The strength and appeal of a paradigm is therefore more than a mere methodological orientation. It is a way of grasping reality and giving it meaning and predictability.Campbell , well known for his outstanding contribution to the development of the experimental quantitative approach, has recently shown that, as a specialist in research methodology, he must now contribute to the development of an epistemology applied which incorporates both approaches. It is always difficult to specify with certainty the purpose for which one or the other research approach should be reserved. Some authors will argue, for example, that the qualitative approach to research is better suited to the development of knowledge,whereas quantitative research would be more appropriate to validate and generalize the knowledge acquired through qualitative research. This is the idea that Gage develops when he writes that beyond relaxation between the qualitative approach and the quantitative approach, we must rather consider a better exploitation of the results obtained by one or the other approach.

This thought by Gage suggests that educational researchers would benefit from learning from what other researchers are discovering through a different approach to theirs.For example, the “quantitative” researchers could use as a research track what the “qualitative” have noticed particular and unusual in their studies. “Quantitative”researchers should admit that an ethnologist, linguist or informed observer,hydroponic nft channel noting the emergence of a new phenomenon, provides sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this phenomenon exists .Not everything has been said about the respective merits of the qualitative approach and the quantitative approach for research in agricultural economics.Moreover, it is not certain that the qualitative method should be reserved only for heuristic activities whereas the quantitative approach should only be used to prove or demonstrate the veracity and reliability of a deduction made by an individual.qualitative observation method .Usually a pendulum movement makes one idea, having reached the limit of the possible, be replaced by another in a way equally radical. It does not seem to me that the emphasis on the quantitative approach to research should now be shifted to the qualitative approach; it would probably not be a gain for research in agricultural economics.

The time has probably come to stop building bridges.As a conclusion, one may ask whether the choice of “quantitative” and “qualitative”epithets is appropriate for all possible research approaches to economics. Anew paradigm that incorporates different approaches may be the alternative to the two paradigms that have been discussed so far .Quantitative and qualitative approach to agricultural development Starting from the Austrian economist JA Schumpeter , the first postulates that, the major role of innovations in the impulse, the setting in movement of the economy under the action of the entrepreneur is the manufacture of new products, the adoption of new processes and techniques, the use of new raw materials or the opening of new outlets that structures eventually change. According to Schumpeter it is the entrepreneur and his innovations that can break the spiral of a stationary economy and move to economic evolution. Evolution cannot come from a quantitative change, but from the qualitative transformation of the production system. The author shows that the determining factor of this evolution is innovation. This is at the heart not only of the process of growth, but also of more important structural transformations.

According to Cochrane and Gardner , in a small open economy in which producers face an infinitely elastic demand, the gains from technological change accrue entirely to producers in the form of higher profits. On the other hand, if the demand is perfectly inelastic, all the gains belong to the consumers in the form of lower prices. The distribution of welfare gains from technical change therefore depends essentially on the price elasticity of demand for the product. Since most agricultural products have an inelastic price demand,producers in general do not have much to gain from the long-run balance of technological change. Producers adopt new technologies because they reduce unit costs by increasing productivity.A common feature of all these mechanisms is their negative impact on the acquisition of physical or human capital and the adoption of modern technology.Nelson , in turn, shows that persistent underdevelopment can result from demographics. In its model, any increase in income reduces the mortality rate, which increases the population and reduces the capital stock per worker.