Peasant economics is an area of economics in which a wide variety of economic approaches ranging from the neoclassical to the marxist are used to examine the political economy of the peasantry. The defining feature of the peasants are that they are typically seen to be only partly integrated into the market economy -— an economy which, in societies with a significant peasant population, is typically found to have many imperfect, incomplete or missing markets. Peasant economics treats peasants as something different from other farmers as they are not assumed to be simply small profit maximizing farmers; by contrast, peasant economics covers a wide range of different theories of peasant household behavior. These include various assumptions about the maximization of profits, risk aversion, drudgery aversion, and sharecropping. The assumptions, logic, and predictions of these theories are examined and the impact of subsistence is typically found to have important implications in terms of producers decisions about supply, consumption and price. Chayanov was an early proponent of the importance of understanding peasant behaviour arguing that peasants would work as hard as they needed in order to meet their subsistence needs, but had no incentive beyond those needs and therefore would slow and stop working once they were met. This principle, the consumption-labour-balance principle, implies that the peasant household will increase its work until it meets (balances) the needs (consumption) of the household. A possible implication of this view of peasant societies is that they will not develop without some external, added factor. Peasant economics has been seen as being an important area of study by some development economists, agricultural sociologists, and anthropologists.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
The economist George Dalton, through surveying agrarian peasant economies in areas of West Africa, suggests that in societies where peasant economics is the predominant form of production, those societies generally consist of a community of family units. Dalton defines this community as "a circle of people who live together… so that they share not this or that particular interest, but a whole set of interests wide enough and comprehensive enough to include their lives."[8] These communities largely produce for their own subsistence, as opposed to producing for markets. The production processes that occur in these societies center around this subsistence, and the organization of this society into a communal form of production. As Dalton writes of African peasant communities, unemployment and economic depression are not the main issues. Instead, these societies primarily have to contend with issues within the environment, like the weather and plant diseases.[8] Peasants are also less likely to be specialists in a particular area of production and will spend time across the year doing a wide range of productive activities. Dalton also argued that peasant societies based their economic production much more on cultural and religious tradition, as opposed to purely environmental conditions. He based this on a study of neighboring African peasant societies which had very different cultural practices and social structures. They would have extremely similar environmental conditions and yet would have very different economies, which he argued demonstrated that social structure and culture were the primary determining factors of the economic activity of peasant societies.[8] Dalton also argued that this is demonstrated in the distribution of the factors of production in peasant societies. Unlike market economies where land, labour, and materials are purchased, in African peasant societies "land for homesteads and farms is acquired through tribal affiliation or kinship right."[8] Alongside this, Dalton suggests that much of the organization of work would occur through social relationships within the community, such as "kinship and friendship reciprocity." He concludes that this largely social and cultural organization of production is due to relative absence of the pressure of market economies to reduce costs and maximize profits, which would "enforce economizing decisions on local producers." Dalton also argues that peasant societies were generally based on a socially guaranteed subsistence, with reciprocal gifts of produce, materials and livestock based on tribal and social relationships.[8] These gifts would exchange between members of a particular tribe and would also involve tribute to the chief of the tribe, who would act as a steward of the society, and would maintain a retinue of warriors. These chiefs would also resolve conflicts between tribe members and provide emergency resources. The chief could also call upon members of the tribe to perform labour in service to them, like constructing their huts.[8]
Soviet economist Alexander Chayanov argues that peasant economics is centered around the agricultural production of a family unit on a plot of land, known as a peasant holding. Through the direct labour of these family units on their plots, peasant holdings will produce a certain amount of goods either for their own consumption or in order to exchange them for necessary goods at local markets. Peasant holdings largely existed under feudalserfdom, which is characterized by the ownership of peasants and their land by a feudal lord, who would guarantee them their holdings and protection, while taking a proportion of the goods they produced. Soviet economist Chayanov argues that the peasant holdings did not operate in order to maximize their profits like a business would in a capitalist economy, but instead would seek to maintain an "equilibrium between family demand satisfaction and the drudgery of labour itself."[9] This 'family demand satisfaction' is defined by Chayanov as the ability to "live and reproduce."[9] According to Chayanov, this economic equilibrium would be determined by how large the family unit is, how much land they possess, their geographic location, their distance to local markets, the local economic factors of these markets, and the intensity of labour that is required to produce certain goods.[9] For instance, Chayanov describes how some peasant holdings in northwest Russia in the early twentieth century had large family units but had little land in their holdings. In order to produce enough goods to meet their needs, they began to farm potatoes and hemp, "Which are often of lower profitability… but are more labour-intensive and thereby increase the farm family's gross product."[9] Peasant holdings, while having to pay rent to their serfs, had control over the plots which they farmed, which meant that they could adjust what crops they farmed and how they generated their subsistence in order to maintain this economic equilibrium. An aspect of this subsistence-based economics was that the peasant holding did not seek to constantly expand itself (known as expanded reproduction), but just to meet the immediate requirements of its family unit (known as simple reproduction).[10]
European Feudalism
In the early medieval period within Europe (around 1000 CE), the majority of land was controlled by warring baronies. These baronies had self-contained economies, and peasants were serfs beneath their lord. This meant that they could not leave their lord's service, or their land. All goods were produced directly within the barony by the peasants, with their lords taking a levy of at least two-fifths from their produce.[11]
Gradually, new production methods such as the heavy wheeled plough, using cattle to fertilise land, harnessing horses rather than oxen, and the water mill saw a doubling in peasant food production by around 1300 CE. (Harman, 142-143) Harman suggests that the development of these new production techniques was a byproduct of serfdom, where peasants who owned an agricultural holding were incentivised to increase their food production to increase their own wealth, and lords would take a greater share from their levy. This extra food could be exchanged for imported or crafted goods at marketplaces within towns. This led to a general increase in wealth, particularly for feudal lords.[11]
However, later during the 1300s CE, famines and plagues began to spread across Europe. Widespread malnutrition of the peasantry meant that half the population was wiped out. George Dubys suggests that a cause of this crisis was the inability for the grain-centred agriculture of feudal Europe to keep up with the rising living standards of the feudal nobility and the urban townships.[12] Harman further suggests that this was compounded by little investment in agriculture by the feudal lords, who spent the majority of their wealth funding luxury goods and wars.[11]
By around 1400 CE, the population of Europe began to gradually recover. Towns increased in importance, as rural food production on fertile land was linked to market networks. Merchants who were able to trade between Europe and India, South-East Asia, and China gained a large amount of wealth.[11] This led to a new "putting-out" system of peasant agriculture, where merchants in towns would provide peasants with raw materials in exchange for their products.
Karl Marx describes how serfdom began to disappear in England by the end of the 14th century. Feudal agriculture was "characterised by division of the soil amongst the greatest possible number of subfeudatories."[13] These "subfeudatories" were typically large estates who would hire peasants to work for wages on their large estates, as well as allocating them small plots of "4 or more acres," and "common land" which could be used collectively by all the peasants of an estate. However, Marx writes that new textile industries overseas created an increase in the price of English wool. This led to land enclosures, where land which was once owned by peasants for their own agriculture was fenced-off and used for pastures. This culminated in the "Acts For Enclosures of the Commons," where large estate owners would grant themselves ownership of common land through parliamentary decree. These enclosures took from peasants the land which was previously their subsistence. This led to a massive displacement of the population, which would later become concentrated into an industrial working class. This is seen by Marx as the shift from feudalism into capitalism.
Peasants as Moral or Rational Economic Agents
Samuel Popkin defines a 'moral economic' approach to the political economy of peasants as one which "focuses on the relation between economic and social institutions".[14] In the context of the peasantry in Vietnam, moral economists argue that Confucian and Vietnamese cultural values underpin peasant society, and that this ultimately was the source of the resistance to French colonial rule.[14] The general assumptions of moral economists is that peasants are "anti-market, prefer common property to private, and dislike buying and selling".[14] On the other hand, Popkin argues that these assumptions are not fixed, and are generally dependent on individual assessments of risk and reward amongst different peasants in different contexts.[14]
Pierre Brocheux argues that a 'moral economy' in relation to peasants is one where the state and the peasantry form a contract which involves mutual and reciprocal obligations. Such as redistributing land from large landholders, reforming tax so that it is equitable, and a stimulation of agricultural production. However, Brocheux argues that in the Vietnamese peasant uprisings of the 1930s, this conflicted with the tendency of peasants to fall back into less productive family plots and peasant culture, rather than more productive collectivised agriculture.[15] As such, Brocheux disagrees with Popkin that peasants are necessarily individualistic and rational economic agents, but that they are both rational and moral economic agents, and can have a tendency to "remain attached to the social order with which they are familiar".[15]
Peasants as an Economic Class
An economic class (according to the Marxist definition) has a shared relationship to the means of production.[16] By this definition, peasants are an economic class that shares the relationship of serfdom. Serfdom is characterised by subsistence agriculture on a holding of land, a share of which is taken by a serf, who has legal ownership of the land.
However, as Nirmul Kumar Chandra suggests, peasants are often stratified by their wealth and amount of land they possessed, as was the case in Russia up to and during the Soviet Union. The richer peasants had more power then the poorer peasants in determining how collective land was shared, and were often taxed a greater share of their output than the richer peasants. Further, the richer peasants were less interested in collectivising their land into an agricultural commune, since they would lose a greater proportion of their wealth as it became shared between all peasants.[17]
Related Research Articles
In economics, factors of production, resources, or inputs are what is used in the production process to produce output—that is, goods and services. The utilized amounts of the various inputs determine the quantity of output according to the relationship called the production function. There are four basic resources or factors of production: land, labour, capital and entrepreneur. The factors are also frequently labeled "producer goods or services" to distinguish them from the goods or services purchased by consumers, which are frequently labeled "consumer goods".
A peasant is a pre-industrial agricultural laborer or a farmer with limited land-ownership, especially one living in the Middle Ages under feudalism and paying rent, tax, fees, or services to a landlord. In Europe, three classes of peasants existed: non-free slaves, semi-free serfs, and free tenants. Peasants might hold title to land outright, or by any of several forms of land tenure, among them socage, quit-rent, leasehold, and copyhold.
Economic anthropology is a field that attempts to explain human economic behavior in its widest historic, geographic and cultural scope. It is an amalgamation of economics and anthropology. It is practiced by anthropologists and has a complex relationship with the discipline of economics, of which it is highly critical. Its origins as a sub-field of anthropology began with work by the Polish founder of anthropology Bronislaw Malinowski and the French Marcel Mauss on the nature of reciprocity as an alternative to market exchange. For the most part, studies in economic anthropology focus on exchange.
Rebellion is a violent uprising against one's government. A rebel is a person who engages in a rebellion. A rebel group is a consciously coordinated group that seeks to gain political control over an entire state or a portion of a state.
Folwark is a Polish word for a primarily serfdom-based farm and agricultural enterprise, often very large.
Alexander Vasilyevich Chayanov was a Russian, then Soviet agrarian economist, scholar of rural sociology, and advocate of agrarianism and cooperatives.
Surplus product is a concept theorised by Karl Marx in his critique of political economy. Roughly speaking, it is the extra goods produced above the amount needed for a community of workers to survive at its current standard of living. Marx first began to work out his idea of surplus product in his 1844 notes on James Mill's Elements of political economy.
Productive and unproductive labour are concepts that were used in classical political economy mainly in the 18th and 19th centuries, which survive today to some extent in modern management discussions, economic sociology and Marxist or Marxian economic analysis. The concepts strongly influenced the construction of national accounts in the Soviet Union and other Soviet-type societies.
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, and their operation for profit. Other characteristics include free trade, capital accumulation, voluntary exchange, wage labor, etc. Its emergence, evolution, and spread are the subjects of extensive research and debate. Debates sometimes focus on how to bring substantive historical data to bear on key questions. Key parameters of debate include: the extent to which capitalism is natural, versus the extent to which it arises from specific historical circumstances; whether its origins lie in towns and trade or in rural property relations; the role of class conflict; the role of the state; the extent to which capitalism is a distinctively European innovation; its relationship with European imperialism; whether technological change is a driver or merely a secondary byproduct of capitalism; and whether or not it is the most beneficial way to organize human societies.
The history of economic thought is the study of the philosophies of the different thinkers and theories in the subjects that later became political economy and economics, from the ancient world to the present day.
The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to economics:
Rural economics is the study of rural economies. Rural economies include both agricultural and non-agricultural industries, so rural economics has broader concerns than agricultural economics which focus more on food systems. Rural development and finance attempt to solve larger challenges within rural economics. These economic issues are often connected to the migration from rural areas due to lack of economic activities and rural poverty. Some interventions have been very successful in some parts of the world, with rural electrification and rural tourism providing anchors for transforming economies in some rural areas. These challenges often create rural-urban income disparities.
The Origin of Capitalism is a 1999 book on history and political economy, specifically the history of capitalism, by the political theorist Ellen Meiksins Wood, written from the perspective of political Marxism. It was reviewed as an "Outstanding Academic Book" by Michael Perelman.
The Tableau économique or Economic Table is an economic model first described by French economist François Quesnay in 1758, which laid the foundation of the physiocratic school of economics.
Spheres of exchange is a heuristic tool for analyzing trading restrictions within societies that are communally governed and where resources are communally available. Goods and services of specific types are relegated to distinct value categories, and moral sanctions are invoked to prevent exchange between spheres. It is a classic topic in economic anthropology.
Throughout modern history, a variety of perspectives on capitalism have evolved based on different schools of thought.
Political economy in anthropology is the application of the theories and methods of historical materialism to the traditional concerns of anthropology, including but not limited to non-capitalist societies. Political economy introduced questions of history and colonialism to ahistorical anthropological theories of social structure and culture. Most anthropologists moved away from modes of production analysis typical of structural Marxism, and focused instead on the complex historical relations of class, culture and hegemony in regions undergoing complex colonial and capitalist transitions in the emerging world system.
Serfdom has a long history that dates to ancient times.
Marxian economics, or the Marxian school of economics, is a heterodox school of political economic thought. Its foundations can be traced back to Karl Marx's critique of political economy. However, unlike critics of political economy, Marxian economists tend to accept the concept of the economy prima facie. Marxian economics comprises several different theories and includes multiple schools of thought, which are sometimes opposed to each other; in many cases Marxian analysis is used to complement, or to supplement, other economic approaches. Because one does not necessarily have to be politically Marxist to be economically Marxian, the two adjectives coexist in usage, rather than being synonymous: They share a semantic field, while also allowing both connotative and denotative differences. An example of this can be found in the works of Soviet economists like Lev Gatovsky, who sought to apply Marxist economic theory to the objectives, needs, and political conditions of the socialist construction in the Soviet Union, contributing to the developmment of Soviet Political Economy.
The Rational Peasant: The Political Economy of Rural Society in Vietnam is a non-fiction book by University of California, San Diego political scientist Samuel L. Popkin. Originally conceived to be a reflection on the Vietnam Revolution, the book introduces the term "political economy" as a new theory of peasant behavior. Popkin surveys the precolonial, colonial, and revolutionary history of Vietnam seeking to understand the impact of outside shocks on peasant communities, and ultimately what led them to rebel.
References
↑ Ellis, Frank (1988) Peasant Economics: Farm Households and Agrarian Development. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press
↑ Taussig, M. (1978) Peasant Economics and the Development of Capitalist Agriculture in the Cauca Valley, Colombia, Latin American Perspectives , Vol. 5, No. 3, Peasants, Capital Accumulation and Rural Underdevelopment, Summer, pp. 62-91
↑ Dalton, George (1971) Traditional tribal and peasant economies: An introductory survey of economic anthropology, Addison-Wesley
↑ Durrenberger, E. Paul (1980) Chayanov's Economic Analysis in Anthropology, Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 36, No. 2, Summer, pp. 133-148
↑ Halstead, P. and J. O'Shea, eds.(1989) Bad year economics: cultural responses to risk and uncertainty, Cambridge
↑ Chayanov, A. V., In Thorner, D., Kerblay, B. H., In Smith, R. E. F., & American Economic Association. (1966). The theory of peasant economy. Homewood, Ill: Published for the American Economic Association, by R.D. Irwin.
↑ de Janvry, A., M. Fafchamps, and E. Sadoulet. (1991) Peasant Household Behaviour with Missing Markets: Some Paradoxes Explained. Economic Journal 101(409):1400–17
1 2 3 4 Chayanov, Alexander V. (1966). "On The Theory Of Non-Capitalist Economic Systems". In Thorner, Kerblay & Smith (ed.). The Theory of Peasant Economy. Clásicos y Contemporáneos en Antropología. pp.1–28.
↑ Bernstein, Henry (2009). "V.I. Lenin and A.V. Chayanov: looking back, looking forward". The Journal of Peasant Studies. 36 (1): 61.
1 2 3 4 Harman, Chris (2017). A People's History of the World: From the Stone Age to the New Millenium. United Kingdom: Verso Books. pp.140–156.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
