Page 31 - 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. 31
the integrated peasant economy as a concept in progress
enough land to cover all of their needs, and that makes quite a difference.
Finally, we are not discussing a form of organisation of production that
would have (necessarily) led the way to industrialisation or modern eco-
nomic development – although we’ll come back to this question. This said,
the work in proto-industrial forms of production organisation (domestic
and putting-out system, Kauf- and Verlagssystem) itself is not in contradic-
tion with the integrated peasant economy and is included among the possi-
ble income sources within the system (see Table 1.4).
Another step in time will help us come to an even closer understand-
ing of the integrated economy concept. A widely used term to describe
peasant income integration patterns is “pluriactivity,” and in Italian schol-
arship – yet again – we may find in depth and convincing discussions of
this theme, as well as by French scholars. The term dates back to the 80s
of the 20th century. It originated in French historiography with its use by
Philippe Lacombe in 1981 (Villani 1989, 13) and at the end of that decade
Jean-Luc Mayaud would already affirm that “by now there is no more need
to demonstrate the existence of pluriactivity in the agricultural families of
the past centuries” (Mayaud 1989, 23).
Pasquale Villani’s and Luciano Cafagna’s criticism towards “proto-in-
dustrialisation” and their stressing the differences brought by research on
pluriactivity instead, closely resemble what we mentioned above, as well as
the very perspective of the integrated peasant economy in placing the peas-
ant economy at the centre of observation.
The point of view [of proto-industry] remained essentially that of
the formation of an industrial basis. The problems of rural socie-
ty were addressed, when they were, only incidentally […]. In any
case it limited to considering only the relationship toward second-
ary activities. Pluriactivity, instead, starts exactly from the analysis
of rural society and widens to considering the whole spectre of jobs
and professions that in a varied way and at different occasions and
times were and are practiced by the inhabitants of rural areas (Vil-
lani 1989, 14).
The viewpoint of research on pluriactivity wants to be wider than
that of research on proto-industrialisation. Its goal is not to identify
the factors of development/decline of industrialisation, but the un-
derstanding of the ways of survival and of the opportunities of in-
clusion of agrarian family units facing social change. The results of
such research may well give a ‘return’ as far as a better knowledge
29
enough land to cover all of their needs, and that makes quite a difference.
Finally, we are not discussing a form of organisation of production that
would have (necessarily) led the way to industrialisation or modern eco-
nomic development – although we’ll come back to this question. This said,
the work in proto-industrial forms of production organisation (domestic
and putting-out system, Kauf- and Verlagssystem) itself is not in contradic-
tion with the integrated peasant economy and is included among the possi-
ble income sources within the system (see Table 1.4).
Another step in time will help us come to an even closer understand-
ing of the integrated economy concept. A widely used term to describe
peasant income integration patterns is “pluriactivity,” and in Italian schol-
arship – yet again – we may find in depth and convincing discussions of
this theme, as well as by French scholars. The term dates back to the 80s
of the 20th century. It originated in French historiography with its use by
Philippe Lacombe in 1981 (Villani 1989, 13) and at the end of that decade
Jean-Luc Mayaud would already affirm that “by now there is no more need
to demonstrate the existence of pluriactivity in the agricultural families of
the past centuries” (Mayaud 1989, 23).
Pasquale Villani’s and Luciano Cafagna’s criticism towards “proto-in-
dustrialisation” and their stressing the differences brought by research on
pluriactivity instead, closely resemble what we mentioned above, as well as
the very perspective of the integrated peasant economy in placing the peas-
ant economy at the centre of observation.
The point of view [of proto-industry] remained essentially that of
the formation of an industrial basis. The problems of rural socie-
ty were addressed, when they were, only incidentally […]. In any
case it limited to considering only the relationship toward second-
ary activities. Pluriactivity, instead, starts exactly from the analysis
of rural society and widens to considering the whole spectre of jobs
and professions that in a varied way and at different occasions and
times were and are practiced by the inhabitants of rural areas (Vil-
lani 1989, 14).
The viewpoint of research on pluriactivity wants to be wider than
that of research on proto-industrialisation. Its goal is not to identify
the factors of development/decline of industrialisation, but the un-
derstanding of the ways of survival and of the opportunities of in-
clusion of agrarian family units facing social change. The results of
such research may well give a ‘return’ as far as a better knowledge
29
