Page 28 - 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. 28
integr ated peasant economy in a compar ative perspective
3. Facing the peasant family economy, proto-industry,
pluriactivity, industriousness, and the survival commercial
economy
At this point we may compare this first definition with some other mo-
dels and interpretations of the peasant economy. In the economic histo-
rical research there is a remarkable tradition in addressing the theme of
self-sustainability of peasants. In his questioning the relationship betwe-
en self-consumption and market Maurice Aymard distinguished three di-
fferent interpretations: the recourse to the market to the minimum possi-
ble extent in Chayanov, the direct response of farms to market demands in
Labrousse, and the impasse of growth as a consequence of the reaching of
the maximum possible ratio between population and production as a re-
sult of technical inertia in Le Roy Ladurie (Aymard 1983). If compared to
Chayanov, Labrousse and Le Roy Ladurie, the solution adopted by the pe-
asant population in Slovenia, but also in the Italian Alps as we have just
seen from Coppola, appears to be still a different one: the systematic reco-
urse to various, multi-sectoral activities external to the farms in a flexi-
ble combination and a tight connection to the market. Chayanov’s “family
economy” model was also put at the base of another comprehensive theo-
ry, strongly involving peasant non-agrarian activity – that is “proto-indu-
stry” (Medick 1981, 41–4). These are good enough reasons to go briefly back
to these classics.
Comparing Chayanov’s writing with its interpretations it’s possi-
ble to notice a tendency to simplify and reduce his peasant economy to
a closed economy with very limited market relations. It is certainly true
that he wrote about the peasant “natural economy” within the feudal sys-
tem and dedicated significantly more space to the inherent logics of the
peasant family economy within agricultural production only. Nevertheless
the overall impression may be that his work is more actual than it might
seem, its somehow simplified reception resembling that of Braudel’s state-
ments about the Alps (Mathieu 2016). Although this may of course not be
the place for a wider discussion, it still makes sense to mention some of the
most apparent divergences and similarities between his Russian case and
the integrated peasant economy. As first I would point out that one of the
basic Chayanov’s assumptions, that the peasant families did not make use
of paid labour, does not fit the realities we are discussing, since the work
as wage day-labourers on larger peasant farms was relatively widespread,
representing one of the many possible income sources for small peasants,
26
3. Facing the peasant family economy, proto-industry,
pluriactivity, industriousness, and the survival commercial
economy
At this point we may compare this first definition with some other mo-
dels and interpretations of the peasant economy. In the economic histo-
rical research there is a remarkable tradition in addressing the theme of
self-sustainability of peasants. In his questioning the relationship betwe-
en self-consumption and market Maurice Aymard distinguished three di-
fferent interpretations: the recourse to the market to the minimum possi-
ble extent in Chayanov, the direct response of farms to market demands in
Labrousse, and the impasse of growth as a consequence of the reaching of
the maximum possible ratio between population and production as a re-
sult of technical inertia in Le Roy Ladurie (Aymard 1983). If compared to
Chayanov, Labrousse and Le Roy Ladurie, the solution adopted by the pe-
asant population in Slovenia, but also in the Italian Alps as we have just
seen from Coppola, appears to be still a different one: the systematic reco-
urse to various, multi-sectoral activities external to the farms in a flexi-
ble combination and a tight connection to the market. Chayanov’s “family
economy” model was also put at the base of another comprehensive theo-
ry, strongly involving peasant non-agrarian activity – that is “proto-indu-
stry” (Medick 1981, 41–4). These are good enough reasons to go briefly back
to these classics.
Comparing Chayanov’s writing with its interpretations it’s possi-
ble to notice a tendency to simplify and reduce his peasant economy to
a closed economy with very limited market relations. It is certainly true
that he wrote about the peasant “natural economy” within the feudal sys-
tem and dedicated significantly more space to the inherent logics of the
peasant family economy within agricultural production only. Nevertheless
the overall impression may be that his work is more actual than it might
seem, its somehow simplified reception resembling that of Braudel’s state-
ments about the Alps (Mathieu 2016). Although this may of course not be
the place for a wider discussion, it still makes sense to mention some of the
most apparent divergences and similarities between his Russian case and
the integrated peasant economy. As first I would point out that one of the
basic Chayanov’s assumptions, that the peasant families did not make use
of paid labour, does not fit the realities we are discussing, since the work
as wage day-labourers on larger peasant farms was relatively widespread,
representing one of the many possible income sources for small peasants,
26
