Page 363 - 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. 363
peasant economy in interwar slovenia – policies of income diversification
was supplemented with further income from work at a vine nursery in the
amount of 3,600 dinars, which represented 25% of the entire farm’s net in-
come. Work outside the farm was thus a significant source of income.
Expenses are dominated by clothing and footwear expenditure (almost
50% of the total amount) and various household expenses (salt, petrole-
um, sugar, coffee, chicory, etc.). Investment expenditure includes Bordeaux
mixture and other accessories for the vineyard, as well as the purchase of
livestock for rearing. Farmhands are one interesting aspect within this ex-
penditure category. They were seasonally hired to help in the vineyards as
well as with other labour in the fields. This farm did not need to purchase
additional foodstuffs; they sold most of the wine and spirits they produced,
as well as 40% of potatoes and a significant amount of beans. Another item
of interest is insurance, which the small farm described above lacked and
which reflects the financial differences between the two farms, as well as
different ideas of management.
The columns of expenses and net income from production show that
the budget of the farm in question was perfectly balanced. The farm’s yields
kept the family supplied with foodstuffs and clothing, thus ensuring their
survival. The surplus evident from the balance sheet was the result of eco-
nomic activity outside the family’s own agricultural establishment. These
were the only funds available for potential investment in new technology or
new methods of production or consumption.
The third case is a mid-sized farm as well, but this one is not located
in Bela krajina but rather in Slovenske gorice, near the town of Ptuj (Brat-
ko 1938, 396–7). The farm had 13 ha of land and was home to a family of six,
four of whom were children. The amount of work was such that the family
was unable to do everything by themselves. Unlike the first two, this farm
was specialised and market-dependent, as its principal activity was live-
stock rearing. The farm thus owned four cows, two oxen, a couple of calves,
a number of pigs, a horse and additionally some chickens. The largest part
of the farm’s income came from livestock rearing, particularly from the
sale of milk, animals and eggs. In 1936–37, income from livestock rearing
represented as much as 70% of all income. All other activities at this farm
were ancillary and essentially only served to satisfy the needs of the family.
With regard to crops, the farm mostly sold potatoes, as well as some wheat,
cabbage and beans. We can make similar conclusions regarding fruit cul-
tivation and wine-making – the family only sold a small part of what they
produced. The farm from this example is the one best suited to illustrate the
361
was supplemented with further income from work at a vine nursery in the
amount of 3,600 dinars, which represented 25% of the entire farm’s net in-
come. Work outside the farm was thus a significant source of income.
Expenses are dominated by clothing and footwear expenditure (almost
50% of the total amount) and various household expenses (salt, petrole-
um, sugar, coffee, chicory, etc.). Investment expenditure includes Bordeaux
mixture and other accessories for the vineyard, as well as the purchase of
livestock for rearing. Farmhands are one interesting aspect within this ex-
penditure category. They were seasonally hired to help in the vineyards as
well as with other labour in the fields. This farm did not need to purchase
additional foodstuffs; they sold most of the wine and spirits they produced,
as well as 40% of potatoes and a significant amount of beans. Another item
of interest is insurance, which the small farm described above lacked and
which reflects the financial differences between the two farms, as well as
different ideas of management.
The columns of expenses and net income from production show that
the budget of the farm in question was perfectly balanced. The farm’s yields
kept the family supplied with foodstuffs and clothing, thus ensuring their
survival. The surplus evident from the balance sheet was the result of eco-
nomic activity outside the family’s own agricultural establishment. These
were the only funds available for potential investment in new technology or
new methods of production or consumption.
The third case is a mid-sized farm as well, but this one is not located
in Bela krajina but rather in Slovenske gorice, near the town of Ptuj (Brat-
ko 1938, 396–7). The farm had 13 ha of land and was home to a family of six,
four of whom were children. The amount of work was such that the family
was unable to do everything by themselves. Unlike the first two, this farm
was specialised and market-dependent, as its principal activity was live-
stock rearing. The farm thus owned four cows, two oxen, a couple of calves,
a number of pigs, a horse and additionally some chickens. The largest part
of the farm’s income came from livestock rearing, particularly from the
sale of milk, animals and eggs. In 1936–37, income from livestock rearing
represented as much as 70% of all income. All other activities at this farm
were ancillary and essentially only served to satisfy the needs of the family.
With regard to crops, the farm mostly sold potatoes, as well as some wheat,
cabbage and beans. We can make similar conclusions regarding fruit cul-
tivation and wine-making – the family only sold a small part of what they
produced. The farm from this example is the one best suited to illustrate the
361
