Adaptative Strategies in Peasant Agricultural Production

ANNUAL
REVIEWS Further
Quick links to online content
Ann. Rev. Anthropol 1980. 9:545-73

Copyright @ 1980 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved
ADAPTIVE STRATEGIES IN .9667

PEASANT AGRICULTURAL
Access provided by Technische Universiteit Eindhoven on 02/17/15. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1980.9:545-573. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
PRODUCTION
Peggy F. Barlett 1
Department of Anthropology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia 30322
INTRODUCTION
Considerable social science research has been carried out in recent years on
agricultural change among peasant farmers in developing countries. This
research has been noteworthy for two reasons. On the one hand, there is
a trend toward joining the approaches of economic anthropology and cul
tural ecology in the study of production processes in peasant communities.
In many cases, this combination of approaches transcends the substantivist
formalist controversy of the 19608 and moves the focus of research toward
adaptive strategies and the integration of individual decisions and commu
nity patterns.
Second, research on agricultural production relates more directly than
many areas of anthropology to current issues of global concern and provides
relevant data to practitioners as well as to academics. With an increasing
awareness of worldwide inequalities in the distribution of food and produc
tive resources and of food shortages in some countries, attention has turned
to the small farmers of the world, whose lands employ the majority of the
world's people, but whose productivity is being rapidly outstripped by
recent increases in population. The failure of the "development decade" of
the 19608 to ameliorate these conditions or to improve standards of living
in most rural areas has led to a greater concern, both within international
development agencies and within national governments, to understand the
agricultural decisions of these peasant farmers.
II gratefully acknowledge the comments and help of Allan Hoben, Frank Cancian, Billie
DeWalt, Mary Ball, and Barbara Melvin in the preparation of this review.
545
OOS4-6570/S0/1015-0545$OI.00
546 BARLETf
In recent years, anthropology within academia and applied anthropology

have grown closer together, especially in the area of "development an
thropology." More anthropologists are finding employment in development
agencies and in academic departments outside anthropology. Issues of rural
development, technological change, and local transformations and the influ
ence of world markets, national development policy, ecological degrada
tion, popUlation pressure, and political movements have motivated
anthropological research in all areas of the world, and the results of this
research have direct implications for development programs and policy.

The formation of the Anthropological Study Group on Agrarian Systems

within the American Anthropological Association, and its newsletter, Cul
ture and Agriculture, have increased the interchange between anthropolo
gists with similar interests and between anthropologists and other
development professionals. These communication efforts pinpoint the im
portance of synthesizing and refining the research done on agriculture.
The basic unit of study in the research reviewed here is the family farm,
located primarily in developing countries. Although a distinction between
"peasants" and "farmers" may be useful for certain analyses, from the
perspective developed here of production processes, it can be blurred. The
words are used below interchangeably for several reasons. Traditionally,
peasants have been seen to be parts of nonindustrial societies, but most
countries of the world today boast some industry. With roads, radio, and
government programs entering even very remote regions, the isolation of
rural populations is rapidly breaking down. Recent increases in population
in many agricultural areas has led to increased migration to cities and
towns, and this trend contributes to the other influences that are transform
ing traditional agrarian institutions such as sharecropping, patron-client
relations, and ritual cycles. Furthermore, research on family farms in the
United States has shown that methods used to understand peasant produc
tion strategies are also applicable to industrial agriculture. All farmers make
choices on how to allocate the resources available to them, all operate
within the cultural and institutional environment in which they are located,
and all face vagaries of weather, health, and prices.
For the purpose of comparability, studies of pastoralists and of peasants
who specialize primarily in craft production have not been included in this
review. The vast literature on the Green Revolution has also been avoided,
with a few exceptions, due to space considerations.
Formalism, Substantivism, and Adaptive Strategies

Several aspects of the substantivist-formalist controversy and the debate
over whether formal economic theory based on market exchanges can be
applied to non-Western cultures have been clarified and revised in recent
research. It has been emphasized that formal maximization theories of the
PEASANT AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION 547
allocation of resources are normative models of behavior and may not

accurately describe the behavior of people in Western industrialized econo
mies (16, 38, 41, 65, 114, 114a, 148) since such farmers are also constrained
by social, institutional, risk, and other factors. Ortiz and others have sug
gested these differences between "peasants" and "farmers" are a matter of
degree and not of kind (38, 147, 148). Second, although reciprocity and
redistribution are present as forms of exchange in some cases (4, 95, 97,
145), the vast majority of the small farmers who have been studied in recent
years participate in a market economy and often are affected by interna

tional market forces as well.
Cook, Orlove, and Gudeman have all proposed that increased attention
to production rather than to distribution will synthesize various divergences
in recent anthropological work (see also 95). Gudeman's focus on produc
tion is presented as an alternative to the two perspectives on distribution,
that of neoclassical or marginalist thought and that of Marx and Ricardo
(94). Distribution is explored through a study of labor's role in the produc
tion process, a reversal of the traditional emphasis of economic an
thropology (see also 96a). Orlove (144) and Cook (55) note that studies of
production can link ecological and economic anthropology. Orlove (144)
details the tendency of substantive economic anthropology and ecological
studies both to see society as highly structured and to deemphasize the
importance of individual actors and decision-making situations. Both of
these approaches emphasized normative models and shared systems of
meaning, as they link analytically "the social, economic, and political as
pects of the organization of human populations with each other and with
the environment" (144). Orlove's deemphasis of the importance of individ
ual level variability in the study of production contrasts with Cook, who
indicates that a focus on production can explore the relationships of individ
uals to the production process and to each other.
As Sahlins indicates, "For a fuller analysis, everything depends on the
variations in household production" (165). The strength of much of the
recent research to be reviewed here lies precisely in the area of its attention
to variability in behavior of individuals within groups and communities
(190). As Barth discussed, it is very difficult to understand the mechanisms
of change if the process is viewed as a transformation of situation A to
situation B (18). If instead, A is broken down into the statistical frequencies
of choices, then both the nature and causes of change can be more readily
discerned. This focus on the individual decision process, within an environ
ment of constraints and encouragements, leads away from erroneous gener
alizations about group behavior that are not based on accurate assessments
of the heterogeneity of behavior within the group (64, 113, 119a, 124, 152,
163, 179, 189, 190). As Goodfellow states, even "custom" does not remove
choice from highly constrained situations. For example, institutions may
548 BARLETT
determine that Bantu women are responsible for cooking and field weeding,
but each woman must still decide how to allocate her time between cooking
and weeding. Though the Bantu say a fixed number of cattle are required
for certain payments, "all our evidence points to the fact that a goat may
be substituted for a cow . . " (90). In spite of considerable discussion of this
.
point in recent years, however, the tendency toward "uniformism" is still

quite strong, and many otherwise interesting pieces of research do not
explore individual variations in the agricultural patterns discussed (48,66,
79, 121, 123, 135, 182, 186, 195, 197).

Gudeman argues that beginning an analysis of the economy with individ

ual decisions rather than with "groups or systems" confuses cause with
effect (94). While the anthropological perspective sees individuals as molded
by the groups or systems which surround them, these latter forces can be
studied as the outcomes of previous individual decisions, with feedback into
the experience of living actors (25a). Thus, the inherited patterns are
"precedents that people use to construct patterns of coping" (25a). Many
of the authors to be discussed below have focused on individual choices
while also integrating into their analyses the institutional, group, and other
macrosocial factors which impact individuals (such as the organization of
access to productive resources). The patterns of paramount interest to
substantivists can thereby be seen from the perspective of actors and their
choices, a different but not antithetical perspective from that of the institu
tions that provision society (96a, 97). A related view is that ofSahlins (164),
in which the "environment" surrounding an actor includes both the natural
environment and the cultural,social,and political environment created by
other human beings. Made within this context,individual choices form the
behavior, norms, and attitudes which comprise the "groups and systems"
of current and succeeding generations.
Adaptation provides a theoretical framework based on biological notions
of evolution and natural selection and incorporates the heterogeneity of
individuals within wider group patterns (5,24,25,25a,64,119a,152,179,
190). Bennett (24) separates the short-range choices of individuals as adjust
ments to their environments (adaptive strategies) from the long-range
changes that result from these choices (adaptive processes). Whitten &
Whitten (190) make a similar distinction in developing the concept of
"adaptive strategies" for individuals and for aggregates. This perspective on
the behavior of farmers has generated considerable recent work and is the
primary subject of this review.
Considerable research has also been carried out using the framework of
the adoption of innovations,but this approach is less useful than a "strate
gies" approach for several reasons. The innovation adoption perspective
may imply that the pre-innovation state is static or tradition-bound rather
than a reasonable response to circumstances; it often implies as well that
the innovations are inherently improvements and good for all classes of
farmers (23,30,127,135,151,162,196). Further,the innovation adoption
approach tends to see change in terms of isolated traits,rather than relations
between individuals and resources,in a complex whole (60, 63,64, 72,159,
166,172,193). While changes in agriculture,both in new crops and in new
technology and production methods, will undoubtedly continue to be the
central focus of research on peasant production, these changes can be
studied with less potential bias and more sophistication by looking at agri
cultural change by focusing on adaptive strategies.

The term "adaptation" as borrowed from evolutionary biology does not
imply that the resulting fin or fur is the only solution to a specific environ
mental situation,nor does it imply that the solution is the "best" one,given
the resources at hand. It conveys instead that the adaptation has sufficient
positive features for the complex of traits to be perpetuated,while there may
also be negative features. In the same light, research on agricultural adapta
tions discusses long-term ecological degradation of the environment (52) or
short-term inequities in access to resources (76) or solutions which can be
seen to exacerbate the problem (82). Likewise,just as the evolution of plants
and animals is constrained by the structure which current populations have
genetically inherited, so too are human groups and individuals affected by
inherited cultural structures. Within the framework of adaptation,then,the
substantivist concerns with institutions and processes are integrated with
the formalist emphasis on choice and strategy.
A final advantage of the focus on individuals and their behaviors is the
methodological rigor which has begun to emerge in the descriptions of the
production process (2,13,38,40, 45,46,64,75,84,87,112,116,129,178).
Not only have careful measures tested subjective impressions of agricultural
change, but also this rigor clarifies the diversity in choices made and leads
the researcher to look at the causal variables and their relationships.
Thus,the goals of the study of adaptive strategies in peasant agricultural
production are: (a) careful description of current strategies and the diver
sity within those choices; (b) determination of the variables and conditions
that create and reinforce those diverse strategies; (c) clarification,if possi
ble, of the causal priority of some variables over others; and (d) prediction
of the future directions and the long-term implications of those choices as
they affect both current agricultural change and long-term adaptive pro
cesses of agricultural change.
FACTORS AFFECTING AGRICULTURAL

STRATEGIES
The wide range of variables that affect peasant production strategies derives
not only from the complexity of these choices but also from the diverse
550 BARLEIT
research problems which have been addressed. The majority of anthropo

logical research on agricultural strategies explores macrolevel factors that
can be divided into two aspects, the natural environment and the social,
political, economic, and institutional environment which includes commu
nity and regional forces as well as national and international ones. The
interaction of these variables makes possible the range of agricultural op
tions available. These options are weighed by the decision maker, usually
studied as the household unit. The household's needs and goals are matched
with its resources, and the resulting production strategies then have feed
backs both on the decisions of other individuals and on the macrolevel

environmental factors as well. These points will be taken up in tum.
The Natural Environment

Most studies indicate that environmental factors play a crucial role in
determining what land uses are possible or profitable. A range of environ
mental factors such as altitude (128, 146), rainfall (3, 155), temperature
(148),incidence of wind (13), and incline are mentioned (69,71,136, 197).
Norman (140) adds evapotranspiration rate and soil type (108, Il l , 188),
while Beals sees potential for wells and irrigation as crucial in South India
(21, 116, 128). Adejuwon's (3) study of the intensity of cocoa production
in western Nigeria found that seedlings require regular rainfall to survive,
though once established they did not seem to be affected by rainfall patterns.
Thus, precipitation limited the spread of cocoa into new areas with appro
priate soil quality. Perrin & Winkelmann (153) conclude from six studies
of com and wheat in various world areas that "agroclimatic zone and
topography" are the key variants that explain the nonadoption of new
varieties (see also 42).
Insects and diseases are an important aspect of the environment (155).
Messenger (122) shows how the advent of the eelworm in the 1920s on an
Irish island required potato fields to be fallowed for 4 years after the first
harvest to control the pest. The resulting land shortage encouraged the
community to "make more fields," creating soil from seaweed and compost.
Rubin argues that agricultural strategies in the southern United States were
limited by cattle ticks and poor native grasses that prevented the profitable
establishment of mixed farming as in the North (161).
Greenwood (92), however, goes beyond most studies of environmental
impact to link soil type to variations in behavior. In a Basque coastal area,
farmers specialize either in dairy and cattle production or in truck farming,
depending on whether the farm has poorer clay soils or the better sandy
soils. Greenwood found that 86% of the farms in the community conform
to the "correct" land use based on soil type (92). The remaining 14%
suffered from family labor constraints which kept them from the agricul
tural options possible on their lands.
The interaction between technology and environmental constraints is

well illustrated by Morgan's research on highland Kenya (132). Areas that
Africans had left uncultivated for a variety of reasons were used by Eu
ropean settlers for stable export agriculture through the use of plows, oxen,
and wells. In spite of erratic rainfall, whites could "set off the profits of a
good year against the failure of a harvest in a year of drought, which would
force an African cultivator into starvation" (132). Sufficient capital to invest
in this technology was important in explaining the different productivity of
these lands, when they were purchased by Africans, after 1961.

Gerhart (83) nicely illustrates the complexity of separating the natural

environment from other factors which affect production decisions. One of
three agroclimatic zones in western Kenya had low adoption rates of hybrid
corn. He notes that this zone has lower rainfall, more erratic rain, poorer
soils and drainage, and hence higher risk to crops, and that hybrids do not
seem to be particularly productive there. In addition, however, the zone is
geographically isolated and suffers from poorer roads, poorer input avail
ability, lower levels of contact with agricultural extension workers, "greater
distance from the key research center and from input outlets, and a later
introduction of hybrid varieties in the first place" (83). Thus, environmental
constraints on hybrid corn are closely linked to economic, political, and
informational factors.
Studies differ widely in the extent to which environmental factors are
measured. Kirkby (116) mapped the Oaxaca region of Mexico with care and
found a number of agricultural decisions that are constrained by water
resources. Hatch (105) has a number of interesting suggestions about insect
damage and soil fertilization in coastal Peru, but has no measurements to
explore them with. Turner also bases his analysis on the "despoliation" of
the environment, but without measures (183). Bennett argues that ranchers
in Saskatchewan (and Indians) are constrained from farming because their
"soils are not good enough for grains" (24), though no measurements of soil
quality are given. Yet these soils are undoubtedly far superior to the lands
used by farmers in many developing countries; their "poor" quality comes
from an interaction of prices, markets, technology, and population density
and are not based on an absolute agronomic capability.
The Social, Political, and Economic Environment

The human environment is also crucial to decisions on agricultural produc
tion. Many studies of peasant land use indicate the importance of transpor
tation facilities (13,38,104,148),marketing mechanisms (78,97,140,148),
price structures (15,20,36,38,49,69, 139, 140,176), and other govern
mental policies. Mostof these factors have long been recognized as influenc
ing the outcome of any economic decision, but researchers have only rarely
552 BARLETI
spelled out the direct effects on land use. Therefore, the discussion below
is limited to pointing out a few of the less obvious ways in which land use
decisions are affected by the economic, political, and social environment.
Market conditions usually interact with prices to affect production strate
gies. Clayton notes that subsistence corn cannot be obtained in the market
in Tanzania and so farmers place high priority on planting a relatively high
acreage of com and weeding it well (49). This decision means that cotton
is planted late,which lowers its productivity (of concern to the government,
which desires higher exports). Clayton also points out that "cotton values
are relatively low" and that investments of land and labor in corn yield
better returns (49,p. 247). A similar series of market constraints affect Paez
Indians in Colombia (147, 148), and the reverse holds for the Malayan
farmers studied from 1929-1933, who continued their rubber production
and purchased rice in spite of government programs to increase rice produc
tion (49).
Marketing structures and roads are also documented to have dramatic
impacts on traditional agricultural strategies (11,13,15,36,38,52,53,166).
Forman & Riegelhaupt (78) show how "rationalization " of the marketing
process in northeastern Brazil exerts pressures on small farmers, making
them less competitive than large commercial farms. Smith (175) explores
the variables which determine production alternatives in western
Guatemala, finding that the distance from a central area is a primary
criterion, followed by location near a ladino market town, and then by
population density. Barkley (12) notes that U.S. farmers also face a rapidly
changing social environment, characterized by vertical integration linking
banks, input suppliers, government agencies, and food processors, all
of whose activities must be coordinated for agricultural production to
begin.
Government policies and political history are seen as components of
understanding coffee production in Puerto Rico (197),cotton production in
Tanzania (120),ejidos in Mexico (50,76),security of land tenure and hence
investments in land (104, 107), and responses to new technology (80, 88,
99). Argyres (8) discusses the effect of government agricultural policies on
productivity in a Romanian agricultural cooperative and notes some bitter
ness and alienation among the peasants, who say, "We pretend we are
working, and they pretend they are paying us" (8).
Cole & Wolf (57) compare the very different responses of two villages in
north Italy to the advent of roads and the decline of traditional agricultural
practices. They look to different political histories, attitudes toward the city
and rural life, different household power structures, inheritance customs,
levels of consumption, and reinvestment to explain the high rate of outmi
gration in one village and the intensification and capitalization of dairy
production in the other. The ethnic and historical differences between the
two villages are held to be more important than location or topography, and
these macrolevel factors are discussed (though without measurement) as
they affect the household's ability to respond to the postwar changes. Saint
(166) also carefully links government policy, world market trends, and
regional changes to effects on each specific crop option in Bahia,Brazil. In
Costa Rica as well,beef prices,government loan programs,and new fodder
grasses make cattle a more viable option than was true a decade ago (15).
HOUSEHOLDS AS UNITS OF ANALYSIS

Most research on peasant agricultural strategies takes the household as the

main unit of production and consumption and the unit within which agri
cultural choices are made (95, 154, 182,189). Households have access to
resources such as land, water, labor, and information and have needs and
goals such as a certain diet,education,and other aspects of their standard
of living. Both the resources and the needs are strongly affected by the wider
society and the kinds of variables just discussed,and the line between macro
level and household level factors is often arbitrary. Nevertheless, recent
advances in determining both the variables involved in agricultural strate
gies and the interactions between these variables have come through de
tailed analysis on the household level. These advances can be divided into
four main issues:
1. Population density and agricultural intensification.

2. Stratification in access to resources.
3. The influence of household labor resources.
4. Cycles in household resources and needs.
Finally,the role of individual variation and of values has been noted in some
research, and. the important interconnection of strategies has also been
explored.
Population Density and Agricultural Intensification

Many researchers in recent years have found a close relationship between
population density,a household's access to land resources,and the intensity
of agricultural production (14,19,20,33,47,48,52,53,66,82,89,98,99,
102,104,117,136-138,141,142,156,162,183,187). Most of these studies
confirm the sequence described by Boserup (31) and trace the transition
from more extensive land use to shorter fallow periods,greater attention to
soil fertility,changes to crops with higher productivity,and increased labor
investment in production. Hanks (99) shows that rice cultivation in Thai
land is supplemented with other productive activities so long as population
density is low. When land becomes scarce, households have no alternative
to dependence on rice (138) with its high productivity on small plots of land.
The quality of the diet may also decline with intensification. Ruthenberg
554 BARLETI
(162) notes that the shift from high quality millets and maize in Tanzania
to higher-yielding starch crops such as cassava and sweet potatoes. Cattle
production is replaced by sheep and goats, and eventually animals are
grazed only on fallow fields instead of on pastures (see also 104).
Many of these studies document Boserup's "law of least effort, " as farm
ers' resistance to intensification and to some innovations stems from a
recognition of the declining returns to labor (14,15,72,99, 104, 116, 162).
Turner (183) notes that the Tzeltal of Chiapas will not adopt terracing
though they have recently begun manuring their fields. While he admits
returns to labor with terracing are low, he does not explore the possibility
that the returns to labor in traditional com production are still too high in
comparison with the labor of terracing. The huge investment of labor
required by terracing raises again the issue of compulsion in the intensifica
tion of agriculture beyond a certain point (161).
Barlett's (14) analysis of caloric returns to labor from intensive farming
and traditional swidden agriculture in Costa Rica connects the macrolevel
variables and population pressure with individual agricultural strategies.
Population increase leads to shortened fallow periods which in tum lowers
soil fertility in the less intensive system. Eventually, returns to labor from
these traditional methods fall lower than the returns to labor in the more
intensive system, thereby motivating farmers to maximize their yields and
adopt the more difficult farming techniques while still following the law of
least effort.
Two recent studies have refined Boserup's theory. Rubin's research
argues that climate is a limiting factor and must be added, together with
the political structure, as a determinant of the people/land ratio in under
standing agricultural history (161). Smith, as noted above, links population
density with Von Thunen's distance from the market center,though the two
variables are shown to complement each other, since population is usually
densest around market towns, which are in tum usually located in dense
areas (174, 175).
Stratification in Access to Resources

Along with increased attention to diversity within the peasant community,
research has also begun to explore the effects of differential access to re
sources on household decisions. Durham notes that the distribution of land
is more important than overall population density in explaining differences
in fertility and mortality rates in Guatemala (67, 68). Barlett (15), Acheson
(2), and Rask (157) show that household land resources are a major deter
minant of different crop mixes and household production combinations,
and DeWalt (62, 64) explains differential response to government agricul-
tural innovation programs in the same way (42, 59,166). Hildebrand (106)
describes an unusual agricultural development program in Guatemala in
which different agronomic recommendations were developed for different
sizes of farms in an attempt to work with the different priorities and needs
of small,medium,and large farmers. Access to land not only influences crop
choice but also the amount of land planted to each crop (13,15,38,43,44,
46,147). Acheson (2) shows how a family's resource combinations deter
mine their judgment of a "good" investment for those resources.
The conditions under which families obtain land for cultivation is also
important in the way they use it (96). Landless farmers who have no
security of rental can only plant annual crops, and will not attempt such
land improvements as ridging, draining, or extensive manuring (13, 121,
181). Even where rental agreements protect the tenant's investment, pro
duction strategies are affected: Edwards (71) notes that banana production
on rented lands in Jamaica is less intensive, and reports that tenants con
sciously invest less labor until their marginal costs are close to half the
marginal product of the labor (since the tenant keeps only half the harvest).
A particularly thorough study of the effects of traditional tenancy rules
comes from Takahashi (181), for a community near Manila in the Philip
pines. Low productivity of land and resistance to agricultural improvements
are linked to the very high rate of tenancy. Tenants, who are indebted to
their landlords, often to the point that their total share of the harvest will
not be sufficient to repay their debts,customarily hire other laborers to work
their fields while they themselves work on others' fields. Since landlords will
pay half the wages of anyone hired by a tenant, and since creditors cannot
touch the wage income of debtors, for debt repayment, tenants who need
money to live on reciprocate by hiring each other for day labor. Efforts to
improve rice production will benefit primarily the landlord, and tenants are
consequently reluctant to invest much care or capital in the improvements
available in the area. Landlords, likewise, feel that returns to their capital
will be higher outside of agriculture, and thus are unwilling to make these
improvements themselves.
The location of land in relation to the household also affects agricultural
decisions (64, 128). Epstein notes that less productive crops are chosen
among farmers in south India who inherit land in distant villages (72).
Edwards discusses the same need for supervision of tomato fields in Jamaica
(71). Whether owned or rented, land plots in diverse locations permit a
variety of crops to be grown and spread environmental risks (22,71,72,121,
128, 144, 146, 198).
Capital resources are usually closely linked with access to land in most
of the areas studied. DeWalt (62,64) illustrates how land and capital affect
land use decisions. When divided into quartiles based on wealth,the farmers
556 BARLETI
in a Mexican ejido adopted a new fodder crop at the rates of 0%, 15%,
13%, and 45% respectively. This risky new land use required significant
amounts of cash on hand,and credit was not available,thus discouraging
all but the wealthiest farmers. Although profits averaged one third more
than other crop options,fodder crops were not a reasonable option for all
members of the community,due not to peasant traditionalism or conserva
tism but to risk and scarce capital. Credit availability and capital resources
were also seen by Edwards (71),Nash (135),Perrin & Winkelmann (153),
and Rochin (158) to inhibit adoption of new agricultural technology.

National inequalities in resource distribution have been discussed by

some authors as biasing the kinds of new agricultural technology developed
(29, 61, 118). Large commercial farmers and ranchers are better able to
exploit government policies and because they have more influence on exper
iment stations,new technology developed there benefits them more than the
less influential small farmers.
Increasing attention has also been given in recent years to risk and
uncertainty in agricultural decisions (38, 41, 77, 129, 135, 148-150, 153,
160, 170, 195, 196), and research has shown that household resources are
closely connected with the responses to risky or uncertain choices. Schluter
& Mount (170) found in one Indian district that though groundnuts are
both more profitable and more labor intensive,families with a high work
er/land ratio preferred cotton production because it was less risky. They
further noted that risk was a much greater factor for households with
unirrigated land, but that the high cost of irrigation was an additional
constraint on crop choices; the range of household resources thus interacts
with risk factors. Roumasset (160), on the other hand, found that a risk
neutral model predicts better than those which include risk, though Ka
minsky (115) responds by pointing out that none of the models used predicts
more than 50% of the variance studied. Cancian's study of Zinacanteco
com farmers was one of the first to link uncertainty to the internal stratifica
tion within the community (38). His research,later tested worldwide (40),
showed that the wealthiest quartile innovates most rapidly, having more
resources to invest and being better able to recover,should the decision be
a disaster. The lowest quartile innovates the least,either being unable to risk
[supporting Wharton (189)] or "refusing to compete" (38, p. 142). Low
middle ranks innovate more than high middle ranks because they have less
to lose and are more anxious to improve their economic status. Cancian
then probes the difference between risk and uncertainty (40, 41) and finds
that innovations are adopted at two phases or time periods,the earlier phase
having higher uncertainty. Again, adoption behavior is affected by eco
nomic rank and follows the pattern noted above for the high uncertainty
phase while closely correlating with rank for the low uncertainty phase.
Cancian's work concludes that though formal models assume farmers act
on knowledge, in fact,farmers must often act before they can know (41).
Ortiz (150) explores what farmers take into account as they make decisions
under uncertainty.She found that Paez farmers do not actually forecast the
future,but rather formulate expectations of the future based on recent past
experience.Studies which take farmers to be strict maximizers must assume
that their decisions are based on estimated probabilities and that their
risk-aversion fits utility curves. In both cases, Ortiz argues that these as
sumptions are incorrect,since farmers may not even be able to determine
the probability of an outcome (see also 28a).

A number of authors have explored traditional mechanisms used to

reduce risk. Planting a variety of crops (1, 81, 91, 109, 110, 149, 182) or
intercropping within the same fields (1,71,139,140) both cushion environ
mental risk. Labor sharing and food sharing patterns also buffer against
hard times (109, 147), while investments in "social capital" may be neces
sary not only to reduce risk but to assure access to resources over the long
run (28a, 103, 104, 116, 155).
The Influence of Household Labor Resources

Agricultural decisions are also affected by the labor resources available to
the household (15,17,20,34,35,49,60,92,100,104,135,139,171).The
uneven demand for labor during the agricultural cycle can result in un
deremployment at some times of the year and labor shortages during peak
demand (35, 100). In contrast,Edwards (71) maintains that,in his study
of Jamaican farming, "there is little scope for increasing ... family labor
in farming" (p. 165).
Even if labor scarcity is brief,it puts a premium on the wise investment
of family labor,and several studies measure the marginal utility of labor in
different activities (17, 20, 49, 104). When the Tanzanian farmers studied
by Clayton (49) have to choose between weeding com or pruning coffee
bushes,the increase in the coffee harvest is greater when labor is invested
there,to the chagrin of the agricultural extension agent who seeks higher
com production. Lower returns to labor in the off Season are tolerated by
many peasant households seeking to maximize returns to family labor (17,
21).
Opportunities for off-farm employment also affect production decisions,
especially when returns per labor unit are higher with wage labor (2, 44,
46,76,104,116,120).Barber (11) holds that the low returns to labor both
in off-farm employment and on the farm in Rhodesia contribute to a pattern
in which men alternate between wage labor and subsistence agriculture.
Chayanov (43) has provided a complex model of the interaction of these
variables-household labor,land resources,and agricultural intensity. His
558 BARLEIT
perspective stresses the two-sided nature of family labor as needs (consum

ers) and resources (workers), and predicts that the intensity of labor invest
ment will be determined by the ratio between the two (69, 165, 182). Such
an outcome is dependent upon a desire for a constant standard of living (17)
and abundant land, and neither condition is common among the countries
of the world today. Chawdhari et al (42) and Alvarez & Andrew (6),
however, find that family needs are the crucial determinant of both the
amount of land planted and responsiveness to price incentives. Moerman
(129) and Greenwood (92) note the role of changing family consumption
standards and their effect on agricultural decisions, though this area has
been relatively neglected (95).
Finkler (76) criticizes Chayanov's model for not including other scarce
resources, such as capital and irrigation water, which clearly affect farm
strategies. Minge-Kalman (125, 126), on the other hand, finds Chayanov's
perspective useful in understanding why intensive berry farming in Europe
allows family farms to compete successfully with mechanized agriculture.
Barkley (12) makes a similar point for family farms in the U.S. Barlett (17)
tests several parts ofChayanov's theory with data fromCosta Rica and finds
qualified support for the hypothesis that smaller farms will accept lower
returns to labor. Larger families, however, cannot be shown to accept lower
returns to their labor though they do work more than smaller families.
Von Rotenhan's research (188) in Sukumaland in Southern Tanzania ties
together Chayanov's theory with Boserup. In areas where land is abundant
and population density is low, family income is found to vary directly with
the labor resources of the household. When population density rises, how
ever, and land scarcity limits the productivity of labor, the relation between
family incomes and family size declines in importance.
The organization of labor resources outside the family is also an impor
tant factor in some areas. Epstein (72) describes how the Japanese method
of rice production was not adopted in south India because the extra labor
of transplanting would not be repaid to the team of planters who receive
a fixed wage for the work of planting rice. Farmers were constrained from
exerting pressure to try this new planting method because of the high
demand for these teams at planting time and the danger of being unable to
find anyone willing to plant at all. It would be interesting to determine if
the overall population density of this area of India is significantly below that
of areas which have adopted the Japanese method.Changes in agricultural
technology in Java adversely affected wage labor opportunities, and hence
family incomes in a similar ecological situation (178).
Cycles in Household Resources and Needs

Bennett (26, 27) elaboratesChayanov's "cycle of family size" by seeing the
household and the farm enterprise as two interacting· units, each with its
own separate cycle over time. The results of long-term study of these
Saskatchewan farmers and ranchers show a number of patterns in these
interactions and determine that investment and capitalization are more
likely to occur at certain phases. Further, household needs may inhibit
investment in a key point of the enterprise cycle and access to land resources
is a second determinative variable, though Bennett stresses the intercon
nectedness of the diverse factors in the "agrifamily system." Salamon (168)
identifies four developmental cycles in farms in Illinois and demonstrates
that age at first purchase of land is the best predictor of which pattern any
one farmer will conform to.

While no other author has described similarly detailed cycles in produc
tion strategies for farms in developing countries, Ortiz (148) stresses the
importance of the farm cycle in c,ertain agricultural decisions, such as the
size of coffee plantings, which is decided once or at most twice during a
farmer's lifetime. Netting (136) shows that family needs affect land use at
different phases-such as the planting of large quantities of eleusine for
gruel by one man with many small children. Symes (180) notes that the
productivity of Irish farms is lowered by an unresponsive land market,
which would allow fluctuations in family labor resources to be matched by
farm size. Edwards (71), and Friedrich (81) discuss the adverse effects of
inheritance patterns on the development of the farm and the adjustment of
land and labor resources over the family cycle.
Individual Variation, Values, and the Interaction of

Strategies
Relatively little attention has been given recently to the role of personality
variables in production decisions. This neglect may be a reaction to the
tendency of past studies of personality and individual characteristics to
"blame the victim" by failing to see all the constraints in operation (64).
While some researchers have noted individual differences in labor intensity,
skills, or entrepreneurship (13, 21, 22, 72, 108), these differences have in
general not been found to be determinative.
Personal values and attitudes are rejected as causal variables by Ashcraft
(9), Peacock (151), and Simmons (173). Moerman concludes that "often,
differences in household composition and personality so merge that it is
impossible to say which is paramount" (129, p. 147). Berry (28) expected
differences in economic entrepreneurship among Nigerian cocoa farmers to
reflect personality differences and religious preferences, but found instead
that the decline of export palm products and the demobilization of warriors
at the end of the Yoruba Wars provided the impetus to push young men
into experimenting with new cash crops such as cocoa.
Greenwood (92) concludes that the younger generation of Basque farm
ers is abandoning highly profitable and commercialized family farms to
560 BARLETT
follow the Basque tradition of "collective nobility" and dignity in work.

Preferring wage labor in factories, at a lower standard of living, these
children of dairy and vegetable farmers are unwilling to follow their par
ents' occupation, which has forced many in the elder generation to sell their
farms. Greenwood's methodology compares an average year's pay in a
factory with the average farm family's yearly earnings, but he does not
calculate the labor investment necessary to obtain these sums, nor the
intensity of labor. With his reference to 18-hour days of work on vegetable
farms in the peak season of July and August and high labor costs in selling
as well as producing, the suggestion is strong that Chayanovian calculations

may prove illuminating. On the other hand, Greenwood may be right that
"culture is more than economics" and the upward mobility of life in the city
may outweigh the loss in family income.
Values that are shared by the community or by groups within the com
munity can be seen to be the outcome of past adaptive processes. Especially
in maintaining the unique adaptations of ethnic groups, values can play an
important role in agricultural decisions. The religious beliefs of the Cana
dian Hutterites, for instance, are shown by Bennett (24) to motivate a lower
level of consumption than that of their neighbors, and thus to allow a higher
rate of reinvestment in the enterprise. The competitive advantage of such
a strategy (as shown by the cyclical expansion of Hutterite communities and
lands) illustrates how the strategies chosen by one person or group influence
the decision-making environment of others.
Berry and others criticize much decision-making research for failing to
recognize that farm choices are not made independently of each other nor
independently of the decisions made by others (28a, 41, 114). Cummings'
research on miracle rice production in Vietnam provides an excellent exam
ple (57). Traditional floating rice was completely replaced by high-yielding
varieties in only 3 years, because the cropping cycle of the new rice varieties
left fields fallow during the main flooding season. Since these innovative
farmers did not tend their fields at these flood times, water hyacinth went
unchecked, and debris and strong flood currents (no longer slowed by solid
plantings of rice) damaged the traditional rice crops of the other farmers.
When one third of the fields were fallow (from HYV adopters), nearly all
farmers had some loss to their harvests and some lost more than half. When
half the fields were in HYV, traditional rice production was no longer
profitable for anyone.
Williams (194) documents similar pressures on farmers in Mexico from
the irrigation cycle, which perpetuates sugarcane monocropping (see also
116, 128). Orlove (143) discusses a situation in which communal lands and
pastures in Peru are exploited for long-term sustained yields, thus contrast
ing with Hardin's (101) pessimistic view of the commons and Eckholm's
(70) recital of short-term agricultural decisions' effects on the long-term

viability of resources (see also 93, 119). These authors elaborate the often
implicit feedback processes that production decisions have on the large
system and the decision-making environment of others.
Collier (52) elaborates how the subsistence strategies of different commu
nities in one region of Mexico are based on the unique resource combina
tions available to each. He then follows the implications of these different
strategies for the standard of living, family size, age of marriage, inheritance
practices, and kinship patterns of the communties. By showing how these

effect environmental quality, he points out the long-term implications of
current adaptations for future production possibilities.
SCOPE AND METHOD OF RESEARCH
Research on peasant production strategies has been characterized by a wide

range of goals and of methods used to achieve those goals. Most studies have
focused primarily on individual households within a community or a group
of communities (44), though some have taken a more regional focus (52,
53). Many researchers have tried to understand decisions at one point in
time (84), while others have taken a longer-range, diachronic perspective
(28). Each of these perspectives presents its own measurement issues. In
understanding agricultural choices, there are also divergent research goals:
to determine the farmers' own conceptions of what they are doing and why,
to study these decisions from an outsiders' perspective, or to combine the
two goals. These issues will be explored in turn.
For the most part, research on agricultural strategies assumes that the
actors are male; the role of women is seldom noted and even more rarely
explored. Though most researchers, when asked, will agree that some of the
farmers they studied were women, language and research focus tends to
imply that there are no women farmers or decision makers. Knight (117)
is unusually forthright by mentioning that women control certain agricul
tural spheres in Tanzania but he could not talk with them about their
decisions. Mueller (133) and Salamon & Keirn (167) discuss women's power
in the agricultural setting. Ashraf ( 10) and Moock ( 130) discuss women and
agricultural production from survey data; Moock's data show that women's
fields in Kenya are as productive as men's, but with fewer capital inputs and
more labor. Wilkening & Bharadwaj (191, 192) and Sawer (169) discuss
farm women in the United States. Currens' (58) analysis of innovations and
change in rice production in northwest Liberia includes women in his study
as a natural outcome of the sexual division of labor and resources (see also
177).
562 BARLETT
Measurement of Variables
Researchers who struggle to determine the importance of the diverse vari
ables that affect household strategies have found accurate measurement of
these variables similarly difficult. In peasant societies, land quantity is the
easiest to specify, and some researchers have verified the measurements of
fields (13, 38, 44, 92, 109). Labor is more difficult to measure, though
Johnson (112), refining Erasmus' (73) earlier work, has developed a method
of spot observations at random times which generates an estimate of labor
investment in various activities. Hatch (105) is unusually thorough in de

scribing the minute details of corn production in coastal Peru and measures
some of the diversity in these practices.
In order to evaluate the returns or profitability of different agricultural
outcomes, Chibnik (45) argues that production for household consumption
is more accurately valued at its purchase price, not its sale price. Calcula
tions often used by economists to determine profitability and returns to
different resources are shown by Barlett (16) to sometimes distort farmers'
decisions by leaving out important criteria from their own assessments of
different options. Her data from Costa Rica support Chayanovian returns
to-labor calculations as more useful in predicting agricultural choices.
Acheson (2) finds the reverse, that ganancia calculations of Mexican
households can lead to unprofitable investment decisions, though his calcu
lations are aimed at a normative assessment of decisions as well as descrip
tion. Bennett (26, 27) uses panels of collaborators and survey data to
compare with informants' own conceptions of farm management style and
quality. Cancian (38) and DeWalt (64) likewise avoid problems of measur
ing household wealth by arbitrarily cutting the community into four ranks,
verified by informants' perceptions as well as their own.
The Use of Models and the Role of Cognition

Models borrowed from economics and accounting have been used by a
number of researchers to try to understand the behavior of farmers (65,
151). Production functions and factor analysis, common among economists
and geographers, are now used occasionally by anthropologists as well (64,
74-76, 92, 117). Internal rate of return calculations (2), game theory (116),
event-matching or gambling models (116), and Shackle's theory of focus
loss and focus gain (32, 148) have been used in the literature. Other re
searchers have been less successful in being able to use survey data to
understand rural dynamics (11, 23, 54, 56, 69, 131, 134, l S I, 185) often
from the lack of the farmers' point of view and an ethnographic context with
which to interpret survey results.
Gladwin (86) critiques the use of these decision models for being able
only to determine how closely the behavior studied conforms to researchers'
assumptions about farmers; she stresses that such models cannot discover
constraints or variables that the researcher has not anticipated
(7, 12, 37,
1 85). Others echo this concern by pointing out the extent to which many
tools of economics are normative, designed to recommend ideal practices
(from the criteria of the economist), rather than to describe the actual
practices of farmers and their criteria of choice ( 1 7, 4 1 , 1 14). Johnson (1 14)
also cautions that formal models of behavior require two assumptions that
cannot be met: first, that the human mind works like a computer, when
there is evidence that it does not, and second, that inputs into the decision
process can be simplified and approximated when in fact each factor is
vastly more complex than the computer will allow. The reduction of this
complexity of real life situations, together with the values operationalized
in the models (88, 159), means that the modeling process is inevitably crude
and needs the broad strokes of ethnography.
These points also relate to the extent to which research seeks to describe
the decision process and its constraints from the farmer's own point of view
or to describe it from an outsider's or observer's perspective.
C. H. Gladwin
(87) has developed a theory of choice which models what is really going on
in farmers' heads. Starting from the perspective that real-life decisions
involve simplifying heuristics (see also 150), Gladwin postulates a two-stage
process. In Stage I, alternatives are eliminated in a manner similar to
Tversky's elimination by aspects (1 84). In Stage II, ordered alternatives are
passed through unordered constraints (from the environment or the social
context). The highest ordered alternative that passes all constraints is cho
sen. This theory is tested by developing tree diagrams for specific decisions
in a number of locations (85-87) and then testing the diagrams on a separate
sample of the population. The models are shown to predict 85-95% of
farmers' choices. Whether the constraints and nodes in the decision tree
come from informants' statements or the observer's hypotheses is not im
portant so long as the variables "cut" the sample into divergent groups and
so long as the model predicts (85, 87).
H. Gladwin & Murtaugh (88) refine this theory by developing the concept
of preattention, defined as information processing which lies outside of
ordinary attention and awareness. Decisions and parts of decisions in every
day life lie in the preattentive sphere, and the reasoning behind the rejection
of innovations or the allocation of resources may similarily be found in
farmers' preattentive processes. Farmers can talk about these issues when
asked (thereby moving the decision into the attentive sphere), but the
authors suggest that some researchers who have concluded that peasants
are tradition-bound and conservative may have neglected to explore preat
tentive factors. Further, for agricultural technology to be successfully
adopted, it must take account of these preattentive criteria. Hildebrand
564 BARLEIT
(106) reasons similarly, arguing that technology must be developed based

on the farmers' assessment of his or her scarce resources, not the
agronomist's. Hanks provides an example, noting the resistance to tractor
cultivation in Thailand in spite of the increase in planting speed because
"speed is not necessarily useful" (99, p. 54). Likewise, Gladwin & Murtaugh
(88) suggest that the preattentive assumptions of social scientists can lead
to erroneous models and measurements of farmers' behavior.
Another perspective on the issue of cognition is presented by Chibnik
(46), who argues that in situations where it is difficult to elicit farmers' rules
of choice, or in realms of human life where no clear rules exist (152), the
statistical behavior approach is preferable. His methodology compares di
vergent behavioral outcomes and then attempts to construct a statistical
profile of the relevant variables that determine those outcomes. Variables
can be derived from informants' statements, from observations, or from the
researcher's hypotheses. This approach makes no attempt to postulate the
cognitive decision process of the farmer, but does seek to explain and predict
behavior on the basis of the variables measured (15, 17, 38, 62, 111). While
farmers in two communities in Belize cannot themselves say whether their
family size or the village they live in is more important in determining their
allocation of labor between cash cropping and wage labor, Chiboik's (46)
use of the statistical behavior approach shows that the different characteris
tics of the two villages determine much more of the differences between
labor allocations in these households. Thus, the statistical behavior ap
proach can explore behavior patterns and relationships between variables
of which the actors themselves are unaware.
Barlett (13, 15) and Bennett (26, 27) have attempted to bring these two
perspectives to bear on the same subject. Barlett explores farmers' · assess
ments of different crop options in Costa Rica and compares these emic
understandings with statistical analyses of these same variables. Bennett
compares folk categories of management style with survey data and deter
mines that "developers" usually appear in the second and third generation
of a "place," but that development occurs only when family needs coincide
with the needs of the enterprise.
Toward an Improved Methodology

A number of very fine studies have delineated relevant variables affecting
farmers' production strategies and have measured the internal variation
within the community, both in the variables and in agricultural decisions.
They have not, however, taken an additional step to look for patterns of
households on the basis of their divergent choices and then linked these
patterns to variations in the determinant variables (51, 71, 99, 105, 108, 121,
129, 135, 136, 148, 182). Nash's work provides an example (135). He
discusses the decision to plant sesamum as a second crop in highland

Burma, noting the role of rainfall, access to irrigation, sufficient capital,
household composition, and price expectations. Some households have
greater access to capital, while others own land favorably located near
irrigation canals, but these variables are not linked to specific outcomes
regarding seasamum production. Nash foregoes the opportunity to specify
which households have access to capital, via moneylenders or relatives, and
then to prove that these households are more likely to plant second crops,
from data on their land use. Such a procedure would strengthen his discus
sion of the cropping strategies and would also lead naturally to a discussion
of why some households do not have access to capital while others do.
Such a procedure, while moving the study of production decisions away
from any possible distortion of impressions and intuition, nevertheless al
lows for the close interaction and empathy with the farmers studied that
is the strength of anthropological research. As the researcher intuits impor
tant issues which will elucidate the problem studied, attention to the mea
surement of variables and to their interaction will move these intutions from
the researcher's preattentive sphere to the attentive sphere, where their
accuracy can be verified. This procedure requires a willingness to grapple
with the difficulty of organizing human life into measurable parameters
which can be used to understand behavior and adaptation without denying
the complexity that exists.
This point echoes Cancian (39), who argues that anthropological contri
butions to rural development efforts will not come as an analog to dwarf
wheat or miracle rice. Our goal is not to define yet another "key factor" that
has been left out of models so far, but rather to stress the complexity of
variables that can affect agricultural strategies and develop improved meth
odologies for determining, in any one context, which are more important
in understanding and predicting behavior. Current research is moving away
from asking yes/no questions like "is risk important?" and "is access to land
the key?" and toward questions that seek to define when and in what way
risk and land resources are important. Within such a perspective, the issues
of cognition, the statistical behavior approach, and the utility of models and
measures from other fields can be evaluated for their contributions toward
answering these kinds of questions.
CONCLUSION
How people produce food has come to be a subject of considerable interest

in recent years, reflecting both the relative scarcity of food in some world
areas and the growing awareness of the limits to the global capacity to
absorb population. Anthropologists and other researchers have made major
566 BARLETI
strides in the study of agricultural production strategies, and these new

developments in understanding production processes and change are now
feeding back to refine the general study of human cultures and societies.
Through closer attention to the diversity within peasant communities, the
delineation of the relevant variables that determine different production
strategies has become possible. Combining the local idiosyncracies of time
and place with national economic, political and social institutions and
forces permits the identification of the range of possible production choices.
The household's resources and needs have been shown to have important
determinative roles in the choice process, and the outcomes of past choices
have been shown to affect both the decisions of other individuals and also
the larger natural and social environment within which those decisions are
made.
Future research is needed to explore the long-range impact of production
strategies and adaptive processes, particularly in light of the ever-increasing
damage to the world ecosystem and the rapid pace of proposed technologi
cal changes in agriculture. We need to explore such household level ques
tions as: to what extent can household resources be substituted for each
other? When can labor be substituted for capital or land? What are the
effects of changing household needs and consumption patterns? What
difference does it make if research addresses itself either to farmers' own
understandings of their production strategies or to search out unconscious
patterns in agricultural choices? Or must it do both? What aspects of the
economic system as a whole are missed by a focus on actors and their
adaptive strategies? We need more long-term research to elucidate cycles
in families and farms and to link them to changing household needs, re
sources, and decisions. We need to understand better the household deci
sion process as different personalities, sexes, and ages contribute to the final
allocations of family resources. As stratification increases within peasant
communities, within the developing countries, and between the developed
and deVeloping nations, we need to know more about the effects of this
concentration of resources as well as strategies used to adapt to it and
combat it.
The strength of anthropological research on agricultural production
has been that we talk with farmers over extended periods of time and try
to see the decision-making environment in all its holistic complexity.
This approach may account for some of the fuzziness of our analyses
and the diversity of perspectives used. However, with greater attention
to careful measurement and data collection and to demonstrating the
relevant variables and their interrelations, we can move forward strong
ly to assert the value of our understandings of agricultural production
strategies.
Literature Cited
1. Abalu, G. O. I. 1976. A note on crop 16. Barlett, P. F., ed. 1980. Agricultural De
mixtures under indigenous conditions cision Making: Anthropological Contri
in Northern Nigeria. J. Dev. Stud. butions to Rural Development. New
1 2(3):2 1 2-20 York: Academic. In press
2. Acheson, J. M. 1980. Agricultural busi 17. Barlett, P. F. 1980. Cost-benefit analy
ness choices in a Mexican village. See sis: A test of alternative methodologies.
Ref. 16, pp. 241-64 See Ref. 16, pp. 1 37-60
3. Adejuwon, J. O. 1962. Crop-climate re 18. Barth, F. 1967. On the study .of social
lationship: The example of cocoa in change. Am AnthropoL 69(6):66 1-69
Western Nigeria. Niger. Geogr. J. 5(1): 19. Basehart, H. W. 1973. Cultivation in
2 1-32 tensity, settlement patterns, and home

4. Alberti, G., Mayer, E. 1974. Recip stead forms among the Matengo of Tan
rocidad e Intercambio en los Andes zania. Ethnology 12(1):57-73

Peruanos. Peru: Inst. Estud. Peru. Peru 20. Baum, E. 1968. Land use in the Kilom
Prob!. No. 12; 260 pp. bero Valley. See Ref. 1 62, pp. 23-50
5. Alland, A. 1970. Adaptation in Cultural 2 1 . Beals, A. R. 1974. Village Life in South
Evolution: An Approach to Medical An India: Cultural Design and Environ
thropology. New York: Columbia Univ. mental Variation. Arlington Heights,
Press. 205 pp. Ill: AHM Pub!. 189 pp.
6. Alvarez, J., Andrew, C. O. 1977. Sup 22. Beardsley, R. K., Hall, J. W., Ward, R.
ply response by traditional and com E. 1959. Village Japan. Univ. Chicago
merical producers of basic grains in Press. 498 pp.
LDC's. South. J. Agric. Econ. July, pp.
23. Benito, C. A. 1976. Peasants' response
157-62
to modernization projects in minifundia
7. Anderson; J. R., Dillon, J. L., Har
economies. Am J. Agrie. Eeon. 58(2):
daker, J. B. 1977. Agricultural Decision
143-5 1
Analysis. Ames: Iowa State Univ. Press.
24. Bennett, J. W. 1969. Northern Plains
344 pp.
men.' Adaptive Strategy and Agrarian
8. Argyres, A. 1978. Peasants and the
Life. Chicago: Aldine. 352 pp.
Romanian command economy: A social
organizational approach. Presented at 25. Bennett, J. W. 1976. The Ecological
Ann. Meet. Am. Anthropol. Assoc., Transition: Cultural Anthropology and
Human Adaptation. New York: Perga
77th, Los Angeles. 16 pp.
9. Ashcraft, N. 1973. Colonialism and Un mon. 378 pp.
derdevelopment: Processes of Political
25a. Bennett, J. W. 1976. Anticipation, ad
Economic Change in British Honduras. aptation, and the concept of culture.
New York: Teachers Coli. Press. 180 Science 192:847-53
pp. 26. Bennett, J. W. 1980. Management style:
10. Ashraf, M. n.d. Notes on the Role of A concept and a method for the analysis
Rural Pakistani Women in Farming in of family-operated agricultural enter
the N. W. Frontier Province. Mexico prise. See Ref. 16, pp. 203-37
City: CIMMYT. 4 pp. (Mimeo) 27. Bennett, J. W. 1980. Of Time and the
1 1 . Barber, W. J. 1 960. Economic rational Enterprise: Farm Management as an
ity and behavior patterns in an under Adaptive System in the North American
developed area: A case study of African Agrifamily. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn.
economic behavior in the Rhodesias. Press. In press
Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 8(3):237-5 1 28. Berry, S. S. 1975. Cocoa. Custom. and
12. Barkley, P. W. 1976. A contemporary Socio-Economic Change in Rural West
political economy of family farming. ern Nigeria. New York: Oxford Univ.
Am J. Agric. Econ. 58(5):812-19 Press. 240 pp.
13. Barlett, P. F. 1975. Agricultural change 28a. Berry, S. S. 1980. Decision making and
in Paso: The structure of decision-mak policy making in rural development.
ing in a Costa Rican peasant commu See Ref. 16, pp. 3 19-35
nity. PhD thesis. Columbia Univ., NY. 29. Bieri, J., de Janvry, A., Schmitz, A.
250 pp. 1972. Agricultural technology and the
14. Barlett, P. F. 1976. Labor efficiency and distribution of welfare gains. Am. J.
the mechanism of agricultural evolu Agric. Econ. 54:801-8
tion. J. AnthropoL Res. 32(2):124-40 30. Biggs, H. H., Tinnermeier, R. L., eds.
15. Barlett, P. F. 1977. The structure of de 1974. Small Farm Agricultural Develop
cision making in Paso. Am Ethnol ment Problems. Fort Collins: Colo.
4(2):285-308 State Univ. 168 pp.
568 BARLEIT
3 1 . Boserup, E. 1965. The Conditions ofAg Land Use. New York: St. Martin's. 406
ricultural Growth; The Economics of pp.
Agrarian Change under Population 48. Clark, C., Haswell, M. 1964. The Eco
Pressure. Chicago: Aldine. 1 24 pp. nomics ofSubsistence Agriculture. New
32. Boussard, J. M., Petit, M. 1967. Repre York: St. Martin's. 245 pp.
sentation of farmers' behavior under 49. Clayton, E. S. 1968. Opportunity costs
uncertainty with a focus-loss constraint. and decision making in peasant agricul
J. Farm Econ. 49:(4) 869-80 ture. Neth. J. Agric. ScL 1 6(4):243-52
33. Brookfield, H. C., Hart, D. 1971. 50. Climo, J. 1 978. Collective farming in
Melanesia: A Geographical Interpreta northern and southern Yucatan, Mex
tion of an Island World. London: Me ico: Ecological and administrative
thuen. 464 pp. determinants of success and failure.
34. Brush, S. B. 1 977. Mountain Field and Am. EthnoL 5(2):191-205

5 1 . Cole, J. W., Wolf, E. R. 1974. The Hid
Family; The Economy and Human

Ecology ofan Andean Valley. Philadel den Frontier: Ecology and Ethnicity in
phia: Univ. Penn. Press. 199 pp. an Alpine Valley. New York: Aca
35. Brush, S. B. 1977. The myth of the idle demic. 348 pp.
peasant: Employment in a subsistence 52. Collier, G. A. 1975. Fields ofthe Tzotzil:
economy. See Ref. 97, pp. 60-78 The Ecological Bases of Tradition in
36. Buck, J. L. 1937. Land Utilization in Highland Chiapos. Austin: Univ. Texas
China. New York: Paragon. 494 pp. Press. 255 pp.
37. Burling, R. 1962. Maximization theo 53. Collier, G. A. 1 975. Are marginal farm
lands marginal to their farmers? In For
ries and the study of economic an
mal Methods in Economic An
thropology. Am. AnthropoL 64(4):
thropology, ed. S. Plattner pp. 149-58.
802-2 1
Washington DC: Am. Anthropol. As
,
38. Cancian, F. 1972. Change and Uncer

soc.Spec. Pub!. 4. 2 1 5 pp.
tainty in a Peasant Economy. Stanford
54. Colmenares, J. H. 1975. Adoption of
Univ. Press. 208 pp.
Hybrid Seeds and Fertilizers Among
39. Cancian, F. 1977. Can anthropology
Colombian Corn Growers. Mexico City:
help agricultural development? Cult.
Abridged by CIMMYT. 29 pp.
Agric. 2: 1-8. Bull. Anthropol. Study
55. Cook, S. 1973. Production, ecology, and
Group Agrar. Syst.
economic anthropology: Notes toward
40. Cancian, F. 1979. The Innovator's Situ an integrated frame of reference. Soc.
ation: Upper Middle Class Conservatism
Sci In! 12(1):25-52
in Agricultural Communities. Stanford 56. Cummings, J. T. 1975. The supply re
Univ. Press sponsiveness of Indian farmers in the
41. Cancian, F. 1980. Risk and uncertainty post-independence period: Major cereal
in agricultural decision making. See and cash crops. Indian l Agrie. Econ.
Ref. 16, pp. 16 1-76 30(J):24-40
42. Chawdhari, T. P. S., Chawdhari, S. L., 57. Cummings, R. C. 1978. Agricultural
Sharma, B. M. 1965. Farmers' percep change in Vietnam's floating rice re
tion of constraints influencing choice of gion. Hum. Organ. 37(3):235-45
crops and adoption of certain recom 58. Currens, G. E. 1976. Women, men, and
mended practices. Agric. Situation rice: Agricultural innovation in N. W.
India 20(7):555-65 Liberia. Hum. Organ. 35(4):355-65
43. Chayanov, A. V. 1966. The Theory of 59. Cutie, J. T. 1975. Diffusion of Hybrid
Peasant Economy, ed. D. Thorner, B. Corn Technology: The Case ofEI Salva
Kerblay, R. E. F. Smith. Homewood, dor. Cent. Int. Mejoramiento de Maiz y
Ill: Irvin. 317 pp. Tri�o. Mexico City: CIMMYT
44. Chibnik, M. 1974. Economic strategies abndged version. 24 pp.
ofsmallfarmers in Stann Creek District, 60. Dancla, A. K., Dancla, G., 1 972. Adop
British Honduras. PhD thesis. Colum tion of agricultural innovations in a
bia Univ., NY. 28 1 pp. West Bengal village. Man India 54(4):
45. Chibnik, M. 1 978. The value of subsis 303-1 9
tence production. J. AnthropoL Res. 61. d e Janvry, A . 1978. Social structure and
34(3): pp. 55 1-76 biased technical change in Argentine
46. Chibnik, M. 1980. Working out or agriculture. In Induced Innovation:
working in: The choice between wage Technology. Institutions and Develop
labor and cash cropping in rural Belize. ment, ed. H. Binswager, V. Ruttan, pp.
Am. EthnoL 7:In press 297-323. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
47. Clark, C. 1967. Population Growth and Press. 423 pp.
62. DeWalt, B. R. 1975. Inequalities in geria. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change

wealth, adoption of technology, and 1 3:278-92
production In a Mexican Ejido. Am. 78. Forman, S., Riegelhaupt, J. F. 1970.
EthnoL 2(1):149--68 Market place and marketing system:
63. DeWalt, B. R. 1978. Appropriate tech Toward a theory of peasant economic
nology in rural Mexico: Antecedents integration. Compo Stud. Soc. Hist.
and consequences of an indigenous 12:1 88-2 1 2
peasant innovation. Technol. Cult. 79. Fox, J. J. 1977. Harvest of the Palm.'
19(1):32-52 Ecological Change in Eastern Indonesia.
64. DeWalt, B. R. 1979. Modernization in a Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.
Mexican Ejido. New York: Cambridge 290 pp.
Univ. Press. 301 pp. 80. Franke, R. W. 1974. Miracle seeds and
65. Dillon, J. L., Heady, E. O. 1 960. Theo
shattered dreams in Java. Nat. Hist.

ries of choice in relation to farmer deci 83:1 (Jan.)
sions. Iowa State Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. 81. Freidrich, K. H. 1968. Coffee-banana
BulL 485. 24 pp. holdings at Bukoba: the reasons for
66. Drucker, C. B. 1977. To inherit the stagnation at a higher level. See Ref.
land: Descent and decision in Northern 162, pp. 175-212
Luzon. Ethnology 21(1): 1-20 82. Geertz, C. 1963. Agricultural Involu
67. Durham, W. H. 1977. Scarcity and sur tion. Berkeley/Los Angeles: Univ.
vival' The ecological origins 0/ conjlict Calif. Press. 176 pp.
between EI Salvador and Honduras. 83. Gerhart, J. 1975. The DiffUSion of Hy
PhD thesis. Univ. Mich., Ann Arbor. brid Maize in Western Kenya. Mexico
300 pp. City: CIMMYT abridged version. 57
68. Durham, W. H. 1979. Scarcity and Sur pp.
vival in Central America: Ecological 84. Gladwin, C. H. 1976. A view of the plan
Origins 0/ the Soccer War. Stanford pueb1a: An application of hierarchical
Univ. Press. 209 pp. decision models. Am. J. Agric. Econ.
69. Dutia, B. P. 1957. Theory of choice of 58:88 1-87
products by a cash cum subsistence 85. Gladwin, C. H. 1979. Production func
grower. Indian Econ. J. 5(2):215-21 tions and decision models. Am. Ethnol.
70. Eckholm, E. P. 1976. Losing Ground: 6(4}:653-74
Environmental Stress and World Food 86. Gladwin, C. H. 1979. Collllitive strate
Prospects. New York: Norton. 223 pp. gies and adoption deciSIOns: A case
7 1 . Edwards, D. 196 1 . Report on an Eco study of nonadoption of an agronomic
nomic Study of Small Farming in recommendation. Econ. Dev. Cult.
Jamaica. Glasgow: MacLehose, Univ. Change 28(1}:1 55-74
Press. 370 pp. 87. Gladwin, C. H. 1980. A theory of real
72. Epstein, T. S. 1962. Economic Develop life choices: Applications to agricultural
ment and Social Change in S. India. decisions. See Ref. 16, pp. 45-85.
Manchester Univ. Press. 353 pp. 88. Gladwin, C. H., Murtaugh, M. 1980.
73. Erasmus, C. J. 1967. Culture change in The attentive/preattentive distinction
Northwest Mexico. In Contemporary in agricultural decision making. See
Change in Traditional Societies IlL' Ref. 16, pp. 1 1 5-36
Mexican and Peruvian Communities. 89. Gleave, M. B., White, H. P. 1969. Pop
ed. J. H. Steward, pp. 3-129. Urbana: ulation density and agricultural systems
Univ. Ill. Press. 302 pp. in West Africa. In Environment and
74. Finkler, K. 1978. From sharecroppers Land Use in Africa. ed. M. F. Thomas,
to entrepreneurs: Peasant household G. W. Whittington, pp. 273-300. Lon
production strategies under the Ejido don: Methuen. 554 pp.
system of Mexico. Econ. Dev. Cult. 90. Goodfellow, D. M. 1950. PrinCiples of
Change 27:103-20 Economic Sociology. London: Rout
75. Finkler, K. 1979. Applying economet ledge. 289 pp.
ric techniques to economic anthro 91. Gould, P. R. 1963. Man against his en
pology. Am. EthnoL 6(4):675-8 1 vironment: A game theoretic frame
76. Finkler, K. 1980. Agrarian reform and work. In Environment and Cultural Be
economic development: When is a land havior. ed. A. P. Vayda, pp. 234--5 1 .
lord a client and a sharecropper his pa Garden City, NY : Nat. Hist. Press. 485
tron? See Ref. 16, pp. 265-80 pp.
77. Fogg, D. C. 1965. Agricultural and so 92. Greenwood, D. J. 1976. Unrewarding
cial factors affecting the development of Wealth: The Commercialization and
smallholder agriculture in eastern Ni- Collapse of Agriculture in a Spanish
570 BARLETI
Basque Town. New York: Cambridge 109. Johnson, A. W. 197 1 . Security and risk
Univ. Press. 223 pp. taking among poor peasants. In Studies
93. Gross, D. R, Underwood, B. A. 1971. in Economic Anthropology, ed. G. Dal
Technological change and caloric costs: ton, pp. 144-5 1. Am. Anthropol. As
Sisal agriculture in northeastern Brazil. soc. Anthropol. Stud. No. 7. 242 pp.
Am. AnthropoL 73:(3):725-40 1 10. Johnson, A. W. 1972. Individuality and
94. Gudeman, S. 1978. TheDemise ofa Ru experimentation in traditional agricul
ral Economy: Fram Subsistence to Capi ture. Hum. Ecol 1 : 149-59
talism in a Latin American Vii/age. 1 1 1 . Johnson, A. W. 1974. Ethnoecology
Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 176 and planting practices in a swidden ag
pp. ricultural system. Am. Ethnol 1(1):87-
95. Halperin, R 1977. Introduction: The 101
subsistence economy in peasant soci 1 12. Johnson, A. W. 1975. Time allocation

eties. See Ref. 97, pp. 1-16 in a Machiguenga community. Eth
96. Halperin, R. 1977. Redistribution in nology 14(3):301-10

Chan Kom: A case for Mexican politi 1 1 3. Johnson, A. W. 1978. Quantification in
cal economy. See Ref. 97, pp. 79-85 Cultural Anthropology. Stanford Univ.
96a. Halperin, R 1980. New and old in eco Press. 231 pp.
nomic anthropology. Am. AnthropoL In 1 14. Johnson, A. W. 1980. The limits offor
press malism in agricultural decision re
97. Halperin, R., Dow, J., eds. 1977. Peas search. See Ref. 16, pp. 1 7-43
ant Livelihood: Studies in Economic An 1 14a. Johnson, G. L., Halter, A. N., Jensen,
thropology and Culturol Ecology. New H. R, Thomas, D. W., eds' 1961. A
York: St. Martin's. 332 pp. Study of Managerial PrOcess of Mid
98. Halpern, J. M. 1958. A Serbian Village. western Farmers. Ames: Iowa State
New York: Columbia Univ. Press. 146 Univ. Press. 221 pp.
pp. 1 1 5. Kaminsky, M. 1979. Comment to
99. Hanks, L. M. 1972. Rice and Man. Roumasset. See Ref. 185, pp. 65-68
Chicago: Aldine. 174 pp. 1 1 6. Kirkby, A. 1973. The use of land and
100. Hansen, B. 1969. Wages and employ water resources in the past and present
ment in Egypt. Am. Econ. Rev. 59:298- valley of Oaxaca, MeXICO. Mem. Mus.
3 1 3 (June) AnthropoL No. 5. Ann Arbor: Univ.
101. Hardin, G. 1977. Managing the Com Mich. 174 pp.
mons. San Franscisco: Freeman. 294 1 1 7. Knight, C. G. 1974. Ecology and
pp. Change. New York: Academic. 300 pp.
102. Harner, M. J. 1970. Population pres 1 1 8. Lipton, M. 1977. Why Poor People Stay
sure and the social evolution of agricul Poor. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univ.
turalists. Southwest. J. AnthropoL Press. 467 pp.
26:67-86 1 19. Margolis, M. 1977. Historical perspec
103. Harris, A. 1972. Some aspects of agri tives on frontier agriculture as an adap
culture in Taita. In Population Growth: tive strategy. Am. Ethnol 4(1):42-64
Anthropological Limitations, ed. B. 1 19a. McCay, B. J. 1978. Systems ecology,
Spooner, pp. 1 80-89. Cambridge, Mass: people ecology, and the anthropology of
MIT Press. 25 pp. fishing communities. Hum. EcoL 6(4):
104. Haswell, M. 1973. Tropical Farming 397-422
Economics. London: Longman. 174 pp. 120. McHenry, D. E. Jr. 1973. The utility of
105. Hatch, J. K. 1976. The Com Farmers of compulsion in the implementation of
Motupe: A Study of Traditional Farm agricultural policies: A case study from
ing Practices in Northern Coastal Peru. Tanzania. Can. J. Afr. Stud 7(2):
Land Tenure Cent. Monogr., No. 1. 305-16
Madison: Univ. Wis. 246 pp. 121. Mencher, J. 1978. Agriculture and So
106. Hildebrand, P. E. 1977. Socioeconomic cial Structure in Tamilnadu: Past
Considerations in Multiple Cropping Origins, Present Transformations, and
Systems. Guatemala: Inst. Cienc. Tech Future Prospects. Durham: Carolina
nol. Agric. Sector PUblico Agric. 22 pp. Academic Press. 3 14 pp.
(Mimeo) 122. Messenger, J. C. 1969. Inis Beag: Isle of
107. Hill, P. 1970. Migrant Cocoa Farmers in Ireland New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Southern Ghana. New York: Cam Winston. 136 pp.
bridge Univ. Press. 265 pp. 123. Messerschmidt, D. A. 1976. Ecological
108. Johnson, A. W. 1971. Sharecroppers of change and adaptation among the Gu
the Sertao. Stanford Univ. Press. 153 rungs of the Nepal Himalaya. Hum.
pp. EcoL 4(2):167-85
124. Miller, R. 1974. Are familists amoral? ditions: The example of N. Nigeria. J.
A test of Banfield's amoral familism hy Dev. Stud. 1 1(1):3-21
pothesis in a South Italian village. Am. 141. Norman, D. W. 1977. Economic ratio
EthnoL 1 : 5 1 5-35 nality of traditional Hausa dryland
125. Minge-Kalman, W. J. 1977. On the the farmers in the north of Nigeria. See Ref.
ory and measurement of domestic labor 1 76, pp. 63-91
intensity. Am. Ethnol 4(2):273-84 142. Nukunya, G. K. 1975. Population pres
126. Minge-Kalman, W. J. 1977. Familypro sure, land tenure and agricultural devel
duction and reproduction in industrial opment. In Population, Ecology, and So
society: A field study of changes during cial Evolution, ed. S. Polgar, pp. 191-
the peasant to worker tronsition in Eu 217. The Hague: Mouton. 354 pp.
rope. PhD thesis. Columbia Univ., NY. 143. Orlove, B. S. 1976. The tragedy of the
128 pp. commons revisited: Land use and envi

127. Miracle, M. P. 1968. "Subsistence Agri ronmental quality in high-altitude An
culture": Analytical problems and al dean grasslands. In Hill Lands, Pl"
ternative concepts. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 208-14. Proc. Int. Symp., West Virgirua
50:292-3 10 Univ., Morgantown
128. Mitchell, W. P. 1977. Irrigation farm 144. Orlove, B. S. 1977. Integration through
ing in the Andes: Evolutionary implica production: the use of zonation in Espi
tions. See Ref. 91, pp. 36-59 nar. Am. Ethnol. 4(1):84-101
129. Moerman, M. 1968. Agricultural 145. Orlove, B. S. 1977. Inequality among
Change and Peasant Choice in a Thai peasants: The forms and uses of recipro
Village. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press. cal exchange in Andean Peru. See Ref.
227 pp. 97, pp. 201-14
1 30. Moock, P. R. 1973. The efficiency of 146. Orlove, B. S. 1977. Alpacas, Sheep and
women as farm managers: Kenya. Am. Men: The Wool Export Economy and
J. Agric. Econ. 58(5):831-35 Regional Society in Southern Peru. New
1 3 1 . Moock, P. R. 1978. Education and tech York: Academic. 270 pp.
nical efficiency in small farm produc 147. Ortiz, S. R. 1967. The structure of deci
tion. Presented at Comp. Int. Educ. sion-making among Indians of Co
Soc. Ann. Meet., Mexico City lombia. In Themes in Economic An
132. Morgan, W. T. W. 1972. The "White thropology, ed. R. Firth, pp. 191-228.
Highlands" of Kenya. See Ref. 156 ASA Monogr. No. 6. 292 pp.
133. Mueller, M. 1977. Women and men, 148. Ortiz, S. R. 1973. Uncertainties in Peas
power and powerlessness in Lesotho. In ant Farming: A Colombian Case. New
Women and National Development: The York: Humanities Press. 294 pp.
Complexities of Change, ed. Wellesley 149. Ortiz, S. R. 1979. The effect of risk aver
Ed. Comm., pp. 1 54-66. Univ. Chicago sion strategies on subsistence and cash
Press. 346 pp. crop decisions. In Risk, Uncertainty
134. Mwamufiya, M., Fitch, 1. B. n.d. Labor and Agricultural Development, ed. J. A.
Use Patternsfor the Production ofMaize Roumasset, pp. 23 1-46. New York:
in Southern Zaire. Mexico City: CIM Agric. Dev. Counc. 453 pp.
MYT. 1 1 pp. 150. Ortiz, S. R. 1980. Forecasts, decisions
1 35. Nash, M. 1965. The Golden Road to and the farmers' response to uncertain
Modernity: Vii/age Life in Contempo environments. See Ref. 16, pp. 177-202
rary Burma. New York: Wiley. 333 pp. 151. Peacock, D. L. 1972. The adoption of
136. Netting, R. McC. 1968. Hill Farmers of new agricultural practices in N. E. Bra
Nigeria: Cultural Ecology of the Kofyar zil: An examination offarmers decision
of the Jos Plateau. Seattle: Univ. Wash. making. PhD thesis. Mich.. State Univ.,
Press. 259 pp. East Lansing. 340 pp.
137. Netting, R. McC. 1969. Ecosystems in 152. Pelto, P. J., Pelto, O. H. 1975. Intra
process: A comparative stUdy of change cultural diversity: Some theoretical is
m two West African societies. In Eco sues. Am. Ethnol 2(1): 1-18
logical Essays, ed. D. Damas, pp. 102- 153. Perrin, R., Winkelmann, D. 1976. Im
12. Nat. Mus. Can. Bull. 230 pediments to technical progress on
138. Netting, R. McC. 1974. Agrarian small versus large farms. Am. J. Agric.
ecology. Ann. Rev. Anthropol 3:21-56 Econ. 58(5):888-94
139. Norman, D. W. 1971. Initiating change 154. Polanyi, K. 1957. The economy as in
in traditional agriculture. Agric. Econ. stituted process. In Trade and Market
Bull. Afr. 13:3 1-52 in the Early Empires, ed. K. Polanyi, C.
140. Norman, D. W. 1974. Rationa1izing Arensberg, H. Pearson, pp. 243-70.
mixed cropping under indigenous con- New York: Free Press. 382 pp.
572 BARLETI
155. Porter, P. W. 1965. Environmental po peasant farmer: An analysis of risk

tentials and economic opportunities. aversion in the choice of cropping pat
Am. Anthropol 67:409-20 tern, Surat District, India. J. Dev. Stud.
156. Prothero, R. M. 1972. People and Land 12(3):246--61
in Africa South of the Sahara. New 171. Schultz, T. W. 1964. Transforming Tra
York: Oxford Univ. Press. 344 pp. ditional Agriculture. New Haven: Yale
157. Rask, N. 1977. Factors limiting change Univ. Press. 212 pp.
on traditional small farms in southern 172. Shapiro, K. H. 1975. Measuring mod
Brazil. See Ref. 176, pp. 92-114 ernization among Tanzanian farmers: a
158. Rochin, R . I. 1977. Rural poverty and new methodology and an illustration.
the problem of increasing food produc See Ref. 53, pp. 128-48
tion on small farms: The case of C0- 173. Simmons, R. A. 1974. Palca and
lombia. West. J. Agric. Econ. 1(1):
Pucara: A study of the effects of revolu

1 81-86 tion on two Bolivian haciendas. Univ.
159. Rochin, R. I. 1978. Why small farmers Calif. Publ. Anthropol. Vol 9. Berkeley:
do not adopt and utilize new te Univ. Calif. Press. 212 pp.
chonology. Presented at CENTO Semi 174. Smith, C. A. 1975. Production in West
nar, Increasing the Productive Capacity ern Guatemala: A test of Von Thunen
of Small Farmers in Cento Countries, and Boserup. See Ref. 53, pp. 5-37
Lahore, Pakistan. 1 8 pp. 175. Smith, C. A. 1977. How marketing sys
160. Roumasset, J. A. 1979. Unimportance tems affect economic opportunity in
of risk for technology design and agri agrarian society. See Ref. 97, pp.
cultural development policy. See Ref. 1 17-46
185, pp. 48-65 176. Stevens, R. D., ed. 1977. Tradition and
161. Rubin, J. 1973. Notes on the compara
Dynamics in Small-Farm Agriculture.
tive study of the agriculture of world
Ames: Iowa State Univ. Press. 266 pp.
regions. Peasant Stud. News!. 2(4): 1-4
177. Stoler, A. L. 1977. Class structure and
162. Ruthenberg, H., ed. 1968. Smallholder
female autonomy in rural Java. See Ref.
Farming and Smallholder Development
133, pp. 74-89
in Tanzania. Munchen: Weltforum
178. Stoler, A. L. 1977. Rice harvesting in
Vedag. 360 pp.
Kali Loro: A study of class and labor in
163. Rutz, H. J. 1977. Individual decisions
rural Java. Am. Ethnol 4(4):678-98
and functional systems: economic ratio
179. Strickon, A., Greenfield, S. M., eds.
nality and environmental adaptation.
Am. Ethnol. 4(1): 156--74
1972. Structure and Process in Latin
Amenca.· Patronage, Clientage, and
164. Sahlins, M. D. 1964. Culture and en
Power Systems. Albuquerque: Univ.
vironment: the study of cultural
ecology. In Horizons in Anthropology, New Mexico Press. 256 pp.
ed. S. Tax, pp. 1 32-47. Chicago: Aldine. 1 80. Symes, D. G. 1972. Farm household
288 pp. and farm performance: a study of twen
165. Sahlins, M. D. 1971. The intensity of tieth century changes in Ballyferriter,
domestic production in primitive soci Southwest Ireland. Ethnology 1 1 :25-38
eties: Social inftections of the Chayanov 181. Takahashi, A. 1970. Land and Peasants
slope. See Ref. 109, pp. 30--5 1 in Central Luzon. Honolulu: East-West
166. Saint, W . 1977. Th e social organization Center Press. 168 pp.
of crop production: Cassava, tobacco, 182. Tax, S. 1953. Penny Capitalism: A
and citrus in Bahia. Brazil PhD thesis. Guatemalan Indian Economy. Wash
Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY. 373 pp. ington: Smithsonian Inst. 230 pp.
167. Salamon, S., Keirn, A. M. 1979. Land 183. Turner, P. R. 1977. Intensive agricul
ownership and women's power in a ture among the Highland Tzeltals. Eth
midwestern farming community. J. nology 16(1):167-74
Marriage Fam. Feb: 109-19 184. Tversky, A. 1972. Elimination by as
168. Salamon, S., O'Reilly, S. M. 1979. Fam pects: A theory of choice. Psychol Rev.
ily land and developmental cycles 79(4):281-99
among Illinois farmers. Rural Soc. 185. Valdes, A., Scobie, G. M., Dillon, J. L.
44(3):525-42 1979. Economics and the Design of
169. Sawer, B. J. 1973. Predictors ofthe farm Small-Farmer Technology. Ames: Iowa
wife's involvement in general manage State Univ. Press. 2 1 1 pp.
ment and adoption decisions. Rural 186. Van Roy, E. 1971. Economic Systems of
Soc. 38(4):412-26 Nonhern Thailand. Ithaca: Cornell
170. Schluter, M. G. G., Mount, T. D. 1976. Univ. Press. 289 pp.
Some management objectives of the 187. Vasey, D. E. 1979. Population and agri-
cultural intensity in the humid tropics. Progress: An Ecological Perspective on

Hum. Ecol. 7(3):269-83 Economic ,Development. New York:
188. Von Rotenhan, D. 1968. Cotton farm Praeger. 225 pp.
ing in Sukumaland: Cash cropping and 194. Williams, A. W. Jr. 1970. San Ignacio
its implications. See Ref. 1 62, pp. 51-86 Cuatemoc: A canal irrigating commu
189. Wharton, C. R. 197 1 . Risk, uncer nity in the Tehuacan Valley. AnthropoL
tainty, and the subsistence farmer: Q. 43(1):39-54
Technological innovation and resis 195. Williams, G. 1977. Differential risk
tance to change in the context of sur strategies as cultural style among fann
vival. See Ref. 109, pp. 152-79 ers in the Lower Chubut Valley, Pata
190. Whitten, N. E. Jr., Whitten, D. S. 1972. gonia. Am. EthnoL 4:65-83
Social strategies and social relation 196. Winkelmann, D. 1976. The Adoption of
ships. Ann. Rev. AnthropoL 1 :247-70 New Maize Technology in Plan Puebla.
191. Wilkening, E. A., Bharadwaj, L. 1 967. Mexico. Mexico City: CIMMYT. 14
Dimensions of aspirations, work roles pp.

and decision-making among husbands 197. Wolf, E. R. 1956. San Jose: Subcultures
and wives in Wisconsin. J. Marriage of a "traditional" coffee municipality.
Fam. 29:703-1 1 In The People ofPuerto Rico. ed. J. H.
192. Wilkening, E. A., Bharadwaj, L. 1968. Steward, pp. 17 1-264. Urbana: Univ. Il
Aspirations and task involvement as re linois Press. 540 pp.
lated to decision-making among farm 198. Yang, M. C. 1945. A Chinese Vii/age:
husbands and wives. Rural Soc. Taitou. Shantung Province. New York:
33:30-45 ,Columbia Univ. Press. 275 pp.
193. Wilkinson, R. G. 1973. Poverty and

Adaptative Strategies in Peasant Agricultural Production

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adaptative Strategies in Peasant Agricultural Production

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANNUAL

Ann. Rev. Anthropol 1980. 9:545-73

ADAPTIVE STRATEGIES IN .9667

In recent years, anthropology within academia and applied anthropology

research have direct implications for development programs and policy.

The formation of the Anthropological Study Group on Agrarian Systems

Formalism, Substantivism, and Adaptive Strategies

allocation of resources are normative models of behavior and may not

years participate in a market economy and often are affected by interna­

point in recent years, however, the tendency toward "uniformism" is still

79, 121, 123, 135, 182, 186, 195, 197).

Gudeman argues that beginning an analysis of the economy with individ­

cultural change by focusing on adaptive strategies.

FACTORS AFFECTING AGRICULTURAL

research problems which have been addressed. The majority of anthropo­

backs both on the decisions of other individuals and on the macrolevel

The Natural Environment

The interaction between technology and environmental constraints is

these lands, when they were purchased by Africans, after 1961.

Gerhart (83) nicely illustrates the complexity of separating the natural

The Social, Political, and Economic Environment

HOUSEHOLDS AS UNITS OF ANALYSIS

Most research on peasant agricultural strategies takes the household as the

1. Population density and agricultural intensification.

Population Density and Agricultural Intensification

Stratification in Access to Resources

and Rochin (158) to inhibit adoption of new agricultural technology.

National inequalities in resource distribution have been discussed by

the probability of an outcome (see also 28a).

A number of authors have explored traditional mechanisms used to

The Influence of Household Labor Resources

perspective stresses the two-sided nature of family labor as needs (consum­

Cycles in Household Resources and Needs

one farmer will conform to.

Individual Variation, Values, and the Interaction of

follow the Basque tradition of "collective nobility" and dignity in work.

as well as producing, the suggestion is strong that Chayanovian calculations

(70) recital of short-term agricultural decisions' effects on the long-term

practices, and kinship patterns of the communties. By showing how these

current adaptations for future production possibilities.

SCOPE AND METHOD OF RESEARCH

Research on peasant production strategies has been characterized by a wide

investment in various activities. Hatch (105) is unusually thorough in de­

The Use of Models and the Role of Cognition

(106) reasons similarly, arguing that technology must be developed based

Toward an Improved Methodology

discusses the decision to plant sesamum as a second crop in highland

How people produce food has come to be a subject of considerable interest

strides in the study of agricultural production strategies, and these new

2 1-32 tensity, settlement patterns, and home­

rocidad e Intercambio en los Andes zania. Ethnology 12(1):57-73

34. Brush, S. B. 1 977. Mountain Field and Am. EthnoL 5(2):191-205

Family; The Economy and Human

38. Cancian, F. 1972. Change and Uncer­

62. DeWalt, B. R. 1975. Inequalities in geria. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change

shattered dreams in Java. Nat. Hist.

subsistence economy in peasant soci­ 1 12. Johnson, A. W. 1975. Time allocation

96. Halperin, R. 1977. Redistribution in nology 14(3):301-10

128 pp. commons revisited: Land use and envi­

155. Porter, P. W. 1965. Environmental po­ peasant farmer: An analysis of risk

Pucara: A study of the effects of revolu­

cultural intensity in the humid tropics. Progress: An Ecological Perspective on

Dimensions of aspirations, work roles pp.

years participate in a market economy and often are affected by interna

Gudeman argues that beginning an analysis of the economy with individ

research problems which have been addressed. The majority of anthropo

perspective stresses the two-sided nature of family labor as needs (consum

investment in various activities. Hatch (105) is unusually thorough in de

2 1-32 tensity, settlement patterns, and home

38. Cancian, F. 1972. Change and Uncer

subsistence economy in peasant soci 1 12. Johnson, A. W. 1975. Time allocation

128 pp. commons revisited: Land use and envi

155. Porter, P. W. 1965. Environmental po peasant farmer: An analysis of risk

Pucara: A study of the effects of revolu