Page 30 - 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. 30
integr ated peasant economy in a compar ative perspective
In one case he was even able to quantify the time dedicated to agricul-
ture, crafts and trade by peasant families, noting how to the latter activities
more time was dedicated by peasants with a smaller amount of land (Ta-
ble 1.5).
Clear and important similarities with the integrated peasant econo-
my may be identified both in the asserted existence of income integration
from activities belonging to all three economic sectors (primary, second-
ary, and tertiary), as well as in the need to understand such income sources
as part of a “single system” to be considered as a whole and not separately.
Based on this we may notice how the basic features of the integrated peas-
ant economy are applicable to the Russian case too, at least at the beginning
of the 20th century. At the same time a major difference may be spotted in
Chayanov’s opinion that the peasant family recurring to non-agricultur-
al income sources when facing “a shortfall in agriculture incomes” and by
using its “unutilised labour” for crafts and trades. On the contrary, in the
integrated peasant economy we consider such income sources as structur-
al and fundamental. Another possible difference may be noted in the fact
that Chayanov argues how the peasant family was not interested in pursu-
ing income growth when “family’s demands” were “more completely” sat-
isfied (Chayanov 1966, 8). In fact, in Slovenia as well as in other cases pre-
sented in this volume, we may spot cases of peasant households increasing
their wellbeing and even wealth in connection with multi-sectoral activi-
ties external to the farms and in relation to the market – that is through the
integrated peasant economy.
It is now possible to make a brief comparative comment on proto-in-
dustrialisation, as well. Perhaps we may first notice how, in spite of strong-
ly based on Chayanov’s model of peasant family economy, in this case only
secondary sector activities were taken into consideration, while Chayanov
recognised the presence of all three sectors in peasant economy. The con-
cept of proto-industry itself does not appear suitable to comprise the whole
range of extra-agrarian income sources among the peasants in the south-
ern Alpine area (Slovenia, Italy), for different reasons. First of all, as we have
seen, we are not dealing with activities that belong to the industrial (sec-
ondary) sector alone. Moreover, we are not talking about activities filling
seasonal times of relative under-employment of the work force in the tra-
ditional agricultural system – this might, of course, have been the case too,
but mainly we have peasant households who engage in other activities be-
cause that was their way to make a living, given that they did not possess
28
In one case he was even able to quantify the time dedicated to agricul-
ture, crafts and trade by peasant families, noting how to the latter activities
more time was dedicated by peasants with a smaller amount of land (Ta-
ble 1.5).
Clear and important similarities with the integrated peasant econo-
my may be identified both in the asserted existence of income integration
from activities belonging to all three economic sectors (primary, second-
ary, and tertiary), as well as in the need to understand such income sources
as part of a “single system” to be considered as a whole and not separately.
Based on this we may notice how the basic features of the integrated peas-
ant economy are applicable to the Russian case too, at least at the beginning
of the 20th century. At the same time a major difference may be spotted in
Chayanov’s opinion that the peasant family recurring to non-agricultur-
al income sources when facing “a shortfall in agriculture incomes” and by
using its “unutilised labour” for crafts and trades. On the contrary, in the
integrated peasant economy we consider such income sources as structur-
al and fundamental. Another possible difference may be noted in the fact
that Chayanov argues how the peasant family was not interested in pursu-
ing income growth when “family’s demands” were “more completely” sat-
isfied (Chayanov 1966, 8). In fact, in Slovenia as well as in other cases pre-
sented in this volume, we may spot cases of peasant households increasing
their wellbeing and even wealth in connection with multi-sectoral activi-
ties external to the farms and in relation to the market – that is through the
integrated peasant economy.
It is now possible to make a brief comparative comment on proto-in-
dustrialisation, as well. Perhaps we may first notice how, in spite of strong-
ly based on Chayanov’s model of peasant family economy, in this case only
secondary sector activities were taken into consideration, while Chayanov
recognised the presence of all three sectors in peasant economy. The con-
cept of proto-industry itself does not appear suitable to comprise the whole
range of extra-agrarian income sources among the peasants in the south-
ern Alpine area (Slovenia, Italy), for different reasons. First of all, as we have
seen, we are not dealing with activities that belong to the industrial (sec-
ondary) sector alone. Moreover, we are not talking about activities filling
seasonal times of relative under-employment of the work force in the tra-
ditional agricultural system – this might, of course, have been the case too,
but mainly we have peasant households who engage in other activities be-
cause that was their way to make a living, given that they did not possess
28
