Page 359 - 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. 359
peasant economy in interwar slovenia – policies of income diversification
necessary conditions for the transition to an entrepreneurial approach.
These farms were expected to be able to leverage their economy of scale or
increase production and thus justify the investments needed for the restruc-
turing. Such measures were also compatible with the reality of the country-
side and with the structure of the agricultural sector. Analyses showed that
farms could generally be classified into two categories according to their
principle of operation. Anton Jamnik thus wrote about “subsistence farms,”
small farms that aimed only to provide for the survival of the family, who
were also the only workforce. Family members faced heavy, even excessive
physical burdens. Market participation of such farms was sporadic and oc-
curred only inasmuch as necessary to satisfy urgent monetary needs (Jam-
nik 1931, 10). Anything more was virtually impossible, as these were small,
even tiny farms that dominated the agricultural land holding structure at
the time. Market-directed production at such farms was essentially impos-
sible; there were no funds to invest in order to increase productivity, and
even if there had been, such investments might not have been justifiable.
Owners and their families were caught in a kind of a vicious circle of pov-
erty, i.e. of low productivity, low income, low savings and investments and
slow accumulation of capital (if any).
The other type of farms according to Jamnik included those involved
with “monetary economics,” i.e. those predominantly or at least partly
market-oriented. This category includes mid-sized (over 10 ha of land) and
large farms. In the predominantly fragmented agricultural holding struc-
ture, however, such farms were in the minority. Nevertheless, these farms
were supposed to lead the transition to the entrepreneurial system of oper-
ation. Jamnik’s assessments set the bar extremely high. According to him,
this second category included few agricultural establishments, since;
such a farm needs the owner to be much more competent and ed-
ucated, both in general and in the specific matters of his business,
the owner needs to be able to delegate work, to rationalise produc-
tion, to have enough money and be capable of speculation and en-
trepreneurship, to be able to create complex plans for the intensive
use of all production capacities and resources, to be familiar with
agricultural economic prospects, to understand and be able to pro-
duce high-quality, easily marketable goods (Jamnik 1931, 12).
Although Jamnik presents two generalised and idealised types of
farms, at two ends of the spectrum, his analysis underlines the depth of the
357
necessary conditions for the transition to an entrepreneurial approach.
These farms were expected to be able to leverage their economy of scale or
increase production and thus justify the investments needed for the restruc-
turing. Such measures were also compatible with the reality of the country-
side and with the structure of the agricultural sector. Analyses showed that
farms could generally be classified into two categories according to their
principle of operation. Anton Jamnik thus wrote about “subsistence farms,”
small farms that aimed only to provide for the survival of the family, who
were also the only workforce. Family members faced heavy, even excessive
physical burdens. Market participation of such farms was sporadic and oc-
curred only inasmuch as necessary to satisfy urgent monetary needs (Jam-
nik 1931, 10). Anything more was virtually impossible, as these were small,
even tiny farms that dominated the agricultural land holding structure at
the time. Market-directed production at such farms was essentially impos-
sible; there were no funds to invest in order to increase productivity, and
even if there had been, such investments might not have been justifiable.
Owners and their families were caught in a kind of a vicious circle of pov-
erty, i.e. of low productivity, low income, low savings and investments and
slow accumulation of capital (if any).
The other type of farms according to Jamnik included those involved
with “monetary economics,” i.e. those predominantly or at least partly
market-oriented. This category includes mid-sized (over 10 ha of land) and
large farms. In the predominantly fragmented agricultural holding struc-
ture, however, such farms were in the minority. Nevertheless, these farms
were supposed to lead the transition to the entrepreneurial system of oper-
ation. Jamnik’s assessments set the bar extremely high. According to him,
this second category included few agricultural establishments, since;
such a farm needs the owner to be much more competent and ed-
ucated, both in general and in the specific matters of his business,
the owner needs to be able to delegate work, to rationalise produc-
tion, to have enough money and be capable of speculation and en-
trepreneurship, to be able to create complex plans for the intensive
use of all production capacities and resources, to be familiar with
agricultural economic prospects, to understand and be able to pro-
duce high-quality, easily marketable goods (Jamnik 1931, 12).
Although Jamnik presents two generalised and idealised types of
farms, at two ends of the spectrum, his analysis underlines the depth of the
357
