Page 39 - 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. 39
the integrated peasant economy as a concept in progress
where the concept of “industriousness” was conceived, is that “households
shifted from market contact (sale of goods to supplement household pro-
duction) to market orientation (sale of goods and labour as the basis of the
household economy)” (de Vries 2008, 82). The latter was, for example, the
case of an increasing portion of the Slovenian and Italian Alpine and Sub-
alpine peasant population throughout the Early Modern centuries, but the
same applies to different cases presented in this volume too, ranging from
the Mediterranean to Scandinavia.
On the other hand, even in north-western Europe, the ‘home of in-
dustriousness,’ we may find regions in which survival has been interpret-
ed as “the most important goal” of peasant economy, although it combined
agriculture with marked-oriented activities, excluding the possibility that
peasants would have been able to represent a source of demand for com-
modity goods which could sustain economic development. This is the case
of Erik Thoen’s “commercial-survival economy,” a term coined to define
the peasant economy in inland Flanders. The analogy between the “com-
mercial-survival economy,” the integrated peasant economy (and pluriac-
tivity too) is substantial, starting from the basic fact that they are all in-
tended to define an economy combining agriculture with market oriented
inter-sectoral activities. What follows are the “features of the commer-
cial-survival economy” in Flanders from the Middle-Ages to the19th centu-
ry (Thoen 2001, 111–2).
1. The majority of holdings were very small family holdings, many of
them smaller than the minimum required for subsistence […] The
long term trend […] was for these subsistence holdings to become
smaller.
2. Slowly changing property structures did not profoundly alter the
system […] lease holding (in the form of short-term leases of plots of
land) became more significant than customary holding which was
in decline.
3. Survival was the most important goal; large-scale commercial
plans, investment and social mobility were, broadly speaking, im-
possible.
4. Typical labour structures:
• Considerable labour input, considerable unemployment during
much of the year, low labour productivity.
• A survival strategy based on additional income distinct from the
peasant holding [… mostly in the form of] work for part of the year
37
where the concept of “industriousness” was conceived, is that “households
shifted from market contact (sale of goods to supplement household pro-
duction) to market orientation (sale of goods and labour as the basis of the
household economy)” (de Vries 2008, 82). The latter was, for example, the
case of an increasing portion of the Slovenian and Italian Alpine and Sub-
alpine peasant population throughout the Early Modern centuries, but the
same applies to different cases presented in this volume too, ranging from
the Mediterranean to Scandinavia.
On the other hand, even in north-western Europe, the ‘home of in-
dustriousness,’ we may find regions in which survival has been interpret-
ed as “the most important goal” of peasant economy, although it combined
agriculture with marked-oriented activities, excluding the possibility that
peasants would have been able to represent a source of demand for com-
modity goods which could sustain economic development. This is the case
of Erik Thoen’s “commercial-survival economy,” a term coined to define
the peasant economy in inland Flanders. The analogy between the “com-
mercial-survival economy,” the integrated peasant economy (and pluriac-
tivity too) is substantial, starting from the basic fact that they are all in-
tended to define an economy combining agriculture with market oriented
inter-sectoral activities. What follows are the “features of the commer-
cial-survival economy” in Flanders from the Middle-Ages to the19th centu-
ry (Thoen 2001, 111–2).
1. The majority of holdings were very small family holdings, many of
them smaller than the minimum required for subsistence […] The
long term trend […] was for these subsistence holdings to become
smaller.
2. Slowly changing property structures did not profoundly alter the
system […] lease holding (in the form of short-term leases of plots of
land) became more significant than customary holding which was
in decline.
3. Survival was the most important goal; large-scale commercial
plans, investment and social mobility were, broadly speaking, im-
possible.
4. Typical labour structures:
• Considerable labour input, considerable unemployment during
much of the year, low labour productivity.
• A survival strategy based on additional income distinct from the
peasant holding [… mostly in the form of] work for part of the year
37
