Household Production And

This article was downloaded by: [the Bodleian Libraries of theUniversity of Oxford]On: 22 November 2014, At: 13:12Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of PeasantStudiesPublication details, including instructionsfor authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fjps20

Household production andthe national economy:Concepts for the analysisof Agrarian formationsHarriet Friedmann aa Department of Sociology , University ofToronto ,Published online: 05 Feb 2008.

To cite this article: Harriet Friedmann (1980) Household production and thenational economy: Concepts for the analysis of Agrarian formations, TheJournal of Peasant Studies, 7:2, 158-184, DOI: 10.1080/03066158008438099

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066158008438099

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content.Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fjps20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/03066158008438099

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066158008438099

information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the useof the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 13:

12 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Household Production and the NationalEconomy: Concepts for the Analysis of

Agrarian Formations

Harriet Friedmann*

This essay argues that the central concept for analysis of agrarian socialrelations is the form of production. This is conceived through a doublespecification of the unit of production and the social formation. Theapproach allows for the analytical specification of simple commodity pro-duction and capitalist relations of production in a manner consistent withthe development of new concepts within political economy for agrarianstructures which do not correspond to modes of production. The latter havegenerally been referred to as 'peasant', a term derived through empiricalgeneralisation and resting on a (usually) implicit contrast with simplecommodity production. The contrast can be made more rigorous through theconcept of commoditisation, defined as the penetration into reproduction ofcommodity relations. Simple commodity production is a concept withinpolitical economy, allowing for deduction of conditions of reproduction andclass relations. 'Peasanf production is negatively defined as resistingcommoditisation, and nothing can be deduced about reproduction or classrelations. 'Peasant' must be replaced ty a comprehensive and mutuallyexclusive set of rigorously defined concepts specifying forms of production.Procedures for defining such forms of production are suggested.

Attempts to conceptualise social relations of production in agriculture haveled to an increasing focus on the minimal unit of organisation of the labourprocess, the unit of production. Since most agrarian structures are not strictlycapitalist or feudal, the concept mode of production has proved to be of limitedanalytical utility. On one side, attempts to construct a mode of productionspecific to agriculture have failed. On the other, attempts to follow Marx andLenin in the specification of structures which are 'transitional' between classicalmodes of production, have led to teleological reasoning and factual error. Theproblems of both approaches can be resolved through a theorisation of therelation between the unit of production and social formation. This relation

* Department of Sociology, University of Toronto. This essay is a revised version of a paper read to theUniversity of London Peasants Seminar, May 4, 1979, entitled 'Peasants and Simple CommodityProducers: Analytical Distinctions'. Various drafts benefited from criticisms by Nick Amin, KarenAnderson, Henry Bernstein, Robert Brym, Terry Byres, Wally Goldfrank, David Lehmann, SusanMann, Peter Meier, Miguel Murmis, Goran Therbom,Jack Wayne, and Gavin Wright.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 13:

12 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

ANALYSIS OF AGRARIAN FORMATIONS 159

provides the basis for denning forms of production as concepts for the analysisof agrarian structures.

Historically, the most common unit of agricultural production has been thehousehold, in which the domestic group jointly provides labour, possesses atleast part of the means of production, and may dispose of at least part of theproduct of its labour. ' Household production has understandably been thebasis for attempts to characterise a type of economy [Chayanov 1924] or modeof production [Sahlins 1974] unique to agriculture. Such attempts assume thatthe identity of the productive unit with the domestic group lends a universalcharacter to the economy. The economy is derived analytically by generalisingfrom the demographic and economic dynamics of the individual household, tothe hypothetical structure which should emerge in the aggregate.

Criticisms of such attempts have been well-taken.2 The variety of social andeconomic contexts of agricultural household production includes feudal relationsof production at one extreme, and commercial relations of highly mechanisedfamily farms within capitalist economies, at the other. Not only can thesecontexts not be derived from the dynamics of household productive organisation,but the internal composition and division of labour within productive households,and the characteristics of household members, are largely determined by theexternal relations of households to each other and to other social groups. Thestructure of the larger economy thus conditions the relative importance ofinternal processes.3 For example, the importance of 'demographic differentiation'[Chayanov 1925; Shanin 1972] relative to economic or class differentiation[Lenin 1908; Harrison 1975], depends upon frequent communal land redistri-bution, little mobility of labour out of agricultural households, a low degree ofmechanisation of production, and other characteristics of the Russian ruraleconomy of the early twentieth century which do not always exist elsewhere.

Writers seeking to restrict the concept mode of production to those dennedby classical Marxist theory, have interpreted various types of household pro-duction as aspects of 'transition' to capitalist agriculture. Marx interpretedsharecropping, for example, as an intermediate form in the transition fromfeudalism to capitalism. Lenin [1908] is the source of most arguments assertingthe necessity for the differentiation of agricultural households into two classes,owners of the means of production and sellers of labour power, as part of thedevelopment of capitalism within the national economy. Lenin, however,realised that specialisation and increased productivity in the agrarian sectorwere the essential concomitants of national development; he expected classdifferentiation only on the additional assumption that, as is usually true inindustry, household organisation of the labour process would not be able toadapt to and contain the increased scale of production induced by specialisationand competition [Lenin n.d.: 253]. Of course, through increased productivityhousehold labour has in fact been able to retain its dominance in most agriculturalsectors of advanced capitalist economies [Dovring 1965; Mann and Dickinson1978;Servolin 1972; Vergopoubs 1974; Friedmann 1978a, b\. Changing technicaland social conditions may in principle lead to capitalist relations of productionin future.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 13:

12 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

160 THE JOURNAL OF PEASANT STUDIES

Yet the debate over the 'necessity' for differentiation or maintenance ofagricultural households continues [Vergopoulos 1978]. The reason lies in theattempt to generalise about all household producers, especially to predict thefuture of agriculture in underdeveloped economies. Yet specialisation, with orwithout class differentiation, occurs at the level of the productive unit only inthe course of development of the agricultural sector as a whole. It is not aquestion for those agricultural households which exist within a context ofsocial and technical stagnation [Mouzelis 1976: 487]. Since the character ofagricultural households derives from the larger economy, and since the largereconomy may be changing in different ways, there is no reason to expect auniversal direction of development of agricultural households. Instead, thequestion concerns bases for divergent directions of development.

In this essay I shall argue that the central concept for analysis of agrariansocial relations is the form of production. This is conceived through a doublespecification of the unit of production and the social formation. The socialformation provides the context for reproduction of units of production, and incombination with the internal structure of the unit, determines its conditionsof reproduction, decomposition, or transformation. This double specificationis necessary even in the case of correspondence between relations of productionat the level of the unit and the classical mode of production. Thus, the capitalistmode of production is characterised by generalised circulation of commodities,especially labour power. Markets in products, labour power, credit, andmeans of production must encompass ail units with wage relations in order forthe reproduction of each unit to be fully capitalist in form. From this perspective,latifundia employing landless labour in a context of labour immobility are notfully capitalist, in contrast to, for example, the 'factories in the field' producingfruit and vegetables in California. At the same time, the social formation is notuniquely determinative of the form of production. Thus, simple commodityproduction in the strict sense of competition among units, mobility of labour,and markets in land, other means of production, and credit, depends no lessthan a capitalist enterprise on a larger capitalist economy [ Morishima andCatephores 1975; Friedmann 1978a],

The double specification of the form of production is especially important incases which do not correspond to modes of production. Except for householdproduction in the agricultural sectors of advanced capitalist economies, andsometimes even then, these forms have generally been characterised as 'peasant'.'Peasant' is not a concept [Ennew, Hirst, and Tribe 1977], but it cannot simplybe replaced with existing concepts because it does not refer to a unique set ofproductive relations. In particular, household production of commoditiescorresponds to simple commodity production only when external relations aregoverned by competition and mobility of factors [Cf. Bernstein 1979]. Beyondthis, 'peasants' with specific class relations, such as sharecroppers and immobilelandless labourers, require specifications distinct from each other and fromhouseholds in full possession of the means of production. The term 'peasant'must give way to analytical specification of forms of production based oninternal characteristics of the unit and external characteristics of the social

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 13:

12 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


formation. Together these characteristics determine the conditions of repro-duction of the form and the manner in which its circuits of reproductionintersect with those of other classes.

Since household production is the most common in agriculture and the mostanalytically problematic, it will be the focus of the discussion. And sincesimple commodity production is a concept within political economy, it willprovide one pole of differentiation. Households whose reproduction occursthrough non-commodity relations (whatever the proportion of production forsale to production for use), will provide the other. The purpose of the analysisis to clarify the concept simple commodity production, and to point in thedirection of definition of other concepts which allow for the analysis of otherforms of agricultural production. The ultimate goal is a mutually exclusive andexhaustive set of concepts. While this cannot yet be accomplished, the lastsection attempts to begin such a procedure by suggesting the major points ofanalytical differentiation among forms of production usually called 'peasant'.

Specificity of Simple Commodity Production

It is important to distinguish between 'simple commodity production' and'peasantry' on the -basis of the status of each within political economy. Thedistinction brings together two separate areas of intellectual work, allowing forthe consistent reformulation of their results. On one side is a renewed interestin simple commodity production as a category of political economy, and on theother is an attempt to synthesize the results of anthropological and historicalresearch into various agrarian formations loosely grouped under the term'peasants'. By developing simple commodity production as a concept withinpolitical economy, rejecting 'peasantry' as a concept, and denning new conceptsto replace the latter, many of the problems associated with the analysis ofhousehold agricultural production may be resolved.

Recent attempts to situate studies of the peasantry within political economyhave suffered from the failure to recognise divergent conditions of reproductionof agricultural households. In the search for a uniform approach, Marxisttheorists have drawn different conclusions about the usefulness of the term'peasantry', depending upon the historical cases informing the analysis. Drawingon the classic studies by Lenin [1908] and Kautsky [/S99] of agriculturalhouseholds in economies defined as capitalist, Ennew, Hirst, and Tribe [1977]have concluded that the term 'peasant' should be replaced by a concept ofpolitical economy, simple commodity producer. Drawing on studies of theRussian village community, Harrison [1977] has concluded that peasantformations do exist, not as a category of political economy, but as historicallyspecific combinations of structures. Each conclusion marks an importantadvance in the study of one type of agrarian household production within onekind of social formation, but their simultaneous application to historical casesmust lead to contradictory results. Thus in his otherwise illuminating exami-nation of African peasantries, Bernstein [1979: 6-8, 26] at once identifiespeasants as simple commodity producers, and concludes that the absence of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 13:

12 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


any 'single and "essential" peasantry . . . means that it is impossible to talkabout peasants as a "class" in general terms'.

It is true that 'peasant' has no status within political economy insofar as thelatter is a theory of commodity relations in particular and of modes of productionin general. But precisely for this reason it is not equivalent to the concept'simple commodity production'. As we shall see, 'simple commodity production'identifies a class of combined labourers and property owners within a capitalisteconomy, and the circuits of reproduction of simple commodity productionintersect with those of commodity, landowning, and banking capital, and withmarkets in labour power, in abstractly determined relations. 'Peasant' householdreproduction involves important communal and/or class relations which limitthe penetration of commodity relations into the productive process. These arespecific to the larger economy in each case.

Reproduction of Agricultural Households

Basic concepts for understanding the relation between household productionand the social formation are reproduction and transformation. Reproductionrefers to the renewal from one round of production to another of the social andtechnical elements of production and of the relations among them. Thus, ifreproduction is to occur, the means of production must be renewed, and thesocial product distributed among those who labour and those who control themeans of production in such a way that production may recommence in itsprevious form. Of course, in household production, at least some of the meansof production are in the hands of the direct producers, and the division of theproduct between renewal of means of production (productive consumption)and renewal of labour power (personal consumption) is to that extent containedwithin the household and involves no distribution of the product betweensocial classes. But members of other classes may establish claims to a share ofthe product through, for example, control over land or the advance of credit.

The undermining of reproduction, and the recombination of some of the oldelements of production into new relations, is transformation.4 Even withouttransformation of the relations of production, however, reproduction may beeither stable or variable in scale and productivity. Thus, the reproduction ofcapitalist relations may be simple or extended; that is, buyers and sellers oflabour power may be reproduced in the same numbers and in relation to thesame constant capital, or the profits accumulated during the current round ofproduction may be used to increase the scale of production without changingits form. Similarly, household reproduction may occur at a stable of increasingscale in terms of either of output per unit of labour or land, or of the ratio ofproductive to personal consumption.

This essay seeks to show that reproduction of agricultural households takesone of two possible directions. Commoditisation is a process of deepeningcommodity relations within the cycle of reproduction [Bernstein 1979: 5-6].5

Commoditisation occurs to the extent that each household is severed fromdirect reciprocal ties, both horizontal and vertical, for renewal of means of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 13:

12 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


production and of subsistence, and comes to depend increasingly on commodityrelations for reproduction. The process of commoditisation ultimately impliesthe individual status of each household. It becomes an enterprise, whoserelations to outsiders progressively take the forms of buying, selling, andcompetition. The end point of commoditisation is simple commodity production.6

This is a logical concept, referring to the complete separation of the householdfrom all ties except those of the market. Of course, this concept, like theconcept of capitalism, can only be approximated in reality. But the concept'simple commodity production' allows for the specification within a deductivetheory of a set of conditions of reproduction and a set of relations amonghouseholds and other classes.

Reproduction may also occur in the opposite way. Whatever the level ofspecialisation in production of commodities,7 if household reproduction isbased on reciprocal ties, both horizontal and vertical, for renewal of means ofproduction and subsistence, then reproduction resists commoditisation. Ifaccess to land, labour, credit, and product markets is mediated through direct,non-monetary ties to other households or other classes, and if these ties arereproduced through institutionally stable reproductive mechanisms, thencommodity relations are limited in their ability to penetrate the cycle ofreproduction. For expositional simplicity, households whose reproductionoccurs through communal and particularistic class relations are provisionallycalled 'peasants'. Their conditions of reproduction and relations to otherhouseholds and classes are historically variable and do not approximate anydeductive concept. General statements about peasant households are inductivelyderived through empirical generalisations. The term 'peasant' does not allowfor deductive propositions about reproduction or class relations.

'Simple commodity producer' and 'peasant' thus have different theoreticalstatuses and imply different strategies of analysis. The most usual distinctionbetween 'peasants' on one side, and 'farmers' or 'entrepreneurs' on the other,is the ratio of subsistence to commodity production. This distinction is purelyquantitative, and thus arbitrary and descriptive. By contrast, the processes ofcommoditisation and resistance to commoditisation provide theoretical groundingto a different quantitative distinction. Each process has specific consequencesfor individuals, households, and economies, which cannot be derived fromquantitative distinctions alone. The development of the productive forces(i.e., increasing productivity of labour and/or land and increasing scale ofproduction), the alternatives facing individual producers (and their consequent'motivations'), the relation between agricultural households and markets fortheir products (market 'response'), and class relations, all differ according tocommoditisation or resistance to it.

Each process is in turn situated at the level of the economy. Commoditisationof households can take place only within a context of high mobility of land,labour, and credit. Resistance to commoditisation depends on a high andstable degree of immobility of these inputs to the production process. Mobilityof factors of production allows for analytical application of a logic universallycharacterstic of capitalist social formations [Marx 1867; Morishima and Catephores

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 13:

12 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


1975]. Though undeveloped within the literature, the concept of simplecommodity production has in principle a clear status within political economy.Peasant production, based on immobility of factors of production, has notheoretical status in political economy [Ennezv, Hirst and Tribe 1977]. A greatnumber of productive arrangements may exist which need have nothing morein common than limitations in the operation of market principles.

In the following sections I shall situate the distinction between 'peasant' andsimple commodity production within the literature on the peasantry, anddevelop some of its theoretical and methodological implications. In the finalsection, I shall suggest a procedure for replacing the negative term 'peasant'with a set of positive concepts.

Inductive Definitions of the Peasantry

'Peasantry' is a unifying idea derived through empirical generalisations fromcomparative studies [Shanin 1973:67; 1974:186]. Scholars have attempted todistil from the vast empirical materials gathered across the globe and overconsiderable time a concept which expresses a unity specific to the peasantry.The two universal elements of the peasantry seem to be household units ofproduction and the existence of relations to outsiders within the social formationwho are not peasants. These two elements, however, do not distinguishpeasants from other agricultural household producers who are generally agreednot to be peasants. Commercial agricultural households, such as Americanfamily farms in the plains, fit both criteria of peasants, but are somehowdifferent. For Weber, their difference lies in the absence of'rural society', thatis, of specific features which allow for ca theory of rural community as acharacteristic social formation'. Such specificities cannot coexist with the fulldominance of market relations and the resulting 'absolute economic individualismof the farmer, the quality of the farmer as a mere businessman' [Weber 1906:363-64]. This distinction is echoed by contemporary commentators, for whom'rural society' in its specific variations is the lifeblood of ethnography, which inturn allows for generalisation across cases.

The specific unity of the peasantry thus depends also on factors distinguishingit from simple commodity production. In the latter, producers are in competitionand cannot withdraw from the market. Competition within each sector tends tofoster increases in productivity and to generalise them throughout the sector.Mobility of labour, land, and credit within the larger economy allows producersto enter or leave each sector in response to changes in relative prices and costsof production among commodities. Competition enforces an adaptive strategyon surviving producers. This involves attempts to lower costs, to invest inlarger scale production when necessary, to save from past income in anticipationof required investment (often incorrectly called 'accumulation'8), and overtime to develop the productive forces and to increase the proportion of costsdevoted to renewal of means of production relative to those devoted to renewalof means of subsistence of the household (that is, to raise the organic compositionof the enterprise).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 13:

12 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Distinction from simple commodity production has added to the list ofspecifications of the 'peasantry', and additional features of the latter generallyrefer to divergences from the theoretically expected and empirically observedcharacteristics of the former. While some commodity production is often partof the definition of the peasantry [Thomer 1962], competition does not exclusivelyor even principally define the relation of peasants to each other or to outsiders.Peasant households have important communal relations, including local exchangeof products and reciprocal sharing of labour. For this reason the village istypically the immediate arena of reproduction. Even asymmetrical relations,such as credit and tenancy, are with particular persons, not banks or corporations,and are not governed by market prices [e.g. Erasmus 19S6; Musgrave 1978;Shanin 1973: 70-75]. The family labour unit distinguishes peasants fromsimple commodity producers only in the contexts of complete self-sufficiency,community exchanges, or 'sectional markets', in which 'in the network ofexchanges each community is a section, and the act of exchange relates eachsection to every other' [Wolf1966:37-40]. In other words, peasant householdstypically do not relate even to product markets individually and competitively.

This contrast with simple commodity production has important consequences.First, peasants cannot easily respond to changes in prices by shifting to otherproducts, and must either continue to sell at declining prices or withdraw fromthe market \Wolfl966:43]. This implies, second, that the production alternativesfacing peasants have more to do with degree of participation in the market thanwith choices of products to bring to the market [Wright and Kunreuther 1975].Third, limited competition among peasant households removes pressures fordevelopment of the productive forces and for increases in the organic compositionof capital. Thus for the peasantry land and labour are considerably moreimportant than other means of production, in determining the quality andquantity of production [Chayanov 1925: esp. 95-100]. Peasants are characterisedby low productivity of labour and land.

These three attributes of the peasantry, which often form part of thedefinition, stem from the restricted participation of individual peasant house-holds in markets for organising the productive process. These attributes inturn lead directly to the most frequently emphasised distinction betweenpeasants and simple commodity producers. The apparent motivation attributedto peasants in contrast to 'agricultural entrepreneurs' [Wolf 1966: 2] is the'subsistence' aim of the latter [Wolf 1955:454; Shanin 1974:188-89; Bernstein1979: 7]. Since household reproduction in both cases requires only renewal ofmeans of production and consumption, but no profit, 'subsistence' may besupposed to be the structurally determined aim for both; however, in simplecommodity production, survival of the enterprise requires adaptation to changesin relative prices and increases in productivity and organic composition, whilein peasant production, such changes are often unnecessary and even impossible.

Finally, an important part of usual definitions of the peasantry is a transfer tooutsiders of the 'surplus' over renewal of means of production and personalconsumption. Except for a notion of'unequal exchange' held by some writers,which is discussed below, this idea is also based on an implicit contrast with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 13:

12 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


simple commodity production. The latter concept implies independent producerswho engage only in free contractual relations. Peasants, however, may haveboth economic and political relations of dependence. For Wolf [7966: 9-10],peasant surpluses are appropriated in the form of rent through various types of'domain', or claims by outsiders to rights over the land worked by peasants. Itis important to note that this domain is different from property rights obtainedthrough purchase in a context in which land has become fully commoditised.Beyond these vertical economic relations, peasants often have political ties ofdependence to outsiders [Alavi 1973].

The two striking features of definitions of the peasantry are thus the use ofinductive procedures and the contrast with simple commodity production. Asa term derived through empirical generalisation, 'peasantry' encompasses thegreater part of agrarian productive organisations. Its unity derives principallyfrom its contrast to 'primitive' agriculturalists and to simple commodity andcapitalist producers [Wolf 1966: 2-4]. In other words, the chief unifying anddistinguishing characteristic of the peasantry is partial integration into markets.Within the limits of no integration into markets at one extreme and completeintegration into markets at the other, there is no specific level of integration ofany particular peasantry. The ratios of production for direct consumption toproduction for sale, and of community to market relations for organising theproductive process, are always variable. These ratios vary not only acrosspeasantries, but also over time [Wolf 1957]. This variability in the crucialdistinguishing element of the peasantry prohibits the a priori formulation ofanalytical statements about conditions of peasant reproduction. Thus, attemptsto construct a deductive theory of the peasantry such as that of Chayanov[1924,1925], are misguided. As one critic of Chayanov has put it, the 'theory ofa peasant mode of production yields to the idea of a specific combination ofstructures', of which no individual element is exclusive to the peasantry [Harrison1977:323,335].

Because the definition of the 'peasantry' is derived through empiricalgeneralisation, it does not allow for deduction of propositions. 'Peasants'cannot be analysed through the logic of kinship, the logic of markets, or anyother general theory. Yet the term 'peasant' cannot be replaced by the concept'simple commodity producer'.9 To do so involves begging important questionsabout specialisation of production, the shift from communal to competitiverelations among households, the stability or decomposition of agriculturalhouseholds [Lenin 1908, n.d.; Chayanov 1924, 1925], and the relation ofhousehold production to agricultural productivity [Vergopoulos 1978; Mouzelis1976]. Instead, 'peasant' must be replaced by specific concepts Unking the unitof production and the social formation. These should allow for historicalanalysis in each case of conditions of reproduction of family labour units withina specific complex of market and non-market ties to each other and to outsiders.Resistance to commoditisation is a negative formulation in contrast to simplecommodity (and capitalist) production. The reproduction of historically specificrelations limiting mobility of land, credit, and labour, can be analysed onlythrough the development of new concepts.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 13:

12 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Simple Commodity Production in Political Economy

Simple commodity production, by contrast, is a concept situated within adeductive theory. The logic of the market, including markets in labour power,land, and capital, allows for the deduction of conditions of reproduction of allclasses of commodity owners in their complex inter-relation. Historical analysisspecifies the quantitative relations among prices for products and factors ofproduction, and studies the causes and consequences of changes in theserelations, all within the logic of the market.10 The central characteristic ofsimple commodity in contrast to 'peasant' production, is the circulation ofcommodities in both directions. While 'peasants' may have any proportion ofsubsistence to cash crop production, including complete specialisation [cf.Shanin 1974: 190-91], the transition from 'peasant' to simple commodityproduction has as its underlying mechanism the individualisation of productiveenterprises. Personal ties for the mobilisation of land, labour, means of pro-duction, and credit are replaced by market relations [Wolf 1966: 71-73].

Specialisation of individual commodity producers is part of development ofthe division of labour within an economy which is, or is becoming, capitalist.Specialisation of each household contributes to markets for the commodities ofthe others. Thus commoditisation generates demand for means of productionand subsistence as it incorporates the reproduction of each individual householdmore completely, within the national market. The resulting competition generatestendencies towards increased scale of production and reduced numbers ofproducers. Competition also enforces a range of techniques with correspondingcombinations of labour, land, and machinery. In many cases, especially inindustrial production, the result is class differentiation, in which the dispossessedsell their labour power to successful competitors [Lenin ¡908; n.d.]. In othercases, more common in agriculture, successful competitors become simplecommodity producers, and the dispossessed for the most part move into otherbranches of production [Servolin 1972:57; Friedmann 1978b].

Fully developed commodity production depends upon the mobility of labour,which allows producers to adapt to changes in productivity and relative prices[Moriskima and Catephores 1975]. Thus simple commodity production in onesector depends upon its integration into a larger capitalist economy, in whichmarkets in land and other means of production are supplemented by marketsin labour power [Friedmann 1978a].11 'Peasant' production may be locatedwithin a capitalist social formation as well, but its specific character derivesfrom its lack of integration into national factor markets [Mouzelis 1976:487].

Focusing on mobility of factors of production allows for the distinction forpurposes of historical analysis between 'peasantries', and branches characterisedby simple commodity production. Specialised commodity production mayoccur in both cases, as it did, for example, for cotton sharecroppers in theAmerican South. But conditions of social reproduction differ profoundlyaccording to whether or not commodity relations penetrate the productiveprocess. Both reproduce their social relations within the larger social formation,but with different kinds of ties. And while conditions of reproduction are

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 13:

12 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


constant for simple commodity producers, they are variable for 'peasants' overtime and across social formations. This difference has both methodological andtheoretical implications.

Methodologically, only markets produce quantitatively systematic relations,which may be reflected in data showing regular relationships among productand factor prices. If 'peasants' are connected to markets primarily for sale ofproducts, then other economic relations by definition are not reflected insystematic price data, since levels of rent, land prices, interest rates, and wagelevels vary according to local conditions with no overriding tendency towardsuniformity. Simple commodity production, by contrast, is governed by market-determined prices for inputs as well as commodities sold. The increasingprevalence of systematic factor prices, then, is an index of the deepening ofcommodity relations within reproduction and thus of simple commodity pro-duction, while stable or decreasing generality of factor prices indicates resistanceto commoditisation.

Theoretically, class relations can be deduced for simple commodity productionbut not for 'peasants'. Apart from securing additional labour at some points,12

household producers may bear relations to three other classes: merchants,landowners, and creditors. The most important question for both 'peasants'and simple commodity producers is whether or not exploitation occurs withineach relation.'Exploitation refers to the appropriation of surplus labour from aproducing class by a non-producing class. Its existence and form can bedetermined definitively for simple commodity production, but only contingentlyfor 'peasant' production, as long as the latter is not replaced by a set of realconcepts.

Class Relations in Simple Commodity Production

Within a capitalist economy mobility of factors of production results in universalexchange of equivalents. Monopoly aside, the only exchange which can beexploitative is the purchase of labour power at its value. Apart from the specialcommodity labour power, whose use value is to create new value for its buyer,no other exchanges can appropriate value from the direct producer. The initialdistribution of value is determined through possession or separation from themeans of production, and it is reproduced through exchange. In agriculture,however, one means of production—land—may remain the historic monopolyof a 'pre-capitalist' class; it thus resists full commercialisation and serves as thebasis for absolute ground rent. Where no such monopoly exists, either in newlysettled areas or where the landed class has disappeared through the furtherdevelopment of capitalism, land is bought and sold freely. Only differentialrent exists, reflecting differences in output and location, and itself reflected inthe price of land. Rental under these circumstances is not exploitation, but anexchange at value; the fanner either pays the differential income due to advantagesof the land as rent over time or as a purchase price at once. If the farmerborrows in order to buy the land instead of rent it, and thus to capture thedifferential rent instead of paying it to the landowner, then he or she engages in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 13:

12 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


another exchange of equivalents. The borrower obtains the use of a sum ofmoney for investment in exchange for which the lender receives interestpayments, set in a money market and ultimately governed by the normal rate ofprofit.

Since simple commodity producers not only own their means of production,but require for their reproduction the mobility of factors of production existingonly within a capitalist economy, these relations apply to them no less than tocapitalist farmers. It follows from the concept of simple commodity productionthat integration of owners of the means of production into factor marketsprecludes their exploitation. Merchant capital, banking capital, and landownersbear the same relation to the owners of the means of production whether theyare simple commodity producers or capitalists.

While it is true that simple commodity producers have lower prices ofproduction than capitalists because of the absence of a profit category and theflexibility of the level of personal consumption [Servolin 1972], this does notreflect exploitation, still less, as Vergopoulos argues, 'accumulation' based on'unequal exchange'. Vergopoulos1 argument [1978: 447] is that householdlabour has a 'failure of earnings' represented by 'the profit and the rent notrealised', i.e., imaginary sums which 'would' have been part of the price ofproduction 'if agriculture had somehow been capitalist in form. He arguesthat this 'missing' component of the price of production exists as 'surpluslabour' which is appropriated by other parts of the economy; in particular itserves as 'a necessary mechanism for the accumulation of urban capital, andthe development of capitalism'.

This argument makes two untenable assumptions: that price of productionequals value for capitalist producers, so that a reduction from the capitalistprice of production implies an unaccounted for sum of value; and that thereexists some mechanism of appropriation by which this presumed value may betransferred and accumulated. First, there is no reason to believe that the lowerprices of production of agricultural households are further removed from valuethan higher ones. Indeed, Marx expected that agricultural profits and groundrent (combined with low organic composition) would tend to raise the capitalistprice of production above value [Mandel 1968:271-98]. By this reasoning, thelower prices of production of agricultural households may more closelyapproximate value.13 This conclusion is reinforced by Vergopoulos' correctemphasis on increasing organic composition in agricultural simple commodityproduction [see Marx 1867, III: 772]. Second, even if surplus value existed, itwould have to be appropriated through a productive relation, from class toclass, or redistributed within a single class through the equalisation of rates ofprofit.14 Unequal exchange, even if its existence could be shown, cannot serveas a mechanism of accumulation between sectors; to benefit from low prices isnot the same as to exploit, and the benefits within the urban sector are notclearly defined. It is, of course, true that lower prices of agricultural commoditiesmake an important contribution to capitalist accumulation through loweringthe value of labour power. A comparable contribution would be made ifincreased productivity by capitalist producers reduced prices of consumer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 13:

12 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


goods, whether food or furniture or clothing, as was the case during thenineteenth century depression in Western Europe. And capitalist agriculturewould benefit as much from a reduction in the value of labour power as othersectors, reducing the advantage of household producers and introducing acontradictory element into their low-cost reproduction. A contribution of thiskind to accumulation does not imply that producers of agricultural commoditiesare themselves the source of accumulation. By this logic, any branch of simplecommodity production, such as artisanal crafts for luxury consumption, wouldcontribute to accumulation, and perhaps even be 'a necessary mechanism forthe development of capitalism'. Value has to be produced and appropriatedthrough specific mechanisms by specific classes for accumulation to occur.Nothing absent, such as agricultural profits, can be accumulated, and neitherthe 'urban sector' nor a capitalist class within it can be the agent of accumulationfrom agricultural households. ;

To the extent that household producers undergo commoditisation, theirreproduction takes place within a capitalist economy and their class relationsare determined by their ownership of the means of production. Merchantcapital, once subsumed into social capital, buys commodities below their valueby that amount which allows it to realise the normal rate of profit in the longrun for simple commodity producers and capitalists alike [Servolin 1972].Banking capital lends money, in the form of mortgages or working capital, atthe prevailing rate of interest, with adjustments for risk [cf. Vergopoulos 1978:463]. If a high rate of interest threatens reproduction, simple commodityproducers may struggle to obtain state intervention into the credit market, buteven a high rate of interest cannot be conceived as exploitation. And landlords,which virtually nowhere constitute a separate class today, charge rent at a leveldetermined by potential income from the land in conjunction with otherdeterminants of its price. It may be true that simple commodity producers,motivated by the desire for independence, may increase the demand for land,hence its price and its rent [Servolin 1972]. This would, of course, put upwardpressure on prices of production. But this is strictly a phenomenon of supplyand demand. Simple commodity production tenants bear the same relation tolandowners as capitalist tenants. The differences in reproduction betweensimple commodity production and capitalist enterprises are a matter of indifferenceto merchant, banking, and landowning capital, as long as each may expect onaverage to achieve the normal rate of profit. Whatever general advantages mayaccrue to the economy from simple commodity production in agriculture,neither individual capitals nor 'capital' in general has any economic mechanismfor favouring or damaging it. Thus if simple commodity production implies acapitalist economy, then markets in factors of production in turn prelude theexploitation of simple commodity producers.

Class Relations of'Peasants'

'Peasants' are defined negatively and provisionally by the resistance of theirreproduction to commoditisation, which in turn rests on immobility of labour,land, and credit within the larger economy. Relations to landlords, creditors,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 13:

12 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

ANALYSIS OF AGRARIAN FORMATIONS [ 171

and merchants are thus different from those of simple commodity producers.Immobility prevents competition, and thus the establishment of sociallynecessary labour time, of universal prices, and of the possibility for engaging in(or measuring) equivalent exchange.

There is nothing in the term 'peasant' which implies a relation to eitherlandowners or creditors. 'Peasants' may individually or communally controlland as well as other means of production. If they produce their own food,tools, and other articles of personal and productive consumption, then theymay not need to borrow. But neither does the term imply the absence of classeswhich monopolise land or the absence over the production cycle of the need toborrow. And of course, the sale of products generally involves a relation tomerchant capital, in the context of limited competition among households, andthus of the emergence of socially necessary labour time.

Since none of these relations, when they exist, are governed by institutionalisedmarkets [Shanin 1973, 1974; Polanyi, et. al. 1971], they do not obey generallaws but take historically specific forms. It is important, therefore, to use theterm 'exploitation' with care and precision, specifying mechanisms for theappropriation of the surplus product. The term has often been used loosely indiscussions of the peasantry. An important exception is Wolf [1966:49], whorestricts his discussion of appropriation of peasant 'surpluses' to precapitalistrent in the strict sense, which he calls 'domain', or claims by outsiders to rightsover land worked by the peasantry. But Shanin [1973:66] asserts that 'peasantshave formed the productive and exploited majority over a large stretch ofhuman history' also through interest on loans, taxes, and 'terms of trade un-favourable to peasant producers'. Interest and taxes do not constitute exploitationfor capitalists or simple commodity producers, and the specific mechanisms bywhich they do so must be shown for different types of'peasant'. 'Unfavourableterms of trade' do not necessarily constitute exploitation, as we saw above,unless a mechanism of 'unequal exchange' by merchant capital can be established.Such specifications are possible, but only on condition that analysis dispenseswith definitions of exploitation which are so broad as to obviate the requirementof specifying mechanisms of appropriation. For example, one writer hasrecently defined the term rent as 'a broad category which refers to the principalform exploitation takes among peasants', including in addition to 'actual rent'also 'taxes, interest on loans, forced présale of produce at less than marketprice, etc., i.e., any extraction of surplus value not based on the sale of labourpowe? [Roseberry 1976:51] (original emphasis). This approach collapses concepts,when distinctions and clarifications are required.

In the absence of markets in land and credit, relations between landownersand creditors on one side, and tenants and debtors on the other, are notgoverned by universally determined levels of rent and interest. Instead,immobility of labour, land, and credit imply institutional possibilities formonopoly, coercion, or other bases for establishing dependent, relativelyunfree contractual relations. If land is monopolised by a separate class, thenrent is a claim on part of the product of the 'peasant' made possible throughcontrol over part of the means of production. A typical form of ground rent

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 13:

12 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


paid by 'peasants', such as sharecropping, is according to Marx [Capital, III:803], a 'lower form' than that which is 'a normal form of surplus value ingeneral'. In contrast to the economy in which land markets are fully developedand thus not controlled by a separate class, rent payments by peasants reflect astruggle between two classes over the division of the product. Althoughpeasants typically control at least some of their means of production, iflandowners control land, then the product must be divided between them. Thelandlord exploits the peasant, and 'precapitalist' rent is the mechanism ofappropriation of surplus labour.

If social or natural conditions prevent the continuous ability of peasants tosupply their needs over the course of the year, they must borrow in periods indearth. Once begun, a chronic cycle of indebtedness tends to reproduce itself.Prior debt prevents saving after the harvest, because the creditor calls in hisloan, and means of personal and productive consumption will consequently belikely to run short again before the next harvest. Interest payments are estab-lished not through a money market, but through local, personal relations tomoney lenders. The debtor is dependent on the local moneylender because heis generally unable to find alternate sources of credit. Limited land marketsmake mortgages undesirable to creditors, and the lack of commoditisation ofthe production process makes institutional credit for peasants unprofitable,even if it exists elsewhere within the economy. In the context of limited creditmarkets, then, the creditor lends money secured against the next crop. Interestrates are often so high that repayment is impossible, extending the debtrelation indefinitely. At the same time, these interest rates are nominal, sincemoney is often not involved either in the loan, or even more frequently, in therepayment ][seeMusgrave 1978; Ransom andSutch 1973,1975]. The 'precapitalist'credit relation then, like the 'precapitalist' rent relation, is exploitative, and themechanism of appropriation of surplus labour is interest.

Dependent and exploitative relations with landlords and creditors are likelyto reinforce each other. Rental payments reduce the likelihood of reproductionwithout borrowing, and indebtedness reduces whatever possibilities exist forbuying land. It is not surprising, therefore, to find the rent and interest claimson the product of the peasant household combined in a single person. This wasthe case, for example, for cotton producers in the American South, who cameincreasingly to be both sharecroppers and debtors of the same individual[Schwartz 1976].

Exploitation is both made possible and limited by the absence of com-moditisation. Immobility of labour and land lead to limited competition anddevelopment of the productive forces. Total production can thus increasemainly through increases in land and labour. Attempts to increase the rate ofexploitation (the division of the product between non-producer and producer),therefore, must be absolute rather than relative. If the total product cannot begreatly increased, then the landlord or creditor can increase his share onlythrough an increase in the labour of the 'peasant' household or a decrease in itslevel of consumption. All this stands in contrast to simple commodity production.In the latter case, factor mobility means that payments to landlords and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 13:

12 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


creditors are nonexploitative exchanges of equivalents. At the same time,competition and resulting increases in organic composition and productivityallow simple commodity producers, just as capitalists, to pay market determinedrent and interest and still increase the income of the enterprise.

Merchants also bear a different relation to 'peasants' and to simple com-modity producers. I have argued above that unequal exchange cannot existbetween simple commodity producers (or capitalists) and merchant capital;circulation costs incurred by capital in the long run return the normal rate ofprofit, and both cost and profit are added to the other components of the priceof production (though the latter differs between simple commodity and capitalistproduction). But the matter is more complicated for 'peasants', since logicaldeductions of this kind cannot be made.

Unequal exchange has at least two distinct meanings in Marxist literature. Inone meaning, such as that quoted from Roseberry about 'forced présale' below'market price', it reflects the naked enforcement of monopoly. Limited mobilityof land and labour, of course, make this situation structurally possible. Suchforce, however, may appear close to direct theft, and often proves difficult toincorporate into reproduction over a long period in an undisguised form. Theusual mechanism for enforcing immediate sale after harvest, when prices arelow, is debt. In the absence of a standard, it is difficult to call this 'présale'.While an element of force may underlie debt claims, the latter are the result of alegal and normative relation. In this case, apparent unequal exchange is likelyto be actual exploitation through 'precapitalist' debt, or usury.

The second meaning of unequal exchange involves a mechanism for translatingvalues into prices which systematically favours one set of producers overanother. This is, as we have seen, Vergopoulos' argument for the relationbetween rural and urban sectors of national economies, an argument parallel tothat of Emmanuel [1972] of the relation between metropolitan and peripheraleconomies. Both arguments are based on levels of subsistence in the ruralsector or peripheral economy lower than those in the urban sector or metropolitaneconomy, respectively. The argument for unequal exchange is more plausiblefor 'peasants' than for simple commodity producers, since the former maysubsidise their incomes by individual or communal production for use [seePhillips 1977: 14]. Resistance to commoditisation implies lack of integrationinto markets for renewal of means of subsistence; incomes required from thesale of household products may therefore be lower than under commoditisation,and there exists a possibility for lowering prices without undermining reproduc-tion. However, this same arena of reproduction which remains separate fromcommodity relations, also sets limits to the operation of the law of value[Bernstein 1979: 23]. At the same time, the limited mobility of factors whichdetermines 'peasant' production prevents the establishment of sociallynecessary labour time through competition, and thus limits the formation of astandard of equivalent exchange, against which unequal exchange might bemeasured. Moreover, Vergopoulos wants his conception of unequal exchangeto apply precisely in rural sectors with increasing productivity, namely simplecommodity production. But unequal exchange in this second sense can apply

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 13:

12 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


neither under conditions of competition nor in their absence; in the former,equivalent exchange prevails to the extent that it can be measured, while in thelatter, no standard of equivalence can be established.

Implications for Theory and ResearchBeyond theoretical clarification, the usefulness of the distinction betweensimple commodity and 'peasant' production depends on its contribution toanalysis of real household producers. The distinction itself is subject to empiricalconfirmation. The proposition that commoditisation is a function of mobilityof labour, land, and credit is testable. Commoditisation may be measured asthe proportion of goods purchased at market determined prices for productiveand personal consumption over time. Mobility of labour, land, and credit maybe measured as the unformity over time and across areas of wages, rents, andinterest rates, allowing for differences in skill, fertility and location, risk, andso on. If the logical distinction is verified historically, then the identification ofagricultural households as simple commodity producers or 'peasants' hasimportant implications, each of which may be the source of propositions forresearch.

At the level of the productive unit, relations to the larger economy structurealternatives, and thus provide the basis for understanding frequently observed'motivational' or 'behavioural' differences between 'peasants' and simplecommodity producers ('farmers'). First, to the extent that the aims of productionare determined by the relations of production, all households aim for satisfactionof the consumption needs of the domestic group. These needs are establishedas part of the determination of the historical and cultural level of subsistencewithin the region (for 'peasants') or national economy (for simple commodityproducers). Where labour is mobile, however, subsistence needs may be moreprecisely determined, both subjectively and objectively, as the opportunitywage foregone by household producers. Second, the more 'commercial' behaviourof simple commodity producers relative to peasants stems not from motivationaldifferences, but from the individualisation of the household which accompaniescommoditisation, and the resulting transformation of communal and parti-cularistic relations, both horizontal and vertical, into competitive and univer-salistic ones. While survival of simple commodity producers depends uponindividual market adaptations, the resistance of 'peasant' reproduction tocommoditisation limits market responsiveness in the forms of increased pro-ductivity or shifts in cropping patterns. Rational 'peasant' responses mayresult in either withdrawal from commodity production or chronic 'over-production' [e.g., Wright 1975], depending on the balance of communal andclass relations. When terms of trade deteriorate, 'peasants' withdraw fromcommodity production if possible, or are 'locked in' [Ransom andSutch 197S]despite falling prices by obligations to landlords or usurers.

At the level of the larger economy, the distinction between 'peasant' andsimple commodity production may shed light on development and under-development. If development is taken to imply capitalism [Phillips 1977] andcapitalism to imply mobility of factors of production [Morishima and Catéphores

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 13:

12 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


1975], then many problems associated with agricultural underdevelopment arebound up with the specific character of 'peasantries'. Not only 'overproduction'of commodities and resulting deterioration in the terms of trade, but also ruraloverpopulation [Caldwell 1978], limited industrialisation, and legally institutedinequalities of racial or other groups, may depend on limitations in the mobilityof labour, land, and credit. To this extent, then, 'peasant' production andunderdevelopment are complementary characteristics of the agrarian productiveunit and the economy. By contrast, simple commodity production has prosperedin many branches of agricultural production in capitalist economies. Mobilityof labour, land, and capital has allowed household production in agriculture tocoexist with capitalist development in industry. Simple commodity producershave improved productivity of agriculture, adjusted birth rates in response tochanging economic conditions [e.g., Easterlin 1976], and responded to reducedlabour requirements in agriculture by moving in great numbers into othersectors and regions. While the last may be painful for individuals and families,it is part of the logic of labour mobility in capitalist social formations, and thevery opposite of underdevelopment.

Finally, transformation to capitalist relations of production involves thedecomposition of a complex of institutions for 'peasant' reproduction, butsimply the intensification of an existing process for simple commodity production.All of the conditions of simple commodity reproduction are also conditions ofcapitalist reproduction. The transformation of simple commodity productionto capitalist production involves a further intensification of commodity relationswithin reproduction, so that labour power is mobilised exclusively through themarket instead of the domestic group. While considerable social and technicalconditions resist this transformation [Mann and Dickinson 1978; Vergopoulos1974; Friedmann 1978b], the general economic context of simple commodityproduction is perfectly compatible with capitalist production. But 'peasant'reproduction is premised on conditions inimical to capitalist relations ofproduction. The whole complex of institutions of 'peasant' reproductionwhich resist commoditisation must decompose in order for capitalist (or simplecommodity) production to emerge. Communal and 'pre-capitalist' class relationsmust give way to mobility of labour, and national markets in credit and land.And since immobility of labour is often politically enforced [Domar 1970] andideologically justified, the transformation of peasant production involves acomprehensive reorganisation of basic social institutions.

But analysis of the 'peasantry' itself requires the specification of a set ofexhaustive and mutually exclusive concepts defining forms of productiondistinct from simple commodity and capitalist production. This will involveconsiderable future work, but the logical procedures for this project may besuggested within the framework of political economy.

Specification of New ConceptsReplacement of the term 'peasant' by real concepts, it is suggested, shouldbegin with the higher level concept, form of production. Each form of'peasant'production will have a double specification in terms of relations within the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 13:

12 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


productive unit and relations within the larger social formation. 'Peasant'production, like simple commodity production, is generally—not always—characterised by household labour, but each is situated within a different typeof social formation (or region within it), characterised by limited factor mobilityor by factor markets, respectively. Similarly, simple commodity productionand capitalist production are both situated within capitalist economies, butcharacterised by different productive relations within the unit. For the variousforms of 'peasant' production to undergo commoditisation, changes mustoccur in the social formation leading to factor markets, in particular markets inlabour power. If commoditisation leads to simple commodity production,household labour remains but undergoes specific changes related to competitionand labour mobility. If commoditisation leads to capitalist production, house-hold labour gives way to labour power offered for sale by individuals, and theindividualisation of labour accompanies the individualisation of enterprises.

In 'peasant' production the social formation, or that sector of it relativelyseparate from national factor markets, is not fully capitalist by definition. Thelimited development of the productive forces implies that land is the means ofproduction central to the distinction among forms of 'peasant' production.Credit relations and relations with merchant capital occur within the context ofdistribution of land, but may have independent effects on reproduction whichreinforce or contradict the basic relations of production defined by possessionof land. From this perspective, it is possible to make an initial distinctionamong forms of 'peasant' production: 1) independent household production,2) sharecropping and related types of precapitalist rent, 3) a form whichcombines the first two, and has led to the usage 'poor, middle, and richpeasants', and 4) the hacienda, of which the latifundium may be seen as aspecial case.

1. Independent household production which resists commoditisation pre-supposes a context of land availability. The latter is a social as well as a naturalfact. Thus, one of the legacies of slave production in the American South andelsewhere was its concentration which would have been impossible without aprior period of coerced labour [see Wright 1978]. Similarly, colonisation projectshave historically required some sort of collective, usually state, organisation torealise the potential of unused fertile lands. Nonetheless, given appropriatesocial and natural conditions, the absence of pressure on land allows forsubsistence production, usually with village organisation, even when commo-dities are produced. The history of coercion to force continued commodityproduction when prices fall testifies to the economic ability of independenthouseholds to withstand market pressures [Bernstein 1979].

Commodity production by independent households in a context allowing forproduction for use, implies a relative absence of competition and thus of theestablishment of socially necessary labour time. Substantively, this implies thepossibility of appropriation of part of the value of the product by merchantcapital. But methodologically, it implies the difficulty of measuring value andtherefore surplus labour appropriated through exchange.

Whether or not independent households receive less value than they create,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 13:

12 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


incomes higher than the usual level of subsistence are the normal results whenprices are high enough to induce commodity production. Given the relativeabsence of market pressures, there is little constraint on the disposition ofadditional income. It may be used for increased consumption or hoarding;both were the case for independent agricultural households in nineteenthcentury France. It may be invested in other branches; this may be part ofspecialisation within the countryside, especially in craft production. Or it maybe invested in agricultural production, though there is no strictly economicpressure to do so; in this case the monétisation of inputs in the aggregate tendsto lead to commoditisation, with or without class differentiation.

On the other side, population growth, state intervention, or other factorsmay change the social conditions of reproduction of independent households.The mechanism of pressure on reproduction is insufficiency of land allowingfor direct subsistence. Given the absence of a historic landed class, pressureson land tend to lead to the incorporation into reproduction of relations withmerchant capital or usury capital or both. For merchant capital, this shouldlead to commoditisation, if conditions within the social formation also fosterthe development of factor markets. Usury is an aspect of undeveloped creditmarkets, at least in the agricultural sector, and should reinforce resistance tocommoditisation. It may also lead to land concentration by usurers in socialcontexts where the combination of rent and interest allows for the appropriationof a greater proportion of the product than usury alone. But in neither case canusury lead to commoditisation, which can occur only when credit is subordinatedto capitalist reproduction [Marx 1967, III: 593-613].

2. Sharecropping and related types of pre-capitalist rent occur when formallyfree household labour characterises the unit of production, and land concen-tration and relative factor immobility characterise the social formation. Com-petition among landlords for tenants and among tenants for access to land (andother means of production) coexist with both relative immobility of labourfrom the sector as a whole, and the relative absence of competition in productmarkets. The latter imply and are implied by resistance to commoditisation.Therefore socially necessary labour time is not established, and difficulties ofmeasurement of surplus labour through exchange exist, as for independenthouseholds. By contrast, direct appropriation of part of the product by thelandowner is measurable in physical terms, although this is complicated by thedifficulties of measuring costs of enforcement, risks assumed by the landlord,and other aspects of the sharecropping relation. At the same time, as forindependent households, merchant capital may in principle, despite difficultiesof measurement, appropriate part of the product both from direct producerswho sell their shares and from landlords.

Incomes above subsistence in sharecropping are assumed to accrue only tothe landlord. The relative absence of competition in product markets implieslittle pressure to invest in agriculture. Depending on other branches of theeconomy, the surplus product may be invested outside agriculture or it may beconsumed or hoarded.

If conditions in the larger economy do not encourage investment outside

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 13:

12 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


agriculture, this implies limited development of labour markets outside agri-culture, a condition of the social formation tending to reinforce the reproductionof sharecropping. Hoarded incomes are thus available for usury which frequentlyaccompanies share tenancy relations. Whether or not this becomes an importantpart of the relations between landlords and tenants depends upon the numbersand bargaining strength of each class, which in turn depend upon alternativesfor investment and labour outside the sector. Sharecropping relations areundermined through changes in conditions of reproduction within the socialformation. Mobility of labour from the sector with the development of nationallabour markets threaten reproduction; this was the basis for the transformationfrom sharecropping to capitalist relations of production with the incorporationof the American South into the national labour market in recent decades. Landbecomes fully commoditised and rent becomes a function of market prices anddifferential output. The continued concentration of land depends upon socialand technical conditions of production of relevant crops. Land markets makepossible simple commodity production, but initial land concentration makesequally possible the development of capitalist relations of production.

3. Since land availability is relative, independent household production andsharecropping may coexist. This is the situation in much of India. Since theform of production is'specified by relations within the social formation as wellas within the productive unit, each form sets part of the conditions of repro-duction of the other. The result should therefore be seen as a distinct form. Itcertainly has distinct consequences; for example, fragmentation of land oftenoccurs with village organisation of independent households, but rarely with ahomogeneous sharecropping economy; it does occur in the mixed form. It isnot possible at this point to develop the implications of this form of production,but it is possible to suggest that this perspective might lay the basis for atheoretically more adequate conceptualisation than the terms 'poor, middle,and rich peasant'. These tend to be denned in terms of the degree to which theyapproximate or diverge from independent households in a social context whichalso includes sharecropping and some wage labour. The latter is limited by theusual relative immobility of labour from the sector, and by the possession ofsome land by 'poor peasants'. It seems likely, then, that analysis of the mutualeffects of independent households and sharecropping should lead to the specifi-cation of conditions of reproduction specific to this mixed form, with internalvariation according to specific relations of households and individuals to theland and to other agents.

4. The hacienda is a form closely related to the manorial form of MedievalEurope. It is based on the mutual dependence of 'two economies', a 'peasanteconomy' and a 'landlord economy' [Kay 1974]. There are two principalvariants, depending on labour supply, product markets, and other factors ofthe social formation and world markets. In one the hacienda (or manor) isdivided completely into household production units with rent obligations inkind or money. In the other dependent households supply labour rent on theconsolidated farm of the landlord. An intermediate variant combines subsistenceplots for direct labourers with obligations to supply labour services.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 13:

12 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


While the hacienda often produces for the market, its internal relations arenot commodity relations and it resists commoditisation. As we have seen, thisreduces competition in product markets and thus the development of sociallynecessary labour time. Therefore, as in the other forms listed above, appro-,priation of part of the product by merchant capital through unequal exchangeis in principle possible, but difficult to measure.

Exploitation by landlords is strictly measurable in physical quantities forrent in kind and in time allotted for labour rent. At the same time, landlordrevenue is relatively free from competitive constraints, and there is littlepressure to invest in improvement of the productive forces. As for the share-cropping form of production, limited land markets in the hacienda form implylimited availability of market credit, even when this exists in the largereconomy. But unlike sharecropping, the dependency relation between landlordand direct producer creates few tendencies towards the development of internalcredit relations in the form of usury.

The latifundium, which hires a local, dependent labour force for wages, isperhaps better understood as the labour service variant of the hacienda, ratherthan as a variant of the capitalist form of production. The origins of thehacienda in Latin America were the encomienda, which conferred the right tothe labour of specific indigenous peoples, and the mercedes de tierras, whichgranted lands to colonialists for military service. Depending on the labourrequirements of specific commodities, on the combination of encomienda andmercedes on particular land, and on the labour/land ratio, labour was eitherhired or required to perform unpaid services [Kay 1974:78-80]. In the absenceof a market in labour power, the use of hired labour is a specific adaptation tolocal conditions within the same general form as the hacienda.

The hacienda combines dependent (immobile) labour, land concentration,and absence of commoditisation. Its transformation may take two directions,of which one may, but need not, be a stage of the other. In the absence of factormarkets in the social formation the decomposition of servile relations may resultin an increase in hired labour, at its extreme taking the form of the latifundium;or it may change into contractual relations of the sharecropping form; or acombination of the two. In the context of integration into national factor,especially labour, markets, it should undergo commoditisation. As for share-cropping, the concentration of land facilitates transformation to capitalistrelations of production, but increasing markets in land also make possible theemergence of simple commodity production. As always, whether commoditi-sation results in capitalist or simple commodity production depends on thetechnical conditions of production established through competition and governingthe range of combinations of land and labour.

These are simply meant to be examples of the approach that might be takenin the specification of forms of agricultural production resisting commoditisation.It is suggested that possession of land and resulting relations of production inthe absence of factor markets are the principal element in such specifications.Other class relations are constrained by this basic relation, though they haveindependent effects upon it. Moreover, although transformations in general

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 13:

12 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


occur through the development of capitalism in the larger economy, that is,through the mechanism of integration into factor markets and thereby intocompetitive relations within product markets, these transformations takespecific directions according to the initial conditions defining the form ofproduction. The preliminary specification of forms of production suggestedhere is very tentative. It is intended to illustrate possible procedures for futurework, and not as a mutually exclusive and exhaustive set of rigorously definedconcepts. This work remains to be done.

NOTES

1. 'Joint' possession does not imply equality of household members. Inequality by both genderand age are typical. Yet relations to the means of production through membership in thedomestic group confers a unitary character to the group from the point of view of its economicrelations to outsiders. Only this set of relations are of interest here.

2. For criticisms of Chayanov in particular, see Harrison [1977] and Millar [1970], and of theconcept 'peasant' in general, see Ennew, Hirst, and Tribe [1977].

3. For a discussion of the implications of understanding the household as a form instead of a modeof production, see Bernstein [1979].

4. Reproduction and transformation are concepts from Marx. The single most useful work forunderstanding these concepts is Volume I of Capital, in which he analyses simple andextended reproduction of capitalist relations, the contradictions tending to undermine capitalistreproduction, and the elements of capitalist relations which provide the basis for a potentialtransformation to socialist relations of production. Elsewhere, I have defined these concepts atgreater length in distinguishing conditions of reproduction of capitalist and simple commodityproduction [Friedmann 1978b].

5. Bernstein's definition and explanation of commoditisation are excellent and crucial to thediscussion here. He errs, in my opinion, in treating commoditisation as the only possibledevelopmental process (though in his account it may occur unevenly and discontinuously), ofwhich complete specialisation is the end point or 'limiting case' [Bernstein 1979: esp. 8, 13].

6. The end point could in theory be capitalist production, in the sense that full commoditisationdoes not occur until labour power itself becomes a commodity. A full discussion of differentiation isbeyond the scope of this essay. However, both the relation between simple commodityproduction and wage labour, and relative competitiveness between simple commodity andcapitalist enterprises, will be touched upon at relevant points in the discussion.

7. Contemporary agricultural households, whatever their actual involvement in commodityrelations, have existed for several centuries within two distinct (though interacting) contexts:local economies and world markets. World markets allow for specialised commodity pro-duction without necessarily affecting reproduction, but national (or regional) economies arethe immediate setting for the continual mobilisation of land, labour, and other elements of theproductive process. It is possible for two sets of household producers to specialise in producingagricultural commodities for world markets, but for one set to reproduce its productiverelations in conditions of increasing poverty, technical stagnation, and dependent socialrelations, while the other set reproduces its productive relations in conditions of increasingstandards of living, technical improvements, and social independence. This contrast isapparent for household producers within two regional economies in United States in the late19th and early 20th centuries, cotton sharecroppers in the South and independent familywheat farmers in the Northern Plains.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 13:

12 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


8. Capitalist accumulation is the result of the appropriation of surplus value. Revenue ofcapitalists has thus already been accumulated, a fact which is not changed through 'saving' it,consuming it personally, or investing it in expanded reproduction. By contrast, revenues ofsimple commodity producers do not reflect accumulation, and they cannot become 'accumu-lation' through being saved rather than consumed.

9. Henry Bernstein [1979] adopts this strategy in response to the problems raised by Ennew,Hirst, and Tribe [1977]. His otherwise brilliant essay suffers to some extent from theproblems listed here.

10. 'Disregarding whether Marx was successful or not in developing an economic theory by the"logical-historical" method, it is certain that he had at least an intention to do so . . .However, the more closely one examines history, the more difficult does he find such a theory

to construct. . . [F] or Marx who saw history more carefully than Engels, value was reduced toa logical category deprived of empirical historical reality' [Morishima and Catephores 1975:317, n.l.].

11. In the essay cited, I showed that competition among simple commodity producers establishesa constant requirement for labour, while demographic variation across households andthrough the life-cycle of families prevents its continuous supply within the household.Temporary labour scarcity can be overcome, and temporary oversupply can be used togenerate income for expanded reproduction, through markets in labour power. In thehistorical data examined, this resulted in two distinct groups of wage labourers. One consistedof temporarily redundant sons of simple commodity production households whose employ-ment on other farms contributed to household income and expanded reproduction. The otherconsisted of a permanent class of wage labourers.

12. As I noted in my discussion of simple commodity production and wage labour [Friedmann1978a], employment of outside labourers by households may well involve the appropriation ofsurplus value, but this constitutes only a part of the value above replacement of articles ofproductive and personal consumption by the enterprise. This relation needs to be developed.Here my concern is with conditions for exploitation of household commodity producers byothers.

13. The average market price will always be above the average price of production in agriculturebecause differential rent ensures that the market price is established by the least productiveland rather than by the average. This applies in all cases of generalised circulation ofcommodities, including simple commodity production.

14. Whether the price received by simple commodity producers approximates value more or lessthan that received by capitalist producers does not depend on the level of rent, which isdetermined by the level of demand, organic composition, and differentials among landqualities, all being the same for both forms of production. It depends entirely on the'transformation' of values to prices, which differs between forms. This process redistributessurplus value among capitals proportional to investment. For capitalist producers, theresulting price of production includes cost of production plus the normal rate of profit; forsimple commodity producers, price of production equals the cost of production (c + v) alone.In a hypothetical simple commodity production economy, prices would equal values; therewould be no surplus value or profit, and therefore no transformation problem. However, sincesimple commodity production must actually exist within a capitalist economy, its productsmay pass through the transformation process. This is a complex problem that cannot beresolved here. It is reasonable to suggest, however, that since simple commodity productionhas no profit, reproduction (and movement in and out of the branch) is not strictly governedby the average rate of profit, but that a lower limit is set by the average wage in the economy,and the upper limit by the average rate of profit (which would induce capitalist entry). Onecannot conclude from this that the resulting price is lower than the value, even in the unusualcase in which price were to equal value for capitalist enterprises.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 13:

12 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


REFERENCES

Alavi, Hamza, 1956, 'Peasant Classes and Primordial Loyalties', The Journal of Peasant Studies, 1(1): 23-62.

Bernstein, Henry, 1979, 'Concepts for the Analysis of Contemporary Peasantries', The Joumal ofPeasant Studies, 6(4): 421-44.

Caldwell, John C., 1978, 'A Theory of Fertility: From High Plateau to Destabilisation', Population, andDevelopment Review 4(4): 553-77.

Chayanov, A. V., 1925, 'Peasant Farm Organisation'. Published in English in A. V. Chayanov,On the Theory of Peasant Economy. Homewood, III.: American Economic Association, 1966.Edited by D. Thorner, B. Kerblay, and R. E. F. Smith.

Chayanov, A. V., 1924, 'On the Theory of Non-Capitalist Economic Systems', published inEnglish in A. V. Chayanov, On the Theory of Peasant Economy. Homewood, III: AmericanEconomic Association, 1966. Edited by D. Thorner, B. Kerblay, and R. E. F. Smith.

Domar, Evsey D., 1970, 'The Causes of Slavery or Serfdom: A Hypothesis', Journal of EconomicHistory 30(2): 18-32.

Dovring, Folke, 1965, Land and Labour in Europe, 1900-1950. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

Easterlin, Richard A., 1976, 'Population Change and Farm Settlement in the Northern UnitedStates', Journal of Economic History, 36(1): 45-75.

Emmanuel, Arghiri, 1972, Unequal Exchange: A Study of the Imperialism of Trade. New York:Monthly Review Press.

Ennew, Judith, Paul Hirst, and Keith Tribe, 1977, ' "Peasantry" as an Economic Category', TheJournal of Peasant Studies, 4(4): 295-322.

Erasmus, Charles J., 1956, 'The Occurrence and Disappearance of Reciprocal Farm Labour inLatin America', in Dwight B. Heath and Richard N. Adams, eds., Contemporary Cultures andSocieties of Latin America. New York: Random House, 1965.

Friedmann, Harriet, 1978a, 'Simple Commodity Production and Wage Labour in the AmericanPlains', Journal of Peasant Studies 6(1): 71-100.

Friedmann, Harriet, 1978b, 'World Market, State, and Family Farm: Social Bases of HouseholdProduction in an Era of Wage Labour', Comparative Studies in Society and History, 20(4): 545-86.

Harrison, Mark, 1975, 'Chayanov and the Economics of the Russian Peasantry', Journal ofPeasant Studies, 2(4).

Harrison, Mark, 1977, 'The Peasant Mode of Production in the Work of A. V. Chayanov', TheJournal of Peasant Studies, 4(4): 323-36.

Kautsky, Karl, 1899, Die Agrarfrage. Published in French as 'La Question Agraire', Paris: V.Giard and E. Brier, 1900.

Kay, Cristóbal, 1974, 'Comparative Development of the European Manorial System and the LatinAmerican Hacienda System', The Joumal of Peasant Studies, 2(1): 69-98.

Lenin, V. I., 1908, The Development of Capitalism in Russia. Moscow. Institute of Marxism-Leninism, 1957.

Lenin, V. I., n.d., 'New Data on the Laws of Development of Capitalism in Agriculture, Part I.Capitalism and Agriculture in the United States of America', in Selected Works, vol. 12.London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1939.

Mandel, Ernest, 1968, Marxist Economic Theory. London: Merlin Press.

Mann, S. A., and J. M. Dickinson, 1978, 'Obstacles to the Development of a Capitalist Agriculture',The Journal of Peasant Studies, 5(4).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 13:

12 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Marx, Karl, 1967, Capital, 3 vols. New York: International Publishers.

Marx, Karl, 1863, Theories of Surplus Value, vol. I. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1963.

Millar, James R., 1970, 'A Reformulation of A. V. Chayanov's Theory of the Peasant Economy',Economic Development and Cultural Exchange, 18:219-29.

Morishima, M. and G. Catephores, 1975, 'Is there an "Historical Transformation Problem"?' TheEconomic Journal, 85: 309-28.

Mouzelis, N., 1976, 'Capitalism and the Development of Agriculture', The Journal of PeasantStudies, 3(4): 483-92.

Musgrave, P. J., 1978, 'Rural Credit and Rural Society in the United Prinvices, 1860-1920', inClive Dewey and A. G. Hopkins, eds., The Imperial Impact: Studies in the Economic History ofAfrica and India. London: Athlone Press.

Phillips, Anne, 1977, 'The Concept of "Development",' Review of African Political Economy, 8:7-20.

Polanyi, Karl, Conrad M. Arensberg, and Harry W. Pearson, eds., 1971, Trade and Market in theEarly Empires. Chicago: Henry Regnery Co.

Ransom, Roger and Richard Sutch, 1975, 'The Lock-In' Mechanism and Overpioduction ofCotton in the Postbellum South', Agricultural History, 49(2): 405-25.

Ransom, Roger and Richard Sutch, 1972, 'Debt Peonage in the Cotton South After the Civil War',Journal of Economic History, 32(3): 643-67.

Roseberry, William, 1976, 'Rent, Differentiation, and the Development of Capitalism amongPeasants', American Anthropologist, 78(1): 45-58.

Sahlins, Marshall, 1974, Stone Age Economics. Chicago: Aldine.

Schwartz, Michael, 1976, Radical Protest and Social Structure: The Southern Farmers' Alliance andCotton Tenancy, 1880-1890. New York: Academic Press.

Servolin, Claude, 1972, 'L'absorption de l'agriculture dans le mode de production capitaliste', inYves Tavernier, Michel Gervais, and Claude Servolin, eds., L'univers politique des paysans dansla France contemporaine, Librairie Armand Colin and Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques.

Shanin, Teodor, 1974, 'The Nature and Logic of Peasant Economy, II,' The Journal of PeasantStudies, 1(2): 186-206.

Shanin, Teodor, 1973, 'The Nature and Logic of the Peasant Economy, I', The Journal of PeasantStudies, 1(1): 63-80.

Shanin, Teodor, 1972, The Awkward Class. Political Sociology of Peasantry in a Developing Society,Russia 1910-25. London: Oxford University Press.

Thorner, Daniel, 1962, 'Peasant Economy as a Category in Economic History', in Teodor Shanin,ed., Peasants and Peasant Societies. Penguin, 1971.

Vergopoulos, Kostas, 1978, 'Capitalism and Peasant Productivity', The Joumal of Peasant Studies,5(4): 446-65.

Vergopoulos, Kostas, 1974, 'Capitalisme difforme: Le cas de l'agriculture dans le capitalisme', inSamir Amin and Kostas Vergopoulos, La question paysanne et le capitalisme. Paris: Editionsanthropos-idep.

Weber, Max, 1906, 'Capitalism and Rural Society in Germany' printed in H. Gerth and C. W.Mills, eds., From Max Weber. New York: Oxford University Press, 1958.

Wolf, Eric R., 1966, Peasants. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.

Wolf, Eric R., 1957, 'Closed Corporate Peasant Communities in Mesoamerica and Central Java',Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 13:1-18.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 13:

12 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Wolf, Eric R., 1955, 'Types of Latin American Peasantry: A Preliminary Discussion', AmericanAnthropologist, 57(3): 452-471.

Wright, Gavin, 1978, The Political Economy of the Cotum South. Households, Markets, and Wealth inthe Nineteenth Century. New York: W. W. Norton.

Wright, Gavin, 1974, 'Cotton Competition and the Post-Bellum Recovery of the American South',Journal of Economic History, 34(3): 610-35.

Wright, Gavin and Howard Kunreuther, 1975, 'Cotton, Corn and Risk in the NineteenthCentury', The Journal of Economic History, 35(3): 526-51.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 13:

12 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Documents

Household Production And