Page 127 - 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. 127
the importance of commons in an integrated peasant economy ...
steads located in the infields to denser villages located in the transition
from arable land to outlying land (Ersgård 1997). In the wooded areas, the
abandoned settlements were replaced by many periodic settlements, sum-
mer farms. Arable land around former farmsteads was replaced by mead-
ows and grazing land (Lange 1996; J. Larsson 2009, 2012). The more popu-
lated villages facilitated cooperation among households and became arenas
for social and economic collaborations in agriculture, animal husbandry,
and secondary occupations (Ersgård 1997; Larsson 2009).
As discussed earlier, a larger proportion of resources for households
came from CPRs during the 17th century compared to before. Thus, the
households’ dependence on arable land decreased and it became easier to
divide the farms without losing economic viability. The forests’ instrumen-
tal role in the rapid farm division and expansion of the economy was not
unique to central Sweden. Lars-Olof Larsson (1989) has shown that the na-
tional and international demands for commodities from the Småland re-
gion in southern Sweden were dependent on forest products. Charcoal for
ironworks, potash for making detergent and glass, and tar, pitch, mast tree,
and oak timber for vessels were most important. Larsson points out that
the period from 1500 to 1750 saw some new farmsteads, but was mainly
characterised by rapid farm division, most pronounced in Småland’s for-
est areas after 1600. This development was spurred by forestry’s larger role
in the peasant economy.
L.-O. Larsson (1983) argues that agriculture production from the 1550s
to the 1620s kept pace with farm division according to a study of three re-
gions in southeastern Sweden and that farm division was more common on
the plains than in the forest regions. The rest of the 17th century saw a shift
to more farm division in forest regions than on the plains. The farm divi-
sion in the forest region was faster than the increase of agricultural produc-
tion and is explained by the fact that forest products gained a larger share in
the peasant economy. The farm division continued between 1700 and 1750
but at a slower pace. Larsson stresses that it is almost impossible to mea-
sure forest production’s direct impact on the peasant household economy
during the 17th century, but his impression is that income from forest pro-
duction compensated losses in decreased agriculture production. An argu-
ment for that is that farm division did not lead to pauperisation.
In the three regions L.-O. Larsson (1983) examined, the number of
farms increased 55% on average from 1627 to 1750, mostly by farm division.
However, the differences between the areas are huge, and while the num-
125
steads located in the infields to denser villages located in the transition
from arable land to outlying land (Ersgård 1997). In the wooded areas, the
abandoned settlements were replaced by many periodic settlements, sum-
mer farms. Arable land around former farmsteads was replaced by mead-
ows and grazing land (Lange 1996; J. Larsson 2009, 2012). The more popu-
lated villages facilitated cooperation among households and became arenas
for social and economic collaborations in agriculture, animal husbandry,
and secondary occupations (Ersgård 1997; Larsson 2009).
As discussed earlier, a larger proportion of resources for households
came from CPRs during the 17th century compared to before. Thus, the
households’ dependence on arable land decreased and it became easier to
divide the farms without losing economic viability. The forests’ instrumen-
tal role in the rapid farm division and expansion of the economy was not
unique to central Sweden. Lars-Olof Larsson (1989) has shown that the na-
tional and international demands for commodities from the Småland re-
gion in southern Sweden were dependent on forest products. Charcoal for
ironworks, potash for making detergent and glass, and tar, pitch, mast tree,
and oak timber for vessels were most important. Larsson points out that
the period from 1500 to 1750 saw some new farmsteads, but was mainly
characterised by rapid farm division, most pronounced in Småland’s for-
est areas after 1600. This development was spurred by forestry’s larger role
in the peasant economy.
L.-O. Larsson (1983) argues that agriculture production from the 1550s
to the 1620s kept pace with farm division according to a study of three re-
gions in southeastern Sweden and that farm division was more common on
the plains than in the forest regions. The rest of the 17th century saw a shift
to more farm division in forest regions than on the plains. The farm divi-
sion in the forest region was faster than the increase of agricultural produc-
tion and is explained by the fact that forest products gained a larger share in
the peasant economy. The farm division continued between 1700 and 1750
but at a slower pace. Larsson stresses that it is almost impossible to mea-
sure forest production’s direct impact on the peasant household economy
during the 17th century, but his impression is that income from forest pro-
duction compensated losses in decreased agriculture production. An argu-
ment for that is that farm division did not lead to pauperisation.
In the three regions L.-O. Larsson (1983) examined, the number of
farms increased 55% on average from 1627 to 1750, mostly by farm division.
However, the differences between the areas are huge, and while the num-
125
