Page 366 - 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. 366
integr ated peasant economy in a compar ative perspective
cialisation of the existing working ability, free time, experience and skills
(either previously existing or newly acquired), as well as local resources.
Cottage industry was based on low-level technology that required little
or no skill to operate. People generally adapted to such handicrafts easi-
ly and could usually learn them through practice. However, the items pro-
duced in such a manner were low-cost, resulting in the work being poorly
paid as well. Peasants generally had few problems entering such addition-
al working relationships, provided that other conditions had been met, e.g.
demand for the items or commercial channels connecting producers with
consumers.
Farm work for hire was a widespread method of acquiring addition-
al income. There were plenty of options. On the one side, there were farms
with over 10 ha of land that needed additional manpower during the peak
of seasonal activities, as family members were not able to do everything by
themselves. On the other side, there was rural overpopulation, with small
farms in particular being able to provide ample additional workforce. How-
ever, due to the lack of data, it is hard to quantify the extent of this phe-
nomenon. According to the 1938 study by Filip Uratnik, the only author to
have dealt with these issues, the late 1930s saw about 50,000 to 60,000 peo-
ple supplementing their income by working at other farms, usually in their
immediate neighbourhood. In global terms, this amounted to about 10% of
all the rural population. In line with the low average profitability of the ag-
ricultural sector, wages of hands for hire were low as well. Here, Filip Urat-
nik comes to our rescue again, estimating that the average daily wage of a
farmhand amounted to 50% of the daily wage of an industry worker (Urat-
nik 1938, 12, 62–76).
Another way of seeking additional income was through “seasonal mi-
gration.” It was precisely seasonal agricultural migration that was the most
common type of migration before WWII. In the spring, a significant part
of the population took off to work at farm estates in western Europe, re-
turning in the autumn when the crops had been harvested. Seasonal mi-
gration was common in the eastern parts of Slovenia, particularly Prek-
murje, where overpopulation was the highest and land holdings were the
most fragmented (Lazarević 1994, 74).
The third method of income diversification was through various
cottage industries, i.e. production of items within the household, utilising
the experience, skills and the working ability of the family. As an introduc-
tion, let us quote the impassioned words of Ivan Mohorič (1950–51, 25):
364
cialisation of the existing working ability, free time, experience and skills
(either previously existing or newly acquired), as well as local resources.
Cottage industry was based on low-level technology that required little
or no skill to operate. People generally adapted to such handicrafts easi-
ly and could usually learn them through practice. However, the items pro-
duced in such a manner were low-cost, resulting in the work being poorly
paid as well. Peasants generally had few problems entering such addition-
al working relationships, provided that other conditions had been met, e.g.
demand for the items or commercial channels connecting producers with
consumers.
Farm work for hire was a widespread method of acquiring addition-
al income. There were plenty of options. On the one side, there were farms
with over 10 ha of land that needed additional manpower during the peak
of seasonal activities, as family members were not able to do everything by
themselves. On the other side, there was rural overpopulation, with small
farms in particular being able to provide ample additional workforce. How-
ever, due to the lack of data, it is hard to quantify the extent of this phe-
nomenon. According to the 1938 study by Filip Uratnik, the only author to
have dealt with these issues, the late 1930s saw about 50,000 to 60,000 peo-
ple supplementing their income by working at other farms, usually in their
immediate neighbourhood. In global terms, this amounted to about 10% of
all the rural population. In line with the low average profitability of the ag-
ricultural sector, wages of hands for hire were low as well. Here, Filip Urat-
nik comes to our rescue again, estimating that the average daily wage of a
farmhand amounted to 50% of the daily wage of an industry worker (Urat-
nik 1938, 12, 62–76).
Another way of seeking additional income was through “seasonal mi-
gration.” It was precisely seasonal agricultural migration that was the most
common type of migration before WWII. In the spring, a significant part
of the population took off to work at farm estates in western Europe, re-
turning in the autumn when the crops had been harvested. Seasonal mi-
gration was common in the eastern parts of Slovenia, particularly Prek-
murje, where overpopulation was the highest and land holdings were the
most fragmented (Lazarević 1994, 74).
The third method of income diversification was through various
cottage industries, i.e. production of items within the household, utilising
the experience, skills and the working ability of the family. As an introduc-
tion, let us quote the impassioned words of Ivan Mohorič (1950–51, 25):
364
