Page 44 - 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. 44
integr ated peasant economy in a compar ative perspective
new possibilities (besides the natural demographic growth following the
same logic). The aspect of opportunities is connected with the question of
whether peasant income integration should be seen only as a means of sur-
vival or perhaps something more, too. Both Mats Morell and Žarko Laz-
arević, but also other authors in their case studies, confirm the latter. In
pre-industrial Scandinavia, as well as in more recent times, farm house-
holds “have normally combined various types of income sources with ag-
riculture proper in order to make ends meet or to increase wealth,” while
in Slovenia they did so “not only from necessity but also from the desire to
improve the stability and quality of their families’ living standard.” Renato
Sansa even shows us peasants in central Italy openly accused of being prof-
it-oriented.
The flexibility of the integrated peasant economy is widely confirmed
through our case studies, as well as the wide range of activities from which
peasants gained their income. Among those that were not yet included in
our list (Table 1.4), I’d highlight the “works of trust” mentioned by Anna
Westin and colleagues in their Swedish case, that are detectable by Slove-
nian peasants as well, the same is valid for fishery, with examples both from
Scandinavia (Morell, Westin et al., Päiviö) and Japan (Murayama et. al.),
while Petra Kavrečič has a case in which peasants are active even in ear-
ly and then modern tourism related activities. These three areas of activi-
ty have therefore been included in our upgraded integrated peasant econ-
omy checklist (Table 1.7). The list has also proved to be an effective tool for
a comparative approach, since Alessio Fornasin used it as a check-list to
identify the areas of Friuli and the period in history in which the integrat-
ed peasant economy was detectable.
One of our open questions was related to the observation scale of the
integrated peasant economy, which is whether it should be searched for and
identified at the household, village or perhaps regional level. In most cases
income integration practices are detectable at the household level, although
precise data and quantification are a different story, and always at the com-
munity level. Fornasin observes that “it is preferable to focus on the study of
villages than on a broader territorial context, in order to avoid distortions
and, therefore, overestimate the impact of the integrated peasant econo-
my.” The possibility that income integration practices may be observed
within the “network of related families” has also been proposed (Panjek).
Of particular interest is the Japanese point of view, showing an integrated
economy functioning among clusters of complementary villages, basing on
42
new possibilities (besides the natural demographic growth following the
same logic). The aspect of opportunities is connected with the question of
whether peasant income integration should be seen only as a means of sur-
vival or perhaps something more, too. Both Mats Morell and Žarko Laz-
arević, but also other authors in their case studies, confirm the latter. In
pre-industrial Scandinavia, as well as in more recent times, farm house-
holds “have normally combined various types of income sources with ag-
riculture proper in order to make ends meet or to increase wealth,” while
in Slovenia they did so “not only from necessity but also from the desire to
improve the stability and quality of their families’ living standard.” Renato
Sansa even shows us peasants in central Italy openly accused of being prof-
it-oriented.
The flexibility of the integrated peasant economy is widely confirmed
through our case studies, as well as the wide range of activities from which
peasants gained their income. Among those that were not yet included in
our list (Table 1.4), I’d highlight the “works of trust” mentioned by Anna
Westin and colleagues in their Swedish case, that are detectable by Slove-
nian peasants as well, the same is valid for fishery, with examples both from
Scandinavia (Morell, Westin et al., Päiviö) and Japan (Murayama et. al.),
while Petra Kavrečič has a case in which peasants are active even in ear-
ly and then modern tourism related activities. These three areas of activi-
ty have therefore been included in our upgraded integrated peasant econ-
omy checklist (Table 1.7). The list has also proved to be an effective tool for
a comparative approach, since Alessio Fornasin used it as a check-list to
identify the areas of Friuli and the period in history in which the integrat-
ed peasant economy was detectable.
One of our open questions was related to the observation scale of the
integrated peasant economy, which is whether it should be searched for and
identified at the household, village or perhaps regional level. In most cases
income integration practices are detectable at the household level, although
precise data and quantification are a different story, and always at the com-
munity level. Fornasin observes that “it is preferable to focus on the study of
villages than on a broader territorial context, in order to avoid distortions
and, therefore, overestimate the impact of the integrated peasant econo-
my.” The possibility that income integration practices may be observed
within the “network of related families” has also been proposed (Panjek).
Of particular interest is the Japanese point of view, showing an integrated
economy functioning among clusters of complementary villages, basing on
42
