Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CV PUBLICATIONS THE NEW PEASANTRIES PEASANTS and ART OF FARMING THE VIRTUAL FARMER RESEARCHPROGRAM PHD'S LINKS
The renewed attention for family farming (agricultura familiar) in Brazil, as ENERGY Home
expressed in the organization of the "1st Coloquio Agricultura Familiar e THE PEASANT MODE OF Contact
important changes within Brazilian agriculture[1]; it equally reflects the strength REVISITED
and maturity of ˜rural studies' as they are practiced in Brazil. The combination of a EMPIRE AND THE Jan Douwe van der Ploeg
solid theoretical grounding, a broad and methodologically well structured empirical PEASANT PRINCIPLE Formerly Professor and Chair
focus[2] and, last but not least, an open eye for and strong involvement in current RESISTANCE OF THE of Rural Sociology and
processes of change, all contribute to the capacity to escape from ideological THIRD KIND Emeritus professor of
chains. Thus, seemingly ˜old fashioned' issues that often have been declared as Transition Studies at
˜resolved and finished' (as e.g. ˜family farming' ) are now addressed in fresh and Wageningen University
frank ways: they are converted into inspiring new theoretical challenges that (WUR), the Netherlands and
associate, on the level of practice, with important and new development Adjunct Professor of Rural
trajectories. Sociology at the College of
This renewed interest in family farming coincides, I would argue, with current Humanities and Development
debates in Europe in which the notions of peasantry and peasant farming are re- Studies (COHD) of China
emerging as key-elements for the understanding of several complicated and Agricultural University (CAU)
mutually contradictory processes of transition that occur in the European in Beijing, China.
countryside[3].
This contribution is based on three interrelated premises. First, family farming e-mail: clic here
currently embraces two contrasting constellations: these are the peasant and the
entrepreneurial modes of farming. To distinguish between the two increasingly
turns out to be important, amongst others to understand why entrepreneurial
farming in Europe is increasingly facing a demise[4], whilst peasant farming
represents, due to its inbuilt resistance, the promise of continuity (Ploeg, 2003).
Second: the essence of, and main differences between these two contrasting
modes of production do not reside that much in property relations; they are
mainly located in the (different) ways in which the production, distribution and
appropriation of value are ordered. Thirdly: by defining the specificity of the
peasant mode of production in terms of value production, it might be (re-)linked,
in a fruitful way[5], to the development debate.
This contribution focuses, albeit not exclusively, on Europe. It basically argues that
peasant farming is widely spread throughout Europe, whilst it is currently being
strengthened through new responses that might be summarized with the concept
of repeasantization. The consequence is, as far as Third World countries are
concerned, quite clear: in no way peasant farming can be seen as intrinsically
backward. Peasant agriculture is not an obstacle to development and change, but
might be, instead, an excellent starting point for it (just as happened in the past,
as argued convincingly by e.g. Jollivet, 2001)
www.jandouwevanderploeg.com/EN/publications/articles/the-peasant-mode-of-production-revisited/ 1/25
6/3/2021 THE PEASANT MODE OF PRODUCTION REVISITED - articles - PUBLICATIONS - RURAL DEVELOPMENT - challenges and interlinka…
www.jandouwevanderploeg.com/EN/publications/articles/the-peasant-mode-of-production-revisited/ 2/25
6/3/2021 THE PEASANT MODE OF PRODUCTION REVISITED - articles - PUBLICATIONS - RURAL DEVELOPMENT - challenges and interlinka…
From an analytical point of view the basic differences between the different modes
of farming are easy to assess. They reside in the different interrelations between
farming and markets and in the associated ordering of the agricultural process of
production. As summarized in table 1, the elements that constitute the process of
production might enter this process as commodities (+) or as non-commodities (-)
[8]. This depends on the relations that are established between the farming units
and the different markets: are the concerned elements (labour, other resources)
mobilized through the corresponding markets or are they produced, reproduced
and/or exchanged through non-commodity circuits?
Table 1: Different forms of commodity production
form of commodity
production (domestic) (petty) (simple) (capitalist)
(DP) PCP SCP CCP
produced output - + + +
other resources - - + +
labour force - - - +
(objective) (selfprovisioning) (survival) (income) (surplusvalue)
The table indicates that in petty commodity production[9] (PCP) the produced
output is (at least partly) marketed and is, therefore, to be seen as representing a
set of commodities. However, in the same mode of farming it is essential that
neither the labour force nor the other crucial resources (land, water, seeds,
animals, knowledge, networks, etc) enter the labour process as commodities it are
usevalues that have a different biography: they are "moved out of the
commodity state"(Appadurai, 1986)[10]. In simple commodity production
(SCP) there is a decisive shift beyond PCP: except labour, all other material and
social resources enter the labour process as commodities. Therefore, they
introduce as well the reigning commodity relations with all their immediacy as
"the logic of the markets" (Friedmann, 1980) into the labour process
The capitalist form of commodity production (CCP) represents full
commoditization: both labour force and the other resources enter the labour
process as commodities and all produced output is to circulate as commodity. In
the following text I will discuss the peasant mode of farming as PCP and the
entrepreneurial mode of farming as expression of SCP. This approach is, I would
argue, in line with Ellis' definition of the peasants as being "only partially
integrated into incomplete markets" (1988:4)[11]. It also coincides with
Bernstein' s earlier notion of the "intensification of commodity
relations": "it can help to distinguish the various ways in which, and
www.jandouwevanderploeg.com/EN/publications/articles/the-peasant-mode-of-production-revisited/ 3/25
6/3/2021 THE PEASANT MODE OF PRODUCTION REVISITED - articles - PUBLICATIONS - RURAL DEVELOPMENT - challenges and interlinka…
Co-production is the ongoing encounter and mutual interaction of man and living
nature, or, more generally, of the social and the material. In and through co-
production both the social and the material are mutually transformed. They are
moulded and remoulded in order to become useful, adequate and promising
resources that fit seemingly seamless together into a coherent pattern, i.e. the
peasant mode of production. Further on I will define this peasant mode of
production in more detail what I am trying to do here is to ˜locate' it into a
www.jandouwevanderploeg.com/EN/publications/articles/the-peasant-mode-of-production-revisited/ 4/25
6/3/2021 THE PEASANT MODE OF PRODUCTION REVISITED - articles - PUBLICATIONS - RURAL DEVELOPMENT - challenges and interlinka…
specific societal context, which will allow, I believe, for a better understanding of
its nature, its dynamics and its worldwide persistence.
On its turn, co-production articulates with the markets but in a specific,
strategically ordered way that will be specified further on. A part of production is
sold, a part of production might be consumed directly by the peasant family and
another part of total production will feed into the next cycles of production: thus
the outcomes of co-production will strengthen the resource-base on which it is
grounded (and thus contribute indirectly to the creation of more autonomy).
Evidently, the relative shares destined to reproduction of the productive unite, to
the (direct) reproduction of the farming family and to commercialization, are
highly variable. They will depend on the particularities of time and space and
equally on the strategies as employed by the involved actors. However, a mere
change in the relative shares does not change the basic nature of the peasant
condition, nor of the peasant mode of farming that is embedded in it. Crucial is
that the process of production is structured in such a way that it allows for survival
whilst it aims at the same time at further reproduction (and possibly enlarged
reproduction)[13] over time.
A fourth characteristic (following from the previous ones) concerns the centrality of
labour: levels of intensity as well as further development critically depend upon
the quantity and quality of labour. Associated with this are the importance of
labour investments (terraces, irrigation systems, buildings, improved and carefully
selected cattle, etc)[19], the nature of applied technologies (˜skill oriented' as
opposed to ˜mechanical' , ref. Bray, 1986) and novelty-production (Wiskerke and
www.jandouwevanderploeg.com/EN/publications/articles/the-peasant-mode-of-production-revisited/ 5/25
6/3/2021 THE PEASANT MODE OF PRODUCTION REVISITED - articles - PUBLICATIONS - RURAL DEVELOPMENT - challenges and interlinka…
Finally, I want to refer here to a sixth and probably decisive characteristic: the
peasant mode of production is basically oriented at the search for and the
subsequent creation of value added and productive employment. In the capitalist
and entrepreneurial modes of farming, profits and levels of income can be
increased through a reduction of labourinput as a matter of fact both proceed
through, and as, an ongoing outflow of labour. Due to its location in the peasant
condition, this cannot occur in the peasant mode of production[21]. Emancipation
(˜successfully facing the hostile environment' ) coincides here, necessarily, with
the enlargement of total value added per unit of production (i.e. per farm). This
occurs through a slow but persistent growth of the resource base, or through an
improvement of the ˜technical efficiency' . Mostly, however, the two movements
will be combined and intertwined and thus obtain an autonomous moment of self
enforcement. The ongoing increase of value added per farm is brought in line,
www.jandouwevanderploeg.com/EN/publications/articles/the-peasant-mode-of-production-revisited/ 6/25
6/3/2021 THE PEASANT MODE OF PRODUCTION REVISITED - articles - PUBLICATIONS - RURAL DEVELOPMENT - challenges and interlinka…
Be it as it is, one might assume that the availability of a qualified and involved
labourforce is a strategic and indispensable feature of the required resource base.
Hence, it might be assumed as well that the more value added is available at the
level of the unit of production (which mostly coincides with the level of the
involved peasant family), the more there will be available for individual actors.
This applies especially when internal relations are relatively democratic (i.e. non
authoritarian).
www.jandouwevanderploeg.com/EN/publications/articles/the-peasant-mode-of-production-revisited/ 7/25
6/3/2021 THE PEASANT MODE OF PRODUCTION REVISITED - articles - PUBLICATIONS - RURAL DEVELOPMENT - challenges and interlinka…
are taking place. And in agricultural systems that are being confronted with an
enduring squeeze, market dependency (as opposed to a relative autonomy) might
pop up as decisive.
From this follows that immediate differences between the peasant and the
entrepreneurial ways of farming will vary considerably with time and place. What
emerges as the main direct and relevant difference in one situation, might sharply
differ from the most visible and most relevant difference in another situation.
Nonetheless, such dissimilarities might very well go back to the basic differences
implied by the different, underlying modes of ordering and the ways in which they
interact with different social formations.
At the same time it applies that the different, and potentially relevant, dimensions
that distinguish the two modes of farming are strongly, albeit not mechanically
interrelated. A well articulated co-production, for instance, will feed into a lower
dependency upon input-markets, which on its turn might allow for more
robustness when facing the overall squeeze on agriculture. Equally, it is quite
probable that such a pattern, once it is firmly established, will translate in an
ongoing intensification (based on an increased quantity and quality of labour)
rather than in a spurred scale-enlargement.
Table 2 summarizes some of the main dimensions upon which the peasant and the
entrepreneurial modes of farming articulate in contrasting, but interrelated ways.
Some of these dimensions regard directly the manner in which the process of
agricultural production is ordered, others regard higher levels of aggregation[25].
Table 2: a schematic overview of basic differences between the peasant and the
entrepreneurial modes of farming
Peasant mode Entrepreneurial mode
Building upon and disconnecting from nature;
internalizing nature; co- 'artificialization'
production and co-evolution
central
Distantiation from markets high market-dependency; high
at input side; differentiation degree of commoditization
at output side (low degree of
commoditization)
Centrality of craft and centrality of entrepreneurship
skill-oriented technolo- and mechanical technologies
gies
During the last 15 years a range of empirical inquiries has revealed the
heterogeneity as existing in agricultural systems all around the world. Mostly the
patterns of coherence underlying this heterogeneity have been referred to as
˜styles of farming' . These are the material, relational and symbolic outcomes of
the strategically ordered flows through time to which I referred here above. Taken
together they compose a richly chequered range that goes from different forms of
peasant agriculture on the one hand, via highly complex combinations towards
different expressions of entrepreneurial agriculture on the other. Instead of
summarizing here the many relevant differences associated with this distinction, I
prefer to discuss here some of the main outcomes of a national research project in
the Netherlands that was not only inspired by and built upon this distinction, but
www.jandouwevanderploeg.com/EN/publications/articles/the-peasant-mode-of-production-revisited/ 8/25
6/3/2021 THE PEASANT MODE OF PRODUCTION REVISITED - articles - PUBLICATIONS - RURAL DEVELOPMENT - challenges and interlinka…
which also tried to explore its potential further. This research project, structured as
a pluri-annual experiment, was realized at the National Centre for Applied
Research in Animal Production at Lelystad (PR). Departing from the different
strategies encountered in the dairy farming sector, two farms have been build
here: one so called ˜low cost farm' , the other a ˜high tech' one (including a.o.
completely automated milking). Both have been designed in such a way that one
person can do all the work. Equally, both farms are to render the same so called
˜comparable income' . To meet these two criteria the low cost farm had to produce
a quota of 400,000 kg. milk, whilst the high tech farms needed a quota of nearly
800,000 kg. Table 3 summarizes a few of the most salient data.
Hectares of land 32 35
Milking cows 53 81
The individual differences contained in table 3 are, as such, just minor and at first
sight probably irrelevant. However, by combining a range of small differences in a
coherent way, the decisive contrasts might be wrought. That is precisely what
table 3 refers to. When the available Dutch dairy quota (10.8 billion kg of milk)
would be produced by the relatively large scale entrepreneurial style, there would
be ˜space' for nearly 13,900 dairy farms. If, however, the peasant style would
dominate, the total number of farms would be twice as high. And more important:
productive employment and the created value added would also be twice as high.
For the Netherlands such a difference is, at the moment, relatively irrelevant
especially from the point of view of the state and agro-industry. However, there
are many other instances within which the indicated contrast would be perceived
as strategic, both in Europe (Broekhuizen et al, 1999) as well as elsewhere in the
world. As was recently argued by Colin Tudge: "We need again to see
farming as a major employer indeed to perceive that to employ people is one of its
principal functions, second only to the need to produce good food and maintain the
landscape. Yet modern policies are designed expressively to cut farm labour to the
bone and then cut it again"(2004:3).
www.jandouwevanderploeg.com/EN/publications/articles/the-peasant-mode-of-production-revisited/ 9/25
6/3/2021 THE PEASANT MODE OF PRODUCTION REVISITED - articles - PUBLICATIONS - RURAL DEVELOPMENT - challenges and interlinka…
propose that there is one main feature that will turn out to be decisive in the
decades to come. The peasant mode of farming is, in essence, oriented to the
production of value added. In itself this might seem a truism, but when compared
with the contrasting modes of farming its specificity and relevance will come to the
fore.
The entrepreneurial mode of farming is as much oriented to the (internal)
redistribution of value added as it is to the production of it - the focus on
redistribution sometimes even dominates over the production of value. Then, the
possibility to produce value is taken over from others.
In the peasant mode of production, growth is, at the level of the unit of
production, based upon the labour process. Growth is an outcome of production as
realized in the previous and in the current cycle. It might be referred to as
˜organic' or ˜autonomous growth' . It might equally be characterized as ˜labour
driven growth' (especially when improvement of the main resources in and
through the process of labour is taken into account). Hence, growth occurs as
intensification: with the available resources more production is realized (yields are
rising), whilst on the longer run more resources might be created within - or
obtained with the results of - the labour process itself. This is not only the case in
Third World countries, it equally applies to Europe. Figure 5 summarizes an inquiry
into differential development patterns in North Italian dairy farming it covers a 10
year period that ran from 1970 to 1979 (see Benvenuti and Ploeg, 1985; Ploeg,
1987)[27]. In Figure 5 the distinguished patterns concern capitalist farms (C),
entrepreneurial farms (E) and peasant farms (P). The latter mainly developed
through ongoing intensification[28], whilst in the former (C and E) scale
enlargement dominated. Income levels varied, but on the whole equal income
levels where realized within the three categories (Bolhuis and Ploeg, 1985; Ploeg,
1990).
Within the wide context of the regional rural economy, many peasant units of
production might exist alongside each other, whilst their mutual interrelations are
governed through complex and variable balances of autonomy and co-operation.
Reciprocity often is an important feature of such balances, and indeed a carrier for
further development and growth (Sabourin, 2005). The same applies to the
"moral economy"(Scott, 1976): it regulates specific transactions, whilst
slowing down or even excluding others, such as those that result in accelerated
concentration based upon usurpation of other units. The important consequence,
then, of this ˜peasant constellation' [29] is that it has to produce necessarily an
ongoing growth of value added. It is the only possible way to proceed and to
progress. Hence, the emancipation of the peasantry and the growth of production
do coincide the former results from the latter, whilst the search for emancipation
www.jandouwevanderploeg.com/EN/publications/articles/the-peasant-mode-of-production-revisited/ 10/25
6/3/2021 THE PEASANT MODE OF PRODUCTION REVISITED - articles - PUBLICATIONS - RURAL DEVELOPMENT - challenges and interlinka…
feeds into the growth of production and associated employment (see Figure 6).
However, the indicated interrelations might as well be interrupted or strongly
distorted.
In the entrepreneurial mode of production, growth (at the level of the single unit
of production) is not only dependent on the labour process localized in the involved
unit it occurs as well as, and through, the take over and/or subordination of other
units (and/or of the resources entailed in those units). This occurs through 5
mechanisms that together have been the core ingredients of ˜modernization' .
These are, in the first place, the reorganization of the spatial division of labour in
agriculture. Feed and fodder and young animals, for instance, are produced
elsewhere and subsequently traded and transported in order to be used elsewhere.
Thus the ˜receiving' farms can extend production abruptly and far beyond the
boundaries inherent to the locally available resources. When peasant farming is
highly localized, entrepreneurial farming increasingly exists in a place-less
conversion of global flows into other global flows. At the same time specific tasks,
especially the labour consuming ones, are externalized sometimes to nearby
custom workers, in other occasions to the other side of the globe (e.g.
transplanting flower germs). Secondly, the main resources of neighboring farms
are taken over and concentrated in the enlarging farms (see Figure 7). These
takeovers occur through the markets. Thus, the conversion of land, animals,
labour, quota, assistance, knowledge, plant material, water, etc. into commodities
and the simultaneous creation of corresponding markets (a land market, etc) are
strategic in this respect[30]. The third mechanism, indispensable to use effectively
the two previous ones, is the availability of new technologies which allow for
abrupt increases in the scale of production. All three mechanisms result in
considerable increases in the degree of commoditization at the level of the
involved units of production. That is, each and every one of them represents a
move away from the autonomy as constructed in and through the peasant mode of
production.
Fourthly: In order to allow the involved farms to engage in the new, dense and
global web of commodity relations (in order to ˜intensify the commodity relations'
, as the ˜early' Bernstein could have argued, or to move ˜from partial to complete
integration' , as Ellis could have said), a basic precondition is to be fulfilled: there
is to be long term security in as far as the major prices and cost levels are
concerned. A sudden and considerable rise in e.g. interest levels or in the price of
industrial concentrates would cause, just a sudden drop in e.g. milk prices, havoc
in the highly integrated entrepreneurial units. They would be confronted with a
negative cashflow far earlier and more severely than peasant units[31]. Thus, the
creation of protected markets became a fourth crucial ingredient of modernization
(which also explains why modernization could be far more effective in the centre
than in the periphery)[32]. The fifth ingredient is again closely associated with the
foregoing ones: it is the strong and sustained state-intervention in agriculture that
supports a.o. the maintenance of stable prices[33].
www.jandouwevanderploeg.com/EN/publications/articles/the-peasant-mode-of-production-revisited/ 11/25
6/3/2021 THE PEASANT MODE OF PRODUCTION REVISITED - articles - PUBLICATIONS - RURAL DEVELOPMENT - challenges and interlinka…
The next figure translates the foregoing argument in dynamic terms. Figure 8
summarizes the outcomes of a series of linear programming exercises realized on
request of Frisian farmers organizations. It shows the differrential effects of three
hypothetical development trajectories that covered the 1990-2005 period. What is
crucial here is that the socalled ˜free-trade scenario' , that allowed for an
accelerated concentration of production volumes into a sharply reduced number of
large farms, would sharply bring down the total regional income of the agricultural
sector (from 426 million NLG to 114 million NLG)[36]. The figure refers as well to
alternatives one of which will be discussed further on.
www.jandouwevanderploeg.com/EN/publications/articles/the-peasant-mode-of-production-revisited/ 12/25
6/3/2021 THE PEASANT MODE OF PRODUCTION REVISITED - articles - PUBLICATIONS - RURAL DEVELOPMENT - challenges and interlinka…
In order to be able to enlarge the production of value added, there is, within the
peasant mode of production, the ongoing strife to distantiate the process of
production as much as possible from the reigning and often suffocating commodity
circuits. The mobilization of factors of production and non-factor-inputs is moved
away from the respective markets. This is done precisely because it enables the
involved producers to engage in more satisfying ways into the production of
exchange values. Peasants search for possibilities to decommoditize (as far as the
inputs side of the farm is concerned), in order to be able to engage in a more
efficient way into specific processes of commoditization at the outputside of their
farms. This is analytically shown with the ˜passage' from Figure 4 to Figure 3. The
latter constellation offers far better prospects to face the markets (especially
adverse markets) than the former. I have described and analyzed some of the
associated empirical processes (through which the constellation as summarized in
Figure 3 was actively constructed) for the 1570-1960 period in the Netherlands
(Ploeg, 2003a, chapter 2) and for Western African rice growers (especially the
Balanta) during the 1880-1990 period (Ploeg, 1990b). Other examples are giving
in Zuiderwijk, 1998 and Benvenuti et al, 1989. The interesting point, of course, is
that the same ˜distantiation' (especially when it regards the market for new
technologies and associated inputs) has been interpreted by many scientists as
expression of backwardness, traditionalism and unwillingness to change. Perceived
from the specific rationality of peasant economies, things might be quite different
(the more so when the endogenous production of novelties is taken into account).
Currently, the same distantiation pops up as one of the strategic carriers of new
trends, as e.g. organic farming and low external input farming. It also translates in
a promising way in terms of energy balances and energy saving.
www.jandouwevanderploeg.com/EN/publications/articles/the-peasant-mode-of-production-revisited/ 13/25
6/3/2021 THE PEASANT MODE OF PRODUCTION REVISITED - articles - PUBLICATIONS - RURAL DEVELOPMENT - challenges and interlinka…
Although there is a very strong tendency in social sciences to delegate the notions
of peasant, peasantry and peasant mode of farming to the past and/or the
periphery, it can be argued that the same concepts are essential to understand
many ongoing development processes in Europe as well. The peasant is not just
hidden in the past or in faraway locations. He or she plays a sometimes hidden,
but sometimes also decisive role in highly modernized places. It is true: farmers
from e.g. Friesland, the land where I was born and raised, differ very much from
farmers in, say, Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil. Just as there are several
communalities. The point, however, is that the quintessence is not to be found in
the immediately visible superficialities what is needed is a thorough analysis that
focuses on the modes of production and their location in the wider society.
Within Friesland, one of the highly modernized dairy farming areas of Europe,
there is, as Table 4 shows, considerable variation in the linkages between farms on
the one hand and the important markets for factors of production and inputs on
the other. Some farms are highly market-dependent (ref. Figure 4), whilst others
are far more based on a relatively autonomous, historically guaranteed scheme of
reproduction (ref. Figure 3). These differences are not accidental: they are the
outcome of contrasting flows through time, just as they translate in a different
structuration of the processes of agricultural production. What Table 4 basically
shows, that is, is that European agriculture (I take Friesland as a pars pro toto for
Europe as a whole) contains constellations that tend towards the peasant side of
the equation as well as contrasting constellations that basically represent the
entrepreneurial mode of production. In synthesis: In Europe we witness a co-
existence of the peasant and the entrepreneurial modes of farming. Currently, the
features of this ˜peasant constellation' are strengthened through new processes of
re-peasantization.
www.jandouwevanderploeg.com/EN/publications/articles/the-peasant-mode-of-production-revisited/ 14/25
6/3/2021 THE PEASANT MODE OF PRODUCTION REVISITED - articles - PUBLICATIONS - RURAL DEVELOPMENT - challenges and interlinka…
Industrial feed per 1000 kg of milk 900 249 217 1833
(in Dfl) 133 34 43 255
Total expenses for feed and fodder 10,860 22,900 0 197,300
per cow (in Dfl)
Total feed and fodder expenses
per 1000 kg of milk (in Dfl)
Bought cattle per annum
Synthetical index 48% 8% 33% 75%
Total monetary costs as % of GVP 60% 10% 35% 95%
2)
www.jandouwevanderploeg.com/EN/publications/articles/the-peasant-mode-of-production-revisited/ 15/25
6/3/2021 THE PEASANT MODE OF PRODUCTION REVISITED - articles - PUBLICATIONS - RURAL DEVELOPMENT - challenges and interlinka…
I believe that two basic tendencies might be identified. The first reflects the
classical entrepreneurial response, which translates in a further race to the bottom
(Ploeg, 2006). The second tendency, which involves a majority of European
farmers, represents a sturdy, strong and promising, albeit contested and
somewhat hidden process of re-peasantization. It is a process through which
autonomy is again created, an autonomy that is simultaneously converted into
new forms of development, in new value added and higher incomes as well as in
new employment opportunities and increased levels of autonomy.
This process of re-peasantization[43] might analytically be explained by departing
from the notion that farming always is a process of conversion (of inputs into
outputs), which is based on a twofold mobilization of resources. Resources might
be mobilized from the respective markets (and thus enter the process of
production as commodities) or they might be produced and reproduced within the
farm itself (or the wider rural community). This implies that ˜outputs' might also
be oriented in two ways: towards the output markets or towards a re-use
(eventually after socially regulated exchange) within the farm.
Facing the big commodity markets, which are increasingly controlled and
restructured by big agro-industrial corporations (Bonnano et al, 1994), many
farmers have started to diversify their output in a range of ways. (1): New
products and services are produced, whilst simultaneously new markets and new
market circuits are created (see Figure 9). Thus multi-product firms emerge, which
contain new levels of competitiveness[44] and which entail, simultaneously, more
autonomy. Parallel to this first tendency (and often neatly intertwined with it)
there is (2) a shift away from the main input markets, a shift that is known as
farming (more) economically[45](Ploeg, 2000). The process of production is
increasingly based upon other resources than those controlled by agro-industry. In
the corresponding transition, (3) the re-grounding of agriculture upon nature is
playing a central role. According to the same rationale, (4) pluri-activity and (5)
new forms of local cooperation are rediscovered and further unfolded. They also
allow for a re-grounding and, thus, for delinking agriculture from direct
dependency on financial and industrial capital. Within the core of the production
process there is (6) a re-introduction of artisanality (an organic unity of mental
and manual labour that allows for direct control over, and fine tuning of, the
process of production). This re-introduction is associated with the development
and implementation of a new generation of skill-oriented technologies (Bray, 1986)
and often results in an ongoing production of novelties (Swagemakers, 2002;
Wolleswinkel et al, 2004)
www.jandouwevanderploeg.com/EN/publications/articles/the-peasant-mode-of-production-revisited/ 16/25
6/3/2021 THE PEASANT MODE OF PRODUCTION REVISITED - articles - PUBLICATIONS - RURAL DEVELOPMENT - challenges and interlinka…
Instead of conclusions
Evidently, the processes of repeasantization I referred to are, in no way, to be
understood as a mere ˜return to the past' . It is, instead, all about the actively
wrought reconstitution of relations and elements (old and new, material and
symbolic) that help to face the modern, but in many respects still awkward world
in more adequate and attractive ways. Related to this there is the enormous
responsibility of social scientists to save these new processes of emancipation
(whether it is in Europe or in Latin America or wherever) from the invisibility in
which they often are immersed, and to unfold systematically their potentials and
promises. It is equally important to interlink such processes, by showing their
communalities and by making the associated experiences ˜travel' from one place
to another. Within this common endeavour, a reconceptualization of the peasant
and a firm theoretical elaboration and representation of ongoing processes of
repeasantization are urgent tasks.
----------------------------
Bibliography
www.jandouwevanderploeg.com/EN/publications/articles/the-peasant-mode-of-production-revisited/ 17/25
6/3/2021 THE PEASANT MODE OF PRODUCTION REVISITED - articles - PUBLICATIONS - RURAL DEVELOPMENT - challenges and interlinka…
www.jandouwevanderploeg.com/EN/publications/articles/the-peasant-mode-of-production-revisited/ 18/25
6/3/2021 THE PEASANT MODE OF PRODUCTION REVISITED - articles - PUBLICATIONS - RURAL DEVELOPMENT - challenges and interlinka…
www.jandouwevanderploeg.com/EN/publications/articles/the-peasant-mode-of-production-revisited/ 19/25
6/3/2021 THE PEASANT MODE OF PRODUCTION REVISITED - articles - PUBLICATIONS - RURAL DEVELOPMENT - challenges and interlinka…
www.jandouwevanderploeg.com/EN/publications/articles/the-peasant-mode-of-production-revisited/ 20/25
6/3/2021 THE PEASANT MODE OF PRODUCTION REVISITED - articles - PUBLICATIONS - RURAL DEVELOPMENT - challenges and interlinka…
AANVULLINGEN
Joseph Hanlon (2002), The land debate in Mozambique: will foreign investors, the
urban elite, advanced peasant or family farmers drive rural development? ,
Research paper commissioned by Oxfam GB- Regional Management Center for
Southern Africa
Dit is een interessante tekst die het voorgaande betoog goed aanvult. ˜Family
farmers' zijn "the mass of peasant farmers" (blz 3), interessante quote
van Wuyts op pagina 4 ("broad based development" ¦ hiervoor zit een
discussie over de vertaling van micro naar macro niveau, je zou kunnen zeggen
dat peasant development resulteert in zo' n broad based development ¦Hanlon:
"try to raise the production and productivity of the mass of peasant farmers
through secure land tenure, beter marketing, extension services, etc. As well as
doning more tp bring the poor majority out of poverty, it requires a smaller jump
in productivity for 3 million peasant families in contrast to the huge jump needed
by a few thousand advanced peasants to make the overall production leap
needed".
Verderop in de Hanlon tekst een boeiende discussie over de Soto (die peruaan)
["poor people are not the problem but the solution"]
________________________________________
[1] I refer here especially to the widespread creation of new asentamentos, led
www.jandouwevanderploeg.com/EN/publications/articles/the-peasant-mode-of-production-revisited/ 21/25
6/3/2021 THE PEASANT MODE OF PRODUCTION REVISITED - articles - PUBLICATIONS - RURAL DEVELOPMENT - challenges and interlinka…
and inspired by the MST. See a.o. Cabello Norder, 2004; Branford and Rocha,
2002, and Hammond, 1999.
[2] An inspiring example is to be found in the comparative studies in Rio Grande
do Sul, designed and realized by the research group of professor Sergio Schneider
of UFRGS in Porte Alegre (Schneider, 2005)
[3] The reintroduction of the concept of the peasant (40 years after the publication
of La fin des paysans of Henri Mendras!) into rural studies is especially noteworthy
in France (see e.g. Hervieu, 2005 and Jollivet, 2001). I myself published in 1999 a
study entitled "The virtual farmer", that argued that a large part of
rural reality in the Netherlands is to be understood in terms of peasants and
peasant production. As a matter of fact, the subtitle of the English translation
referred to the "past, present and future of the Dutch peasantry"
(Ploeg, 2003). It is equally telling that the term ˜peasant' , which was taboo for
many years, is re-emerging also in political discourse. See e.g. Prodi, 2004 and
Valentini, 2006.
[4] It is indeed ironical that after the many times trumpeted "demise of the
peasantry"(see e.g. Gudeman, 1978, but also Schultz, 1964 e tutti quanti)
we are now facing the possibility of a "demise of entrepreneurial
farming" (see a.o. Buckwell et al, who already announced this, albeit in a
cryptic way, in 1997).
[5] In far too many theoretical approaches the peasantry is seen, in an a priori
way, as major hindrance to the development of society as a whole.
[6] The dualism thesis goes back to the classical works of Boeke (1947), Lenin
(1961), Kautsky (1970) and Mariategui (1925). An eloquent elaboration and
adaptation to ˜modern times' is entailed in the manual of De Benedictis and
Cosentino (1979).
[7] "As far as rural development programmes are concerned, these
objectively operate to incorporate the peasantry further into commodity relations,
and attempt to standardize and rationalize peasant production of commodities fot
the domestic and international markets" (Bernstein, 1977: point 23)
[8] In his discussion of simple commodity production, Bernstein (1977) stresses
that "reproduction [occurs] through commodity relations: on one side the
production of commodities as means of exchange to acquire elements of necessary
consumption (C-M-C); on the other side the incorporation of commodities in the
cycle of reproduction as items of productive consumption (e.g. tools, seeds,
fertilizers) and individual consumption (e.g. food, clothing, building materials,
kerosene, domestic utensils)".
[9] I am well aware of the fact that PCP and SCP are sometimes defined and
interlinked in ways that differ from the approach presented here. The two are also
presented as being identical the one to the other (Bernstein, 1986). I propose here
a different approach that defines SCP as a general form of production that can
exist in different historical periods and in variant relations with other forms of
production. Petty Commodity Production (PCP), then, is an incomplete (or ˜not yet
completed' ) form of SCP “ just as ˜petty bourgeoisie' relates to bourgeoisie as a
would-be but not yet perfected version of the latter. It is important to note that we
are discussing here analytical distinctions. SCP is based on flows of commodities
which are converted into other commodities. PCP instead is based on non
commoditized resources which are used to produce commodities and to reproduce
the required resources. Analytically PCP is a not fully commoditized form of
production. However, in empirical research we might encounter interrelations that
are quite different from the ˜complete unfolding' as entailed in SCP and the
˜uncompletedness' of PCP. Depending on the ˜variant relations' in which they are
embedded, it might very well be the case that PCP is the dominant, vibrant and
promising form, whilst SCP represents the exception and the failure. But it might
be the other way around as well.
[10] Appadurai (1986:13) refers to exchangeability as the "socially relevant
factor" of a commodity: "the commodity situation [¦] of any ˜thing'
[resides in] its exchangeability for some other thing". Typical for farming,
www.jandouwevanderploeg.com/EN/publications/articles/the-peasant-mode-of-production-revisited/ 22/25
6/3/2021 THE PEASANT MODE OF PRODUCTION REVISITED - articles - PUBLICATIONS - RURAL DEVELOPMENT - challenges and interlinka…
especially for peasant farming (wherever it might be located) is that precisely this
exchangeability is time and again and in a goal-oriented way cancelled. A farmer
will, as the saying goes, "never sell his best cow". The essence of the
"best cow" resides precisely in its non-exchangeability. She is not to be
sold but to be used to produce promising offspring.
[11] I am less happy with the notion of ˜incomplete markets' as defining the
peasantry., especially in Third World countries. "Fully working
markets"(as opposed to "incomplete markets") are neither to be
encountered in the centre of capitalism. The agricultural and food markets of
Europe typically are ˜incomplete markets' . On the other hand, "partial
integration" is a widespread and consciously created phenomenon in
European agriculture as I will argue further on in this text.
[12] Later on Bernstein changed his position: following Gibbon and Neocosmos
(1985) he will argue that there are just two degrees of commoditization:
generalized or full commoditization versus no commoditization at all (see
Bernstein, 1986).
[13] Enlarged reproduction does not necessarily follow the road of surplus value
production followed by accumulation. Enlarging a herd through breeding, building
an additional rice terrace, etc., are equally expressions of enlarged reproduction.
[14] Usurpation of land by others, theft of water, exclusion and major hindrances
in the access to important services will have similar effects.
[15] It is, of course, not impossible to engage in commodity relations in order to
expand the resource base. However, when this occurs, the peasant mode changes
into a entrepreneurial mode of farming as I will argue further on. It is typical for
the peasant mode of production that growth (i.e. the expansion of the resource
base) is ˜organic' , that is it depends and builds on previous cycles of production
and the wealth generated through them.
[16] If the main conditions are equal, the peasant mode of farming results in
yields which are superior to the outcomes of contrasting modes. For Latin America
this has been abundantly documented in the CIDA studies of the 1960s (CIDA,
1966 and 1973). However, the ceteris paribus condition is increasingly invalid:
capitalist and/or entrepreneurial farms have access to technologies that are
inaccessible for peasant producers. Beyond that, in capitalist and entrepreneurial
farming time and space are often organized in such a way that very high yields
seem to be, at first sight, their main feature. In e.g. feedlots an extremely high
production per hectare is produced “ evidently this is due to imports of feed and
fodder produced elsewhere. The same applies to e.g. the reorganization of time in
breeding. Cows may produce per year a very high milk yield, but their longevity
(the total number of years that a cow is lactating) is, at the same time, sharply
reduced.).
[17] Within the cultural repertoires of the peasantry "consuming one' s
farm" is always considered to be a major mistake, if not rightaway a major
sin.
[18] This organic unity implies, a.o., that material resources do not enter the
process of production as capital. It are, and remain to be, labour objects and
instruments.
[19] Here again the CIDA studies (1966, 1973) rendered important empirical
insights.
[20] Thus, the processes of production and reproduction represent here an organic
unity. The two are highly intertwined. In the entrepreneurial mode of farming the
reproductive tasks are increasingly externalized towards outside agencies. The
once organic unity of production and reproduction is replaced by a complex web of
new commodity relations and techno-administrative prescriptions (see Benvenuti
et al, 1989)
[21] This does not exclude that processes of depeasantization might occur
(Bryceson, 2000).
[22] Here again the work of Chayanov is still highly valid. See for a recent
application Broek, 1988.
www.jandouwevanderploeg.com/EN/publications/articles/the-peasant-mode-of-production-revisited/ 23/25
6/3/2021 THE PEASANT MODE OF PRODUCTION REVISITED - articles - PUBLICATIONS - RURAL DEVELOPMENT - challenges and interlinka…
[23] Which is due, in the case of entrepreneurial farming, to the circumstance that
individual farms expand through the elimination and takeover of other farms (see
Ploeg 2003a, chapters 6, 7and 8 for an extended discussion). In the case of
capitalist farming the increase of value added is no ordering principle whatsoever.
Increases in profits and profitability are central “ these might very well go together
with a stagnation or even reduction in levels of value added as is amply
demonstrated by the extensive use of land as entailed in the typical haciendas of
Latin America and by current processes of ganaderizacion (Gerritsen, 2002) .
[24] The subsequent decline is not a generalized process: in some segments there
is an accelerated and ongoing decrease of labour force, whilst in other segments
there is stability or even an increase in labour input.
[25] Following table 2, I have analyzed, in another publication (Van der Ploeg,
2003b), the long term development trends (1970-2000) in dairy farming in the
Emilia Romagna in Italy (more specifically the production area of Parmesan
cheese). This case allows for a clear analysis of the differential impact of
globalization and liberalization. It shows that it are especially the peasants that are
able to resist globalization, liberalization and its associated effects, whilst
entrepreneurs strongly tend to de-activate their farms.
[26] It could be argued that one of the typical Brazilian expressions of the basic
difference between the peasant and the entrepreneurial mode of farming is
encountered in the contradiction between sem terra and posseiros in the Amazon
basin. Another typical expression of entrepreneurial farming is, I would argue, the
typical soja production farm, with, say, 1000 hectares and a father and 4 sons
working it. This contrasts sharply with the peasant families (as e.g. the Casemiro
family) discussed in Cabello Norder, 2004.
[27] Later on the analysis was extended to cover a 30 year period. See Ploeg,
2003b
[28] In social sciences there is the strong tendency to reject the notion of ongoing
intensification, arguing that the socalled ˜law of diminishing returns' would
exclude it (a relatively recent expression is to be found in Warman, 1976). At a
higher level of aggregation ongoing intensification has been linked as well to the
concept of involution (Geertz, 1963). Involution then would be a specific
expression of diminishing returns. In theoretical agronomy and in production
ecology, however, it has been proven (and abundantly illustrated) that there is no
general law of diminishing returns (de Wit, 1992). Constant or even increasing
returns are the rule and diminishing returns the exception that only emerges if a
limiting factor is, as yet, not known. With progressing knowledge this exception is
corrected.
[29] A peasant constellation is the concrete combination of a specific peasant
condition and the corresponding peasant mode of production.
[30] This creation of new commodities and markets, which in practice often is
identical to the destruction of local communities and the embedded mechanisms
for socially regulated exchange, has been and is time and again a central axis in
programmes of agricultural; modernization. A general legitimation can be found
a.o. in Hayami and Ruttan, 1985
[31] Following a.o. Salamon 1985 and Strange 1988, Reinhardt and Barlett (1990)
signal that "communities of ˜yeiman' farms have been expanding in size
over hundred year since settlement, while the communities of ˜entrepreneurs'
have been stagnant or declining". They also note that the ˜entrepreneurial
farms' may obtain high profits in good years, but they are badly equipped to face
"cash flow difficulties in poor years". A European example is entailed in
Ploeg, 2003b.
[32] The irony is, of course, that liberalisation (and the globalisation of world food
markets which will induce anyway sharp fluctuations in price levels) will destroy
quickly one of the central pillars upon which entrepreneurial farming has been
grounded. However, due to the characteristic biases that follow from "seeing
like a state"(Scott, 1998), this very real danger is turned into a general
taboo.
www.jandouwevanderploeg.com/EN/publications/articles/the-peasant-mode-of-production-revisited/ 24/25
6/3/2021 THE PEASANT MODE OF PRODUCTION REVISITED - articles - PUBLICATIONS - RURAL DEVELOPMENT - challenges and interlinka…
www.jandouwevanderploeg.com/EN/publications/articles/the-peasant-mode-of-production-revisited/ 25/25