Page 40 - 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. 40
integr ated peasant economy in a compar ative perspective
on larger farms […] and on additional income from non-agricultur-
al activities such as cottage industry.
5. Physical production structures: high intensification rate;
mixed-farming system and the production of fodder crops; al-
though self-sufficiency was the most important goal of the peasants
[…] survival was only possible through (limited) production for the
market in the shape of industrial crops and even a variety of food-
stuffs.
6. Limited production for the market resulted in a limited, but in-
creasing, dependence on the market […that] encouraged peasants
to use more intensive production methods.
Specific similarities and differences may of course be found depend-
ing on the region one would chose for comparison with the Flemish case,
but our main interest here is the concept of “survival-commercial econo-
my” itself. Analogous to the integrated peasant economy is the admission
of market oriented agricultural production activities and wage labour on
large farms (primary sector, agriculture related activities) as fitting sources
of income, as well as the detection of a critical moment for the “balance” of
the system, as Italian scholars often express,13 towards the middle of the 19th
century. Both the commercial-survival economy and the integrated peas-
ant economy are also deeply rooted in small-holding systems, although
during our research we have encountered different cases in which larger
peasant holdings were home to relevant income integration practices, also
relying on their larger capital (e.g. animals to use or hire etc.). Shared is the
intense work invested in (often patches of) land. Another common feature,
that at the same time distinguishes them both from most part of pluriac-
tivity research, is the long-run perspective stretching from the Middle-Ag-
es to the 19th century at least, but we have seen how inter-sectoral income
integration practices are detectable among European peasants in the 20th
century as well. As differences we may note that the commercially oriented
activities in the commercial-survival economy are mostly bounded to lo-
cal urban market circuits and that no mentionable role is played by tertiary
sector activities. On the other hand questions arise regarding the causal re-
lationship between the (increasingly) small dimension of holdings and the
availability of other income sources, the effect of short-term leases on the
possibilities of income integration, as well as the role played by the increas-
ing burdens and taxes on the fact that “these commercial peasants were in-
13 Coppola 1991, but also Bulgarelli Lukacs, Mocarelli and Tedeschi in this volume.
38
on larger farms […] and on additional income from non-agricultur-
al activities such as cottage industry.
5. Physical production structures: high intensification rate;
mixed-farming system and the production of fodder crops; al-
though self-sufficiency was the most important goal of the peasants
[…] survival was only possible through (limited) production for the
market in the shape of industrial crops and even a variety of food-
stuffs.
6. Limited production for the market resulted in a limited, but in-
creasing, dependence on the market […that] encouraged peasants
to use more intensive production methods.
Specific similarities and differences may of course be found depend-
ing on the region one would chose for comparison with the Flemish case,
but our main interest here is the concept of “survival-commercial econo-
my” itself. Analogous to the integrated peasant economy is the admission
of market oriented agricultural production activities and wage labour on
large farms (primary sector, agriculture related activities) as fitting sources
of income, as well as the detection of a critical moment for the “balance” of
the system, as Italian scholars often express,13 towards the middle of the 19th
century. Both the commercial-survival economy and the integrated peas-
ant economy are also deeply rooted in small-holding systems, although
during our research we have encountered different cases in which larger
peasant holdings were home to relevant income integration practices, also
relying on their larger capital (e.g. animals to use or hire etc.). Shared is the
intense work invested in (often patches of) land. Another common feature,
that at the same time distinguishes them both from most part of pluriac-
tivity research, is the long-run perspective stretching from the Middle-Ag-
es to the 19th century at least, but we have seen how inter-sectoral income
integration practices are detectable among European peasants in the 20th
century as well. As differences we may note that the commercially oriented
activities in the commercial-survival economy are mostly bounded to lo-
cal urban market circuits and that no mentionable role is played by tertiary
sector activities. On the other hand questions arise regarding the causal re-
lationship between the (increasingly) small dimension of holdings and the
availability of other income sources, the effect of short-term leases on the
possibilities of income integration, as well as the role played by the increas-
ing burdens and taxes on the fact that “these commercial peasants were in-
13 Coppola 1991, but also Bulgarelli Lukacs, Mocarelli and Tedeschi in this volume.
38
