Page 36 - 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. 36
integr ated peasant economy in a compar ative perspective
the farm, even if it was market oriented, but also those “exercised out of the
holdings and, most often, out of the region” are excluded from the concept
(Garrier, Goujon, and Rinaudo 1988, 233). Such a “rigid” example of under-
standing pluriactivity, excluding agricultural income sources, is most ex-
plicit in Yves Rinaudo.
The small peasant who engages as agricultural labourer by his more
fortunate neighbour or goes to work for the season to a greater dis-
tance will not be considered. For sure he accumulates several types
of income (as owner, as labourer…). But all of them are of agricul-
tural origin and above all he remains technically, socially and cul-
turally within the agricultural world. In reality he offers an exam-
ple of internal adjustment of this world and not a modality of its
adaptation to the encompassing society (Rinaudo 1987, 284).
At this point it goes nearly without saying that such a position is not
only discordant with the “Italian” understanding of pluriactivity, but even
more so with the integrated peasant economy concept, which includes also
the options of income integration in the primary sector, not least because
we regard the peasant economy as a whole. It’s consequently not surprising
that Rinaudo and colleagues have a narrower range of fields in which pluri-
active peasants could be active, but even considering this their “first ori-
entation grid by sectors and products” is quite parsimonious, since it lists
only “textiles, iron and metals, timber, extractive activities (marl, quar-
ries, mines etc…), transport activities, other” (Garrier, Goujon, and Rin-
audo 1988, 233–4). In the integrated peasant economy we also do not look
at non-agricultural activities simply as a second activity, as it prevails in
the original French definition of pluriactivity, and allow for more complex
combinations of a number of different marketed income sources. So far
we have also not classified the possible combinations into (sub) categories,
or followed the example of speaking of more “pluriactivities” (Garrier and
Hubscher 1988; Cafagna 1989).
As Renato Sansa has suggested, the integrated peasant economy might
overcome the divergences between the Italian and the French conception of
pluriactivity.11 I think one of the advantages of the integrated peasant econ-
omy is precisely its capability to encompass the whole economy of a peas-
ant household, including its different possible income sources and activi-
ty changes. Distinguishing among different possible combinations or pairs
11 See the contribution by Renato Sansa in this volume.
34
the farm, even if it was market oriented, but also those “exercised out of the
holdings and, most often, out of the region” are excluded from the concept
(Garrier, Goujon, and Rinaudo 1988, 233). Such a “rigid” example of under-
standing pluriactivity, excluding agricultural income sources, is most ex-
plicit in Yves Rinaudo.
The small peasant who engages as agricultural labourer by his more
fortunate neighbour or goes to work for the season to a greater dis-
tance will not be considered. For sure he accumulates several types
of income (as owner, as labourer…). But all of them are of agricul-
tural origin and above all he remains technically, socially and cul-
turally within the agricultural world. In reality he offers an exam-
ple of internal adjustment of this world and not a modality of its
adaptation to the encompassing society (Rinaudo 1987, 284).
At this point it goes nearly without saying that such a position is not
only discordant with the “Italian” understanding of pluriactivity, but even
more so with the integrated peasant economy concept, which includes also
the options of income integration in the primary sector, not least because
we regard the peasant economy as a whole. It’s consequently not surprising
that Rinaudo and colleagues have a narrower range of fields in which pluri-
active peasants could be active, but even considering this their “first ori-
entation grid by sectors and products” is quite parsimonious, since it lists
only “textiles, iron and metals, timber, extractive activities (marl, quar-
ries, mines etc…), transport activities, other” (Garrier, Goujon, and Rin-
audo 1988, 233–4). In the integrated peasant economy we also do not look
at non-agricultural activities simply as a second activity, as it prevails in
the original French definition of pluriactivity, and allow for more complex
combinations of a number of different marketed income sources. So far
we have also not classified the possible combinations into (sub) categories,
or followed the example of speaking of more “pluriactivities” (Garrier and
Hubscher 1988; Cafagna 1989).
As Renato Sansa has suggested, the integrated peasant economy might
overcome the divergences between the Italian and the French conception of
pluriactivity.11 I think one of the advantages of the integrated peasant econ-
omy is precisely its capability to encompass the whole economy of a peas-
ant household, including its different possible income sources and activi-
ty changes. Distinguishing among different possible combinations or pairs
11 See the contribution by Renato Sansa in this volume.
34
