Page 32 - 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. 32
integr ated peasant economy in a compar ative perspective
of the whole industrialisation process is concerned, but they are
not directly and purposely connected with such knowledge (Cafag-
na 1989, 79).
There is another fundamental similarity between the concepts of in-
tegrated peasant economy and pluriactivity, although perhaps more so in
the way it was understood by Italian scholars contrary to the French col-
leagues: “The very definition of pluriactivity in the rigorous French accep-
tation of a second, necessarily extra-agricultural activity appeared in some
cases insufficient to account for the ‘multi-professionality’ or the precari-
ousness of labour among the inhabitants of Italian rural areas.” In discuss-
ing the Italian reality in the 18th and 19th centuries, Cafagna was particular-
ly firm in sustaining that peasant “integration choices” encompassed also
primary sector activities, like those related to silk production, and that they
had to be considered as cases of pluriactivity, too: in doing so he included
short term sharecropping tenancies as fitting into the system. In his opin-
ion discussing this would be “pedantic,” since they “surely are an ‘addition’
of activity and income” (Cafagna 1989, 80–1). This opinion is shared by Gio-
vanni Federico as well, who – while addressing different Italian regions in
different periods of the 20th century – proposed “four elements of consid-
eration” on pluriactivity, which closely recall some of the features of, and
theses on the integrated peasant economy, as follows (here we quote three
of them only).
a) The work outside the farm is not necessarily a residual activity for
the idle times of agriculture. It’s possible, instead, that at a certain
moment it turns out to be more remunerative […].
b) The family’s working power is in principle undividable based on the
kind of occupation. That’s why – contrary to the definition of pluri-
activity by Hubscher9 – it includes agricultural work (both from
pure wage and from owned capital). […]
c) The existence of “exceeding” manpower in respect of the “necessi-
ties” of the farm, often called upon (especially in an overpopulat-
ed land like Italy) as a cause of pluriactivity, depends in the first
place on the choices regarding cultivation and technics (the “surviv-
al tactic” of the family). They were not given ‘a priori’: it was pos-
sible to change them in order to adjust labour demand and offer–
if considered as appropriate. [Very short, short or medium-long
term] changes were possible. The persistence of a disproportion in
9 Ronald Hubscher elaborated the ‚French‘ definition of pluriactivity, Villani 1989.
30
of the whole industrialisation process is concerned, but they are
not directly and purposely connected with such knowledge (Cafag-
na 1989, 79).
There is another fundamental similarity between the concepts of in-
tegrated peasant economy and pluriactivity, although perhaps more so in
the way it was understood by Italian scholars contrary to the French col-
leagues: “The very definition of pluriactivity in the rigorous French accep-
tation of a second, necessarily extra-agricultural activity appeared in some
cases insufficient to account for the ‘multi-professionality’ or the precari-
ousness of labour among the inhabitants of Italian rural areas.” In discuss-
ing the Italian reality in the 18th and 19th centuries, Cafagna was particular-
ly firm in sustaining that peasant “integration choices” encompassed also
primary sector activities, like those related to silk production, and that they
had to be considered as cases of pluriactivity, too: in doing so he included
short term sharecropping tenancies as fitting into the system. In his opin-
ion discussing this would be “pedantic,” since they “surely are an ‘addition’
of activity and income” (Cafagna 1989, 80–1). This opinion is shared by Gio-
vanni Federico as well, who – while addressing different Italian regions in
different periods of the 20th century – proposed “four elements of consid-
eration” on pluriactivity, which closely recall some of the features of, and
theses on the integrated peasant economy, as follows (here we quote three
of them only).
a) The work outside the farm is not necessarily a residual activity for
the idle times of agriculture. It’s possible, instead, that at a certain
moment it turns out to be more remunerative […].
b) The family’s working power is in principle undividable based on the
kind of occupation. That’s why – contrary to the definition of pluri-
activity by Hubscher9 – it includes agricultural work (both from
pure wage and from owned capital). […]
c) The existence of “exceeding” manpower in respect of the “necessi-
ties” of the farm, often called upon (especially in an overpopulat-
ed land like Italy) as a cause of pluriactivity, depends in the first
place on the choices regarding cultivation and technics (the “surviv-
al tactic” of the family). They were not given ‘a priori’: it was pos-
sible to change them in order to adjust labour demand and offer–
if considered as appropriate. [Very short, short or medium-long
term] changes were possible. The persistence of a disproportion in
9 Ronald Hubscher elaborated the ‚French‘ definition of pluriactivity, Villani 1989.
30
