Page 25 - 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. 25
the integrated peasant economy as a concept in progress
behind the fragmentation of farm units laid in the expectation and oppor-
tunities offered by market oriented activities. In this respect, the existence
of (although small) local towns, boroughs (Märkte) and industrial centres,
the proximity of the (comparatively strong economies and wide markets)
of northern Italian states and first of all the Republic of Venice, as well as
the existence of consolidated long-distance commercial flows connecting
them with central-eastern European regions precisely through the Slove-
nian territory, represented a sort of promise of employment for the peas-
ant population.
This means that at a system level, non-agricultural and, more in gen-
eral, market related income sources represented an element in a more com-
plex and comprehensive economic strategy. Peasants counted on and ac-
tively, systematically used the possibility of access to other activities. This
possibility was evidently one of the aspects taken into consideration in
household planning: had it not been so, we would not have encountered so
many agriculturally self-insufficient units. A variety of non-agricultural in-
come sources allowed the rural society to structurally overcome environ-
mental, technological, and other possible constraints – and this supports
the interpretation that non-agricultural and market oriented activities
were not necessarily in a subordinated role in relation to self-consumption
agriculture. Is it then (economically) correct to speak of “additional” ac-
tivities in such circumstances? Is it acceptable to think of such “addition-
al” activities simply as a measure to overcome momentary or conjunctur-
al insufficiencies of agricultural subsistence? My answer is negative. That
is why I find it reasonable to make a fundamental shift in the perspective,
from the interpretation that market oriented and non-agricultural activi-
ties were undertaken because holdings were too small and agricultural in-
come consequently insufficient, to the acknowledgment that holdings were
small because peasants had different income sources.
The relevance of the question is not least given by the fact that similar
circumstances were not exclusive of pre-industrial rural Slovenia. In many
regions of Europe the holdings were not sufficient to provide the necessary
means of subsistence to the peasant households. This is a well-known and
widespread characteristic in many upland areas in particular, where the
population engaged in different activities apart from agriculture and ani-
mal husbandry in order to gain more income.
In fact, the system we have so far observed is very much in line with
the “overall characteristics of the Early Modern Alpine economy” that
23
behind the fragmentation of farm units laid in the expectation and oppor-
tunities offered by market oriented activities. In this respect, the existence
of (although small) local towns, boroughs (Märkte) and industrial centres,
the proximity of the (comparatively strong economies and wide markets)
of northern Italian states and first of all the Republic of Venice, as well as
the existence of consolidated long-distance commercial flows connecting
them with central-eastern European regions precisely through the Slove-
nian territory, represented a sort of promise of employment for the peas-
ant population.
This means that at a system level, non-agricultural and, more in gen-
eral, market related income sources represented an element in a more com-
plex and comprehensive economic strategy. Peasants counted on and ac-
tively, systematically used the possibility of access to other activities. This
possibility was evidently one of the aspects taken into consideration in
household planning: had it not been so, we would not have encountered so
many agriculturally self-insufficient units. A variety of non-agricultural in-
come sources allowed the rural society to structurally overcome environ-
mental, technological, and other possible constraints – and this supports
the interpretation that non-agricultural and market oriented activities
were not necessarily in a subordinated role in relation to self-consumption
agriculture. Is it then (economically) correct to speak of “additional” ac-
tivities in such circumstances? Is it acceptable to think of such “addition-
al” activities simply as a measure to overcome momentary or conjunctur-
al insufficiencies of agricultural subsistence? My answer is negative. That
is why I find it reasonable to make a fundamental shift in the perspective,
from the interpretation that market oriented and non-agricultural activi-
ties were undertaken because holdings were too small and agricultural in-
come consequently insufficient, to the acknowledgment that holdings were
small because peasants had different income sources.
The relevance of the question is not least given by the fact that similar
circumstances were not exclusive of pre-industrial rural Slovenia. In many
regions of Europe the holdings were not sufficient to provide the necessary
means of subsistence to the peasant households. This is a well-known and
widespread characteristic in many upland areas in particular, where the
population engaged in different activities apart from agriculture and ani-
mal husbandry in order to gain more income.
In fact, the system we have so far observed is very much in line with
the “overall characteristics of the Early Modern Alpine economy” that
23
