Agussabti Agussabti, Romano Romano


Interventions for agricultural development in Aceh Besar district should be based on local potential. Thus sacrifices were included in the intervention process will provide a significant added value of budget. This study aims to formulate effective intervention models in each region based on the potential of each clusters. Research has been conduct by the survey method in three clusters that have dominated the field of food crops, plantations and farms. The results showed that there were variations in the effectiveness of each intervention model in three clusters. The success of interventions in three clusters in general due to several factors, among others : (a) precision targeting, (b) the period of employment in the intervention process, (c) the budget allocated, (d) areas
of intervention, (e) the scale of intervention and (f) support stakeholders in their respective territories. For Cluster I were the dominant food crop potential, the field of interventional factors greatly affect the success of the program. Cluster II with the potential for the dominant estate, the target accuracy factor, and the scale of activities is very influential on the success of the program. For Cluster III with  dominant breeding potential, the budget amount and period factors greatly influence the success of the mentoring program. Therefore in future intervention model adapted to the local potential with a different treatment. 


Ancok, D. 2003. Social Capital and Community Quality (Modal sosial dan kualitas masyarakat, Jurnal Psikologika Vol.8, No. 15.

Cohen, D. & Prusak, L. 2001. In Good Company, Boston: Harvard Business School

Cox, E.. 1995. A Truly Civil Society. Sydney: ABC Books. Press.

Andriansari, RP. And Setiawan PR, 2011. The Direction Agroindustry Development Based on Potency of Local Resources In Trenggalek Regency, ITS Surabaya.

Ashley, C. and S. Maxwell (2001). Rethinking Rural Development. Development Policy Review 19 (4): 395–425.

Barrientos, S. and A. Kritzinger (2003). The poverty of work and social cohesion in global exports:

The case of South African fruit. In Chidester, D. (ed) Beyond Solidarity? Social Cohesion in a Globalizing World. Human Sciences Research Council and National Development and Labour

Council: South Africa.

Binswanger, H.P. (1986). Agricultural mechanisation: a comparative historical perspective. The

World Bank Research Observer 1: 27–56.

Block, S. and P. Timmer (1994). Agriculture and economic growth: conceptual issues and the Kenyan

experience. Harvard Institute for International Development: Cambridge, MA, USA.

Bourguignon, F. and C. Morrisson (1998). Inequality and development: the role of dualism. Journal of Development Economics 5: 233-257

Chenery, H. and M. Syrquin (1975) Patterns of development 1950–1970. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK. [not in text]

de Janvry, A. and E. Sadoulet (1996) Growth, inequality and poverty in Latin America: a causal analysis, 1970–94. Working Paper no. 784, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California at Berkeley, California, USA.

Delgado, C., J. Hopkins and V. Kelly (1998) Agricultural growth linkages in sub-Saharan Africa. IFPRI Research Report 107. International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington DC, USA.

Dorward, A. and J. Kydd (2003) Implications of market and coordination failures for rural development in least developed countries. Paper presented at the Development Studies Association Annual Conference, Strathclyde University, Glasgow, 10–12 September 2003.

Dorward, A., J. Kydd, J. Morrison and I. Urey (2004) A policy agenda for pro-poor agricultural growth. World Development 32 (1): 73–89.


  • There are currently no refbacks.