abstract
To meet the challenges of African agriculture, particularly food self-sufficiency, job creation and wealth, the agricultural contract model is being promoted by some governments and international donors in the framework of a performative discourse on the virtues of partnerships between agro-industries and producers. However, agricultural contracts give rise to contradictory interpretations. Some see it as a model that would have spillover effects on the rural economy, while others see it as a strategy of predation of agricultural resources, which is harmful to local communities. On both sides, analyses remain focused on ethical and sometimes ideological issues. The operating conditions of the contracts and their impacts in terms of development are little addressed. Our contribution, based on sociological surveys conducted in Senegal, aims at objectively characterizing the forms of interaction (positive or negative) between agricultural contracts and the development of the territories where the rice sector is located. On the basis of these issues of articulation between agricultural development and territorial development, we are proposing a methodological approach to carry out this type.of diagnosis. At the scale of the regions dominated by rice growing, we highlight that the territorial trajectories are contrasted in relation to the interaction between the agricultural model and territorial development. This diagnosis is interpreted through the knowledge of the systems of actors, in particular with the help of two indicators, namely centrality, which gives an indication of the issues of territorial governance, and the density of social relations, which provides information on the importance of the agricultural contract in relation to other modes of relationship building. With regard to the insertion of agricultural contracts, the structure of the networks of actors makes it possible to identify a centralized mode of governance at the level of the national agricultural bank and a few agro-industrial enterprises. Nevertheless, informal relationships and traditional local structures (families, friends, neighbors) persist and function in parallel with the agricultural contract, calling into question the political discourse regarding the transformative potential of agricultural contracts.