AGRO-COMMERCIAL CAPITAL IN SOUTH INDIA 43 and private sector industrial activity, commerce or for reinvestment in agricultural production* "Rural development" both provokes and co-exists with non-roral development. In the eyes of the IBRD, the "rural"is virtually congruent with the "commercial agricultural". It is clear that the relationship between the system of marketing and those of agricultural and non-agricultural production may be very varied, may change through time and would interact with the equally varied nature of intervention (both in production and in exchange) by the State. The directions, extent and pace of the process of transfer an4 changing control of physical and financial resources may take many forms. This actual variety presents an obvious challenge to the commonly articulated need of bi-lateral and multilateral resource donors and of the social science which supports them for models of/guidelines to/and strategies for "rural development".2 Three Views of the Merchant Sector Indian research both on th.e merchant sector ^nd on the economic role of the agricultural marketing system testifies to thi? variety, if not coafusion. Its empirical richness belies an analytical sterility. Teritatively, this literature may be classified under three broad headings useful for pur disoussipn: i) studies presenting an interpretation of traders as entrepreneurs and as agents of rural* development; ii) interpretations of merchants as powerless agents of stagnation; iii) interpretations of merchants as powerful agents of underdeve^lopment. Studies of the first type are characteristic of American business and management experts.3 They define entrepreneurs as those bringing together resources in new and profitable combinations a^nd as "exploiters of discrepancies in economic systems". Stress t^ placed on the ability of traders .to engage in such entrepreneurial activities as; the distribution of new commodities^ the mobilization of such scarce resources as money for credit trading, the provision of employment, and the introduction of flexibilitypin organizational innovation (such as partnerships ^nd part fcime^ diversified and/or mobile trade)* Towns aye aggregates of entrepreneurs—growth centres from which ripples of wealth spread over the countryside.4 3uch research is implicitly comparative: private trade is a more active agent of cha^ag^ than is the State equivalent. Furthermore mwy of the h^isic proppsi" tions are 'ideologiic^F, ignoring»fer example evidence tipt traders may be selected p^aively for trade by the sales representative^ of industrial or distributive firms, tha^, money mobilized for tr^fcde