LUND UNIVERSITY

PO Box 117221 00 Lund+46 46-222 00 00

Family and capitalist farming: Conceptual and historical perspectives

Djurfeldt, Göran

Published in:Structural transformation and agrarian change in India

2016

Document Version:Early version, also known as pre-print

Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA):Djurfeldt, G. (2016). Family and capitalist farming: Conceptual and historical perspectives. In G. Djurfeldt, & S.Sircar (Eds.), Structural transformation and agrarian change in India Routledge.

Total number of authors:1

General rightsUnless other specific re-use rights are stated the following general rights apply:Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authorsand/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by thelegal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private studyor research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal

Read more about Creative commons licenses: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will removeaccess to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Familyandcapitalistfarming:ConceptualandhistoricalperspectivesGöranDjurfeldt

Thisisthedraftintroductorychaptertoaforthcomingbook,1whichaimstotesta

generalpropositionaboutfamilyfarmingasgettingstrengthenedbystructural

transformationinIndia.2Weobviouslyneedtostartbydefiningourterms:structural

transformation(ST)andagrariantransformation.Brieflyputwerefertoasocialand

economicprocessduringwhichtheindustrialandservicesectorsaregrowingin

proportionsofGDPandofthetotallabourforce.Amainquestioninthisbookis

therefore:Whathappenstotheagrariansector,whentheeconomyasawholeis

transforming?

ReferringnotspecificallytoIndia,butmoregenerallytohistoricalexperiencesofST,

mainlyinthewest,therearetwoclassicalattemptsatanswerstowhathappenstothe

agrariansectorduringthetransformation.Thefirstoneisassociatedwithneoclassical

economics,withMarxismandwithmodernizationtheoriesinsociologyandpolitical

science.Forreasonsthatareinterestingassuch,butwhichwewillavoidhere,the

secondtypeofanswerwasneverpartofanymajorintellectualoracademictradition.

Thealternativeanswerhastodowithfamilyfarming.

Thefirstclassicalanswertotheabovequestionisthat‘traditional’agriculture,however

definedandtermed,transformsintocapitalistagriculturewithlargefarmsdependent

onhiredlabour.Suchfarmsareexpectedtobemoreefficientandtooutcompetesmaller

farmsdependentonfamilylabour.Thealternativeanswerisclassicallyisassociated

withnamesliketheRussianagriculturaleconomistA.V.Chayanov(1888–1937),and

theGermanSocialDemocratKarlKautsky(1854–1938)whowerecriticalofthebelief

inthesuperiorityoffactory-likeorganizationoffarming.

1Djurfeldt,G.andS.Sircar(2016).StructuraltransformationandagrarianchangeinIndia.NewYorkand

London,Routledge.

2AswillbeevidentinChapter2wepreferthetermagrarianstructuraltransformationtoagrarian

transition,whichisusedbymanyIndianauthors.

Whiletheconceptofstructuraltransformation(ST)willbeintroducedlater,wewill

heredevoteourselvestofamilyversuscapitalistfarming:Whataretheirrespective

characteristics?Whythesecontraryexpectationswhereonecampisconvincedofthe

technicalsuperiorityofcapitalistorganizationsinagriculture,whiletheotheris

scepticalandpointstotheresilienceoffamilyfarmorganization?Whatfollowsisan

outlineofaperspectivefromeconomicsociologyonagrarianstructures3andtheir

transformation.

Noneoftheauthorsisaneconomist.Ourperspectivescomefromsociologyand

geographyandourmethodologyismainlyWeberian(afterMaxWeber,1864–1920).A

keyconceptinWeberiansociologyisthatofanidealtype.

MaxWebercoinedhistermofidealtypeasakeyconceptinhismethodology,following

hisconclusionsfromthegreatmethodologicaldebateamongGermanhistoriansinthe

late19thcentury.ItismainlyacritiqueofHegelianism,whichatthetimehadadeep

influenceamonghistoriansandphilosophers,includingKarlMarxandtheMarxists.The

Hegelianswereconceptualrealists,workingfromamasterconcept,likeHegel’s‘Spirit’,

fromwhichanunderstandingofempiricalrealityinallitscomplexitieswastobe

deduced.PrevioustoWeber,thealternativetoconceptualrealismamonghistorianshad

alwaysbeenanempiricistoratheoreticalapproach.Usinganideal-typeapproachplaces

theWeberianinamid-positionbetweenconceptualrealismandempiricism.

Usingthisapproachwewillsketchtwoidealtypesofproductionunits,familyand

capitalistfarms.Wewillalsodiscusstheidealtypeagriculturallabourer.Withthese

definitionsinhand,webrieflydiscussLenin’stheoryofcapitalistdevelopment,whichas

afigureofthoughthasmoreincommonwithclassicalnotionsineconomics(for

examplewithArthurLewis)thanonewouldthink.

Incontinuingwetakeaccountofafact,whichisoftenneglectedintheoriesof

agriculturaldevelopmentthattendtoregardruraleconomiesaspurelyagricultural.We

useatermfromruralsociology,i.e.pluriactivity.Thetermhighlightsthefactthat

membersoffarmhouseholdsoftencombineseveralincomeearningactivities.

3AccordingtotheFAOdefinition,‘agriculture’refersalsoforestry,huntingandfishing.Weuseitmostlyto

denoteagricultureassuch.Weuse‘agrarian’inamoreextensivemeaningthanagricultural,referringnot

onlytoagriculturepersebutalsotoitsinstitutionalcontext.

Economistsrefertothesamephenomenonwithanacronym:RNFE,RuralNon-Farm

Enterprise(orEmployment,onecouldadd),whilegeographersusetheterms,multi-

localormulti-spatiallivelihoods.Alongwithmanyotherswearguethatinorderto

understandagriculturaldevelopment,currentlyandglobally,wehavetoabandonthe

tendencytoviewthefarmsectoraspurelyagricultural.

Drawingonthediscussionofpluriactivityandthethreeidealtypesofcapitalistfarms,

familyfarmsandagriculturallabourers,weformulateatypologyofreallyexistingfarms.

Aswewillsee,familyfarmspersistandevenincreasetheirpredominanceglobally,

despitemanyprognosesofpendingdemise.Oneofthereasonsforthisisexactly

pluriactivityandanotheroneistechnologyandthefactthatfarmtechnologieshave

proventobemorescale-neutralthanwhathasandisoftenpresumed.Thisiswhyideal,

orneartheidealtypicalcapitalistfarmsarerarehistorically,aswellascurrently.We

continuewithadiscussionofagrarianpolicies,intheWest,inIndiaandelsewhere,

whichinisturnlaysthegroundforthequestiontoberesearchedinlaterchapters:the

positionoffamilyfarminginIndiaandthehypothesisaboutitsincreasingprevalence.

Idealtypesoffarms

WeuseidealtypeasdefinedbyMaxWeber:

"Anidealtypeisformedbytheone-sidedaccentuationofoneormorepointsofviewandby

thesynthesisofagreatmanydiffuse,discrete,moreorlesspresentandoccasionallyabsent

concreteindividualphenomena,whicharearrangedaccordingtothoseonesidedly

emphasizedviewpointsintoaunifiedanalyticalconstruct..."(Weber1997,1949,p.90)

IdealtypesfeatureprominentlyinaWeberiantoolbox.Contrastingidealtypesoffarms,

inourcase,withreallyexistingonesisanimportantmethodologyaimedtobetter

understandthecomplexityoftherealworld.Ithelpsinmakingsenseofanempirical

material,aswellasinunderstandinghowpreconceivednotionsformourunderstanding

ofreality.Systematicallycollectedempiricalmaterial,i.e.notonlyanecdotalor

piecemealevidence,buthardevidence,intheformofmacro-andmicro-levelstatistics,

andreviewsofexistingresearch,historicallyaswellascurrently,helpsinexposingthe

idealtypetoakindoftestofitsempiricaladequacy.Thisisturnaidstheresearcherin

workingouttheoreticallygroundedtypologiesandempiricallyadequateaccountsof

socialreality.

Workingwithsuchamethodologywewilldiscussthreeidealtypes,viz.thatofthe

familyfarm,counterpoisedwiththecapitalistfarmandtheagriculturallabourer,on

whomthelatterdependsconceptuallyaswellasreally.

Themainhypothesisinthisworkisthatprocessesofstructuraltransformation,

historically,currently(andhypotheticallyinthecaseofIndia)willbringwithitan

increasingimportanceandeventualpredominanceoffamilyfarms.Thisobviouslycalls

foranexplanationbutfirstofalladefinitionoffamilyfarm.

Definingidealtypesoffarms

TheInternationalSteeringCommitteefortheInternationalYearofFamilyFarming,

celebratedin2014,developedthefollowingconceptualdefinitionoffamilyfarming:

FamilyFarming(whichincludesallfamily-basedagriculturalactivities)isameansof

organizingagricultural,forestry,fisheries,pastoralandaquacultureproductionwhichis

managedandoperatedbyafamilyandpredominantlyreliantonfamilylabour,including

bothwomen’sandmen’s.Thefamilyandthefarmarelinked,co-evolveandcombine

economic,environmental,socialandculturalfunctions.(FAO2014)

Obviouslypolitical,theabovedefinitionwasformulatedbytheSteeringCommittee,

presumablyafteralotofstrategicandtacticaldeliberationsandcompromises.To

functionmethodologicallythedefinitionistoobroadanddiverse.Inordertoworkout

anidealtypedefinitionweneedsomethingsharperthantheonecited.Oneofthe

backgroundpaperstotheFAOreportwrittenbyLowder,Skoetetal.(2014)isofgood

help.Theauthorsscrutinized36definitionsoffamilyfarmingandfoundthatnearlyall

ofthemincludedanelementoffamilymanagement,andspecifythatpartofthe

definitionofafamilyfarmisthatamemberofthehousehold“owns,operatesand/or

managesthefarmeitherinpartorfully”.Oftenaspecificationisaddedthatconcerns“a

minimumshareoflabourthatmustcomefromtheownerandhisorherrelatives”.

Anumberofothercriteriaareoftenusedtocomplementthedefinition,forexample,that

afamilyfarmshouldnotexceedacertainsizeintermsofarea,orthattheshareof

householdlabourshouldnotexceedacertainlevel.Thedefinitionsexaminedbythe

authorsapparentlydidnotincludeeitheroftheonesarguedforbyDjurfeldt(1996)and

Errington(1996).Inthestalemateddebateboththeseauthorsinsistedonone

overridingelementasessentialinadefinitionoffamilyfarming:Djurfeldtinsistedona

familylabourcriterion,whileErringtonasinsistentlyclungtoafamilymanagement

criterion.Withincreasingageandexperiencetheybothshouldhavegrownless

stubborn.Insteadofclingingtoanessentialistdefinition,wepreferanapproachthat

distinguishesbetweenthreedimensions,alongwhichdifferenttypesoffarmsmaydiffer

fromoneanother:

1. Theproportionoffamilylabourishigh,asopposedtoothertypesoflabour,casualorotherwise;4

2. Managementofthefarmispredominantlytakencareofbymembersofthefamilyratherthanbyemployedmanagersoragents.

3. Thefarmistoalargeextentownedbymembersofthefamilyorbykinshipnetworks,aswithcustomarylands,ownedbycommunitiesratherthanbytheirindividualmembers.5

Variouscombinationsofthesethreedimensionswouldgiveusthreevariantsofideal

types:(a)familylabourfarmswheremostofthelabourisputinbyfamilyornetwork

members;(b)familymanagedfarmswherethemanagementfunctionisperformedby

familymembers,relativesorpossiblybynetworklabour.Finally,weget(c)family

ownedfarms,whereownershipisinthehandsofafamilyorpossiblyanon-market

networkofsomesort.Atenantfarmwouldobviouslynotfulfilthelastcriterion,butmay

stillbeafamilyfarmbythefirsttwo.6

Combiningthethreedimensionsaboveyieldthemostinclusivedefinitionpossible:

Familyfarmsareeitherworked,managedorownedbyfamiliesorthroughnon-market

networks.Thisdefinitionimpliesthatanoverwhelmingmajorityofallfarmsgloballyare

familyfarms.TheFAOreportquotedaboveestimatesthenumberoffamilyfarms

worldwideto570millionoutofatotalof600million(FAO2014,p.8).Itaddsthatfor

mostcountries,familyfarmsinclusivelydefinedaccountformorethan90andinmany

cases100percentofallfarms.

4Thereisanintermediatecategorybesidesthesetwoforms,whichwecallnetworklabourincluding

labourrecruitedthroughkinshiporcommunitynetworks.

5Inmanysub-Saharancountries,butalsoelsewhere,theStateorthePresidentisconsideredthesupreme

owneroftheland.Historicallythisisalateadd-on,developedalongwiththecolonialandpost-colonial

State.

6AssuggestedbyPierre-MarieBosc(personalcommunication)majoremphasisshouldbegiventothe

firsttwocriteria.

Wearenotcontenthoweverwiththeinclusivedefinitionaboveandamoreexclusive

definitionoffamilyfarmsispreferableforanalyticalpurposes.Herewechoosetodefine

anidealtypefamilyfarmasdependentonfamilylabourinproductionandprimarily

managedbymembersofthefamily.Thisdefinitionwouldstillincludeahugemajorityof

the570millionfamilyfarmsworldwide.Whatwoulditexclude?

Theidealtypeofcapitalistfarm

Ofthe30millionfarmsthatarenotclassifiedasfamilyfarmsbytheFAOdefinitionthe

mostimportantone,foranalyticalpurposesatleast,isthecapitalistfarm.Wedefinethe

idealtypecapitalistfarmasanagriculturalproductionunitinwhichallfactorsof

production(land,labour,capitalandmanagement)areprocuredonthemarket:Thisis

anotherwayofsayingthatthefactorsofproductionarecommoditiesandhavemarket

value.Intermsofthethreecriteriadiscussedabove,theidealtypicalcapitalistfarm(or

firm)is:(i)workedbylabourershiredforwages(ratherthanrecruitedbynon-market

means;(ii)managedbyprofessionalmanagers(ratherthanbyfamilymembers);(iii)

ownedbycorporationshavinginvestedtheircapitalintothefarm.Thecapitalincludes

landthat,asforfamilyfarmers,maybeownedorleased.

Tobefinanciallysustainablethecapitalistfarmmust,likeallcapitalistenterprises,in

thelongrunyieldareturnofthecapitalinvested,atratesthatarecomparablewith

otherwithtypesofinvestment.Moreprecisely,theinvestmentinthefarmneedstoyield

highenoughreturnsonthecapitalinvestedinallfactorsofproduction,includingthe

land.7Thusthecapitalistfarmmustbecompetitivewithotherfarmsorfirmsoperating

onthesamemarkets(herewearemainlyconcernedwithoutputmarkets).Normallythe

competitorswouldincludealargenumberoffamilyfarms.Theextenttowhichtheyare

competitiveamongotherthingsisaquestionofeconomiesofscale.

Iftherewereeconomiesofscaleinagriculturalproduction,aspointedoutby

Binswangeretal.(1995,p.2664),capitalistfarmingwouldhaveupendedfamilyfarms

longago.Aswewillseelater,economiesofscalearerareinagricultureandoftenobtain

onlyinsomeofitsbranches.

Aswouldbeexpectedofanidealtype,fewreallyexistinglandedpropertiesliveupto

theidealtypedefinitionofacapitalistfarm,especiallynottherequirementtoyielda

returnontheimputedvalueofthelandor,ifmortgaged,interestontheloantaken.Land

notacquiredasaninvestment,perhapsinherited,orlandnotmortgaged,mayobviously

beprofitableinanaccountthatdoesnotincludethevalueoftheland.Thismakesit

easierforsuchfarmstocompetewithfamilyfarmsthat,bythewayoftenenjoythesame

advantageofmortgage-freeland.However,capitalistfarms:sufferanotherhandicap,

whichistheirrelianceonhiredlabour.Reallyexisting,asopposedtoidealtypical

capitalistfarmsoftensaveonlabourcostsbyhiringwhatwecall‘unfree’labour.

7Pierre-MarieBoscsuggestsanalternativedefinition,notunlikeours:”afarmrelyingexclusivelyonhired

laborwithoutanyfamily/kinshiplinkbetweentheworkersandtheownersofthemeansofproduction,

including(ornot-itcanbeleased)theland.Iwouldnotputfirst(orlimittoasinglecriteria)theneedto

geta"good"rateofreturn(RoR)oninvestment.Youmayfindcorporationsinvestinginagriculturefor

variousreasonsandnotexclusivelyguidedbytheRoR.Itmightbepartofaportfolioofactivitiesthat

compensatethelackofappropriatereturn.AnotherpointthatIwouldliketoshareistheissueofassets

mobilityvstheconventionalviewofagricultureasapurelocalisedandimmobileactivity,deeplyrooted...

Ifyouconsiderthefunds(whatscholarscall"financializationofagriculture")Ithinkthereisanotherstep

ordegree,orakindofbreakorprofoundchangeofnatureintheactivity.Theyshape"pure"capitalist

farmingbecausethey(i)workwithhiredworkers(ii)lookforhighRoRbut(iii)theyaddthemobilityof

theirassetssincetheyrentalltheoperationalassetsandhencereduceatnearlyzerotheir

immobilization:land,labor,mechanizedoperationarerented...andifthesituationchangestheycan

migratetomorefavorablesettingslikeindustrydoes,whenlookingtolowwages/highskills/lowsocial

regulationsconditions.ThisisthecaseinArgentina,UruguayandpartsofBrazilwhereyoualsofindthe

strongconsolidated"familybusinessfarms"category(inourdefintion)”(personalcommunication,

January2016).

Withthesedefinitionsoftheidealtypesoffamilyandcapitalistfarmsathandwewill

proceedbydiscussingrealtypes,asopposedtotheidealtypeofcapitalistfarming.It

deservestobestressedthatidealandrealtypesareendpointsonacontinuumfrom

moretolessabstract,fromidealtypefamilyfarmorcapitalistones,toreallyexisting

farms.Contrastingtheidealtypewithwhatweknoworhavelearntaboutarealsystem

isanimportanttoolindeepeningourunderstandingofthelatter.Whencontrasting

belowidealtypecapitalistfarmswithreallyexistinglargeestates,theaimistodeepen

ourunderstandingofthelatter.

Largeestatesareseldomcapitalistfarms

Definitionsofcapitalistfarmingfoundintheliteraturearevariable,butoftenreflect

whatwewouldarguearenon-rigorousdefinitionsofcapitalismitself.Itiscommonplace

toseeauthors,academicorpopular,explicitlyorimplicitlyusingdefinitionsoffarmsas

capitalistbecausetheyare(i)market-oriented,(ii)employmuchlabour,(iii)areheavily

mechanizedorbecause(iv)theyarelargeintermsofarea.Afifthpointisthat(v)

capitalistfarmsseldomwereestablishedbecausetheyweretechnicallysuperiorbut

moreoftenbecausepowerfulelitesthoughtthattheywere.Aswewillexplainneitherof

thesefivecriteriawouldqualifyafarmascapitalistintheidealsenseofthetermand

thuscannotbeusedinanidealtypedefinition.

Marketorientationversussubsistenceproduction

Whyisnotmarketorientationanindicatorofidealtypecapitalistfarming?Suchafarm

ismarketorientatedbydefinition,butsoaremostoftheestimated600millionfarms

foundglobally.Purelysubsistenceorientedfarms,producingnothingforthemarket

hardlyexist,exceptasaberrationsandinveryremoteareas.

TheFAOreportquotedexemplifiesvaryingdegreesofcommercializationusingstatistics

foreightcountries.OutofthesetheleastmarketorientatedoneisNepal,wherefarmers

inthelowestfarmsizequartileselllessthantenpercentofproduction,whilethosein

thetopquartilesellslightlymorethan20percent.Tanzaniaunexpectedlyisattheother

end,withfarmersinthelowestquartilemarketingmorethan60percentwhilefarmers

inthetopquartilesell66percentoftheirproduction(FAO2014,p.22).Withatoo

schematicconceptionofsubsistenceproductiononecouldhaveexpectedpoorer

Tanzaniatohaveahigherdegreeofproductionforownusethansomewhatbetteroff

Nepal.Wedonotknowwhyitistheotherwayround,butonemaysuspectthatthe

reasonisthatfamilyfarmsinNepalaresubsidized,notbygovernmentsasinEurope

andtheUS,butbyremittancesfrommigrantstotheGulfandelsewhere.Thus,

commercialproductionisnotanexclusivecriterionofcapitalistfarmingandneitheris

subsistenceproductionanindicatorofnon-capitalistagriculture.

Themajorityoffarmersworldwideproducepartlyforsubsistence,especiallyinpoor

andmiddle-incomecountries.Theyareusuallyreferredtoassmallholdersinthe

developmentdebate.Bythecriteriaproposedheretheyarefamilylabouraswellas

familymanagedfarms,withthespecificcharacteristicofbeingpartlysubsistence

oriented.Theymakeupamajorityoftheworld’spoor.

Acreagecriteria

Smallholdersareusuallydefinedbyanacreagecriterion,forexamplefarmsbelowtwo

hectares(Dixon,Tanyeri-Aburetal.2004).Areaisnotahomogeneousvariable

however:Twohectaresinanear-desertareacannotfeedafamily,whiletwointensively

cultivatedhectaresunderavaluablecropcanbequitealargeunitineconomicterms.In

practicalterms,thesmallholdercategorylumpstogetherfarmtypes,whichfor

analyticalpurposesonemaywishtokeepdistinct.Inthefollowingwewillavoidthe

term,althoughitwillrecurintheempiricalanalysisfromChapter5onwards.

Dependenceonhiredlabour

Somewhatsurprisinglyperhapswerejectdependenceonhiredlabourasadefining

characteristicfortheidealtypecapitalistfarm.ManylandedpropertiesinIndiaorin

otherpartsoftheworld,duetotheirsizeintermsofareaorinturnovercertainly

dependonlabourrecruitedeitherfromoutsidethefamilyorfromcommunityandkin

networks.Butbeingdependentonhiredlabourofvarioustypesdoesnotmakethe

employercapitalistintheidealtypemeaning.Morespecifically,dependenceonhired

labourdoesnotimply,astheidealtyperequires,thatsuchfarmsbeconstrainedtomake

aprofitoncapitalinvestedinland.Weleavetheissueofhiredlabourfornowbutwill

returntoitlater.

Mechanization

Aseveryoneknowsfamersofallkindsusemachines.Familyfarmingofthekindfound

inEuropeortheUSareheavilymechanized.Theystillfulfilthecriteriaoffamilyfarms

accordingtothedefinitionabove.Inotherwords,relianceonmachinesdoesmakethe

farmeracapitalist,aswedefinetheseterms.

Sizeoffarm

Similarlythesizeofafarmdoesnotautomaticallyreflectitsorganizationofproduction.

Alargeestatedoesnotbecomecapitalistjustbecauseofitssize.Thehistoryoflarge

landedpropertiesaroundtheworldsuggeststhatunlikeindustries,large-scaleestates

havenotemergedthrougheconomiesofscale.Theyoftenhaveacompletelydifferent

history.Forinstance,latifundiosinSouthernSpain(Djurfeldt1993)aswellasinSouth

Americahaveacommonhistoryasfeudalfiefs.Takeanotherexample:Theplantation

sectorinsub-SaharanAfricaneverproveditseconomicsuperiority,butwasestablished

bycolonialandmilitarymightandoftencontinuestobeprotectedbytherulersofpost-

colonialsocieties,ortakenoverbythemortheircronies.Malawiisagoodexamplehere

(Prowse2011,Prowse2013).ArecentWorldBankstudyshowedthatsuchplantations

cannot,exceptforcertaincrops,competeprice-wisewiththefamilyfarmsector(World

Bank2009).

LargelandedpropertiesareoftencreatedandprotectedbytheState

Politicalconsiderationsareevidentintheestablishmentoflarge-scalefarms.Takethe

nowdefunctChinesecommunes:Theywouldneverhavebeensetupwereitnotforthe

policymakersoftheChineseCommunistPartyhavingbeentakeninbythemythof‘big

isbeautiful’,inspiredbyscaleeconomiesinindustry.Neitherwouldtheyhavebeen

dismantledfrom1978andonwardsifscaleeconomieshadbeenthere.Thereforms

initiatedbyDengXiaopingestablishedbyadministrativefiatahugefamilyfarmsector

inChina.Thusthereformsaddedmanymillionsoffamilyfarmstothosealreadyexisting

aroundtheworld.Intermsofitsadditiontothecountry’sfoodsecurity,itwasa

uniquelysuccessfulreform(seeforexampleLin1992,Riskin1995).

Returningtothemainargument:Largelandedpropertiesseldomprovedtheir

superiorityintermsofproductivity,butwereestablishedbyadministrativeorpolitical

interventions.Thuslandtenureandotheragrarianinstitutionshaveapoliticalhistory

thatmustbeborneinmindwhentryingtounderstandtheirroleincurrentorfuture

foodproduction.Historicallypoliticalinterventionsoftencreatedlargelanded

properties,asinAndalusiaorintheformerSpanishorPortuguesecoloniesinSouth

America.

Corporateownership

Asarguedinitially,theidealtypecapitalistfarmrequiresthatlandownershipis

corporateratherthanfamilybased.Thiscriterionismorediscerningthanmightbe

expected.WhenDeiningerandByerleerecentlytriedtoestimatethenumberof

capitalistfarmsworldwidetheyfoundonlyonegoodexample:TheSwedishBlackSoil

ABwhichboughtuplargetractsoflandintheblacksoilareasofUkrainecultivating

thembymeansofso-calledprecisionagriculturewheretractorsandcombineharvesters

aresteeredbyGlobalPositioningSystems(GPS)andwherefertilizationregimesare

workedoutbymeansofsatelliteimagery(DeiningerandByerlee2012).SinceBlackSoil

ABisapubliclimitedfirm,listedontheStockholmStockExchange,itfulfilstherigorous

definitionanidealtypecapitalistfarm(andfirm),dependentforitslong-termsurvival

ongeneratingprofitonthecapitalinvestedinthefirm,includingtheland.

ArecentarticleinTheNewYorkTimeswastitled“CashCropsWithDividends:Financiers

TransformingStrawberriesIntoSecurities”.8Thearticlepointsoutthattherushforland

investments(landgrabs)thatgotintoahighspinfollowingtheglobalfoodpricecrisisin

2008hadalreadybeguntolosespeedsixyearslater.Anewfinancialproductishowever

exemplifiedinthearticleandpioneeredbyaprivate(notpublic)company,American

Farmland.Thenewproductisanexampleofwhatthejournalistcallsthelatesttwist,in

whichinvestorsandbankersare“combiningcropsandthesoiltheygrowinintoan

assetclassthatordinaryinvestorscanbuyapieceof”(Stevenson2014).Thisisan

exampleofthefinancializationofland,whichfulfilsonecriterionoftheidealtypeof

capitalistfarming.Sofarithasbeenrarelyfulfilledhowever.

InadditiontoAmericanFarmland,onlytwootherfarmcompaniesarelistedonthe

NASDAQstockexchange,FarmlandPartnersandGladstoneLandCorporation,and

indeed,investorsinterviewedbythejournalistarestillunsureifinthelongrunlanditis

aworthwhileinvestment.Thisisintheheartlandofworldcapitalismandgiventhatwe

havebeenfedwithprognosesoftheimminenttakeoverofworldagricultureby

capitalism,atleastsinceLenin’s“TheDevelopmentofCapitalisminRussia”,

1960`(1960,1899),9thisisnotoverlyimpressive.8CirculatedbyCraigHarristhroughtheRC40networkoftheInternationalSociologicalAssociationwho

addedacomment:“furthertofinancialization”.

9NottomentionhisstudyofUSagriculturewherehedidasimilarprognosis.

IntheUSandotherWesterncountriesitisnotuncommontofindfarms,whichlegally

arecorporationsbutmoreoftenthannotareentirelyormajorityfamily-ownedandthus

donotqualifyasidealtypecapitalistfarms.Theyarenotconstrainedtogenerating

profitonthevalueofthelandandnotsubjectedtothedisciplineofthefinancial

markets.Unlikeacapitalistfirmthereisnothingthatforcestheownerstocloseshopif

thefarmisnotprofitable.

Withthisdiscussionofidealtypeswemoveovertothedevelopmenttheoryassociated

withthoseenvisioningafutureinwhichagricultureisdominatedbycapitalistfarms

ClassicalLeninisttheory

TheprocessofcapitalistdevelopmentinagricultureasenvisionedbyLenin(1960,

1899)ismuchakintowhataclassicaldevelopmenteconomistlikeArthurLewishadin

mind.Lewisreferredtoa‘traditionalsector’,themainfunctionofwhichwastodeliver

surpluslabourtothemodernsectorasthestructuraltransformationproceeded.When

surpluslabourwasexhaustedagriculturehadtobemodernizedanddevelopinto

capitalistagriculture.

Leninsaidmuchthesame,asisschematicallyillustratedinFigure2.1.Forhim,

developmentofcapitalistagricultureisoneofdifferentiation.Intheprocessmiddle

peasantseither,forthemajority,becomedispossessedafterlosingoutincompetitionon

themarketandjointheranksoftheagriculturalproletariator,foraminority,graduate

totheclassofcapitalistfarmers.

Graph1.1.ThedevelopmentofcapitalistagricultureaccordingtoLenin

TheemergenceofcapitalisminfarmingaccordingtothevarietiesoftheLeninistmodel,

mustbeoneofthemostfrequentlyfailedpropheciesinintellectualhistory.Giventhe

estimatethatoutofabout600millionfarmsworldwide,asalreadypointedout,onlya

handfulcanbedeemedcapitalistintheidealtypesenseoftheword,theexpectationthat

theywouldtakeovertheentireglobalfarmsectorcanonlybeexplainedbyideological

andpoliticalfactors.

Puttingitstarkly:Waitingforthetechnologicalpreconditionsforcapitalistfarmingto

prevailislikewaitingforGodotinBeckets’splay:Heneverarrives.Thereforeweremain

scepticalwhenDeiningerandByerlee(2012)argue,thattechnologieslikeprecision

agriculturehavenowdevelopedsofarthat,finallyandwithadelayofacentury,large

landedpropertieshavegainedaproductivityedgeover(smallerscale)familyfarming.

Thelatterallegedlylosttheircompetitiveadvantageintermsoffamilylabourandfamily

management.Wearenotyetwillingtoacceptthisclaim,forthesimplereasonthatthe

newtechnologieswillbegettingcheaperastheyspreadand,althoughwithadelay,

becomeaffordablealsotofamilyfarmers;inthewesttheyare.

Withthiswecanmoveovertodiscussthethirdtypeweneed,i.e.theoneofagricultural

labourers.

Agriculturallabourersinsegmentedmarkets

Ifweweretodefineanidealtypeagriculturallaboureritistemptingtoresorttothe

Marxistview,accordingtowhichthecapitalistfarmisunthinkablewithoutthe

agriculturallabourer,andthereverse.Whetheroriginatingfromdispossessedpeasants

orfromgroupshistoricallydeniedaccesstoland,idealtypicalagriculturallabourerssell

theirlabourpowerinidealtypicalmarketswheretheforcesofdemandandsupplyenact

theirinexorablelaws.Theglitchhereisthevirtualnon-existenceofsuchmarkets,since

reallyexistinglabourmarketstendtobesegmentedwithdifferentmechanismsofwage

determinationindifferentsegments.

TakingtheIndiancase,agriculturallabourershavelongbeenrecruitsfromsocially

discriminatedgroups,theScheduledCastes(SC,so-calledex-Untouchables),Scheduled

Tribes(ST)orfromlowercastes,intheIndiandebateoftenreferredtoasOther

BackwardCastes(OBC).Discriminationimpliesasegmentedmarketwiththeevident

functionofkeepingwageslow.Intheabsenceofcompetitionforlabourfromservicesor

industries,discriminationthusmeanslockingSC,STandlowcastelabourersintolow

wagemarketsegments,condemningthemtolivesinmisery.

Whatiswellknownbutlessrecognizedisthatagriculturallabourmarketsalsointhe

heartlandofworldcapitalismtendtobesimilarlysegmented.Aclassicstudyfromthe

1980s(Thomas1985)ofsaladfarmsinCalifornia,showedthatfarmworkerswere

recruitedfromhighlysegmentednichesinthelabourmarket,withillegalimmigrantsat

thelowerrungsdoingthemosttediousjobsatthelowestwages.Greencardholders

occupiedahigherandsomewhatbetterniche,likeoverseers,qualitycontrollersetc.The

onlywagesatcompetitiverateswerepaidtoUScitizens,typicallyasmanagers,security

staffandothers.

TheEuropeanagriculturallabourmarkethasdevelopedinasimilardirectioninrecent

years,whenlegalandillegalimmigrantshaveswelledthelaboursupplyandcauseda

downwardtrendinwageswiththeeffectthatnationalsandcitizensremainonlyinthe

bestpaidjobs(KasimisandPapadopoulos1997,Gatti2007).

Thustheidealtypeagriculturallabourerisasrareabirdastheidealtypecapitalist

farm.Anecdotally,itcanberemarkedthemajorityofthemembersintheSwedish

agriculturallabourersunionwork,notinagriculture,butongolfcourses,inparks,and

ingardens.TheLeninisttheoryofcapitalistdevelopmentisoffthemarkalsointhis

respect.Todescribereallyexistingagrariansocieties,weneedrealtypesadatedamong

thingstosegmentedlabourmarkets.ThisdoesnotmeanthattheWeberiantypeisnota

usefultool,merelythatitisnotadescriptive,butananalyticaldevice.

Fromidealtypestorealones

IntheFigurebelowwesummarizethetypologytobeusedinthisbook(seeFig.1.2).

Graph1.2.Atypologyofcurrentagrariansocieties

Note:CFreferstocapitalistfarms,FFtofamilyfarmsandALtoagriculturallabourers

Thefigureemphasizesthepointthatrealagrarianstructuresarefarfromtheidealtypes

asdefinedabove,whetherwespeakofreallyexistingcapitalistfarmsorfamilyfarms,or

forthatmatteragriculturallabourers.Inthecaseofcapitalistfarmsthereisan

especiallyglaringmisfitbetweenprognosesofitsincreasingdominanceandthefact

theyareexceptionallyrare,notonlyinnumbersbutalsointermsofsharesof

production.10

Inthegraphtheidealtypesaresmallshadedcircleswithinbiggerwhiteones.Firstly,all

agriculturallabourersmakeupamuchbiggercirclethantheidealtypeagricultural

labourersand,althoughitisdifficulttofinddataonthis,wewouldcontendthat‘free’or

non-discriminatedlabourhasshownnoseculartrendtoincreaseitsshareofthelarger

circle.Moreoveragriculturallabourersaresometimesfarmersaswell,asdenotedbythe

overlapbetweenthetwowhitecirclesoffamilyfarmsandagriculturalworkers.

Secondly,theidealtypecapitalistfarmcircleisasmallpartofalllargeestates;moreover

thecorrespondingshadedcircleisnotcompletelywithinthelarge-landedproperty

circle,becausesomereallyexistingfarmsdependentonhiredlabouraresmallinterms

ofacreage,butlargeintermsofeconomicturnover,forexampleinthehorticultural

sector.Thirdlythewhitefamilyfarmcirclecontainsanewcategory,herecalled

combinationfarms,whichdenotefarmswherefarmingisnotfull-time,butisbaseda

combinationoffarmingwithoff-farmjobs.Thistypeofpluriactivity,asruralsociologists

termit,isnotnewtoagriculture.Wewillreturntotheissueinawhile.

Wearguethatthistypologyismoreaccurateindescribingcontemporaryagrarian

societiesandthatanalytically,togetherwiththeidealtypes;thetypologycanbeusedin

analysingthedevelopmentofagrarianstructures.11Withthismethodologicaltoolin

handwecanaskquestionsaboutthenature,prevalenceanddevelopmentoffamily

10Excludingtheplantationsectorwherecoloniallyestablishedestatestendtosurvive.

11Economistsmightliketocompareourrealtypology,i.e.thewhitecirclesinFig.1.2withthetypology

developedbyEswaranandKotwal.Theirmodelisapartialequilibriumoneandshowsthatwithunequal

accesstocapital(mainlyland)andhighsupervisioncostsforlabour,afourclassstructurecanbe

expectedtodevelopwith(i)labourer-cultivators,(ii)self-cultivators(familylabourfarmersinour

terminology),(iii)smallcapitalistsand(iv)largecapitalists.Anobviousweaknessofthismodelisthat

pluriactivityandcombinationfarmsarenotatallpartofit.Garner,E.andA.P.delaOCampos(2014).

Identifyingthe“familyfarm”:Aninformaldiscussionoftheconceptsanddefinitions.ESAWorkingPaper

14-10.Rome,AgriculturalDevelopmentEconomicsDivision,FoodandAgricultureOrganizationofthe

UnitedNations.Eswaran,M.andA.Kotwal(1986)."AccesstoCapitalandAgrarianProduction

Organisation."EconomicJournal96(382):482-498..

farminginagivensociety:aretheyfamilylabourandfamilymanagedfarmsandtowhat

extentaretheyfamilyowned?Thetypologyfurtherleadsustoenquireaboutlarge

estatesdependentonhiredlabour,theirhistoryandtheirformoflabourrecruitment:

Dotheyuse‘free’or‘unfree’labour?Aretheirlabourersfreetonegotiatetheirwages

andorganize,oraretheirwageskeptlowbytheirbeingdiscriminatedagainstby

citizenship,ethnicity,raceorcaste?Towhatextentareorweretheyhistorically

protectedbylegislation,subsidiesorprivilege?

Inthefollowingsectionwefirstgodeeperintothecharacteristicsoffamilyfarms.

Thecompetitiveadvantageoffamilyfarms

WithintheMarxisttraditionsinceMarxhimself,familyfarmshavebeenseenasaclass

facingextinction.ForLenin,thepeasantrywasdoomedtodisappearandsplitintotwo

parts,aminoritywhichwoulddevelopintoanagrariancapitalistclass,andamajority

whichwouldlosetheirlandandbeforcedeithertojointheranksoftheagricultural

proletariat,oritscounterpartsinthecities(Lenin1960,1899,Djurfeldt1981).A

presumptionofsuperiorproductivitywithincapitalistagricultureunderpinnedthis

visionofthefuture:Whencomparedtopeasantorfamilyfarmscapitalistagriculture,or

factoriesinthefieldwouldbelikeindustrycomparedtocraftsandathingofthepast,a

museumartefact.

Thatcraftproductionhasdifficultiesincompetingwithindustrialorganizationis

evidencetothesuperiorityofwhatMarxcalledthecapitalistmodeofproduction

(1977).LikeAdamSmithbeforehim(1904(1776)),hearguedthatthissuperiority

stemmed,notonlyfrommechanization,butalsofromtheadvanceddivisionoflabour

withinthefactory,withlabourersspecializingindifferentpartoftheproductionprocess

ratherthanproducingthewholeproduct,astheartisanwould.

Thistypeofspecializationoflabourholdsonlytoalimitedextentonreallyexisting

capitalistfarms,i.e.estatesdependingonhiredlabour.Strikinglysuchfarmsdependon

massesofworkerstoperformtasksthatarenoteasytomechanize,likepickingof

strawberries,wineortomatoes.

Largeestatesfinddifficultiesincompetingwithfamilyfarms,preciselybecausetheyare

notfactoriesinthefield,asthediscussionaboveclearlyillustrates.Historically,aswellas

currently,largeestatesgenerallyhavenotaccesstotechnologies,whicharenotalso

availabletofamilyfarms.BothinEuropeandtheUS,therearesmalldifferencesin

technologybetweenthetwosectors.Themaindifferencebetweenthemliesinthe

armiesoflabour,oftenfromsegmentedorunfreelabourmarkets,absorbedbyfarms

dependentonsuchlabour.Thisisincontrasttoamuchgreaterdependenceoffamily

farmsonownlabour.12

Whiletheoreticallyitisplausiblethattheirmodeoforganizationgivesacompetitive

edgetoestatesdependentonhiredlabour,historicallyaswellascurrently,thisis

seldomthecase.Bycontrast,giventheaccesstothesametechnologiesthe‘staffing’of

farmsunderfamilymanagementprovidestheircompetitiveadvantage.Hired(non-

family)labourislessmotivatedtowork,andmorepronetofootdraggingthanfamily

labour(Scott1985,EswaranandKotwal1986,Chayanov1986,1966).Familymembers

ontheotherhandworkforthemselvesorfortheirfamilies,includingfortheirkidsand

futuregenerations.Thisisapotentmotivatingforce.Duringcrisesfamilylabourisoften

preparedtoworkforlittleornoremuneration,whichisthefundamentalreasonforthe

resilienceoffamilyfarms(Chayanov1986).Thisiscontrasttofarmsdependentonhired

labour,forwhichthewagebillislargelyinelastic.

Thereisanon-goingdebatewithinagriculturalanddevelopmenteconomicson

economiesofscalewithinfarming(andforIndiaDyer1998,foroverviews,see

Eastwood,Liptonetal.2010,Chand,Prasannaetal.2011).Withfewexceptions,scalein

manystudiesisproxiedbyarea,eitheroffarmorofareaunderspecificcrops.Thereare

evidentproblemswiththisoperationalization,however.Areaisnotahomogeneous

variable.Whetherwespeakoffarmorplotsize,theproductivitydifferencesbetween

differentfarmsorplotsarevastanddependnotonlyonsoilfertility,butalsoon

irrigation,drainageandotherfactors.Modelsregressingproductivityonfarmorplot

size,asaresult,getlargeresiduals,noteasytominimizeandnotpronetobenormally

distributed.Inourview,thisisthefundamentalreasonwhythemanystudieson-have

yieldedlittleintermsofgeneralizableresults.Thuswewouldarguethatfarm(oreven

plot)sizeisnottherelevantoperationalization,whilefarmtypeis.Weknowofonlyone

12ThuswearecriticalofBrookfield’scharacterizationofsomelargelandedpropertiesasindustrialfarms

(bananaandsugarcaneplantationsforexample).Theymaybelarge-scale,buttheyarenotindustrialin

termsoftechnologyororganization:Brookfield,H.(2008)."Familyfarmsarestillaround:timetoinvert

theoldagrarianquestion."GeographyCompass2(1):108-126.

study,whichhasusedthisinsight,aWorldBankstudyoftheprofitabilityofaselection

ofcrops,comparingfamilyfarmsandlargeestatesinsub-SaharanAfrica(WorldBank

2009).Itconcludedthatinmostcrops,familyfarmersarecompetitivewiththeestate

sector.

EastwoodandLiptonarguethatthecompetitiveadvantageoffamilyfarmsoverlarge

estateswillgraduallydisappearandDeiningerandByerleewouldseemtoagree(Lipton

andJohn1991,Eastwood,Liptonetal.2010,DeiningerandByerlee2012).Allthree

teamsofauthorsmentionprecisionagricultureandgeo-sensing,whichintheirpresent

formrequirelargefarmareastomotivatetheinvestment.Asalreadypointedoutandin

inlineMoore’slaw,13currentlylarge-scaletechnologyislikelysoontobeavailableto

smaller-scalefarmers.Bethatasitmaybe,thissketchyoverviewseemstoindicatethat

wearefarfromthepointoftimewhencapitalistfarmsfortechnologicalreasonswill

replacefamilyfarms.

Thisargumentforfamilyfarminganditscompetitiveadvantagescanbeputineconomic

termsbyreferringtoCoase’stheoryofthefirm(Coase1937)andtheconceptof

transactioncosts(Williamson1979).Coase’sarticlebecameaclassicbecausehepointed

outthatneo-classicaleconomicscouldnotexplaintheemergenceorexistenceofthe

firm.ThisiswhereWilliamsonandhisterminologicalinnovationenter:thefirmisaway

ofminimizingtransactioncostsbyinternalizingthemintoanorganizationalunit.Onecan

arguealongthesamelinesaboutfamilyfarming,andfamilybusinessingeneral:By

internalizinglabourcostsintothefarm(orfirm)onereducestransactioncosts.Using

familyinsteadofhiredlabour,transactionscostsareloweredbecausetheneedfor

supervisionisnearlyeliminatedandshrinkageorfootdraggingavoided.Thisisnot

necessarilyadisadvantagetofamilyworkersandneednotimplyself-exploitation,as

hassometimesbeenalleged.Onthecontrary,byincreasingthequalityofthelabour

input,theremunerationtofamilylabourersmaybehigherthanitwouldhavebeento

thehiredlabouritreplaced.

Theremunerationoffamilylabouriscrucial.Whiletheremunerationofhiredlabouris

oftensimplyasumofmoneythatoffamilylabourisabundleofutilities,food,shelter,13Moore’slawstatesthatthenumberoftransistorsinanintegratedcircuitgrowsexponentiallyandtends

todoubleonceintwoyears.Forotherelectronicapplicationsthishasmeant,notonlyminiaturization,but

alsodecreasingcosts,makingthetechnologyavailabletonewgroups.

affectionandlove,noteasytoevaluateineconomicterms.Theeconomicpartsofthe

remunerationcanberegardedasthecorrespondenceofawage,orwhatEastwood,

LiptonandNewellcallareservationutility(Eastwood,Liptonetal.2010).Thusonecan

saythataslongasthereservationutilityoffamilylabourishigherthanprevailing

agriculturalwages,onecanexpectatendencyforhiredlabourtobereplacedbyfamily

labour(Schmitt1991).Anupwardpressureonwages,forexampleduetocompetition

withtheindustrialservicesector,wouldhavesimilareffect.

Supermarketizationandverticalintegration

Manyperceivethespreadofsupermarketsinmiddle-andlow-incomecountriesasthe

newthreattotheworld’sfamilyfarms.Thebasicargumentisthatthegiant

supermarketchains,Wal-Mart,Carrefourandtheothersprefertodealwithafewbig

suppliersratherthanawholelotofsmall-scaleproducers.Assupermarketsinvestin

erectingprocurementchainsforfreshfruitandvegetables,withthehighquality

demandsofdiscerningofmiddleclassconsumersinview,theytendtopreferlarge

estatesforproduction.Intheprocessofsupermarketizationfamilyfamersarederived

ofsometheirmarkets.Sogoestheargument.

Whilethisisundoubtedlybecomingahugepartofallfoodretailingandprocurement,

webelievethatitsconsequencesforfamilyfarmingworldwidemaynotbeas

apocalypticascouldbefeared.Eveninmarketscontrolledbyhugecorporations,family

farmsenjoyadvantagesthatservethemwell.

InhismostlyunspokencriticismofLeninandtheBolsheviks,theRussianagricultural

economistandpioneeroffamilyfarmstudies,AVChayanovprofferedanalternative

scenariotoLenin’shorizontalconcentration(cf.Figure1.1above),whichhestyled

verticalintegration.Chayanovstudiedhowurban-basedmerchantscontractedwith

familyfarmerstoproducecottonandothercashcropsandofferedcredittofacilitate

farmers’investments.HealsostudiedtheEuropeancooperativemovementduring

travelsinEuropeandwroteabouthisvisionforthefutureoffamilyfarming(Chayanov

1977):

“Iftothisweaddinthemostdevelopedcapitalistcountries,suchasthoseininNorth

America,widelydevelopedmortgagecredit,thefinancingoffarmcirculatingcapital,and

thedominatingpartplayedbycapitalinvestedintransport,elevator,irrigation,andother

undertakings,thenwehavebeforeusthenewwaysinwhichcapitalismpenetrates

agriculture.Thesewaysconvertthefarmersintoalaborforceworkingwithotherpeople’s

meansofproduction.Theyconvertagriculture,despitetheevidentscatteredand

independentnatureofthesmallcommodityproducers,intoaneconomicsystem

concentratedinaseriesoflargerundertakingsand,throughthem,enteringthesphere

controlledbythemostadvancedformsoffinancecapitalism.”(Chayanov1986,1966,p.

262)

TheleadingcurrentexpertonsupermarketizationisThomasReardonwithalonglistof

publicationstohiscredit.Heiscarefultostresstheenormousspeedwithwhichthe

processhasenvelopedthedevelopingworldincludingthepoorestpartsofsub-Saharan

Africa.Itisworthnotinghoweverthat,withitsrestrictionsonforeigndirectinvestment

inretailing,Indiaislessdrawnintotheprocessthanmanyothercountries(seefor

example,Reardon,Timmeretal.2003).Reardonetal.summarizestudiesonsub-

contractingtofarmersasfollows:

“Companiesingeneraltendtosourcefromlargerfarmersandeschewsmallerfarmersin

scale-dualisticcontexts.However,therearevariousexceptionstothispattern,where

companiessourcefromsmallfarmersevenwhenlargefarmersoperateinthesame

sector…Companiessourcefromsmallfarmersincontextswheresmallfarmersdominate

theagrarianstructure…Whencompaniessourcefromsmallfarmers,theytendtosource

fromthesubsetwiththerequisitenon-landassets(suchasirrigation,farmers’

associations,farmequipment,andaccesstopavedroads).However,wherecompaniesneed

orwanttosourcefromsmallfarmersbutthefarmerslackneededcredit,inputs,or

extension,companiessometimesuse“resource-provisioncontracts”toaddressthose

constraints....[Studies]tendtoshowpositiveeffectsonsmallfarmersofinclusionin

modernchannels,includingonincomesandassetsoffarmers,andpositiveexternalitiesto

thelocallabormarkets.”(Reardon,Barrettetal.2009)

Concludingfromtheabove:alarmbellsseemtoprematurelythependingdemiseofthe

world’sfamilyfarmers.Asisthecaseforadvancedtechnology,apocalypticmessagesare

toorash.Inthelongerrun,neithersupermarketization,norprecisionfarmingneedbeas

deleterioustofamilyfarmingassomeforesee.

Asafetyvalveforfarmersispluriactivity,whichwewillpresentlydiscuss.

Pluriactivityandcombinationfarms

Theterm‘combinationfarm’usedinFigure1.2aboveisadirecttranslationfrom

Norwegian‘kombinasjonsjordbruk’.UsedinaclassicalworkinScandinaviansociology

bythelateOttarBrox(Brox1969),thetermdenotesthecombinationofactivitiesand

incomesourcesinagrarianlivelihoods.Brox’examplerelatedtothecombinationof

small-scaleagriculturewithfishingalongtheNorthSeacoastandinthefjords,

especiallyinNorthernNorwaywherelivingexclusivelyonfarmingwaswellnigh

impossible.LaterruralsociologistshaveadoptedaFrenchterm,‘pluriactivity’to

describesuchcombinations,commonalloverbutlessvisiblebecausecensusesand

surveyslongrecorded‘primary’andatbest‘secondary’occupations.

Pluriactivityisnotanewphenomenon:Combinationfarmswerecommoncenturiesago,

bothinEuropeandelsewhere(HolmesandQataert1986),forexamplewithfarmers

frommountainousareasmigratingintheoff-seasontotheplainstogainextrathere.The

fisherman-farmer(Brox,op.cit.)andthelogger-farmercombinationisalsoage-old

(Bjerén1981).ThereisnodoubthoweverthatwiththeSTwecanexpectanincreasing

degreeofpluriactivity,involvingthewholecast,fishermen,loggers,herdsmen,

agriculturallabourers,familyfarmersandwellasownersoflargelandedproperties.

TherewasaspateofinterestinpluriactivityinEuropeinthe1990sthatresultedina

numberofpublications,stillworthreading.Inastudyfrom1992,FullerandBollman

summarizedthesituationinEurope,theUSandCanada.Theynotedanassociation

betweenpluriactivityandfarmsizewithincountries.Operatorsoflargerfarmswere

associatedwithlowerparticipationinoff-farmworkinCanada,theUSandtheten

membercountriesofwhatwasthencalledtheEuropeanCommunity.Theauthors

furthermentionedthattheparticipationinoff-farmworkbyspouseswasnotrelatedto

farmsize.Off-farmincomeswereimportantallover,especiallyintheUSandCanada

whereonthemeantheymadeupover37%oftotalincome.Manyfarmhouseholds

gainedmorethan50%oftheirtotalincomefromsuchsourcesorfromsocialtransfers,

remittancesandreturnoninvestments(FullerandRay1992,pp.206-9).

AstudybyMacKinnonandSpearmancomparedconditionswithinEuropeintheearly

1990s.14Theauthorsconcludedthat,whencomparingtheremunerationoffamily

labourinagricultureandothersectorsoftheeconomy,alargeproportionoffarms

acrossEuropedidnotprovideafull-timewage.Fornearlyahalfofthesampled

households,farm-basedincomeprovidedlessthanathirdofhouseholdincome;foronly

aroundfortypercentdiditprovidemorethan70%ofincome.Only28%ofthesample

farmsdrew90%ormoreoftheirincomefromthefarm.Theauthorsconcludedthat

62%offarmhouseholdsinthesamplewerepluriactiveontheirdefinition(Mackinnon,

Brydenetal.1991,pp.61-62).

Sincethe1990sinterestintheseissuesseemstohavewanedbothamongresearchers

andpolicymakersandnewerpublicationsaredifficulttofind.Itisunlikelyhowever

thatpluriactivitywouldhavedecreasedintheOECDcountries.

Bothneo-Leninistsandneo-classicaleconomistshavehadatendencytointerpret

pluriactivityasatemporaryphenomenon,whenhouseholdsduetotheSTtransferout

oftheagrariansector.Bothcampshavetendedtounderestimatethesustainabilityof

combinationfarmsandthelivelihoodsassociatedwiththem.

Inconclusion,pluriactivityismorethanatransitoryphenomenonandisanotherwayin

whichtheprognosesaboutthedevelopmentofcapitalistagriculture,attheexpenseof

familylabourhavecometoshame.

Thediceseemstobeloadedagainstcapitalistandforfamilyfarming.IntheIndiancase,

scholarsofvariouspersuasions,Marxistsandothershavebeenlookingforcapitalist

farmingforseventyyearswithoutfindingmuchofit.Sowewillturnthequestionupside

down:Intheempiricalanalysiswewillbeasking:Hasseventyyearsofagricultural

developmentinIndiapromotedfamilyfarmingand,ifso,whatkindoffamilyfarming?

WorkingwithaWeberianmethodologyrequiresworkingnotonlywithidealandreal

types,butalsowiththehistoryofthesocietiesyouarestudying.Aspectsofthehistoryof

familyfarmingandlargeestateselsewherethaninIndiaarerelevantinourcase.In

furtherpreparationfortheempiricalanalysiswecontinuebydiscussinghistorical

14Thesewereresultsfromasurveyfrom1987of300farminghouseholdsin24regionsofWestern

Europe.Thesurveywasnotstatisticallyrepresentativeinastrictsense,but20oftheresearchareaswere

chosentomatchtheEuropeanCommunityaswhole.Fourareaswerefromnon-ECcountries.

processesofagrariantransformation.WewillstartwiththeclassicalcaseofBritain,

sincethetimeofMarxatthecentreofdiscussionofagriculturaldevelopment.

Historicaltransformationofruraleconomies

Aswillbeevidentfromthefollowing,Britishagrariansocietydidnotatalldevelop

accordingtotheoreticalexpectations.15TherootsoftheBritishestatesystemare

medievalandcanbetracedtothepeasantuprisingsinthe14thand15thcenturies,which

thepeasantslost.‘TheirconsequentiallossoflandlaidthefoundationforBritain’s

extremelypolarizeddistributionofland(cf.Brenner1976).TheBlackDeathcontributed

furthertotheestablishmentofthishighlyunequalagrarianstructure,asdidthe

Reformation,thedissolutionofthemonasteriesandtheappropriationoftheirlandby

thecrownunderHenryVIII.Theseestateswerelaterawardedtothenobility(Tracy

1989,PartI).Thusasmalllandedeliteofmostlynoblefamiliesmonopolizedlanded

property.

Themajorityoftheruralpopulationlackedpropertyandwerecompelledtoseektheir

subsistenceinthecommons,untiltheearly17thcenturywhentheEnclosureActs

privatizedthecommonsanddeprivedthepeasantryalsoofthissourceofsustenance.

Fromthe18thcenturyonwardsthepovertyoftheruralpopulation,drovethepoorand

propertylesstoseekworkasagriculturallabourers,industrialworkers,servantsor,

alternativelytoseekpovertyrelief(Polanyi2001,1944).

Themonopolizationoflandbythenobilitymeantthattheproperty-owningpeasants,in

Englandcalledyeomanfarmersbecameasmallminorityinthecountryside.Besidesthe

propertylessandthelandlordsthemostimportantgroup,althoughsmallintermsof

numbers,wastheestatetenants.

Thelandownersusuallydidnotcultivatetheirlandthemselves,butleaseditout.

Tenantsoflargelandedpropertieswerepioneersintheapplicationofwhathasbeen

calledHighFarming.Thiswasahighlyproductivefarmingsystem,buildingon

permanentcultivation,i.e.withoutfallows.Stall-feedingofcattle,systematicmanuring

andcroprotationwithnitrogenfixingfoddercropsweremajorinnovationsinthenew

farmingsystem.Increasingdemandforcerealsspurredbyagrowingurbanand

15ThefollowingbuildsonChapter3in:Djurfeldt,G.(1994).Godsochgårdar:Jordbruketiettsociologiskt

perspektiv.Lund,Arkiv.

industrialpopulationstimulatedtheinnovations.HighFarmingreacheditspeakunder

thelatterhalfofthe19thcenturyandbeforetheagrariancrisisof1870(Chambersand

Mingay1966).

AtthistimeGreatBritainhadadistributionoflandremindingofsomeLatinAmerican

countriesbeforethelandreformsofthe1960s.JamesCaird,acontemporaryresearcher

describedthesystemasfollows:

"Whenwecomemorecloselytoanalysethepurelylandowningclass,theaggregationof

landamongsmallnumbersbecomesveryconspicuous.Onefourthofthewholeterritory,

excludingthoseunderoneacre,isheldby1,200persons,atanaverageof16,200acres;

anotherfourthby6,200personsatanaverageforeachof3,150acres;anotherfourthby

50,770personsatanaverageofeachof380acres;whilsttheremainingfourthisheldby

261,830personsatanaverageeachof70acres.Aninterestingcompilationbythe

ScotsmannewspapershowsthatthepeerageoftheUnitedKingdom,about600innumber,

possessamongthemrathermorethanafifthofalltheland,andbetweenatenthandan

eleventhofitsannualincome.”(Caird1961,1878quotedin)(Newby,Belletal.1978)

TheBritishagrarianstructurebefore1870layquiteclosetotheidealtypicalcapitalist

farmingdescribedearlier:Ithadasmallgroupofaristocraticlandowners,rentingout

theirlandtocapitalisttenantsandwithamassofagriculturallabourersdoingthe

drudgeryinfieldsandstables.Thesystemfulfilledoneofthedefinitionalrequirements

ofcapitalistagriculture,viz.capitalizationoftheland.Thenobilitylivedfromtheirrents,

andtheirtenantshadtorunanenterprise,whichcouldfinancenotonlythewagesand

theinputsofcapital,butalsothecapitalizedvalueoftheland,intheformofrent.Itisa

historicalironythatthissystem,whichaswehaveseenhardlyexiststoday,wasatits

high150yearsagoandsincethenitdecayed.

Theagrariancrisisfromthe1870sonwardsandwhatwetodaydescribeasthefirst

periodofhyperglobalization(seefurtherbelow)broughtaboutthedownfallofthe

Britishsystemofcapitalisttenants.Fallingfoodpricesareadeadlythreatto

landlordism,sincetheydecreasetherentalvalueofland.Landlordincomestumble;the

nobilitycannotmaintaintheircastles,theirextravagantstyleoflivingorpaytheir

servants.ThiswasthedestinythatbefellmanyBritishlandowners.

In1873thefirstsignsofthecomingcrisisappeared:Worldmarketpricesonfarm

productsfelldrasticallyandremainedlowforanumberofyears.Theestatetenants

tookthefirstblow,butsincepricesremainedlow,landlordsweregraduallyaffected.

Paradoxically,agriculturallabourerswerequickertorecover.Thecompetitionbetween

agricultureandindustryforlabourresultedinscarcityoflabourandpartlyprotected

theruralproletariatfromtheworsteffectsofthecrisis(Perry1972p.22).

TheagrariancrisishasbeeninterpretedasadelayedeffectofthefamousCornLaws,

adoptedinthe1840sbytheBritishParliamentinoppositiontothelandlords(Perry

1972p.14).TheCornLawsopenedBritaintoimportsoffarmproducts,buttheirimpact

wasdelayedbyabout30years,duetohightransportcoststhatcurbedinternational

tradeinbulkyproductslikecereals.Duringthesecondhalfofthe19thcentury,rapid

advancesinshippingledtofallingfreightcosts.After1870theywerelowenoughto

allowAmericanandArgentiniancerealstocompetewithEuropeanones,whichsetthe

bellstollingforBritishlandlordism:

“Thedismantlingofthelandedestates–thearistocraticdiasporafromtheland–although

usuallydatedfromtheperiodimmediatelyfollowingtheFirstWorldWar…beganmuch

earlier.Neverthelessadelugeoflandsalesbeganin1919,onascaleunprecedentedsince

thedissolutionofmonasteriesinthesixteenthcentury.Withinthreeyears,ithasbeen

estimated,one-quarterofthelandsurfaceoftheUnitedKingdomchangedhands.However,

asHobsbawmhasremarked,oneofthemostnoteworthyaspectsofthisforcedaristocratic

abdicationwasthatittookplacealmostunnoticedatthetime,outsidetherestricted

coterieoflandowners,farmers,andestateagentswhoweredirectlyinvolvedinthe

transactions.This,Hobsbawmadduces,indicatedjusthowfartheagriculturalinterestand

thelandowningaristocracyhadbecomeremovedfromthecentresofeconomicand

politicalpowerbytheearlydecadesofthetwentiethcentury.”(Hobsbawm1969,Newby,

Belletal.1978,pp.36-37)

Theagrariancrisisthusbroughtalandreform,notbytheState,butviathemarket.

Britishestatesweredividedandtakenoverbysmallerlandowners.Theywereoftenex-

tenants,butlandwasalsosoldinsmallerportionstofamilyfarmers.(Harrison1975).

AlthoughBritainstillhasahigherconcentrationoflandownershipthanWesternEurope,

itsstructureissimilartothatfoundintherestofEurope(Gasson1987)

TheBritishcaseisagoodillustrationoftheroleofagriculturallabourersintheST.As

Eastwood,LiptonandNewellremark(2010),therelationofthewagesoflabourers

comparedtotheshadowpriceoffamilylabourisdecisive.InBritainpricesofoutputfell

whilewagesincreased:Thisforcedlandlordstodivestinlandandmadeitpossiblefor

familyfarmstoinvestinit.ThedevelopmentintherestofEuropewasparallel.

ThecaseofEurope

WithpartialexceptionsofMediterraneanandSouthernEurope,agrariandevelopment

intherestofEuropefrom1870onwardsresembledthatoftheUK.Theestatesector

contractedinfavouroffamilyfarming.AclassicstudyofthisprocessistheonebyFolke

Dovring(1965,1955).Hisisacomparativestudyofagrarianchangeinthewholeof

Europe,especiallytheperiod1900to1950.Ascanbeseentodaytheperiodizationused

isnotoptimal:Todayonewouldhavechosentheperiodfrom1870to1914(thefirst

periodofhyperglobalization)and1920to1939(theinterwaryears,includingtheGreat

Depression).Inthelatterperiod1930isadivider,markingthebeginningoflarge-scale

subsidiestoagriculture.Roosevelt’sNewDealwasaforerunnerbutEuropesoongot

equivalentprogrammes.

DovringdocumentsthedevelopmentoflandownershipinEurope.Withgreatskillhe

avoidsthemanytrapslayingincomparativeanalysesofownershipstructuresandfarm

populationindifferentcountries.Hestartswiththedeciledistributionoflandand

owners,asonedoeswhencalculatingGiniindices,buthetakesintoaccountthe

heterogeneityoflandandthepossibilitythatthevalueofoutputonasmallfarm,as

definedbyareacanbehigherthanthatofalargerfarm.Thesecomplicationsmakearea

statisticsoflimiteduse,especiallyiftheaimiscomparativeandhistorical.Dovring

avoidsthisproblembyusingotherstatistics,forexampleman-landratiosand

standardizedlabourtimedata,whichbegantobecollectedinmanyEuropeancountries

alreadytowardstheendofthe19thcentury.Bytriangulatingthedifferentsourcesof

data,hearrivesataveryinterestingconclusion,withabearingonotherregionsand

historicalperiodsthanEuropeintheearly20thcentury:

“TheweightedmaterialunderlinestherigidityofthefarmstructureinwesternEurope,

andalsothesimilaritybetweencountries.England,withthemostextremelarge-farm

structureinWesternEurope,hasonlyone-tenthofitsdevelopedresourcesinfarmslarger

than200hectares,oremployingmorethan10men.Themedianisonly60hectaresand

ratherlessthan4man-years.OnthecontinentandinScandinavia,familyfarmsand

under-sizedfarmsareentirelydominant,withfarmsrequiringlargeamountsofhired

labordefinitelyinasmallminority”(Dovring1965,1955,p.135)

Thesamepatterntoalargeextentholdseventoday,althoughthemediansizeintermsof

areahasgrownmanifoldwhileaveragemanyearsoflabourinputisconsiderablylower,

withastrongmajorityoffarmsneedingoneman-yearorless(asdocumentedbyBailey

1973fortheperiodafter1945).

TheUS

WhendiscussingNorthAmericanagriculture,itisoftenpointedoutthattheUShasno

feudalpastandthatthishasleftanimprintonitsagrarianhistory.Ingeneraltermsthat

maybetrue,butinamoredetailedaccountitdoesnothold.True,largepartsoftheMid-

Westwascolonizedbysettlersthatwereallottedlandparcels,inprincipleofequalsize.

ThiscreatedthetypicalUSsettlementpatterns,withfarmsteadsspreadoutoverthe

landscapeandwithalowdegreeofinequalityintermsoflandownership.Butthereare

manyexceptionstothis.Firstly,manysettlersboughtlargerlandparcelsfrom

institutionallandowners,oftenrailwaycompaniesthatownedabout10percentallland

intheUS(Pfeffer1983p.554ff.).Moreimportantlythereareregionalexceptionstothe

settlerstory.

IntheSouthernStates,thehistoryofagricultureisrootedintheslaveplantations,

dominantuntilthelandreformsaftertheCivilWar.Manyhavewonderedwhyafterthe

abolitionofslavery,thelargecottonplantationswerenotconvertedtocapitalistfarms,

withblackwagelabourers.Thefactthattheydidnot,againpointstotheconstraintsto

thedevelopmentofcapitalistfarms,intherealworld,asopposedtotheory.MostDixie

landlordspreferredtoleaseoutlandparcelstosharecropperstorunningtheir

plantationswithhiredlabour.ThismayhavesomethingtodowithRoumasset’s

observation:

“Sharetenancygivesthetenantashareofbenefitsfrommaintenanceandland

improvementsandtherebylowersassetabuserelativetothatofthefixedlease

arrangement,whilesimultaneouslyloweringoptimalsupervisioncostsoflabor,relativeto

wagecontracts.”(Roumasset1995)

SincetheCivilWarSouthernlandlordismhasgivenwaytoasmallholderstructure:In

the1980stheSouthhadagreatershareofsmallholdingsthantherestofthecountry

(WilkeningandGilbert1987)andthisisprobablystillthecase.Ontheotherhand,

California,Arizona,TexasandFloridacontinuetobemarkedbyahugeconcentrationof

landownership.Mindyou,thisunequalstructureisnotaproductofcapitalist

development,butofhistory.CalifornianlandlordismisrootedintheSpanish/Mexican

past.Thelargelandedpropertiesformedatthattime,toalargeextenthaveweathered

thetimesandkepttheirdominanceintheState.In18700.2percentofCalifornia’s

populationcontrolledmorethanhalftheagriculturalarea:

"Tosomeextentthispatternoflandholdingisanartefactofthearea’scolonialheritage.

WiththecompletionoftheMexican-Americanwarof1846-48,Americanrulewassimply

exchangedforMexicanrulewithoutanybasicchangeinlandtenure.Spanishlandgrants

remainedessentiallyintactbutwereappropriatedthroughforceandfraudbypublic

officials,therailroads,andvariouspowerfulpersons.

"InordertounderstandthepresentdayindustrializedagricultureofCalifornia,withits

heavylaborrequirements,itisnecessarytokeepinmindtheinteractingeffectoftwo

factors:landmonopolizationandtheavailabilityoflargeunitsofcheaplabor.Ifthelarge

holdingshadnotbeenmonopolizedfromtheoutset,itisquitelikelythatmanysmall

acreageunitsshouldhavedeveloped...Conversely,iftheownersofthelargeestateshad

beenunabletotaphugereservesofcheaplaborafterwheatproductionceasedtobe

profitable,itisquitelikelythatthedevelopmentoflargescaleintensiveagriculturewould

havebeenretarded,perhapsneverundertaken."(Pfeffer1983p.543)

InCalifornia,asinmanyotherpartsoftheworld,largelandedestateswerecreated

beforecapitalismdevelopedandthusarenoproductofsuchadevelopment.Thehistory

oflargelandedpropertiessofarisacorrectivetotheevolutionistparadigms.However,

thedifferenthistoricaltrajectoriesofthecottonbeltandthesunbelt,callsforan

explanation.Intheformertheplantationshavebeenlargelydismantled,whileinthe

latterlatifundioscontinuetodominate.Pfeffer’sexplanationofthisparadoxstillholds

andtallieswellwiththethesisadvancedinthisbook:theproblemoflargelanded

propertieshasalwaysbeenlabourpower.Theaccesstodisciplinedlabouratlowwages

isaperennialproblemforlarge-scaleproduction.InWesternEuropeaswehaveseen,

thelargeestateshadgreatproblemsinsurvivingthecompetitionwithindustryfor

labour,evenifmechanizationwasacountervailingforce.

EastAsia:Japan,SouthKoreaandChina:Theindustriousrevolution

Japanesescholarshavecoinedtheconceptofanindustriousrevolutionapplicablenot

onlytoJapanbuttoseveralEastAsiancountries,emphasizingtheroleoffamilylabour,

notonlyinfarmingbutalsointhenon-farmsectorandintheproto-industrializationof

theJapaneseandChineseweavingandtextileindustries.Latertheindustrious

revolutionledtotheemergenceofalabourintensivepatternofindustrialization,which

madeitpossibleespeciallyforJapaneseindustriestocompetewithAmericanand

Europeanindustry(seeforexampletheworksquotedinSugihara2003).The

industriousrevolutionalsoleftaresilientimprintontheagrarianstructureofEast,as

wellSouthEastAsia,asdocumentedinarecentstudybyRiggetal.(2016).

ItisdoubtfulwhethertheconceptofanindustriousrevolutioncanbeappliedtoIndia,

toitsfarmsectororitsprotoindustrialization.Onthecontrary,thedivisionoflabourin

theagriculturalsectorandinspinning,weavingandtextiles,typicallyoccurredbetween

households,ratherthanwithinthem,unlikeintheJapaneseandChinesecases.Thisalso

appliedtofarmingwhereintheIndiancasefamily-managedfarmsweretherule,butnot

familylabourfarms.Overlargepartsofthecountryevensmallandmediumfarmers

dependedonhiredlabour,especiallyduringthepeakseasonsandinploughing,

harvestingandthreshing(Kumar1965,Hjejle1967).Thepresenceofalargelandless

proletariat,eitherworkingastenantsorasagriculturalwagelabourersmadeitpossible

forlandowningfarmersto‘outsource’themostdemandingtasksincropping.Wewould

arguethatthisstructuralfeature,distinguishingtheIndiancasefromtheEastAsian

ones,iscrucialinunderstandingthebackgroundconditionsforIndia’sST.Itcontinues

tomarkthedevelopmentinthesub-continent.

AnothercommonfeatureoftheEastandSouthEastAsian‘tigereconomies’isthatthey

allhadthoroughgoinglandreformsbeforeWorldWarII(inthecaseofTaiwanunder

Japaneseoccupation)16orimmediatelyafterthewarintheothercases.Landreforms

largelydidawaywithlandlordismandcreatedfarmsectorsdominatedbyfamilyfarms

(Jirström2005).AgainIndiaisacontrast:itsabolitionoftaxfarming(zamindari)is

usuallyconsideredsuccessfulbut,althoughattempted,reformsoftheEastAsiantype

haveonlybeenimplementedwithsomesuccessintheIndianStatesofWestBengaland

Kerala.

16Thereislargeliteratureontheconsequenceforthefarmsectorofstructuraltransformation,especially

inSouthEastAsia.SeeforexamplethearticlescollectedinEicherandStaatz(1990)andTomichetal.

(1995):Eicher,C.K.andJ.M.Staatz,Eds.(1990).AgriculturaldevelopmentintheThirdWorld.Baltimore,

Md.,TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.

IndiainearnestlaunchedthemodernizationofitsagriculturewiththeGreenRevolution

from1967onwards(Frankel1978,DjurfeldtandJirström2005),butitdidsowitha

legacyofasegmentedrurallabourmarket,withminoritiesconsistingofmillionsof

landlesslabourersandpoorpeasants,segregatedbycaste,tribeandreligionandmostly

livinginabjectpoverty,togetherwithaclassoflargelandlords,entrenchedin

agriculturedespitethehalf-heartedlandreformsand,withlessfamilylabourfarmsand

morefamilymanagedones.

Summaryandconclusions

Theemergenceorstrengtheningoffamilyfarmshashistoricallybeenassociatedwith

thestructuraltransformation(ST)ofeconomies,whichnowbelongtothemost

industrializedandurbanizedintheworld.IntheWestfamilyfarmshavegrown,not

onlyattheexpenseofsmallerunits,butalsoattheexpenseoflargefarmsdependenton

hiredorothernon-familylabour.Asaresultofmechanizationandthedecreased

importanceofhiredlabour,bigestateshaveoftenbeensub-dividedandconvertedto

familyworkedfarms.Thisleadstoageneralquestionforfollowinganalysis:Isfamily

farmingstrengtheningitspositioninIndiaintandemwithitsST?OrisIndia,

paraphrasingthetitleofthisstudy:”Noplaceforfamilylabourfarms?”

Beforewecandigintothat:Inthenextchapter,wediscusstheconceptandprocessof

ST,especiallyitsconsequencesforagrariansociety.

References

Bailey,W.R.(1973).TheOne-ManFarm.Washington,D.C.,EconomicResearchService,UnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture.Binswanger,H.P.,K.DeiningerandG.Feder(1995).Power,distortions,revoltandreforminagriculturallandrelations.Handbookofdevelopmenteconomics.JereR.BehrmanandT.N.Srinivasan.Amsterdam,Elsevier.3B:2659-2772.Bjerén,G.(1981)."FemaleandmaleinaSwedishforestregion:Oldrolesundernewconditions."Antropologiskastudier(30-31):56-85.Brenner,R.(1976).AgrarianClassStructureandEconomicDevelopmentinPreindustrialEurope;.Brookfield,H.(2008)."Familyfarmsarestillaround:timetoinverttheoldagrarianquestion."GeographyCompass2(1):108-126.Brox,O.(1969).HvaskjeriNord-Norge?,PaxForlag.Caird,J.(1961,1878).Thelandedinterestandthesupplyoffood.London,Cass.Chambers,J.D.andG.E.Mingay(1966).TheAgriculturalRevolution1750-1880.London:,B.T.BatsfordLtd.Chand,R.,Prasanna,P.LakshmiandA.Singh(2011)."Farmsizeandproductivity:Understandingthestrengthsofsmallholdersandimprovingtheirlivelihoods."EconomicandPoliticalWeekly46:5-11.Chayanov,A.V.(1977).ThejourneyofmybrotherAlekseitothelandofpeasantutopia.TheRussianpeasant1920&1984.R.E.F.Smith.London,FrankCass:63-108.Chayanov,A.V.(1986).OntheTheoryofPeasantEconomy.Madison,Wis.,TheUniversityofWisconsinPress.Chayanov,A.V.(1986,1966).A.V.ChayanovandtheTheoryofPeasantEconomy.Madison,Wisconsin,TheUniversityofWisconsinPress.Coase,R.H.(1937)."Thenatureofthefirm."Economica4(16):386-405.Deininger,K.andD.Byerlee(2012)."Theriseoflargefarmsinlandabundantcountries:Dotheyhaveafuture?"WorldDevelopment40(4):701-714.Dixon,J.,A.Tanyeri-AburandH.Wattenbach(2004)"Frameworkforanalysingimpactsofglobalizationonsmallholders."FAOCorporateDocumentRepository.Djurfeldt,G.(1981)."WhatHappenedtotheAgrarianBourgoisieandtheRuralProletariatUnderMonopolyCapitalism?"ActaSociologica24(3):167-191.Djurfeldt,G.(1993)."ClassesasclientsoftheState.LandlordsandlaborersinAndalusia."ComparativeStudiesinSocietyandHistory35(1):159-182.Djurfeldt,G.(1994).Godsochgårdar:Jordbruketiettsociologisktperspektiv.Lund,Arkiv.Djurfeldt,G.(1996)."Definingandoperationalisingfamilyfarmingfromasociologicalperspective."SociologiaRuralis36(3):340-351.Djurfeldt,G.andM.Jirström(2005).Thepuzzleofthepolicyshift-TheearlygreenrevolutioninIndia,IndonesiaandthePhilippines.TheAfricanFoodCrisis:LessonsfromtheAsianGreenRevolution.G.Djurfeldt,H.Holmén,M.JirströmandR.Larsson.London,CABI.Djurfeldt,G.andS.Sircar(2016).StructuraltransformationandagrarianchangeinIndia.NewYorkandLondon,Routledge.

Dovring,F.(1965,1955).LandandLaborinEuropeintheTwentiethCentury:AComparativeSurveyofRecentAgrarianHistory.(ThirdRevisedEditionofLandandLaborinEurope,1900-1950).TheHague:,MartinusNijhoff.Dyer,G.(1998)."Farmsizeandproductivity:anewlookattheolddebaterevisited."EconomicandPoliticalWeekly:A113-A116.Eastwood,R.,M.LiptonandA.Newell(2010).Farmsize.Handbookofagriculturaleconomics.P.L.PingaliandR.E.Evenson.NorthHolland,Elsevier.Eicher,C.K.andJ.M.Staatz,Eds.(1990).AgriculturaldevelopmentintheThirdWorld.Baltimore,Md.,TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.Errington,A.(1996)."AcommentonDjurfeldt'sdefinitionoffamilyfarming."SociologiaRuralis36(3):352-355.Eswaran,M.andA.Kotwal(1986)."AccesstoCapitalandAgrarianProductionOrganisation."EconomicJournal96(382):482-498.FAO(2014).Thestateoffoodandagriculture:Innovationinfamilyfarming,FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations.Frankel,F.R.(1978).India'spoliticaleconomy,1947-1977:Thegradualrevolution.Princeton,N.J.,PrincetonUniversityPress.Fuller,A.andB.Ray(1992).PluriactivityAmongFarmFamilies:SomeWestEuropean,USandCanadianComparisons.ContemporaryRuralSystemsinTransition.I.R.Bowler,C.R.B.andM.D.Nellis.London,CABInternational.Volume2:EconomyandSociety:201-212.Garner,E.andA.P.delaOCampos(2014).Identifyingthe“familyfarm”:Aninformaldiscussionoftheconceptsanddefinitions.ESAWorkingPaper14-10.Rome,AgriculturalDevelopmentEconomicsDivision,FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations.Gasson,R.(1987).FamilyFarminginBritain.FamilyFarminginEuropeandAmerica.B.GaleskiandE.Wilkening.Boulder,Col.,WestviewPress:5-37.Gatti,F.(2007).Bilal:viaggiare,lavorare,moriredaclandestini.Milano,BUR.Harrison,A.(1975).FarmersandfarmbusinessesinEngland,MiscellaneousStudyNumber62.Reading:ReadingUniversity,DepartmentofAgriculturalEconomicsandManagement.Hjejle,B.(1967).SlaveryandagriculturalbondageinSouthIndiainthenineteenthcenturyCopenhagen,ScandinavianInstituteofAsianStudies.Hobsbawm,E.J.(1969).Industryandempire:aneconomichistoryofBritainsince1750.London.Holmes,D.andJ.Qataert(1986)."AnApproachtoModernLabor:WorkerPeasantriesinHistoricSaxonyandFriuliRegionoverThreeCenturies."ComparativeStudiesinSocietyandHistory28(2):191-216.Kasimis,C.andA.G.Papadopoulos(1997)."FamilyfarmingandcapitalistdevelopmentinGreekagriculture:Acriticalreviewoftheliterature."SociologiaRuralis37(2):209-227.Kumar,D.(1965).LandandCasteinSouthIndia:AgriculturallabourintheMadrasPresidencyduringthenineteenthcentury.Cambridge,CambrideUniversityPress.Lenin,V.I.(1960,1899).TheDevelopmentofCapitalisminRussia.Moskva,ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse.Lin,J.Y.(1992)."RuralreformsandagriculturalgrowthinChina."TheAmericaneconomicreview:34-51.Lipton,M.andT.John(1991).DoesAidWorkinIndia?AStudyoftheImpactofOfficialDevelopmentAssistance.London:,Routledge.

Lowder,S.K.,J.SkoetandS.Singh(2014)."Whatdowereallyknowaboutthenumberanddistributionoffarmsandfamilyfarmsintheworld?"BackgroundpaperforTheStateofFoodandAgriculture:8.Mackinnon,N.,J.M.Bryden,C.Bell,M.FullerandM.Spearman(1991).Pluriactivity,StructuralChangeandFarmHouseholdVulnerabilityinWesternEurope.Marx,K.(1977).Capital.ACritiqueofPoliticalEconomy.London,Lawrence&Wishart.Newby,H.,C.Bell,C.RoseandP.Saunders(1978).Property,PaternalismandPower.London:,Hutchinson.Perry,P.J.(1972).BritishAgriculture,1875-1914.London,Methuen.Pfeffer,M.(1983)."SocialoriginsofthreesystemoffarmproductionintheUnitedStates."RuralSociology48:540-562.Polanyi,K.(2001,1944).TheGreatTransformation:ThePoliticalandEconomicOriginsofOurTime.Boston,BeaconPress.Prowse,M.(2011).ACenturyofGrowth?AHistoryofTobaccoProductionandMarketinginMalawi-1890-2005,UniversiteitAntwerpen,InstituteofDevelopmentPolicyandManagement(IOB).Prowse,M.(2013)."AhistoryoftobaccoproductionandmarketinginMalawi,1890–2010."JournalofEasternAfricanStudies7(4):691-712.Reardon,T.,C.B.Barrett,J.A.BerdeguéandJ.F.M.Swinnen(2009)."AgrifoodIndustryTransformationandSmallFarmersinDevelopingCountries."WorldDevelopment37(11):1717-1727.Reardon,T.,C.P.Timmer,C.BarrettandJ.Berdegué(2003)."TheriseofsupermarketsinAfrica,Asia,andLatinAmerica."AmericanJournalofAgriculturalEconomics85(5):1140-1146.Rigg,J.,A.SalamancaandE.C.Thompson(2016)."ThepuzzleofEastandSoutheastAsia'spersistentsmallholder."JournalofRuralStudies43:118-133.Riskin,C.(1995).FeedingChina:Theexperiencesince1949.ThePoliticalEconomyofHunger.SelectedEssays.J.Drèze,A.SenandA.Hussain.Oxford,ClarendonPress:401-444.Roumasset,J.(1995)."Thenatureoftheagriculturalfirm."JournalofEconomicBehaviorandOrganization26:161-177.Schmitt,G.(1991)."WhyistheagricultureofadvancedWesterneconomiesstillorganizedbyfamilyfarms.Willthiscontinuetobesointhefuture?"EuropeanReviewofAgriculturalEconomics18:443-458.Scott,J.C.(1985).WeaponsoftheWeak:EverydayFormsofPeasantResistance.LondonandNewYork,YaleUniversityPress.Smith,A.(1904(1776)).AnInquiryintotheNatureandCausesoftheWealthofNations.E.Cannan.London:Methuen&Co.,Ltd.,LibraryofEconomicsandLiberty[Online]Stevenson,A.(2014).CashCropsWithDividends:FinanciersTransformingStrawberriesIntoSecurities.NewYorkTimes.NewYork.Sugihara,K.(2003).TheEastAsianPathofEconomicDevelopment:Along-termperspective.TheResurgenceofEastdAsia:500,150and50yearperspective.G.Arrighi,T.HamashitaandM.Selden.LondonandNewYork,Routledge:78-123.Thomas,R.J.(1985).Citizenship,Gender,andWork:SocialOrganizationofIndustrialAgriculture.Berkeley:,UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Tracy,M.(1989).GovernmentandAgricultureinWesternEurope1880-1988.ThirdEdition.,London:HarvesterWheatsheaf.Weber,M.,Ed.(1997,1949).Themethodologyofthesocialsciences.TranslatedandeditedbyEdwardA.ShilsandHenryA.Finch.NewYork,FreePress.

Wilkening,E.andJ.Gilbert(1987).FamilyFarmingintheUnitedStates.Williamson,O.E.(1979)."Transaction-costeconomics:thegovernanceofcontractualrelations."Journaloflawandeconomics:233-261.WorldBank(2009).AwakeningAfrica'sSleepingGiant:ProspectsforcommercialAgricultureintheGuineaSavannahZoneandBeyond.Washington,D.C.,TheBank.