Page 10 - Panjek, Aleksander, Jesper Larsson and Luca Mocarelli, eds. 2017. Integrated Peasant Economy in a Comparative Perspective: Alps, Scandinavia and Beyond. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 10
integr ated peasant economy in a compar ative perspective
lacked. Additional income sources spurred farm division since it was possi-
ble to manage the household economy even on a farm with a small amount
of arable land. Hence, many upland areas saw a large increase in popula-
tion, not reflected in increased agricultural production.
It is not a new insight that peasants combined different income sourc-
es, but earlier concepts used to analyse their activities have had shortcom-
ings. For example, in the proto-industrialisation concept rural activities are
limited to activities that preceded industrialisation by linking rural pre-in-
dustrial developments to the industrialisation process. Proto-industry
takes into account only manufacturing activities, omitting activities that
did not lead into industrialisation. In this book, Mats Morell points out that
proto-industry has an evolutionary touch and pre-industrial rural societies
have been analysed on the merits of what they turned into and not on their
own merits. Many regions that developed proto-industrial activities never
industrialised and hence these regions are left out of the analysis. Integrat-
ed peasant economy lacks this evolutionary bias and includes all market
activities the peasants were involved in. Thus, making it possible to build
coherent knowledge about peasant’s activities since IPE includes activities
that led to industrialisation as well as activities that did not.
The proto-industrialisation concept to analyse peasant economy had a
top-down approach where merchant capitalists used peasants for craft pro-
duction, thereby they became part of a market oriented production. In con-
trast, IPE emphasises a bottom-up process, where peasants had agency and
took decisions about their own economy and how to expand it outside ag-
riculture. These decisions had to be based on local and regional variables,
such as natural setting and the attribute of the community. Hence, peas-
ants developed locally their own mix of activities that made up their total
household economy and could result in large differences in economic ac-
tivities between geographical areas quite close to each other. Even within
small distances local specialisation took different trajectories and contrib-
uted to vibrant regional markets connected to national and international
markets. However, there are at least two features that unifies these socie-
ties; their need for cash to buy grain and other consumption and that peas-
ants had a huge amount of time available outside agriculture. To under-
stand how an integrated peasant economy developed, one has to investigate
the local circumstances. A first step in our quest to understanding the peas-
ant’s integrated economy is to do case studies. Together these case studies
build a foundation for comparative analysis. In this book, most examples
8
lacked. Additional income sources spurred farm division since it was possi-
ble to manage the household economy even on a farm with a small amount
of arable land. Hence, many upland areas saw a large increase in popula-
tion, not reflected in increased agricultural production.
It is not a new insight that peasants combined different income sourc-
es, but earlier concepts used to analyse their activities have had shortcom-
ings. For example, in the proto-industrialisation concept rural activities are
limited to activities that preceded industrialisation by linking rural pre-in-
dustrial developments to the industrialisation process. Proto-industry
takes into account only manufacturing activities, omitting activities that
did not lead into industrialisation. In this book, Mats Morell points out that
proto-industry has an evolutionary touch and pre-industrial rural societies
have been analysed on the merits of what they turned into and not on their
own merits. Many regions that developed proto-industrial activities never
industrialised and hence these regions are left out of the analysis. Integrat-
ed peasant economy lacks this evolutionary bias and includes all market
activities the peasants were involved in. Thus, making it possible to build
coherent knowledge about peasant’s activities since IPE includes activities
that led to industrialisation as well as activities that did not.
The proto-industrialisation concept to analyse peasant economy had a
top-down approach where merchant capitalists used peasants for craft pro-
duction, thereby they became part of a market oriented production. In con-
trast, IPE emphasises a bottom-up process, where peasants had agency and
took decisions about their own economy and how to expand it outside ag-
riculture. These decisions had to be based on local and regional variables,
such as natural setting and the attribute of the community. Hence, peas-
ants developed locally their own mix of activities that made up their total
household economy and could result in large differences in economic ac-
tivities between geographical areas quite close to each other. Even within
small distances local specialisation took different trajectories and contrib-
uted to vibrant regional markets connected to national and international
markets. However, there are at least two features that unifies these socie-
ties; their need for cash to buy grain and other consumption and that peas-
ants had a huge amount of time available outside agriculture. To under-
stand how an integrated peasant economy developed, one has to investigate
the local circumstances. A first step in our quest to understanding the peas-
ant’s integrated economy is to do case studies. Together these case studies
build a foundation for comparative analysis. In this book, most examples
8
