© The Authors, 2024, Published by the Universidad del Zulia*Corresponding author:arlenisalbornoz@gmail.com
Keywords:
Family well-being
Territory
Farmer
Review
Socio-productive dynamics in agricultural systems. Conceptual theoretical bases for the study
Dinámicas socioproductivas en sistemas agrícolas. Bases teóricos conceptuales para su estudio
Dinâmica socioprodutiva em sistemas agrícola. Bases teóricas conceituais para o estudo
Arlenis Albornoz
Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2024, 41(4): e244143
ISSN 2477-9407
DOI: https://doi.org/10.47280/RevFacAgron(LUZ).v41.n4.12
Socioeconomics
Associate editor: Dra. Maritzabel Materán Jaimez
University of Zulia, Faculty of Agronomy
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
Facultad de Agronomía. Universidad del Zulia. Zulia,
Venezuela.
Received: 07-09-2024
Accepted: 02-11-2024
Published: 30-11-2024
Abstract
Agricultural production systems are very dynamic, the use and
combination of production factors by the farmer is reected in
dierent levels of production and family well-being. The objective
of this article was to build a theoretical - conceptual reection, for
a multiple, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approach in the
interpretation of phenomena that are not caused exclusively by one
factor. For this, a systematic bibliographic review of documents
hosted on Google Scholar/Google was carried out, which allowed
analyzing and comparing concepts and theories associated with the
topic, highlighting Bertalany’s systems theory, Morín’s complexity
and Lonergan’s economic dynamics. In addition, concepts associated
with the research such as productivity, agricultural systems, territory
and family well-being were considered. The search yielded fty-
eight documents, which were subjected to lters for pre-established
exclusions. As a result of these lters, eighteen were selected for
analysis, which allowed the construction of a theoretical-conceptual
body for the study and analysis of socio-productive dynamics in
agricultural systems, which focuses on how the inputs represented
by the producer, capital, Information and agricultural inputs are
related to each other and interact with other factors such as local
technology, workforce, territory, environment and marketing and
how these generate dierent levels of performance, productivity
and well-being in the system for the farmer and his family.
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2024, 41(4): e244143 October-December. ISSN 2477-9407.
2-5 |
Resumen
Los sistemas de producción agrícolas son muy dinámicos, la
utilización y combinación de los factores de producción por parte del
agricultor se ve reejada en distintos niveles de producción y bienestar
familiar. El objetivo de este artículo fue construir una reexión
teórica - conceptual, para el abordaje múltiple, interdisciplinario
y transdisciplinario en la interpretación de fenómenos que no son
causados exclusivamente por un factor. Para esto, se realizó una
revisión bibliográca sistemática de documentos alojados en Google
Académico/Google, que permitió analizar y comparar conceptos
y teóricas asociadas al tema, destacando la teoría de sistemas de
Bertalany, de la complejidad de Morín y la dinámica económica
de Lonergan; además se consideraron conceptos asociados a la
investigación como productividad, sistemas agrícolas, territorio y
bienestar familiar. La búsqueda arrojó cincuenta y ocho documentos,
los cuales fueron sometidos a ltros para exclusiones preestablecidas.
Como resultado de estos ltros, se seleccionaron dieciocho para
analizarlos, lo cual permitió construir un cuerpo teórico-conceptual
para el estudio y análisis de las dinámicas socioproductivas en
sistemas agrícolas, el cual se centra en cómo las entradas representadas
por el productor, el capital, la información y los insumos agrícolas,
se relacionan entre ellas e interactúan con otros factores como la
tecnología local, fuerza laboral, territorio, ambiente y el mercadeo y
como éstas generan en el sistema diferentes niveles de rendimiento,
productividad y bienestar para el agricultor y su familia.
Palabras clave: bienestar familiar, territorio, agricultor.
Resumo
Os sistemas de produção agrícola são muito dinâmicos, a
utilização e combinação de factores de produção pelo agricultor
reecte-se em diferentes níveis de produção e bem-estar familiar. O
objetivo deste artigo foi construir uma reexão teórico-conceitual,
para uma abordagem múltipla, interdisciplinar e transdisciplinar na
interpretação de fenômenos que não são causados exclusivamente por
um fator. Para isso, foi realizada uma revisão bibliográca sistemática
de documentos hospedados no Google Acadêmico/Google, que
permitiu analisar e comparar conceitos e teorias associadas ao tema,
destacando a teoria dos sistemas de Bertalany, a complexidade de
Morín e a dinâmica econômica de Lonergan. foram consideradas
pesquisas como produtividade, sistemas agrícolas, território e bem-
estar familiar. A busca rendeu cinquenta e oito documentos, que
foram submetidos a ltros para exclusões pré-estabelecidas. Como
resultado desses ltros, foram selecionados dezoito para análise, o
que permitiu a construção de um corpo teórico-conceitual para o
estudo e análise da dinâmica socioprodutiva nos sistemas agrícolas,
que enfoca como os insumos representados pelo produtor, capital,
A informação e os insumos agrícolas estão relacionados entre si e
interagem com outros factores, tais como tecnologia local, força
de trabalho, território, ambiente e marketing e como estes geram
diferentes níveis de desempenho, produtividade e bem-estar no
sistema para o agricultor e sua família.
Palavras-chave: bem-estar familiar, território, agricultor.
Introduction
The reality of agricultural production systems is complex,
therefore, the combination and interrelation of factors create very
specic social, economic, productive and environmental dynamics.
In this sense, small farmers try to increase their level of production,
however, not all of them have the capacity to do so, because it depends
to a large extent on the way in which these factors and/or resources
are combined, in addition to the inuence of third parties in decision-
making in the system.
The study of agricultural systems has been explained
fundamentally from the analytical scientic paradigm (Casanova et
al., 2015), generating a highly productive and protable agriculture,
but with great environmental and social consequences (Sarandón,
2019), hence the trend in agricultural research considers a more
complex approach that relates these dimensions, their dynamism and
results.
Under this premise, the objective of this research is to establish
a theoretical-conceptual reection for the study of socio-productive
dynamics, which allows a multidisciplinary and focused approach
in the interpretation of such phenomena, in order to understand the
dierent levels of production and family welfare.
Methods
During October 2023 to March 2024, a systematic literature
review was developed around the research topic considering mainly
system theory (Bertalany, 1976); complexity theory (Morin, 2018),
agricultural systems (FAO, 2005), productivity (Samuelson, 2006)
and family welfare (Bautista and Morales, 2016), as well as concepts
related to system dynamics (Perazzi and Merli, 2022), economics (De
Neeve, 2009) and social dynamics (González, 2011).
The research was conducted in two stages: the rst corresponds
to the search of bibliographies and selection of studies related to
the topic published since 2000, and the second corresponds to the
classication, analysis and integration of the content.
The inclusion criteria were books, theses and articles, excluding
subdocuments and abstracts. The literature search considered primary
sources such as scientic journals and tertiary sources such as
textbooks (Vera, 2009), hosted in databases and archives of research
and teaching centres or linked through Google Academic/Google, and
then chose descriptors or keywords for the main concepts or theme
of the research. The combination of keywords included: ‘agricultural
dynamics’, ‘agricultural economic dynamics’, ‘agricultural systems’,
‘family dynamics’, ‘agricultural productivity’, ‘agricultural system
characteristics’, ‘socially productive’ and ‘rural family welfare’.
In accordance with the stated objective, 58 documents were
selected and downloaded, which were mainly examined for their
summary, objectives and results, and then classied according to their
title, objectives and relevance to the dierent concepts associated
with the study. Thus, 18 documents were selected for the analysis
and integration of content, with the academic articles being the most
representative, allowing us to conclude that the results of this review
are mainly based on reective and comprehensive processes.-
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
Albornoz. Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2024 41(4): e244143
3-5 |
Discussion
Bertalany’s (1976) systems theory has an important weight in the
proposed referential, as it proposes that the system can be reproduced
in dierent contexts, from the system of a company or productive
unit, an industrial process or, in this case, the socio-productive
dynamics. Within this system, interactions occur between the
dierent components that change the behaviour or nature of elements
and it is here where Morin’s (2006) theory of complexity provides
the basis for understanding the study. According to the author, these
interrelations are conceived with two main characteristics: the rst,
the interrelation of economic, social and environmental elements and
the second, the global unit constituted by these interacting elements.
Changes in the components or behaviours of agricultural systems
bring about economic and technical results, hence the importance of
Bernard Lonergan’s theory of economic dynamics, cited by De Neeve
(2009), as well as denitions and concepts related to agricultural
systems, which are discussed below.
Dynamics. Acceptions
The study of dynamics related to agricultural sciences gives us
the opportunity to explain and contribute to establishing a denition
for the study of socio-productive dynamics in agricultural systems.
In this sense, Aracil and Gordillo (1997) explain the theory proposed
by Wright Forrester in terms of dynamics applied to systems, nding
that it is a discipline that represents all types of complex systems,
including applications within the system. In the social sciences, this
theory provides a technique for designing simulation models of the
complex systems that characterise agricultural systems.
The main aspect of these systems is the economic factors, so
this topic has been widely studied mainly in the theory of economic
dynamics. In this respect, De Neeve (2009) explains that these
dynamics are related to growth and development through cycles
that include connections between the basics and the aggregates of
production. These relationships and cycles are largely determined by
the formation of the family nucleus and the decision-making capacity
of individuals.
In this sense, each individual interacts dierently with other
members of society, and from this social dynamics are born, whose
purpose, according to Popescu (1962), is the study of the progress of
social groups in society, that is, when studying the activities of human
development over time, what is really wanted is to understand the
social, economic, political, religious, ideological, artistic, and other
dimensions.
In line with the above, the concept of dynamics proposed
for the study of agricultural systems refers to the interactions that
occur between the components and dimensions of the system, in
which the individual and the family nucleus play a decisive role
in the management of economic and natural factors that generate
models of agricultural systems with their own characteristics; where
women have managed to develop essential tasks in agroecosystems
(Rosales and Leyva, 2019), providing labour, as well as carrying the
responsibility for the children and food security in the home (Salcedo
et al., 2014). The family and the farm are linked, evolve together
and combine economic, environmental, social and cultural functions
(Graeub et al., 2016).
Agricultural production systems. Dimensions for their study
Since the German biologist Ludwig Von Bertalany (1976)
created the general systems theory, it has been widely used and
adapted by many researchers. According to this theory, the agricultural
enterprise functions as a system that develops production patterns that
correspond to the basic rules of interaction of the building blocks for
successful operations. A systematic research approach allows, on
the one hand, to understand the important events occurring in the
process and, on the other hand, to formulate the most appropriate
and repeatable alternatives that improve production and processing
eciency in these systems.
In order to understand and apply systems theory in agricultural
production, it is necessary to consider the denition of production
system FAO (2005) referring from the microeconomic context to
production units in which there is a spatial and temporal combination
of a dened labour force (families, wages, etc.) and various means
of production (land, water and irrigation systems, animal and plant
genetic resources, tools, etc.) for the production of products.
These combinations also interact with external factors such
as policy, institutions, markets and information linkages that can
signicantly aect their functioning, as well as biological, physical,
social, economic and technological factors (Hall et al., 2001). These
interactions aect dierent farming systems, which allows for the
development of broad, thematic categories and the identication of
exible potential projects, recognising the heterogeneity of these
categories. In this sense, Hall et al., (2001), states that the factors that
inuence the interaction and determine the agricultural production
system are: natural resources and climate, science and technology,
trade and market development, and policies, institutions and public
goods.
Agricultural productivity and household welfare
Productivity refers to the relationship between the quantity of
output produced by a productive system and the resources (land,
capital, labour, inputs) used to obtain that output (Samuelson,
2006). Basically, two of them are analysed: labour productivity, or
productivity per hour of work, which is dened as an increase or
decrease in output as a function of the work required for the nal
product, and factor productivity (TFP), which denes the increase
or decrease in prot when any factor related to production changes:
labour, capital or technology, among others. High productivity implies
that a lot of economic value can be produced with little labour or
capital. An increase in productivity implies that more can be produced
with the same amount (Samuelson, 2006).
In agriculture, the measure of crop productivity per unit area is
the most widely used (Villota et al., 2020); knowing this indicator
and describing the importance that farmers attribute to the factors of
production is vital to be able to compare them with those of other
farmers, educational and research organisations (Infante, 2016); so
that the results can generate a model that promotes the productivity of
the agricultural system and creates healthy living conditions for the
well-being of the farmer, his family and his territory.
This well-being according to Nabarrete and Gijón (2018)
considers food and clothing rst, then health and education, followed
by housing, the concept refers to the set of things that are needed
to live well; it is given as a function of income, a higher income
provides the individual with more resources to consume (Méndez and
Reyes, 2016). Well-being is, therefore, the satisfaction of primary and
material needs, which is achieved through higher income, conditions
and the environment in which people live. In the agricultural sector,
mainly in small production systems, farmers together with their direct
family establish their own resource management mechanism, although
agricultural work in many cases has become a secondary activity in
rural territories (Albornoz and Maldonado, 2022); farmers are able to
satisfy their needs for food, education and self-development in order
to achieve a certain well-being or quality of life.
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2024, 41(4): e244143 October-December. ISSN 2477-9407.
4-5 |
From complexity theory to the explanation of socio-productive
dynamics
Complexity can be characterised by the concept of interaction, the
structure of events, actions, feedbacks, regulations, contingencies that
shape our phenomenal world and create an organisation. This is one
of the dening features of Morín’s (2018) works. Interaction includes
elements, beings or material objects that encounter each other; they
assume conditions of encounter; they follow denitions/tasks that
depend on the nature of the elements, objects or beings encountered
and that, under certain conditions, become mutual relations
(associations, combinations, communication, among others), i.e.,
create organisational phenomena (Morin, 2006).
Therefore, for organisation to exist, there must be interactions,
encounters, and for there to be encounters there must be disorder.
Complexity is the union of simplication processes that require
selection, hierarchisation, separation, reduction, against processes
that require communication (Morin, 2018).
In relation to the above, in agricultural production systems,
the relationships between systems and sub-systems are essentially
exchange or transmission links that bind them together. These
interactions have specic characteristics such as synergy, hierarchy,
recursion, complementarity, competition, internal customer and
critical points (Morin, 2018). An agricultural system can have multiple
interactions, each with a greater weight than the others, depending on
the priority of each system.
Under these premises the socio-family interaction; has an
important weight in the socio-productive dynamics, so in horticultural
production systems this interaction exerts an important aspect in
its dynamics, mostly part of what Salcedo et al, (2014) call family
farming, considering here all family farming activity related to various
aspects of rural development, it is a way of organising agricultural
and forestry production, as well as shing, grazing and aquaculture,
which is managed and controlled by the family and depends mainly
on family labour, both women and men.
For these families, the production unit is not only a place of
work, it is a space where children grow up, exposed to agricultural
activities (Salcedo et al., 2014), it is a permanent home where all
family members live and grow, where grandparents play a key role in
the continuity of the agricultural practices used and instil the love for
agriculture in the grandchildren.
Similarly, the interaction between territory and environment
is a determining factor in socio-productive dynamics, although
the terms territory and environment were rarely considered, today
multidisciplinarity is essential. Territory is a biophysical space
resulting from historical processes and actions conducted by actors on
the social appropriation of spaces built around the use and exploitation
of local resources and environmental components (Lee-Cortés et al.,
2018).
At the same time, political and social interaction plays an
important role in socio-productive dynamics. Parsons (2007), argues
that public policy issues are highly contextual and contingent; dened
and shaped by particular historical circumstances and settings, so any
‘solution’ must take into account that contingency, which includes
how public policy actors perceive, interpret and even manipulate
problems.
Finally, the interaction between environment and production
system can have a positive or negative eect on production systems, so
it is necessary to consider the nature of the environmental conditions
and factors surrounding the organization.
Socio-productive Dynamics. Model for its study
The concept of socio-productive dynamics arises from the above-
mentioned references, referring to the interaction that takes place
in the production system, which combines social, technical and
economic factors, which are also related to the environment and the
territory, and which produces well-being for the farmer and his family.
Similarly, socio-productive dynamics are adaptive and responsive
strategies that are constantly born and formed in the activities of the
farmer and his family according to the sequence of the means of
production, land and labour.
One way to explain and identify socio-productive dynamics
is through the systematic model (Figure 1) constructed from the
theories and concepts outlined above; the components are illustrated
as follows: -Inputs (information, capital, materials and human
resources) coming from outside; -Conversion process (conversion
of input energy into output energy) depending on the set objective
and socio-productive interactions; -Output (what is obtained from the
system through product or residue); -Feedback, shows how dierent
the behaviour of the system is from the intended objectives, so that
corrections can be made to achieve the objectives; -Environment, the
macro system to which the target system belongs; and -Boundary, the
exchange of the external environment with other sub-systems.
The proposed model shows the components, interactions and
relationships in the agricultural production system as mutual actions
that change the behaviour or nature of existing or aected elements,
bodies, objects or phenomena (Morin, 2018).
Figure 1. Model of socio-productive dynamics in agricultural
production systems.
The producer,
his family, his
needs
Capital
Information
and inputs
Local technology
Workforce
Territory
Environment
Marketing
Yield
Productivity
Family welfare
Socio-productive interactions
Policies Institutions
Agrosupports
Agroservices
Regional, National and International Environment
Socio-productive Dynamics
The inputs to the system are composed of: (a) the farmer, his
family and their needs, where the important thing is to identify who
are responsible for the decisions around everything that happens in
the system and what are the factors they consider most important for
those decisions; (b) the nancial resources available to the producer
to carry out his activity, it seeks to identify the origin of the nancial
resources and quantify whether the system is able to generate the
necessary resources to meet the needs of the family and the next
production cycles and; c) information related to all the processes
involved and their environment. The availability of communication is
key to the development of productive activities, linked to the supply of
raw materials and inputs that lead to the transformation of activities.
These inputs are related and interact with xed factors-land,
capital, labour-; variable factors-electricity, diesel, seeds, fertilizers-
and other factors-technology, government support, knowledge-, which
together inuence and determine the value of production (Infante,
2016). Likewise, the interaction with the characteristics of the territory
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
Albornoz. Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2024 41(4): e244143
5-5 |
and the environment are essential in the identication of these socio-
productive dynamics, as each region has its own characteristics and
customs; and in many cases they face tensions over land use and
agricultural vocation, urban expansion is a threat that imposes or
aects production units, limiting or increasing them (Albornoz and
Maldonado, 2022). The system is further inuenced by the economic
environment at regional, national and even international level which
has a direct impact on the dynamics of the production system, as well
as the characteristics of the market, access conditions and the impact
of agricultural policies such as prices and credit, which is identied
in the agrosupports and agroservices to which farmers have access. In
this sense, agricultural public policies include a series of governmental
decisions that aim to solve the problems of the agricultural sector and
rural society in the general interest, this interaction can be reected
in agricultural systems such as governmental support for agricultural
roads, basic services and transport (Valencia et al., 2020).
Consequently, the multiple interactions are reected in yields and
productivity levels, a farmer’s aim to achieve higher productivity with
the same resources or producing the same goods or services leads to
better protability of the enterprise (Samuelson, 2006). The outputs
of the system generate dierent levels of yields, productivity, and
value of production as a contribution to household income and family
welfare. This welfare is not only associated with agricultural income,
it is also given by government transfers or subsidies, this brings
double benet because families make their small savings thanks to
the subsidies they receive (Nabarrete and Gijón, 2018), to meet the
needs of the family, such as food, clothing, health, education, which
improve the living conditions of the family, culture, perceptions,
feelings, ways of leading life.
The proposed model makes it possible to identify which
interactions describe the socio-productive dynamics of the system.
It is possible that the model tries to explain the farmer-information
and input interaction and local technology and that this may have an
important weight in the dynamics, because, on the one hand, most
farmers use empirical local technology with marked dierences in
the use of inputs, mainly concerning crop fertilization, and on the
other hand, even when there are tools to be informed about products,
pest management, prices and agricultural practices, farmers refuse
to incorporate the use of information technologies and to be part of
a digital network that allows the ow of information of interest to
them in order to improve yields, productivity and family wellbeing;
farmers refuse to incorporate the use of information technologies and
become part of a digital network that would allow information of
interest to them to ow in order to improve yields, productivity and
family welfare.
Conclusions
The study of dynamics in agricultural systems continues to be
complex; the capacity to react to the changes and adversities faced
by agriculture calls us to be attentive to any interaction of factors
that may determine a dierent behavior. It is important to constantly
review the literature and carry out eld studies to validate these
proposals.
From the point of view of reference, systems theory continues
to be, in spite of time, very useful in the agricultural sciences, and
there are more and more studies focused on analyzing the relationship
between the social and the productive, and this article is a contribution
to this branch of science.
To speak of dynamics is to refer to interactions and
interrelationships, and in agricultural production systems these are
very diverse and constantly changing, hence, analyzing socioeconomic
dynamics represents a great step towards understanding the economic
and productive results of agricultural systems.
Literature cited
Albornoz, A., & Maldonado, Y. (2022). Tecnologías ancestrales para la
sostenibilidad en comunidades periurbanas. Ra Ximhai,18(6), 133-155.
https://doi.org/10.35197/rx.18.06.2022.06.aa
Aracil, J., & Gordillo, F. (1997). Dinámica de sistemas. Alianza Editorial. https://
books.google.co.ve/books?id=zozJAAAACAAJ
Bautista, F. M., & Morales, R. G. R. (2016). Análisis de las economías familiares
en el bienestar de las etnias zapotecas y chatinas de la Sierra Sur de Oaxaca
en 2013. Entreciencias: Diálogos en la Sociedad del Conocimiento, 4(9),
109-125. https://www.redalyc.org/journal/4576/457645340009/html
Bertalany, L. (1976). Teoría general de los sistemas: Fundamentos, desarrollo,
aplicaciones. Fondo de Cultura Económica. https://books.google.co.ve/
books?id=1JLsAQAACAAJ
Casanova, L., Martínez, J., López, S., & Landeros, C. (2015). Enfoques del
pensamiento complejo en agroecosistemas. Interciencia, 40(3), 210-216.
http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=3393472.
De Neeve, E. (2009). La teoría general de la dinámica económica de bernard
lonergan: ¿acaso completa a hayek, keynes y schumpeter? Una
interpretación. Universitas Philosophica, 26(53), 145-179. https://www.
redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=409534417008
FAO. (2005). Género y enfoque de sistemas: Principales reexiones. https://www.
fao.org/4/y4936s/y4936s03.htm#bm3.2.2
Graeub, B. E., Chappell, M. J., Wittman, H., Ledermann, S., Kerr, R. B., &
Gemmill-Herren, B. (2016). The State of Family Farms in the World. World
Development, 87, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.05.012
González, W. (2011). La dinámica social en la denición del espacio rural.
Revista U.D.C.A Actualidad & Divulgación Cientíca, 14(1), 93-
99. http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S0123-
42262011000100012&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=es
Hall, M., Dixon, J., Gulliver, A., & Gibbon, D. (2001). Sistemas de Producción
Agropecuaria y Pobreza. https://www.fao.org/4/ac349s/AC349s11.
htm#TopOfPage
Infante, F. (2016). La importancia de los factores productivos y su impacto en las
organizaciones agrícolas en león Guanajuato México. El Ágora U.S.B.,
16(2), 393-406. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/4077/407755354003.pdf
Lee-Cortés, J & Delgadillo, J. (2018). El potencial territorial como factor
del desarrollo. Modelo para la gestión rural. Agricultura, sociedad y
desarrollo, 15(2), 191-213. https://www.revista-asyd.org/index.php/asyd/
article/view/802/304#toc
Méndez, F., & Reyes, R. (2016). Análisis de las economías familiares en el
bienestar de las etnias zapotecas y chatinas de la Sierra Sur de Oaxaca
en 2013. Entreciencias: Diálogos en la Sociedad del Conocimiento, 4(9),
109-125. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=457645340009
Morin, E. (2006). El método: La naturaleza de la naturaleza. Cátedra. https://
books.google.co.ve/books?id=zWZxPQAACAAJ
Morin, E. (2018). El Método 3. Ediciones Cátedra. https://books.google.co.ve/
books?id=CZybDwAAQBAJ
Nabarrete, J. V., & Gijón Cruz, A. S. (2018). Análisis de la economía familiar y
su impacto en el bienestar familiar en comunidades mixtecas del estado
de Oaxaca. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México y Asociación
Mexicana de Ciencias para el Desarrollo Regional A.C, Coeditores.
https://ru.iiec.unam.mx/3891/
Parsons, W. (2007). Políticas públicas: Una introducción a la teoría y la práctica
del análasis de políticas públicas. FLASCO. Mexico.
Perazzi, J. R., & Merli, G. O. (2022). Dinámica de sistemas y crecimiento
económico. https://doi.org/10.18601/01245996.v24n46.07
Popescu, O. (1962). La dinámica social de Augusto Comte. Económica, 8(31-32),
18-35. http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/8933
Rosales, V., & Leyva, D. A. (2019). El rol de la mujer en el agroecosistema y
su aporte a la producción de alimentos. Agroproductividad, 12(1), 47-53.
https://go.gale.com/ps/i?p=IFME&sw=w&issn=25940252&v=2.1&it=r
&id=GALE%7CA592664296&sid=googleScholar&linkaccess=abs
Salcedo, S., De la O, A., & Guzman, L. (2014). El concepto de agricultura familiar
en América Latina y el Caribe. En Agricultura Familiar en América Latina
y el Caribe. Recomendaciones políticas (S. Salcedo y L Gúzman (Eds),
pp. 17-34). Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación
y la Agricultura. https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/
i3788s
Samuelson, P. (2006). Economía (18° ED.). Mcgraw-hill / Interamericana de
España.
Sarandón, S. J. (2019). Potencialidades, desafíos y limitaciones de la investigación
agroecológica como un nuevo paradigma en las ciencias agrarias. Revista
de la Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, 51(1),
383-394. https://bdigital.uncu.edu.ar/objetos_digitales/13708/2019-1-
cap-27-sarandn.pdf
Valencia-Perafán, M., Coq, J. F. L., Favareto, A., Samper, M., Sáenz-Segura, F.,
& Sabourin, E. (2020). Políticas públicas para el desarrollo territorial
rural en América Latina: Balance y perspectivas. Eutopía. Revista de
Desarrollo Económico Territorial, 17, 25-40. https://doi.org/10.17141/
eutopia.17.2020.4388
Vera, O. (2009). Cómo escribir artículos de revisión. Revista médica la paz, 15(1),
63-69. http://www.scielo.org.bo/pdf/rmcmlp/v15n1/v15n1_a10.pdf
Villota, W. A. C., Vera, J. M. B., Torres, N. M. C., & Viteri, J. T. M. (2020).
Medición de la productividad en la actividad agrícola, 5, 80-90. https://
doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4725768
