It comes down to what you want the agriculture for. The US uses its agriculture as a weapon. We give and we taketh away, hedgerow to hedgerow. Thus, we've had ferocious incentive to grow as much food as we can so we can use it for soft power leverage. There's no reason why an agrarian society can't stay agrarian, why a self-sufficient village can't stay self-sufficient. However, you almost have to avoid globalism entirely because the World Bank will totally help you plant your crops with just a cute little loan but you should do it this way and then think of all the money you can spend on schools! and now just another little loan and we'll get that irrigation project up and running and now we own you.

So if you want a country competing with the big boys to subsistence farm, you need heavy protections for workers. At least, that's my read on the situation. If you want to be Bhutan, things are a little easier. The basic problem is capital accumulation keeps mildly unsuccessful farmers impoverished and makes mildly successful businessmen wealthy enough to buy and sell their friends. And if you don't strive to protect the former from the latter, that's just what they'll do.