Page 364 - 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. 364
integr ated peasant economy in a compar ative perspective
destructive effects of the collapse of prices of agricultural products during
the economic crisis – in the pre-crisis year of 1929, the farm’s income with
the same sales structure was 40% higher. The differences between incomes
are particularly significant in the sale of livestock, milk and wine.
Comparing this to the income and expenditure sheet from 1936–37,
the farm’s budget remains balanced despite the collapse of prices; but there
is no surplus either. However, if we had noted a more or less complete ab-
sence of costs of future production in the previous example, this is not the
case here. Such expenditure is already included here, representing over 1/6
of all expenses of this mid-sized farm (fertilisers, tools). The most promi-
nent items among household expenses, which amounted to 1/7 of the ex-
penditure total, were lighting (petroleum), sugar and items for personal hy-
giene. We should also note that the farm was not buying any additional
foodstuffs – the family not only produced enough for their needs, but also
was able to sell the excess to Ptuj. This family also spent a lot of their money
on clothes and footwear, almost 1/3 of their expense budget. Although the
farm owner was moderately indebted, the payment of annual instalments
did not present too much of a burden; the owner also had insurance, prob-
ably for the house and other farm buildings.
If we sum up all the expenditure items and compare them to the in-
come, it turns out that the farm should have been making a loss. The ex-
penditure would have exceeded the income by 7%. We are presenting this
merely as hypothetical though, as the expenses include pay of hired farm-
hands in cash, while they were actually paid in kind. For their work, the
farmhands received food or were leased some land. Others still, the farm
owner compensated by tilling their fields or hauling their wood from the
forest.
If we compare the three farms, we see that the share represented by the
basic subsistence costs, i.e. of food and clothing, is inversely proportion-
al to the size of the farm, decreasing by 50% as we move from the small-
est farm to the middle one. At the second presented farm, family members
were thus no longer able to do all the work and additional hands were hired
during the season. In spite of their low hourly wages, expenses for their pay
were significant. Expenses of mid-sized farms also include insurance pre-
miums. It seems that at such farms the extent of cultivation and the amount
of funds available made it possible for the owners to insure buildings and
perhaps even part of the livestock. The owners apparently realised that un-
362
destructive effects of the collapse of prices of agricultural products during
the economic crisis – in the pre-crisis year of 1929, the farm’s income with
the same sales structure was 40% higher. The differences between incomes
are particularly significant in the sale of livestock, milk and wine.
Comparing this to the income and expenditure sheet from 1936–37,
the farm’s budget remains balanced despite the collapse of prices; but there
is no surplus either. However, if we had noted a more or less complete ab-
sence of costs of future production in the previous example, this is not the
case here. Such expenditure is already included here, representing over 1/6
of all expenses of this mid-sized farm (fertilisers, tools). The most promi-
nent items among household expenses, which amounted to 1/7 of the ex-
penditure total, were lighting (petroleum), sugar and items for personal hy-
giene. We should also note that the farm was not buying any additional
foodstuffs – the family not only produced enough for their needs, but also
was able to sell the excess to Ptuj. This family also spent a lot of their money
on clothes and footwear, almost 1/3 of their expense budget. Although the
farm owner was moderately indebted, the payment of annual instalments
did not present too much of a burden; the owner also had insurance, prob-
ably for the house and other farm buildings.
If we sum up all the expenditure items and compare them to the in-
come, it turns out that the farm should have been making a loss. The ex-
penditure would have exceeded the income by 7%. We are presenting this
merely as hypothetical though, as the expenses include pay of hired farm-
hands in cash, while they were actually paid in kind. For their work, the
farmhands received food or were leased some land. Others still, the farm
owner compensated by tilling their fields or hauling their wood from the
forest.
If we compare the three farms, we see that the share represented by the
basic subsistence costs, i.e. of food and clothing, is inversely proportion-
al to the size of the farm, decreasing by 50% as we move from the small-
est farm to the middle one. At the second presented farm, family members
were thus no longer able to do all the work and additional hands were hired
during the season. In spite of their low hourly wages, expenses for their pay
were significant. Expenses of mid-sized farms also include insurance pre-
miums. It seems that at such farms the extent of cultivation and the amount
of funds available made it possible for the owners to insure buildings and
perhaps even part of the livestock. The owners apparently realised that un-
362
