Adaptive Strategies in Peasant Agricultural Production Author(s): Peggy F. Barlett Reviewed work(s): Source: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol.

9 (1980), pp. 545-573 Published by: Annual Reviews Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155747 . Accessed: 25/06/2012 06:22
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

Ann.Rev.Anthropol 1980. 9:545-73 Copyright 0) 1980 by AnnualReviews Inc. All rightsreserved

ADAPTIVE STRATEGIES IN PEASANT AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

Peggy F. BarlettI
of Anthropology, Department EmoryUniversity,Atlanta,Georgia30322

*9667

INTRODUCTION
socialscienceresearch Considerable has beencarriedout in recentyearson agricultural changeamongpeasantfarmersin developingcountries.This for two reasons.On the one hand, there is researchhas been noteworthy a trendtowardjoiningthe approaches of economicanthropology and culin peasantcommunities. turalecologyin the studyof production processes In manycases,thiscombination of approaches transcends the substantivistformalist of the 1960sand movesthe focus of research toward controversy and the integration of individual decisionsand commuadaptive strategies nity patterns. Second,researchon agricultural productionrelatesmore directlythan manyareasof anthropology to current issuesof globalconcernandprovides relevantdata to practitioners With an increasing as well as to academics. in the distribution of worldwide of food andproducawareness inequalities tive resources andof food shortages in somecountries, attention has turned to the smallfarmers of the of the world,whose landsemploythe majority world's people, but whose productivityis being rapidly outstripped by in population. recentincreases The failureof the "development decade"of the 1960sto ameliorate of living theseconditionsor to improvestandards in most ruralareashas led to a greaterconcern,both withininternational to understand the development agenciesand withinnationalgovernments, decisionsof these peasantfarmers. agricultural
11gratefully Billie the comments and help of Allan Hoben,FrankCancian, acknowledge Melvinin the preparation of this review. DeWalt,MaryBall, and Barbara
545

0084-6570/80/1015-0545$01.00

546

BARLETT

In recentyears,anthropology withinacademia andapplied anthropology have grown closer together,especiallyin the area of "development anin development thropology." Moreanthropologists arefinding employment andin academic agencies departments outsideanthropology. Issuesof rural development, technological change,andlocaltransformations andthe influence of world markets,nationaldevelopment policy, ecologicaldegradation, population pressure, and political movements have motivated in all areasof the world, and the resultsof this research anthropological researchhave direct implications for development programsand policy. The formation of the Anthropological StudyGroupon AgrarianSystems withinthe American Anthropological Association, and its newsletter,Cultureand Agriculture, haveincreased the interchange betweenanthropologists with similar interests and between anthropologistsand other development professionals. These communication effortspinpointthe imand refiningthe researchdone on agriculture. portanceof synthesizing The basicunit of studyin the research reviewedhereis the familyfarm, in developing locatedprimarily countries.Althougha distinction between and "farmers" "peasants" may be useful for certain analyses,from the perspective developed hereof production processes,it can be blurred. The words are used below interchangeably for severalreasons.Traditionally, peasantshave been seen to be parts of nonindustrial societies,but most countriesof the worldtodayboast some industry.With roads,radio,and government programs enteringeven very remoteregions,the isolationof in population ruralpopulations is rapidly breaking down.Recentincreases in many agricultural areas has led to increasedmigrationto cities and thataretransformtowns,andthis trendcontributes to the otherinfluences ing traditionalagrarianinstitutionssuch as sharecropping, patron-client relations,and ritualcycles. Furthermore, researchon familyfarmsin the UnitedStateshas shownthatmethodsusedto understand peasantproducAll farmers make arealsoapplicable to industrial tionstrategies agriculture. choices on how to allocatethe resourcesavailableto them, all operate in whichtheyarelocated, withinthe cultural andinstitutional environment and all face vagariesof weather,health,and prices. and of peasants For the purposeof comparability, studiesof pastoralists in craftproduction who specialize havenot beenincludedin this primarily review.The vastliterature on the GreenRevolutionhas also beenavoided, with a few exceptions,due to space considerations.

and Adaptive Formalism, Substantivism, Strategies

Severalaspectsof the substantivist-formalist controversyand the debate over whetherformaleconomictheorybasedon marketexchangescan be cultureshave been clarifiedand revisedin recent appliedto non-Western It has beenemphasized that formalmaximization theoriesof the research.

PRODUCTION PEASANTAGRICULTURAL

547

allocationof resourcesare normativemodels of behaviorand may not industrialized econoaccurately describe the behavior of peoplein Western arealsoconstrained mies(16, 38, 41, 65, 114, 114a,148)sincesuchfarmers by social,institutional, risk,and otherfactors.Ortizand othershave sugand "farmers" are a matterof gestedthese differences between"peasants" and degreeand not of kind (38, 147, 148). Second,althoughreciprocity redistribution are presentas forms of exchangein some cases (4, 95, 97, who havebeenstudiedin recent 145),the vastmajority of the smallfarmers in a marketeconomyand often are affectedby internayears participate tional marketforcesas well. have all proposedthat increased attention Cook,Orlove,and Gudeman to production variousdivergences rather thanto distribution will synthesize in recentanthropological focus on producwork(see also 95). Gudeman's on distribution, tion is presented as an alternative to the two perspectives that of neoclassical or marginalist thoughtand that of Marxand Ricardo is explored (94). Distribution througha studyof labor'srolein the production process, a reversalof the traditionalemphasis of economic anthropology(see also 96a). Orlove(144) and Cook (55) note that studiesof Orlove(144) productioncan link ecologicaland economicanthropology. and ecological detailsthe tendencyof substantive economicanthropology the studies both to see society as highly structuredand to deemphasize situations.Both of importanceof individualactors and decision-making these approachesemphasizednormativemodels and shared systems of "the social, economic,and politicalasmeaning,as they link analytically of humanpopulations with each other and with pects of the organization of individthe environment" of the importance (144).Orlove'sdeemphasis in the study of productioncontrastswith Cook, who ual level variability of individindicates thata focuson production canexplorethe relationships uals to the production processand to each other. As Sahlinsindicates,"For a fuller analysis,everything dependson the variationsin householdproduction" (165). The strengthof much of the recentresearch to be reviewed herelies preciselyin the areaof its attention in behaviorof individualswithin groupsand communities to variability the mechanisms it is verydifficult to understand (190).As Barthdiscussed, of situationA to of changeif the processis viewed as a transformation situationB (18). If instead,A is brokendowninto the statistical frequencies of choices,then both the natureand causesof changecan be morereadily decisionprocess,withinan environdiscerned. Thisfocuson the individual andencouragements, leadsawayfromerroneous genermentof constraints assessments alizations aboutgroupbehavior that arenot basedon accurate of the heterogeneity of behavior withinthe group(64, 113, 119a,124, 152, doesnot remove 163, 179, 189, 190).As Goodfellow states,even "custom" choice from highly constrained situations.For example,institutionsmay

548

BARLETT

thatBantuwomenareresponsible determine for cookingandfieldweeding, but eachwomanmuststill decidehow to allocatehertimebetweencooking and weeding.Thoughthe Bantusay a fixednumberof cattle are required for certainpayments,"all our evidencepoints to the fact that a goat may be substituted for a cow. . ." (90). In spiteof considerable discussion of this point in recentyears,however,the tendencytoward"uniformism" is still quite strong, and many otherwiseinterestingpieces of researchdo not in the agricultural exploreindividual variations patternsdiscussed(48, 66, 79, 121, 123, 135, 182, 186, 195, 197). Gudeman an analysisof the economywithindividarguesthatbeginning ual decisionsratherthan with "groupsor systems"confusescause with effect(94).Whilethe anthropological perspective seesindividuals as molded by the groupsor systemswhichsurround them, these latterforcescan be studiedas the outcomes of previous individual decisions, withfeedback into the experienceof living actors (25a). Thus, the inheritedpatternsare "precedents that peopleuse to constructpatternsof coping"(25a). Many of the authorsto be discussedbelow have focused on individualchoices whilealso integrating into theiranalysesthe institutional, group,and other macrosocial factorswhichimpactindividuals (such as the organization of access to productiveresources).The patternsof paramountinterest to substantivists can therebybe seen fromthe perspective of actorsand their but not antithetical choices,a different fromthat of the instituperspective tionsthatprovision society(96a,97). A relatedviewis thatof Sahlins(164), in whichthe "environment" surrounding an actorincludesboththe natural environment and the cultural,social,and politicalenvironment createdby otherhumanbeings.Madewithinthis context,individual choicesformthe behavior,norms,and attitudeswhich comprisethe "groupsand systems" of currentand succeeding generations. Adaptation provides a theoretical framework basedon biologicalnotions of evolutionand naturalselectionand incorporates of the heterogeneity withinwidergrouppatterns(5, 24, 25, 25a, 64, 119a,152, 179, individuals 190).Bennett(24)separates the short-range choicesof individuals as adjustments to their environments (adaptivestrategies)from the long-range changesthat result from these choices (adaptiveprocesses).Whitten & Whitten (190) make a similar distinctionin developingthe concept of forindividuals andfor aggregates. Thisperspective on "adaptive strategies" the behaviorof farmers has generated considerable recentworkand is the primarysubjectof this review. Considerable research has also beencarriedout usingthe framework of the adoptionof innovations, but this approach is less usefulthan a "strategies" approachfor severalreasons.The innovationadoptionperspective may implythat the pre-innovation rather state is staticor tradition-bound than a reasonable it often impliesas well that responseto circumstances;

PEASANTAGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

549

the innovationsare inherentlyimprovements and good for all classes of farmers (23, 30, 127, 135, 151, 162, 196).Further,the innovation adoption approach tendsto seechangein termsof isolatedtraits,rather thanrelations in a complexwhole(60, 63, 64, 72, 159, betweenindividuals andresources, 166, 172, 193).Whilechangesin agriculture, both in new cropsand in new technologyand production methods,will undoubtedly continueto be the central focus of researchon peasant production,these changes can be studiedwith less potential bias and moresophistication by lookingat agriculturalchangeby focusingon adaptivestrategies. The term "adaptation" as borrowed fromevolutionary biologydoes not implythat the resulting fin or fur is the only solutionto a specificenvironmentalsituation, nordoesit implythatthe solutionis the "best" one, given the resources at hand.It conveysinsteadthat the adaptation has sufficient positivefeatures forthe complexof traitsto be perpetuated, whiletheremay In the samelight,research alsobe negative features. on agricultural adaptationsdiscusses long-term ecologicaldegradation of the environment (52) or in accessto resources short-term inequities (76) or solutionswhichcan be seento exacerbate the problem of plants (82). Likewise, just as the evolution andanimalsis constrained whichcurrent have by the structure populations genetically inherited, so too are humangroupsand individuals affected by inherited cultural structures. Withinthe framework of adaptation, then,the substantivist concernswith institutionsand processesare integrated with the formalistemphasison choice and strategy. A finaladvantage of the focus on individuals and theirbehaviors is the methodological rigorwhichhas begunto emergein the descriptions of the production process(2, 13, 38, 40, 45, 46, 64, 75, 84, 87, 112, 116, 129, 178). Not onlyhavecareful measures testedsubjective of agricultural impressions the diversityin choicesmadeand leads change,but also this rigorclarifies the researcher to look at the causalvariablesand their relationships. in peasantagricultural Thus,the goalsof the studyof adaptive strategies are:(a) carefuldescription production of currentstrategies and the diverof the variables andconditions sity withinthosechoices;(b) determination that createand reinforce if possithose diversestrategies; (c) clarification, of some variables overothers;and (d) prediction ble, of the causalpriority of the futuredirections and the long-term of those choicesas implications they affectboth currentagricultural changeand long-termadaptiveprocesses of agricultural change.

FACTORSAFFECTING AGRICULTURAL STRATEGIES

Thewiderangeof variables thataffectpeasantproduction strategies derives not only from the complexityof these choices but also from the diverse

550

BARLETT

of anthropoThe majority whichhavebeen addressed. research problems factorsthat exploresmacrolevel on agricultural strategies logicalresearch and the social, can be dividedinto two aspects,the naturalenvironment environment whichincludescommupolitical,economic,andinstitutional ones. The nity and regionalforces as well as nationaland international opof these variables makespossiblethe rangeof agricultural interaction These optionsare weighedby the decisionmaker,usually tions available. needsandgoalsarematched studiedas the household unit.Thehousehold's then have feedstrategies with its resources, and the resultingproduction backs both on the decisionsof other individualsand on the macrolevel environmental factorsas well. These points will be takenup in turn.

The NaturalEnvironment
factors play a crucial role in Most studies indicatethat environmental A rangeof environwhat landuses are possibleor profitable. determining mentalfactorssuch as altitude(128, 146), rainfall(3, 155), temperature (69, 71, 136, 197). (148),incidenceof wind(13), and inclineare mentioned rate and soil type (108, 111, 188), Norman(140) addsevapotranspiration as crucialin SouthIndia whileBealssees potentialfor wells and irrigation (3) study of the intensityof cocoa production (21, 116, 128).Adejuwon's in westernNigeriafoundthat seedlingsrequireregularrainfallto survive, by rainfall patterns. theydidnot seemto be affected thoughonceestablished limitedthe spreadof cocoa into new areaswith approThus,precipitation (153) concludefrom six studies priatesoil quality.Perrin& Winkelmann zone and of corn and wheat in variousworld areas that "agroclimatic are the key variantsthat explain the nonadoptionof new topography" varieties(see also 42). (155). Insectsand diseasesare an importantaspectof the environment Messenger (122) showshow the adventof the eelwormin the 1920son an potatofieldsto be fallowedfor 4 yearsafterthe first Irishislandrequired the harvestto control the pest. The resultingland shortageencouraged andcompost. soil fromseaweed to "make morefields," creating community in the southern UnitedStateswere Rubinarguesthatagricultural strategies the profitable limitedby cattleticksandpoornativegrassesthat prevented establishment of mixed farmingas in the North (161). Greenwood(92), however,goes beyondmost studiesof environmental In a Basquecoastalarea, in behavior. impactto link soil type to variations or in truckfarming, farmers eitherin dairyandcattleproduction specialize dependingon whetherthe farmhas poorerclay soils or the bettersandy conform soils. Greenwood foundthat 86% of the farmsin the community to the "correct"land use based on soil type (92). The remaining14% from familylaborconstraints which kept them fromthe agriculsuffered tural optionspossibleon their lands.

PEASANTAGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

551

The interactionbetweentechnologyand environmental constraintsis well illustrated by Morgan's on highlandKenya(132).Areasthat research Africanshad left uncultivated for a varietyof reasonswere used by Europeansettlersfor stableexportagriculture throughthe use of plows,oxen, and wells. In spite of erraticrainfall,whitescould "set off the profitsof a goodyearagainstthe failureof a harvestin a yearof drought, whichwould forcean Africancultivator intostarvation" (132).Sufficient capitalto 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 complexityof separating the natural fromotherfactorswhich affectproduction environment decisions.One of threeagroclimatic zonesin westernKenyahadlow adoption ratesof hybrid corn. He notes that this zone has lowerrainfall,more erraticrain,poorer soils and drainage, andhencehigherriskto crops,and that hybridsdo not seemto be particularly productive there.In addition,however,the zone is geographically isolatedand suffersfrom poorerroads,poorerinput availability,lowerlevelsof contactwithagricultural extension workers, "greater distancefrom the key research centerand from input outlets,and a later introduction of hybrid varieties in the firstplace"(83).Thus,environmental constraintson hybridcorn are closely linked to economic,political,and informational factors. Studiesdifferwidely in the extent to which environmental factorsare measured. Kirkby (116)mapped the Oaxaca regionof Mexicowithcareand found a numberof agricultural decisionsthat are constrained by water resources. Hatch(105)has a number of interesting suggestions aboutinsect damageand soil fertilization in coastalPeru,but has no measurements to explorethemwith. Turneralso baseshis analysison the "despoliation" of the environment, but withoutmeasures (183).Bennettarguesthatranchers in Saskatchewan (andIndians)are constrained fromfarming becausetheir "soilsarenot goodenoughfor grains" (24), thoughno measurements of soil qualityare given.Yet thesesoils are undoubtedly far superior to the lands in manydeveloping usedby farmers their "poor"qualitycomes countries; froman interaction of prices,markets, technology,and population density and are not basedon an absoluteagronomiccapability.

The Social, Political,and EconomicEnvironment

Thehumanenvironment is alsocrucialto decisionson agricultural production. Manystudiesof peasant landuse indicatethe importance of transportationfacilities(13, 38, 104,148),marketing mechanisms (78, 97, 140, 148), price structures (15, 20, 36, 38, 49, 69, 139, 140, 176), and other governmentalpolicies.Mostof thesefactorshavelongbeenrecognized as influencing the outcomeof any economicdecision,but researchers haveonly rarely

552

BARLETT

the discussionbelow spelledout the directeffectson land use. Therefore, is limitedto pointingout a few of the less obviousways in whichland use decisionsare affectedby the economic,political,and social environment. stratewithpricesto affectproduction usuallyinteract Market conditions in the market corncannotbe obtained gies. Claytonnotesthat subsistence high placehighpriorityon plantinga relatively in Tanzania andso farmers acreageof corn and weedingit well (49). This decisionmeansthat cotton (of concernto the government, is plantedlate,whichlowersits productivity whichdesireshigherexports).Claytonalso pointsout that "cottonvalues of land and labor in corn yield are relativelylow" and that investments affectPaez (49, p. 247).A similarseriesof marketconstraints betterreturns Indiansin Colombia(147, 148), and the reverseholds for the Malayan farmersstudiedfrom 1929-1933,who continuedtheir rubberproduction to increase riceproducprograms andpurchased ricein spiteof government tion (49). to have dramatic and roadsare also documented structures Marketing (11, 13, 15,36, 38, 52, 53, 166). strategies agricultural on traditional impacts of the marketing (78) show how "rationalization" Forman& Riegelhaupt on small farmers,making Brazilexertspressures processin northeastern farms.Smith(175) explores them less competitive than largecommercial the variables which determine production alternatives in western Guatemala,findingthat the distancefrom a central area is a primary criterion,followedby location near a ladino markettown, and then by also face a rapidly (12) notesthat U.S. farmers density.Barkley population linking characterized by verticalintegration changingsocial environment, banks, input suppliers,governmentagencies, and food processors,all productionto of whose activitiesmust be coordinatedfor agricultural begin. Governmentpolicies and political history are seen as componentsof in in PuertoRico (197),cottonproduction coffeeproduction understanding Tanzania (120),ejidosin Mexico(50, 76), securityof landtenureandhence in land (104, 107), and responsesto new technology(80, 88, investments policieson the effectof government agricultural 99). Argyres(8) discusses andnotessomebitterin a Romanian cooperative agricultural productivity ness and alienationamong the peasants,who say, "We pretendwe are working,and they pretendthey are payingus" (8). of two villagesin Cole & Wolf(57) compare the verydifferent responses agricultural northItalyto the adventof roadsandthe declineof traditional towardthe city politicalhistories,attitudes Theylook to different practices. inheritance householdpowerstructures, customs, and rurallife, different to explainthe high rateof outmiandreinvestment levelsof consumption, of dairy and capitalization grationin one village and the intensification betweenthe in the other.The ethnicand historicaldifferences production

PEASANTAGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

553

two villagesareheldto be moreimportant thanlocationor topography, and these macrolevelfactorsare discussed(thoughwithoutmeasurement) as they affectthe household's abilityto respond to the postwarchanges.Saint (166) also carefullylinks government policy, world markettrends, and regionalchangesto effectson each specificcrop optionin Bahia,Brazil.In CostaRica as well,beefprices,government loan programs, andnew fodder grassesmakecattlea moreviableoptionthan was true a decadeago (15).

HOUSEHOLDS AS UNITS OF ANALYSIS

Mostresearch on peasantagricultural strategies takesthe household as the mainunit of production and consumption and the unit withinwhichagriculturalchoicesare made(95, 154, 182, 189). Householdshave access to resourcessuch as land, water,labor,and information and have needsand goalssuch as a certaindiet, education, and otheraspectsof theirstandard of living.Boththe resources andthe needsarestronglyaffected by the wider societyandthe kindsof variables just discussed, andthe linebetweenmacro level and householdlevel factors is often arbitrary. Nevertheless,recent advancesin determining both the variables involvedin agricultural strategies and the interactions betweenthese variableshave come throughdetailedanalysison the householdlevel. Theseadvancescan be dividedinto four main issues: 1. 2. 3. 4. Populationdensityand agricultural intensification. in accessto resources. Stratification The influenceof householdlabor resources. Cyclesin householdresourcesand needs.

Finally,the roleof individual variation andof valueshasbeennotedin some research,and the importantinterconnection of strategieshas also been explored.

Population Densityand Agricultural Intensification

in recentyearshave found a close relationship Manyresearchers between population density,a household's accessto landresources, andthe 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).Mostof thesestudies confirmthe sequencedescribed by Boserup(31) and trace the transition frommoreextensive landuse to shorterfallowperiods,greater attention to soil fertility,changesto cropswith higherproductivity, andincreased labor investment in production. Hanks(99) shows that rice cultivation in Thailandis supplemented with otherproductive activitiesso long as population densityis low. Whenlandbecomesscarce,householdshaveno alternative to dependence on rice(138)withits highproductivity on smallplotsof land. The qualityof the diet may also declinewith intensification. Ruthenberg

554

BARLETT

(162) notes that the shift fromhigh qualitymilletsand maizein Tanzania to higher-yielding starchcropssuch as cassavaand sweetpotatoes.Cattle productionis replacedby sheep and goats, and eventuallyanimalsare grazedonly on fallowfieldsinsteadof on pastures(see also 104). Manyof thesestudiesdocument Boserup's "lawof leasteffort," as farmers' resistanceto intensification and to some innovationsstems from a recognition of the declining returns to labor(14, 15, 72, 99, 104, 116, 162). Turner(183) notes that the Tzeltal of Chiapaswill not adopt terracing though they have recentlybegun manuringtheir fields.While he admits returnsto laborwith terracing are low, he does not explorethe possibility that the returns to laborin traditional corn production are still too high in comparisonwith the labor of terracing.The huge investmentof labor in the intensificarequired by terracing raisesagainthe issueof compulsion tion of agriculture beyonda certainpoint (161). Barlett's(14) analysisof caloricreturnsto laborfromintensivefarming and traditional in CostaRica connectsthe macrolevel swiddenagriculture variablesand populationpressurewith individualagricultural strategies. Population increase leadsto shortened fallowperiodswhichin turnlowers soil fertilityin the less intensivesystem.Eventually, returnsto laborfrom these traditional methodsfall lower than the returnsto laborin the more intensivesystem,therebymotivating farmersto maximizetheiryieldsand while still followingthe law of adoptthe moredifficult farming techniques least effort. Two recent studies have refinedBoserup'stheory. Rubin's research arguesthat climateis a limitingfactorand must be added,togetherwith the politicalstructure, as a determinant of the people/landratioin understanding agricultural history(161). Smith,as notedabove,linkspopulation distance fromthemarket densitywithVonThunen's center,thoughthe two are shownto complement is usually variables each other,since population densestaroundmarkettowns, which are in turn usuallylocatedin dense areas(174, 175).

in Accessto Resources Stratification

Along with increased attention to diversitywithinthe peasantcommunity, access to reresearchhas also begunto explorethe effectsof differential of land sourceson household decisions. Durhamnotesthat the distribution is moreimportant differences thanoverallpopulation densityin explaining in fertilityandmortality ratesin Guatemala (67, 68). Barlett(15), Acheson are a majordeter(2), and Rask (157) show that householdlandresources minantof differentcrop mixes and householdproductioncombinations, and DeWalt(62, 64) explainsdifferential responseto government agricul-

PEASANTAGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

555

turalinnovation in the sameway (42, 59, 166).Hildebrand programs (106) describesan unusualagricultural development programin Guatemalain which different agronomic recommendations were developedfor different sizes of farmsin an attemptto workwith the different priorities and needs of small,medium, andlargefarmers. Accessto landnot onlyinfluences crop choicebut also the amountof landplantedto each crop(13, 15, 38, 43, 44, 46, 147).Acheson(2) showshow a family'sresourcecombinations determine theirjudgmentof a "good"investmentfor those resources. The conditionsunderwhich familiesobtainland for cultivationis also importantin the way they use it (96). Landlessfarmerswho have no securityof rentalcan only plant annualcrops, and will not attemptsuch land improvements as ridging,draining,or extensivemanuring(13, 121, 181). Even whererentalagreements protectthe tenant'sinvestment, productionstrategies are affected: Edwards (71) notes thatbananaproduction on rentedlandsin Jamaica is less intensive,and reportsthat tenantsconsciously invest less labor until their marginalcosts are close to half the marginal product of the labor(sincethe tenantkeepsonlyhalfthe harvest). A particularly thoroughstudyof the effectsof traditional tenancyrules comes fromTakahashi (181), for a communitynear Manilain the Philippines.Lowproductivity of landandresistance to agricultural improvements are linkedto the very high rate of tenancy.Tenants,who are indebtedto theirlandlords, oftento the point that theirtotal shareof the harvestwill not be sufficient to repaytheirdebts,customarily hireotherlaborers to work theirfieldswhiletheythemselves workon others'fields.Sincelandlords will pay half the wagesof anyonehiredby a tenant,and since creditors cannot touch the wage incomeof debtors,for debt repayment, tenantswho need moneyto live on reciprocate by hiringeach otherfor day labor.Effortsto improvericeproduction will benefit primarily the landlord, andtenantsare reluctant to investmuchcareor capitalin the improvements consequently availablein the area.Landlords, likewise,feel that returnsto theircapital will be higheroutsideof agriculture, and thus are unwillingto makethese themselves. improvements The locationof landin relationto the householdalso affectsagricultural decisions(64, 128). Epsteinnotes that less productivecrops are chosen among farmersin south India who inheritland in distant villages (72). Edwards the sameneedfor supervision discusses of tomatofieldsin Jamaica (71). Whetherowned or rented,land plots in diverselocationspermita varietyof cropsto be grownandspread environmental risks(22, 71, 72, 121, 128, 144, 146, 198). are usuallycloselylinkedwith accessto land in most Capitalresources of the areasstudied.DeWalt(62, 64) illustrates how landandcapitalaffect landusedecisions. Whendividedintoquartiles basedon wealth,the farmers

556

BARLETT

in a Mexicanejido adopteda new foddercrop at the rates of 0%, 15%, 13%,and 45% respectively. This risky new land use required significant amountsof cash on hand,and creditwas not available, thus discouraging all but the wealthiestfarmers.Althoughprofitsaveragedone third more than othercrop options,foddercropswerenot a reasonable optionfor all members of the community, due not to peasanttraditionalism or conservatismbut to riskandscarcecapital.Creditavailability and capitalresources werealso seen by Edwards (71), Nash (135), Perrin& Winkelmann (153), and Rochin (158) to inhibitadoptionof new agricultural technology. National inequalitiesin resourcedistributionhave been discussedby someauthorsas biasingthe kindsof newagricultural technology developed (29, 61, 118). Largecommercial farmersand ranchersare betterable to exploitgovernment policiesandbecausetheyhavemoreinfluence on experimentstations,newtechnology developed therebenefits themmorethanthe less influential small farmers. Increasingattentionhas also been given in recent years to risk and in agricultural uncertainty decisions(38, 41, 77, 129, 135, 148-150, 153, 160, 170, 195, 196),and research has shown that householdresources are closelyconnected withthe responses to riskyor uncertain choices.Schluter & Mount (170) found in one Indiandistrictthat though groundnuts are both moreprofitable and morelaborintensive,familieswith a high workcotton production er/land ratio preferred becauseit was less risky. They furthernoted that risk was a much greaterfactor for householdswith unirrigated land, but that the high cost of irrigationwas an additional constraint on cropchoices;the rangeof householdresources thus interacts with risk factors.Roumasset(160), on the other hand, found that a riskneutralmodel predictsbetterthan those which includerisk, though Kaout thatnoneof the modelsusedpredicts minsky(115)responds by pointing more than 50% of the variancestudied.Cancian'sstudy of Zinacanteco wasone of thefirstto linkuncertainty cornfarmers to the internal stratification withinthe community latertestedworldwide (38). His research, (40), showed that the wealthiestquartileinnovatesmost rapidly,havingmore resources to investand beingbetterableto recover,shouldthe decisionbe a disaster. Thelowestquartile innovates the least,eitherbeingunableto risk Wharton(189)] or "refusingto compete"(38, p. 142). Low [supporting middleranksinnovate morethanhigh middleranksbecausethey haveless to lose and are more anxiousto improvetheir economicstatus. Cancian then probesthe difference betweenriskand uncertainty (40, 41) and finds thatinnovations areadopted at two phasesor timeperiods, the earlier phase having higher uncertainty. Again, adoptionbehavioris affectedby economic rankand followsthe patternnoted abovefor the high uncertainty with rankfor the low uncertainty phasewhile closely correlating phase.

PEASANT AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION 557 Cancian's workconcludes thatthoughformalmodelsassumefarmers act on knowledge, in fact, farmers must often act beforethey can know (41). Ortiz(150) explores whatfarmers takeinto accountas they makedecisions underuncertainty. ShefoundthatPaezfarmers do not actuallyforecast the future,but ratherformulate expectations of the futurebasedon recentpast Studieswhichtakefarmers to be strictmaximizers experience. mustassume that their decisionsare based on estimatedprobabilities and that their risk-aversion fits utility curves.In both cases, Ortiz arguesthat these assumptionsare incorrect,since farmersmay not even be able to determine the probability of an outcome(see also 28a). A numberof authorshave exploredtraditionalmechanismsused to reducerisk. Plantinga varietyof crops (1, 81, 91, 109, 110, 149, 182) or intercropping withinthe samefields(1, 71, 139, 140)bothcushionenvironmentalrisk. Laborsharingand food sharingpatternsalso bufferagainst hardtimes (109, 147),whileinvestments in "socialcapital"may be necessarynot only to reduceriskbut to assureaccessto resources overthe long run (28a, 103, 104, 116, 155).

The Influenceof HouseholdLaborResources

Agricultural decisionsare also affectedby the laborresources available to the household(15, 17, 20, 34, 35, 49, 60, 92, 100, 104, 135, 139, 171).The unevendemandfor laborduringthe agricultural cycle can result in unat sometimesof the yearand laborshortages deremployment duringpeak demand(35, 100).In contrast,Edwards(71) maintainsthat, in his study of Jamaican farming,"thereis little scope for increasing... familylabor in farming"(p. 165). Evenif laborscarcityis brief,it puts a premiumon the wise investment of familylabor,andseveralstudiesmeasure the marginal utilityof laborin different activities(17, 20, 49, 104). When the Tanzanian farmersstudied by Clayton(49) have to choose betweenweedingcorn or pruningcoffee bushes,the increasein the coffeeharvestis greaterwhen laboris invested extensionagentwho seekshigher there,to the chagrinof the agricultural corn production. Lowerreturnsto laborin the off seasonare toleratedby manypeasanthouseholds seekingto maximizereturnsto familylabor(17, 21). for off-farm also affectproduction Opportunities employment decisions, especiallywhen returnsper laborunit are higherwith wage labor(2, 44, 46, 76, 104, 116, 120).Barber to laborboth (11) holds that the low returns in off-farm andon the farmin Rhodesiacontribute to a pattern employment in which men alternate betweenwage laborand subsistence agriculture. a complexmodelof the interaction of these Chayanov (43) has provided variables-householdlabor,land resources, and agricultural intensity.His

558

BARLETT

perspective stressesthe two-sided natureof familylaboras needs(consumers)andresources (workers), andpredictsthat the intensityof laborinvestmentwill be determined by the ratiobetweenthe two (69, 165, 182).Such an outcomeis dependent upona desirefora constantstandard of living(17) and abundant land,and neitherconditionis commonamongthe countries of the world today. Chawdhariet al (42) and Alvarez & Andrew (6), however,find that family needs are the crucialdeterminant of both the amountof land plantedand responsiveness to price incentives.Moerman (129) and Greenwood (92) note the role of changingfamilyconsumption standards and their effecton agricultural decisions,though this area has been relativelyneglected(95). Finkler(76) criticizesChayanov's model for not includingotherscarce resources,such as capitaland irrigationwater,which clearlyaffectfarm strategies. Minge-Kalman (125, 126),on the otherhand,findsChayanov's in Europe perspective usefulin understanding why intensiveberryfarming allowsfamilyfarmsto competesuccessfully with mechanized agriculture. Barkley (12) makesa similarpointfor familyfarmsin the U.S. Barlett(17) testsseveral partsof Chayanov's theorywithdatafromCostaRicaandfinds qualified supportfor the hypothesisthat smallerfarmswill acceptlower returns to labor.Larger families, however, cannotbe shownto acceptlower returnsto their laborthoughthey do work more than smallerfamilies. Von Rotenhan's research (188)in Sukumaland in Southern Tanzania ties In areaswherelandis abundant togetherChayanov's theorywith Boserup. and population densityis low, familyincomeis foundto varydirectlywith the laborresources of the household.Whenpopulation densityrises,howof labor,the relation between ever,andlandscarcitylimitsthe productivity familyincomesand familysize declinesin importance. The organization of laborresources outsidethe familyis also an important factorin someareas.Epstein(72) describes how the Japanese method of rice production was not adoptedin south Indiabecausethe extralabor of transplanting would not be repaidto the team of planterswho receive from a fixedwagefor the workof plantingrice. Farmerswereconstrained exertingpressureto try this new plantingmethod becauseof the high demandfor theseteamsat plantingtime and the dangerof beingunableto if to determine find anyonewillingto plantat all. It would be interesting belowthat the overallpopulation densityof this areaof Indiais significantly in agricultural of areaswhichhaveadoptedthe Japanese method.Changes and hence affectedwage laboropportunities, technologyin Javaadversely familyincomesin a similarecologicalsituation(178).

and Needs Cyclesin HouseholdResources

Bennett(26, 27) elaborates Chayanov's "cycleof familysize"by seeingthe householdand the farmenterprise as two interacting. units, each with its

PEASANTAGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

559

own separatecycle over time. The results of long-termstudy of these Saskatchewan farmersand ranchersshow a numberof patternsin these interactionsand determinethat investmentand capitalization are more likely to occur at certainphases. Further,householdneeds may inhibit in a keypointof the enterprise investment cycleandaccessto landresources is a second determinative variable,though Bennettstressesthe interconnectedness of the diversefactorsin the "agrifamily system."Salamon (168) identifies four developmental cycles in farmsin Illinois and demonstrates that age at firstpurchase of landis the best predictor of whichpatternany one farmerwill conformto. Whileno otherauthorhas described similarlydetailedcyclesin production strategiesfor farmsin developingcountries,Ortiz (148) stressesthe of the farmcycle in certainagricultural importance decisions,such as the size of coffeeplantings,which is decidedonce or at most twice duringa farmer's lifetime.Netting(136) shows that familyneedsaffectland use at differentphases-such as the plantingof large quantitiesof eleusinefor gruel by one man with many small children.Symes (180) notes that the productivityof Irish farms is loweredby an unresponsive land market, whichwouldallowfluctuations in familylaborresources to be matchedby farmsize. Edwards(71), and Friedrich(81) discussthe adverseeffectsof inheritance patterns on the development of the farmand the adjustment of land and laborresources over the familycycle.

Individual Variation, Values,and the Interactionof Strategies

Relativelylittle attentionhas beengivenrecentlyto the role of personality variablesin productiondecisions.This neglect may be a reactionto the tendencyof past studies of personalityand individualcharacteristics to "blamethe victim"by failingto see all the constraints in operation(64). Whilesomeresearchers havenotedindividual in laborintensity, differences skills, or entrepreneurship (13, 21, 22, 72, 108), these differences have in generalnot been found to be determinative. Personal valuesandattitudes arerejected as causalvariables by Ashcraft (9), Peacock(151), and Simmons(173). Moermanconcludesthat "often, in householdcompositionand personalityso mergethat it is differences impossible to say whichis paramount" (129, p. 147). Berry(28) expected in economicentrepreneurship differences to amongNigeriancocoafarmers reflectpersonality differences and religiouspreferences, but foundinstead thatthe declineof exportpalmproducts andthe demobilization of warriors at the end of the YorubaWarsprovidedthe impetusto push young men into experimenting with new cash crops such as cocoa. Greenwood of Basquefarm(92) concludesthat the youngergeneration ers is abandoning and commercialized highly profitable family farms to

560

BARLETT

follow the Basquetraditionof "collectivenobility"and dignityin work. Preferringwage labor in factories,at a lower standardof living, these childrenof dairyand vegetable farmersare unwillingto follow their parents'occupation, whichhasforcedmanyin the eldergeneration to sell their farms. Greenwood's methodologycomparesan averageyear's pay in a factorywith the averagefarm family'syearly earnings,but he does not calculatethe labor investmentnecessaryto obtain these sums, nor the intensityof labor.Withhis reference to 18-hour days of workon vegetable farmsin the peakseasonof Julyand Augustand high laborcosts in selling as wellas producing, is strongthatChayanovian the suggestion calculations may proveilluminating. On the otherhand,Greenwood may be rightthat "culture is morethaneconomics" andthe upward mobilityof lifein the city may outweighthe loss in familyincome. Valuesthat are sharedby the communityor by groupswithinthe communitycan be seento be the outcomeof pastadaptive processes. Especially in maintaining the uniqueadaptations of ethnicgroups,valuescan play an important role in agricultural decisions.The religiousbeliefsof the CanadianHutterites, forinstance, areshownby Bennett(24) to motivatea lower levelof consumption thanthatof theirneighbors, andthusto allowa higher rate of reinvestment in the enterprise. The competitive advantage of such a strategy communities and (asshownby the cyclicalexpansion of Hutterite lands)illustrates howthe strategies chosenby one personor groupinfluence the decision-making environment of others. researchfor failingto Berryand otherscriticizemuch decision-making of each othernor recognizethat farmchoicesare not madeindependently independently of the decisionsmadeby others(28a, 41, 114). Cummings' in Vietnam research riceproduction an excellentexamon miracle provides ple (57). Traditional floating rice was completely replaced by high-yielding in only 3 years,because varieties the cropping cycleof the newricevarieties left fieldsfallow duringthe main floodingseason. Since these innovative farmers did not tend theirfieldsat these floodtimes, waterhyacinthwent anddebrisandstrongfloodcurrents unchecked, (no longerslowedby solid the traditional rice crops of the otherfarmers. plantingsof rice) damaged Whenone thirdof the fieldswerefallow (fromHYV adopters), nearlyall andsomelost morethanhalf.When farmers hadsomeloss to theirharvests half the fields were in HYV, traditionalrice productionwas no longer for anyone. profitable in Mexicofrom on farmers Williams(194) documents similarpressures the irrigation cycle, which perpetuates sugarcane monocropping (see also lands a in which communal and 116, 128).Orlove(143)discusses situation thus in sustained contrastPeru are for pastures exploited long-term yields, ing with Hardin's(101) pessimisticview of the commonsand Eckholm's

PEASANTAGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

561

(70) recitalof short-term agricultural decisions'effectson the long-term viabilityof resources (see also 93, 119).These authorselaborate the often implicit feedbackprocessesthat productiondecisionshave on the large of others. systemand the decision-making environment Collier(52) elaborates how the subsistence strategies of different communities in one regionof Mexicoare basedon the uniqueresourcecombinations available of these different to each. He then followsthe implications strategies forthe standard of living,familysize, ageof marriage, inheritance practices, and kinshippatternsof the communties. By showinghow these effectenvironmental quality,he points out the long-termimplications of for futureproductionpossibilities. currentadaptations

SCOPEAND METHODOF RESEARCH

Research on peasant production strategies hasbeencharacterized by a wide rangeof goalsandof methods usedto achievethosegoals.Moststudieshave on individual focusedprimarily households withina community or a group of communities (44), thoughsome have taken a more regionalfocus (52, have tried to understand decisionsat one point in 53). Many researchers time (84), while othershave taken a longer-range, diachronic perspective (28). Each of these perspectives presentsits own measurement issues. In understanding agricultural choices,thereare also divergent research goals: to determine the farmers' ownconceptions of whatthey aredoingandwhy, to study these decisionsfroman outsiders' or to combinethe perspective, two goals. These issueswill be exploredin turn. For the most part, researchon agricultural strategiesassumesthat the actorsare male;the role of womenis seldomnoted and even morerarely whenasked,will agreethatsomeof the explored. Thoughmostresearchers, farmersthey studiedwere women, languageand researchfocus tends to implythat thereare no womenfarmersor decisionmakers.Knight(117) is unusuallyforthright by mentioning that womencontrolcertainagriculin tural spheres Tanzaniabut he could not talk with them about their decisions. Mueller & Keim(167)discusswomen's (133)andSalamon power in the agricultural setting.Ashraf(10) andMoock(130)discusswomenand fromsurveydata;Moock'sdatashowthatwomen's agricultural production fieldsin Kenyaareas productive as men's,butwithfewercapitalinputsand more labor.Wilkening& Bharadwaj (191, 192) and Sawer(169) discuss farmwomenin the UnitedStates.Currens' and (58) analysisof innovations in northwest Liberia includeswomenin his study changein riceproduction as a naturaloutcomeof the sexualdivisionof laborand resources (see also 177).

562

BARLETT

Measurement of Variables
Researchers who struggleto determine the importance of the diversevariablesthat affecthouseholdstrategies have foundaccuratemeasurement of In peasantsocieties,land quantityis the these variables similarlydifficult. have verified the measurements of easiestto specify,and some researchers fields (13, 38, 44, 92, 109). Labor is more difficultto measure,though a method Johnson(112),refining Erasmus' (73) earlier work,has developed of spot observations at randomtimeswhichgenerates an estimateof labor in variousactivities.Hatch (105) is unusuallythoroughin deinvestment in coastalPeruandmeasures scribing the minutedetailsof cornproduction some of the diversityin these practices. In orderto evaluatethe returnsor profitability agricultural of different for household consumption outcomes,Chibnik (45) arguesthat production is moreaccurately valuedat its purchase price,not its sale price.Calculaand returnsto tions often used by economiststo determineprofitability distortfarmers' different resources areshownby Barlett(16) to sometimes criteriafrom their own assessments of decisionsby leavingout important returnsdifferent options.Her datafromCostaRica supportChayanovian to-labor calculationsas more useful in predictingagriculturalchoices. Acheson (2) finds the reverse, that ganancia calculationsof Mexican households can leadto unprofitable investment decisions,thoughhis calculationsare aimedat a normative assessment of decisionsas well as descripand survey data to tion. Bennett (26, 27) uses panels of collaborators of farmmanagement style and comparewith informants' own conceptions of measurquality.Cancian (38) and DeWalt(64) likewiseavoidproblems into fourranks, ing household wealthby arbitrarily cuttingthe community verifiedby informants' perceptions as well as their own.

The Use of Modelsand the Role of Cognition

Models borrowedfrom economicsand accountinghave been used by a the behaviorof farmers(65, numberof researchers to try to understand 151).Production functions andfactoranalysis,commonamongeconomists as well (64, and geographers, arenow usedoccasionally by anthropologists rateof returncalculations 74-76, 92, 117).Internal (2), gametheory(116), or gamblingmodels (116), and Shackle'stheoryof focus event-matching Otherreloss and focus gain (32, 148) have been used in the literature. searchershave been less successfulin being able to use survey data to ruraldynamics(11, 23, 54, 56, 69, 131, 134, 151, 185) often understand contextwith fromthe lackof thefarmers' pointof viewandan ethnographic which to interpret surveyresults. Gladwin(86) critiquesthe use of these decisionmodels for being able to researchers' studiedconforms how closelythebehavior onlyto determine

PEASANTAGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

563

aboutfarmers; she stressesthat such modelscannotdiscover assumptions or variables that the researcher has not anticipated constraints (7, 12, 37, 185).Othersecho this concernby pointingout the extentto which many tools of economicsare normative, ideal practices designedto recommend (from the criteriaof the economist),ratherthan to describethe actual practices of farmers andtheircriteria of choice(17, 41, 114).Johnson(114) also cautionsthat formalmodelsof behaviorrequiretwo assumptions that cannotbe met: first,that the humanmind works like a computer,when thereis evidencethat it does not, and second,that inputsinto the decision processcan be simplified and approximated when in fact each factor is vastly more complexthan the computerwill allow. The reductionof this complexityof real life situations, togetherwith the valuesoperationalized in the models(88, 159),meansthatthe modelingprocessis inevitably crude and needs the broadstrokesof ethnography. Thesepointsalso relateto the extentto whichresearch seeksto describe own pointof view the decisionprocessandits constraints fromthe farmer's it froman outsider's or observer's or to describe C. H. Gladwin perspective. (87) has developed a theoryof choicewhichmodelswhatis reallygoingon in farmers'heads. Startingfrom the perspectivethat real-lifedecisions involvesimplifying heuristics (seealso 150),Gladwinpostulates a two-stage process. In Stage I, alternatives are eliminatedin a mannersimilar to Tversky's elimination by aspects(184). In StageII, ordered alternatives are the or the unordered constraints environment social passedthrough (from that passesall constraints is choalternative context).The highestordered This is for sen. treediagrams specificdecisions theory testedby developing in a number of locations on a separate (85-87) andthentestingthe diagrams sample of the population.The models are shown to predict 85-95% of farmers'choices.Whetherthe constraintsand nodes in the decisiontree come frominformants' or the observer's is not imstatements hypotheses "cut"the sampleinto divergent portantso long as the variables groupsand so long as the modelpredicts(85, 87). H. Gladwin the concept &Murtaugh thistheoryby developing (88)refine
of preattention, defined as information processing which lies outside of

in everyattention andawareness. Decisionsandpartsof decisions ordinary in life lie the and the behind the day preattentive sphere, reasoning rejection of innovationsor the allocationof resourcesmay similarilybe found in farmers' Farmerscan talk abouttheseissueswhen preattentive processes. asked (therebymoving the decision into the attentivesphere),but the who have concludedthat peasants authorssuggestthat some researchers and conservative are tradition-bound may haveneglectedto explorepreattentive factors. Further,for agriculturaltechnology to be successfully criteria.Hildebrand adopted,it must take account of these preattentive

564

BARLETT

(106) reasonssimilarly,arguingthat technologymust be developedbased on the farmers' assessment of his or her scarce resources, not the to tractor Hanksprovidesan example,notingthe resistance agronomist's. cultivationin Thailandin spite of the increasein plantingspeedbecause Gladwin& Murtaugh (99, p. 54). Likewise, useful" is not necessarily "speed of social scientistscan lead assumptions (88) suggestthat the preattentive of farmers'behavior. modelsand measurements to erroneous on the issue of cognitionis presentedby Chibnik Anotherperspective rules to elicitfarmers' whereit is difficult (46), who arguesthatin situations of choice, or in realmsof humanlife whereno clear rulesexist (152), the comparesdiis preferable. His methodology approach statisticalbehavior outcomesand then attemptsto constructa statistical vergentbehavioral those outcomes.Variables that determine profileof the relevantvariables or fromthe fromobservations, statements, frominformants' canbe derived makesno attemptto postulatethe This approach hypotheses. researcher's butdoesseekto explainandpredict of thefarmer, process decision cognitive measured (15, 17, 38, 62, 111).While on the basisof the variables behavior say whethertheir in Belizecannotthemselves in two communities farmers in determining their familysize or the villagethey live in is moreimportant (46) allocationof laborbetweencash croppingand wage labor,Chibnik's characterisshowsthatthe different behavior approach use of the statistical between tics of the two villagesdeterminemuch more of the differences labor allocationsin these households.Thus, the statisticalbehaviorapbetweenvariables proachcan explorebehaviorpatternsand relationships of which the actorsthemselvesare unaware. to bringthese two Barlett(13, 15) and Bennett(26, 27) have attempted assessto bearon the same subject.Barlettexploresfarmers' perspectives ments of differentcrop options in Costa Rica and comparesthese emic with statisticalanalysesof these same variables.Bennett understandings of management style with surveydataand deterfolk categories compares usuallyappearin the secondand thirdgeneration minesthat "developers" occursonly whenfamilyneedscoincide but thatdevelopment of a "place," with the needs of the enterprise.

Methodology an Improved Toward

affecting A numberof very fine studieshave delineatedrelevantvariables farmers'productionstrategiesand have measuredthe internalvariation decisions. and in agricultural both in the variables withinthe community, They have not, however,taken an additionalstep to look for patternsof householdson the basis of their divergentchoices and then linked these in the determinant variables (51, 71, 99, 105, 108, 121, to variations patterns 129, 135, 136, 148, 182). Nash's work providesan example(135). He

PEASANT AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION 565 discussesthe decision to plant sesamumas a second crop in highland Burma,noting the role of rainfall,access to irrigation,sufficient capital, householdcomposition,and price expectations.Some householdshave greateraccess to capital, while others own land favorablylocated near irrigationcanals,but these variablesare not linked to specificoutcomes regarding seasamum production. Nash foregoesthe opportunity to specify or relatives, haveaccessto capital,via moneylenders and whichhouseholds then to provethat thesehouseholds are morelikely to plantsecondcrops, fromdataon theirlanduse. Sucha procedure wouldstrengthen his discusandwouldalso leadnaturally sion of the cropping to a discussion strategies of why some householdsdo not have access to capitalwhile othersdo. Sucha procedure, whilemovingthe studyof production decisionsaway from any possibledistortionof impressions and intuition,nevertheless allows for the close interaction and empathywith the farmersstudiedthat of anthropological is the strength research. As the researcher intuitsimportant issueswhichwill elucidatethe problemstudied,attentionto the meafrom of variables andto theirinteraction will movetheseintutions surement the researcher's preattentive sphere to the attentivesphere,where their This procedure to grapple accuracycan be verified. requiresa willingness of organizinghuman life into measurable with the difficulty parameters and adaptation whichcan be usedto understand behavior withoutdenying the complexitythat exists. This pointechoesCancian (39), who arguesthat anthropological contrieffortswill not come as an analogto dwarf butionsto ruraldevelopment rice.Ourgoalis not to defineyet another"keyfactor"that wheator miracle has been left out of modelsso far, but ratherto stress the complexityof anddevelopimproved methvariables that can affectagricultural strategies in any one context,which are more important odologiesfor determining, research is movingaway in understanding andpredicting behavior. Current and"isaccessto land fromaskingyes/no questions like"isriskimportant?" the key?"and towardquestions that seek to definewhenand in what way the issues Withinsucha perspective, riskandlandresources areimportant. and of models and behavior of cognition, the statistical approach, the utility toward fromotherfieldscan be evaluated for theircontributions measures these kindsof questions. answering

CONCLUSION
interest How peopleproduce food has come to be a subjectof considerable in world in recentyears,reflecting of food some both the relativescarcity the the limits to areas and the growingawarenessof global capacityto andotherresearchers havemademajor absorb population. Anthropologists

566

BARLE1T

stridesin the study of agricultural productionstrategies,and these new in understanding developments production processesand changeare now feedingback to refinethe generalstudy of humanculturesand societies. Through closerattention to the diversity withinpeasant communities, the delineationof the relevantvariablesthat determinedifferentproduction has becomepossible.Combining strategies the local idiosyncracies of time and place with nationaleconomic, political and social institutionsand forcespermits the identification of the rangeof possibleproduction choices. The household's resources and needshave been shown to have important determinative rolesin the choiceprocess,and the outcomesof pastchoices havebeen shownto affectboth the decisionsof otherindividuals and also the largernaturaland socialenvironment withinwhichthosedecisionsare made. Futureresearch is neededto explorethe long-range impactof production andadaptive strategies in lightof the ever-increasing processes, particularly damageto the worldecosystem and the rapidpaceof proposed technological changesin agriculture. We need to exploresuch householdlevel questions as: to what extent can householdresourcesbe substituted for each other?When can laborbe substitutedfor capitalor land?What are the effects of changinghouseholdneeds and consumptionpatterns?What difference does it make if researchaddresses itself eitherto farmers'own of theirproduction understandings or to searchout unconscious strategies patternsin agricultural choices?Or must it do both?What aspectsof the economicsystem as a whole are missed by a focus on actors and their We need more long-termresearchto elucidatecycles adaptivestrategies? in familiesand farmsand to link them to changinghouseholdneeds, resources,and decisions.We need to understand betterthe householddecision processas different personalities, to the final sexes,andagescontribute allocationsof familyresources. As stratification increaseswithin peasant withinthe developing communities, countries,and betweenthe developed and developingnations,we need to know more about the effectsof this concentration of resourcesas well as strategiesused to adapt to it and combatit. The strengthof anthropological researchon agriculturalproduction has been that we talk with farmersover extendedperiodsof time and try to see the decision-making environmentin all its holistic complexity. This approachmay account for some of the fuzziness of our analyses and the diversityof perspectives used. However,with greaterattention to careful measurement and data collection and to demonstrating the relevantvariablesand their interrelations, we can move forwardstrongly to assert the value of our understandings of agricultural production strategies.

PEASANT AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION Literature Cited

567

DeP. F., ed. 1980.Agricultural 16. Barlett, ContriAnthropological cisionMaking: New butions to Rural Development. York:Academic.In press analy17. Barlett,P. F. 1980.Cost-benefit methodologies. sis:A test of alternative See Ref. 16, pp. 137-60 18. Barth,F. 1967.On the studyof social 69(6):661-69 change.Am Anthropol. in19. Basehart,H. W. 1973. Cultivation and homepatterns, tensity,settlement steadformsamongtheMatengo of Tanzania.Ethnology12(1):57-73 20. Baum,E. 1968.Landuse in the KilomberoValley.See Ref. 162,pp. 23-50 Life in South 21. Beals,A. R. 1974. Village India: CulturalDesign and Environmental Variation. ArlingtonHeights, Ill: AHM Publ. 189 pp. R. K., Hall,J. W., Ward,R. 22. Beardsley, E. 1959. Village Japan.Univ. Chicago Press.498 pp. response 23. Benito,C. A. 1976.Peasants' in minifundia to modernization projects economies.Am J. Agric.Econ. 58(2): 143-51 Plains24. Bennett,J. W. 1969. Northern men: AdaptiveStrategyand Agrarian Aldine.352 pp. Life. Chicago: 25. Bennett, J. W. 1976. The Ecological Cultural and Anthropology Transition: HumanAdaptation. New York:Pergamon. 378 pp. J. W. 1976.Anticipation, ad25a. Bennett, aptation,and the concept of culture. Science 192:847-53 J. W. 1980.Management style: 26. Bennett, PP. A conceptanda method fortheanalysis 10. Ashraf, M. n.d. Notes on the Role of of family-operated enteragricultural in Farming in RuralPakistaniWomen prise.See Ref. 16, pp. 203-37 the N W FrontierProvince.Mexico 27. Bennett,J. W. 1980. Of Timeand the 4 pp. (Mimeo) City:CIMMYT. as an Farm Management Enterprise: W. J. 1960.Economic rational11. Barber, Systemin theNorthAmerican Adaptive in an underpatterns ity and behavior Univ. Minn. Agrifamily.Minneapolis: A casestudyof African area: developed Press.In press economicbehaviorin the Rhodesias. and 28. Berry,S. S. 1975. Cocoa,Custom, Econ.Dev. Cult.Change8(3):237-51 in Rural WestSocio-Economic Change 12. Barkley,P. W. 1976.A contemporary ern Nigeria New York:OxfordUniv. political economy of family farming. Press.240 pp. Am. J. Agric.Econ. 58(5):812-19 and S. S. 1980.Decisionmaking change 28a. Berry, 13. Barlett,P. F. 1975.Agricultural policy making in rural development. in Paso:Thestructure of decision-makSee Ref. 16, pp. 319-35 ing in a CostaRicanpeasantcommu29. Bieri, J., de Janvry,A., Schmitz,A. Univ.,NY. nity. PhD thesis.Columbia technologyand the 1972. Agricultural 250 pp. distribution of welfare gains. Am. J. 14. Barlett, and P. F. 1976.Labor efficiency Agric.Econ. 54:801-8 evoluthe mechanismof agricultural R. L., eds. 30. Biggs, H. H., Tinnermeier, Res. 32(2):124-40 tion. J. Anthropol. Develop1974.SmallFarm Agricultural 15. Barlett, of deP. F. 1977.The structure ment Problems. Fort Collins: Colo. cision making in Paso. Am. Ethnol. StateUniv. 168 pp. 4(2):285-308 1. Abalu,G. 0. I. 1976.A note on crop mixturesunder indigenousconditions in Northern Nigeria. J. Dev. Stud. 12(3):212-20 busi2. Acheson,J. M. 1980.Agricultural ness choicesin a Mexicanvillage.See Ref. 16, pp. 241-64 J. 0. 1962.Crop-climate re3. Adejuwon, lationship:The exampleof cocoa in J. 5(1): Western Nigeria.Niger.Geogr. 21-32 4. Alberti, G., Mayer, E. 1974. Recipen los Andes rocidad e Intercambio Peruanos. Peru:Inst.Estud.Peru.Peru Probl.No. 12. 260 pp. in Cultural 5. Alland,A. 1970.Adaptation AnAn Approach to Medical Evolution: Univ. New York:Columbia thropology. Press.205 pp. 6. Alvarez,J., Andrew,C. 0. 1977.Supand comply responseby traditional merical producersof basic grains in LDC's.South.J. Agric. Econ.July,pp. 157-62 7. Anderson,J. R., Dillon, J. L., HarDecision daker,J. B. 1977.Agricultural Ames:IowaStateUniv.Press. Analysis. 344 pp. 8. Argyres, A. 1978. Peasantsand the A social command Romanian economy: Presentedat approach. organizational Ann. Meet. Am. Anthropol.Assoc., 77th, Los Angeles.16 pp. and Un9. Ashcraft, N. 1973.Colonialism Processes of Political derdevelopment: in British Honduras. Change Economic New York:TeachersColl. Press. 180

568

BARLETT
Land Use.New York-St. Martin's. 406 48. Clark,C., Haswell,M. 1964. TheEconomics of Subsistence Agriculture. New York:St. Martin's. 245 pp. 49. Clayton,E. S. 1968.Opportunity costs anddecision in peasantmaking agriculture. Neth. J. Agric.Sci 16(4):243-52 50. Climo, J. 1978. Collectivefarmingin northernand southernYucatan,Mexico: Ecological and administrative determinantsof success and failure. Am. Ethnol. 5(2):191-205 51. Cole,J. W., Wolf,E. R. 1974.TheHidden Frontier: Ecologyand Ethnicityin an Alpine Valley. New York: Academic.348 pp. 52. Collier, G. A. 1975.Fieldsof theTzotzil: The EcologicalBases of Traditionin HighlandChiapas. Austin: Univ.Texas Press.255 pp. 53. Collier, G. A. 1975.Aremarginal farmlandsmarginal to theirfarmers? In Formal Methods in Economic Aned. S. Plattner, pp. 149-58. thropology, DC: Am. Anthropol.AsWashington soc. Spec.Publ.4. 215 pp. 54. Colmenares, J. H. 1975. Adoptionof Hybrid Seeds and FertilizersAmong Colombian CornGrowers. MexicoCity: Abridged by CIMMYT.29 pp. 55. Cook,S. 1973.Production, ecology,and economicanthropology:-Notes toward an integrated frameof reference. Soc. Sci. Inf: 12(1):25-52 56. Cummings, J. T. 1975.The supplyreof Indianfarmersin the sponsiveness post-independence period: cereal Major and cash crops.IndianJ. Agric.Econ. 30(1):24-40 57. Cummings,R. C. 1978. Agricultural change in Vietnam'sfloatingrice region. Hum. Organ.37(3):235-45 58. Currens, G. E. 1976.Women, men,and rice:Agricultural in N. W. innovation Liberia. Hum Organ.35(4):355-65 59. Cutie, J. T. 1975. Diffusionof Hybrid CornTechnology: TheCaseof El Salvador.Cent.Int. Mejoramiento de Maizy Trigo. Mexico City: CIMMYT version.24 pp. abridged 60. Danda,A. K., Danda,G. 1972.Adoption of agricultural innovationsin a West Bengalvillage.Man India 54(4): 303-19 61. de Janvry, A. 1978.Socialstructure and biased technicalchange in Argentine agriculture. In Induced Innovation: Institutions and DevelopTechnology, V. Ruttan,pp. ment,ed. H. Binswager, 297-323. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins Press.423 pp.
PP.

31. Boserup, E. 1965.TheConditions ofAgriculturalGrowth:The Economicsof Agrarian Change under Population Pressure. Chicago: Aldine. 124 pp. 32. Boussard, J. M., Petit,M. 1967.Representationof farmers'behaviorunder uncertainty witha focus-loss constraint. I FarmEcon. 49:(4)869-80 33. Brookfield,H. C., Hart, D. 1971. Melanesia: A Geographical Interpretation of an Island World. London: Methuen.464 pp. 34. Brush,S. B. 1977.Mountain Fieldand Family: The Economy and Human Ecology of an AndeanValley. Philadelphia:Univ. Penn.Press. 199 pp. 35. Brush,S. B. 1977.The mythof the idle peasant:Employment in a subsistence economy.See Ref. 97, pp. 60-78 36. Buck, J. L. 1937. Land Utilization in China New York:Paragon. 494 pp. 37. Burling,R. 1962. Maximization theories and the study of economic anthropology. Am. Anthropol. 64(4): 802-21 38. Cancian,F. 1972. Change and Uncertaintyin a PeasantEconomy. Stanford Univ. Press.208 pp. 39. Cancian,F. 1977. Can anthropology help agricultural development? Cult. Agric. 2:1-8. Bull. Anthropol.Study GroupAgrar.Syst. 40. Cancian, F. 1979.TheInnovator's Situation:Upper MiddleClassConservatism in Agricultural Communities. Stanford Univ. Press 41. Cancian, F. 1980.Riskanduncertainty in agricultural decision making. See Ref. 16, pp. 161-76 42. Chawdhari, T. P. S., Chawdhari, S. L., B. M. 1965.Farmers' Sharma, perception of constraints choiceof influencing crops and adoptionof certainrecommended practices. Agric. Situation India 20(7):555-65 43. Chayanov, A. V. 1966. The Theory of PeasantEconomy,ed. D. Thorner,B. Kerblay,R. E. F. Smith.Homewood, Ill: Irvin.317 pp. 44. Chibnik,M. 1974.Economic strategies inStannCreek ofsmallfarmers District, BritishHonduras. PhD thesis.Columbia Univ., NY. 281 pp. 45. Chibnik, M. 1978.The valueof subsistence production.J Anthropol. Res. 34(3):pp. 551-76 46. Chibnik, M. 1980. Working out or workingin: The choice betweenwage laborandcashcropping in ruralBelize. Am. Ethnol.7:In press 47. Clark,C. 1967.Population Growth and

PEASANT AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION 62. DeWalt, B. R. 1975. Inequalitiesin wealth, adoption of technology,and productionin a MexicanEjido. Am. Ethnol.2(1):149-68 63. DeWalt,B. R. 1978.Appropriate technology in rural Mexico:Antecedents and consequencesof an indigenous peasant innovation. Technol. Cult. 19(1):32-52 64. DeWalt,B. R. 1979.Modernization in a MexicanEjido.New York:Cambridge Univ. Press.301 pp. 65. Dillon,J. L., Heady,E. 0. 1960.Theoriesof choicein relation to farmer decisions.IowaState Univ. Agric.Exp.Stn. Bull. 485. 24 pp. 66. Drucker,C. B. 1977. To inherit the land:Descentanddecision in Northern Luzon.Ethnology 21(1):1-20 67. Durham, W. H. 1977.Scarcity andsurvival:The ecological originsof conflict betweenEl Salvadorand Honduras. PhD thesis. Univ. Mich., Ann Arbor. 300 pp. 68. Durham, W.H. 1979.Scarcity andSurvival in CentralAmerica:Ecological Originsof the Soccer War. Stanford Univ. Press.209 pp. 69. Dutia, B. P. 1957.Theoryof choiceof productsby a cash cum subsistence grower.IndianEcon.J 5(2):215-21 70. Eckholm,E. P. 1976.LosingGround: Environmental Stressand World Food Prospects. New York:Norton.223 pp. 71. Edwards,D. 1961.Reporton an Economic Study of Small Farming in Jamaica. Glasgow:MacLehose, Univ. Press.370 pp. 72. Epstein,T. S. 1962.Economic Development and Social Changein S. India. Manchester Univ. Press.353 pp. 73. Erasmus, C. J. 1967.Culture changein Northwest Mexico. In Contemporary Change in TraditionalSocietiesIII: Mexican and PeruvianCommunities, ed. J. H. Steward, pp. 3-129. Urbana: Univ. Ill. Press.302 pp. 74. Finkler,K. 1978.Fromsharecroppers to entrepreneurs: Peasant household productionstrategiesunder the Ejido system of Mexico. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change27:103-20 75. Finkler,K. 1979.Applyingeconometric techniques to economic anthropology.Am. Ethnol.6(4):675-81 76. Finkler,K. 1980.Agrarian reformand economic Whenis a landdevelopment: lorda clientanda sharecropper his patron?See Ref. 16, pp. 265-80 77. Fogg, D. C. 1965.Agricultural and social factorsaffecting thedevelopment of smallholder in easternNiagriculture

569

geria. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 13:278-92 78. Forman,S., Riegelhaupt, J. F. 1970. Market place and marketingsystem: Towarda theoryof peasanteconomic integration. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 12:188-212 79. Fox, J. J. 1977. Harvestof the Palm: Ecological in Eastern Change Indonesia Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press. 290 pp. 80. Franke,R. W. 1974.Miracle seedsand shattereddreamsin Java. Nat. Hist. 83:1 (Jan.) 81. Freidrich,K. H. 1968. Coffee-banana holdings at Bukoba:the reasons for stagnationat a higher level. See Ref. 162, pp. 175-212 82. Geertz, C. 1963. Agricultural Involution. Berkeley/Los Angeles: Univ. Calif.Press. 176 pp. 83. Gerhart, J. 1975. TheDiffusion of HybridMaizein Western Kenya.Mexico City: CIMMYTabridgedversion. 57 84. Gladwin, C. H. 1976.A viewof theplan puebla:An application of hierarchical decisionmodeIs.Am. J. Agric.Econ. 58:881-87 85. Gladwin,C. H. 1979.Production functionsand decisionmodels.Am. Ethnol. 6(4):653-74 86. Gladwin,C. H. 1979.Cognitive strategies and adoption decisions:A case of an agronomic study of nonadoption recommendation.Econ. Dev. Cult. Change28(1):155-74 87. Gladwin,C. H. 1980.A theoryof reallifechoices: Applications to agricultural decisions.See Ref. 16, pp. 45-85. 88. Gladwin,C. H., Murtaugh, M. 1980. The attentive/preattentive distinction in agrcultural decision making. See Ref. 16, pp. 115-36 89. Gleave,M. B., White,H. P. 1969.Populationdensityandagricultural systems in West Africa. In Environment and Land Usein Africa,ed. M. F. Thomas, G. W. Whittington, pp. 273-300. London: Methuen.554 pp. 90. Goodfellow,D. M. 1950.Principles of Economic Sociology. London: Routledge.289 pp. 91. Gould,P. R. 1963.Managainsthis environment:A game theoretic framework.In Environment and Cultural Behavior,ed. A. P. Vayda,pp. 234-51. Garden City,NY: Nat. Hist.Press.485 92. Greenwood,D. J. 1976. Unrewarding Wealth: The Commercialization and in a Spanish Collapseof Agriculture
PP. PP.

570

BARLETT

andriskA. W. 1971.Security BasqueTown.New York:Cambridge 109. Johnson, In Studies takingamongpoorpeasants. Univ. Press.223 pp. ed. G. Dalin Economic B. A. 1971. 93. Gross,D. R., Underwood, Anthropology, changeandcaloriccosts: Technological ton, pp. 144-51. Am. Anthropol.AsStud.No. 7. 242 pp. in northeastern Brazil. soc. Anthropol. Sisalagriculture and A. W. 1972.Individuality 110. Johnson, 73:(3):725-40 Am. Anthropol. in traditional agriculofa Ruexperimentation 94. Gudeman, S. 1978.TheDemise to CapiFromSubsistence ture.Hum. Ecol. 1:149-59 ralEconomy: talism in a Latin American Village. 111. Johnson, A. W. 1974. Ethnoecology in a swiddenagpractices & KeganPaul. 176 Boston:Routledge andplanting system.Am.Ethnol. 1(1):87ricultural PP. The 101 95. Halperin,R. 1977. Introduction: subsistenceeconomyin peasantsoci- 112. Johnson,A. W. 1975.Time allocation in a Machiguengacommunity.Etheties. See Ref. 97, pp. 1-16 in nology 14(3):301-10 96. Halperin,R. 1977. Redistribution in A. W. 1978.Quantification ChanKom:A case for Mexicanpoliti- 113. Johnson, Univ. Stanford Cultural Anthropology. cal economy.See Ref. 97, pp. 79-85 Press.231 pp. R. 1980.Newandoldin eco96a. Halperin, A. W. 1980.The limitsof forIn 114. Johnson, Am.Anthropol. nomicanthropology. malism in agriculturaldecision repress R., Dow, J., eds. 1977.Peassearch.See Ref. 16, pp. 17-43 97. Halperin, G. L., Halter,A. N., Jensen, in Economic An- 114a. Johnson, antLivelihood: Studies H. R., Thomas,D. W., eds. 1961. A Ecology.New and Cultural thropology Processof Mid332 pp. Study of Managerial York:St. Martin's. westernFarmers. Ames: Iowa State J. M. 1958.A SerbianVillage. 98. Halpern, Univ. Press. 146 Univ. Press.221 pp. New York:Columbia 115. Kaminsky, M. 1979. Comment to PP. See Ref. 185, pp. 65-68 Roumasset. 99. Hanks, L. M. 1972. Rice and Man. 116. Kirkby,A. 1973.The use of land and Aldine. 174 pp. Chicago: in the pastand present waterresources 100. Hansen,B. 1969.Wagesand employvalley of Oaxaca,Mexico.Mem. Mus. mentin Egypt.Am.Econ.Rev. 59:298Anthropol.No. 5. Ann Arbor:Univ. 313 (June) Mich. 174 pp. the Com101. Hardin,G. 1977.Managing Freeman.294 117. Knight, C. G. 1974. Ecology and mons. San Franscisco: 300 pp. New York:Academic. Change. PP. Stay PoorPeople 102. Harner,M. J. 1970. Populationpres- 118. Lipton,M. 1977. Why Univ. Mass:Harvard Poor.Cambridge, of agriculsureandthe socialevolution Press.467 pp. turalists. Southwest. J Anthropol. perspecM. 1977.Historical 119. Margolis, 26:67-86 as an adapagriculture tiveson frontier 103. Harris,A. 1972.Someaspectsof agritive strategy.Am. Ethnol.4(1):42-64 culturein Taita.In Population Growth: Limitations, ed. B. 119a. McCay,B. J. 1978.Systemsecology, Anthropological of Mass: peopleecology,andtheanthropology pp. 180-89.Cambridge, Spooner, Hum. Ecol. 6(4): fishingcommunities. MIT Press.25 pp. 397-422 Farming 104. Haswell, M. 1973. Tropical D. E. Jr. 1973.Theutilityof 174pp. 120. McHenry, London: Longman. Economics. of compulsionin the implementation Farmers of 105. Hatch,J. K. 1976.TheCorn A casestudyfrom policies: Farmagricultural A Studyof Traditional Motupe: Tanzania. Can. J. Afr. Stud. 7(2): Peru. in Northern Coastal ing Practices 305-16 Land Tenure Cent. Monogr.,No. 1. and So121. Mencher,J. 1978.Agriculture Madison: Univ. Wis. 246 pp. cial Structure in Tamilnadu: Past P. E. 1977.Socioeconomic 106. Hildebrand, and Origins,PresentTransformations, in Multiple Cropping Considerations Future Prospects.Durham: Carolina Inst.Cienc.TechGuatemala: Systems. AcademicPress.314 pp. Agric.22 pp. nol. Agric.Sector Publico J. C. 1969.InisBeag:Isle of 122. Messenger, (Mimeo) Ireland. New York:Holt, Rinehart& in Cocoa Farmers 107. Hill, P. 1970.Migrant Winston.136 pp. Southern Ghana New York: CamD. A. 1976.Ecological 123. Messerschmidt, bridgeUniv. Press.265 pp. amongthe Guchangeand adaptation of 108. Johnson,A. W. 1971.Sharecroppers rungs of the Nepal Himalaya.Hum. the Sertaa StanfordUniv. Press. 153 Ecol. 4(2):167-85 PP.

PEASANTAGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
124. Miller,R. 1974.Are familistsamoral? A testof Banfield's amoral familism hypothesisin a SouthItalianvillage.Am. Ethnol. 1:515-35 125. Minge-Kalman, W.J. 1977.Onthe theoryandmeasurement of domestic labor intensity.Am. Ethnol.4(2):273-84 126. Minge-Kalman, W.J. 1977.Familyproductionand reproduction in industrial society: A field studyof changes during thepeasantto worker in Eutransition rope.PhD thesis.Columbia Univ.,NY. 128 pp. 127. Miracle, M. P. 1968."Subsistence Agriculture":Analyticalproblemsand alAm. J. Agric.Econ. ternative concepts. 50:292-310 128. Mitchell,W. P. 1977.Irrigation farming in the Andes:Evolutionary implications. See Ref. 97, pp. 36-59 129. Moerman, M. 1968. Agricultural Changeand PeasantChoicein a Thai Village. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press. 227 pp. 130. Moock, P. R. 1973. The efficiency of womenas farmmanagers: Kenya.Am. J. Agric.Econ. 58(5):831-35 131. Moock,P. R. 1978.Education andtechnical efficiency in smallfarm production. Presentedat Comp. Int. Educ. Soc. Ann. Meet.,MexicoCity 132. Morgan,W. T. W. 1972.The "White of Kenya.See Ref. 156 Highlands" 133. Mueller,M. 1977. Womenand men, in Lesotho. In powerandpowerlessness Women andNational The Development: Complexities of Change,ed. Wellesley Ed. Comm.,pp. 154-66.Univ.Chicago Press.346 pp. 134. Mwamufiya, M., Fitch,J. B. n.d.Labor UsePatternsfor theProduction ofMaize in Southern Zaire. MexicoCity:CIMMYT. 11 pp. 135. Nash, M. 1965. The GoldenRoad to Modernity: VillageLife in ContemporaryBurma New York:Wiley.333 pp. 136. Netting,R. McC. 1968.Hill Farmers of Cultural Nigeria: Ecology of theKofyar Univ.Wash. of theJosPlateau.Seattle: Press.259 pp. 137. Netting,R. McC. 1969.Ecosystems in process: A comparative studyof change in two West Africansocieties.In EcologicalEssays,ed. D. Damas,pp. 10212. Nat. Mus. Can.Bull. 230 138. Netting, R. McC. 1974. Agrarian 3:21-56 ecology.Ann. Rev.Anthropol. 139. Norman,D. W. 1971.Initiating change in traditional agriculture. Agric.Econ. Bull. Afr. 13:31-52 140. Norman, D. W. 1974. Rationalizing mixedcropping underindigenous con-

571

ditions:The exampleof N. Nigeria.J. Dev. Stud. 11(l):3-21 141. Norman,D. W. 1977.Economicrationality of traditionalHausa dryland farmers in thenorthof Nigeria. SeeRef. 176, pp. 63-91 142. Nukunya, G. K. 1975.Population presandagricultural develsure,landtenure opment.In Population, andSoEcology, cial Evolution, ed. S. Polgar,pp. 191217. The Hague:Mouton.354 pp. 143. Orlove,B. S. 1976.The tragedyof the commonsrevisited: Landuse and environmental qualityin high-altitude Andean grasslands.In Hill Lands, pp. 208-14.Proc.Int.Symp., WestVirginia Univ., Morgantown 144. Orlove,B. S. 1977.Integration through in Espithe use of zonation production: nar. Am. Ethnol.4(1):84-101 145. Orlove,B. S. 1977. Inequality among Theformsandusesof recipropeasants: in AndeanPeru.See Ref. cal exchange 97, pp. 201-14 146. Orlove,B. S. 1977.Alpacas, Sheepand Men: The WoolExportEconomyand in Southern Regional Society Peru.New York:Academic.270 pp. 147. Ortiz,S. R. 1967.Thestructure of decision-makingamong Indians of Colombia. In Themesin EconomicAnthropology, ed. R. Firth, pp. 191-228. ASA Monogr.No. 6. 292 pp. 148. Ortiz,S. R. 1973.Uncertainties in PeasA Colombian ant Farming: Case.New York:Humanities Press.294 pp. 149. Ortiz,S. R. 1979.Theeffectof riskaveron subsistence sion strategies and cash crop decisions. In Risk, Uncertainty andAgricultural Development, ed. J. A. Roumasset, pp. 231-46. New York: Agric. Dev. Counc.453 pp. 150. Ortiz,S. R. 1980.Forecasts,decisions and the farmers' to uncertain response environments. SeeRef. 16,pp. 177-202 151. Peacock,D. L. 1972. The adoption of newagricultural in N. E. Brapractices zil: An examination offarmersdecision making.PhD thesis.Mich.StateUniv., East Lansing.340 pp. 152. Pelto, P. J., Pelto, G. H. 1975. Intraisculturaldiversity: Some theoretical sues. Am. Ethnol.2(1):1-18 153. Perrin,R., Winkelmann, D. 1976.Impediments to technical progress on small versuslargefarms.Am. J. Agric. Econ. 58(5):888-94 154. Polanyi,K. 1957.The economyas institutedprocess.In Tradeand Market ed. K. Polanyi,C. in theEarlyEmpires, Arensberg,H. Pearson, pp. 243-70. New York:Free Press.382 pp.

572

BARLETT
peasant farmer:An analysis of risk in the choiceof cropping pataversion tern,SuratDistrict,India.J. Dev.Stud. 12(3):246-61 TraT. W. 1964.Transforming 171. Schultz, New Haven:Yale ditionalAgriculture. Univ. Press.212 pp. mod172. Shapiro,K. H. 1975.Measuring a farmers: amongTanzanian ernization new methodologyand an illustration. See Ref. 53, pp. 128-48 173. Simmons, R. A. 1974. Palca and of revoluA studyof the effects Pucara: Univ. tion on two Bolivianhaciendas. Vol 9. Berkeley: Calif.Publ.Anthropol. Univ. Calif.Press.212 pp. in West174. Smith,C. A. 1975.Production A test of Von Thunen ern Guatemala: and Boserup.See Ref. 53, pp. 5-37 sys175. Smith,C. A. 1977.How marketing tems affect economic opportunityin agrarian society. See Ref. 97, pp. 117-46 and R. D., ed. 1977. Tradition 176. Stevens, Agriculture. Dynamicsin Small-Farm Ames:Iowa StateUniv. Press.266 pp. and 177. Stoler,A. L. 1977.Classstructure in ruralJava.SeeRef. femaleautonomy 133, pp. 74-89 in 178. Stoler,A. L. 1977.Rice harvesting Kali Loro:A studyof classandlaborin ruralJava.Am. Ethnol.4(4):678-98 179. Strickon,A., Greenfield,S. M., eds. 1972. Structureand Processin Latin America: Patronage, Clientage, and Univ. Power Systems. Albuquerque: New MexicoPress.256 pp. 180. Symes, D. G. 1972. Farm household a studyof twenandfarmperformance: tieth centurychangesin Ballyferriter, 11:25-38 Ireland. Ethnology Southwest A. 1970.LandandPeasants 181. Takahashi, East-West Luzon.Honolulu: in Central CenterPress. 168 pp. A 182. Tax, S. 1953. Penny Capitalism: Indian Economy.WashGuatemalan Inst. 230 pp. ington:Smithsonian 183. Turner,P. R. 1977. IntensiveagriculTzeltals.Ethtureamongthe Highland nology 16(1):167-74 by as184. Tversky,A. 1972. Elimination Rev. pects:A theoryof choice.Psychol. 79(4):281-99 185. Valdes,A., Scobie,G. M., Dillon,J. L. 1979. Economicsand the Design of Ames:Iowa Small-Farmer Technology. StateUniv. Press.211 pp. of 186. VanRoy, E. 1971.Economic Systems Northern Thailand. Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press.289 pp. andagri187. Vasey,D. E. 1979.Population

155. Porter,P. W. 1965.Environmental potentials and economic opportunities. Am. Anthropol. 67:409-20 156. Prothero, R. M. 1972.People andLand in Africa South of the Sahara New York:OxfordUniv. Press.344 pp. change 157. Rask,N. 1977.Factorslimiting on traditional smallfarmsin southern Brazil.See Ref. 176,pp. 92-114 158. Rochin,R. I. 1977.Ruralpovertyand the problem of increasing food production on small farms:The case of Colombia. West. J. Agric. Econ. 1(1): 181-86 159. Rochin,R. I. 1978. Why smallfarmers do not adopt and utilize new teat CENTOSemiPresented chonology. nar,Increasing theProductive Capacity of Small Farmersin CentoCountries, Lahore,Pakistan.18 pp. 160. Roumasset, J. A. 1979.Unimportance of risk for technology designand agriculturaldevelopment policy. See Ref. 185, pp. 48-65 161. Rubin,J. 1973.Notes on the comparative study of the agriculture of world regions.PeasantStud. Newsl.2(4):1-4 162. Ruthenberg, H., ed. 1968.Smallholder and Smallholder Farming Development in Tanzania Munchen: Weltforum Verlag.360 pp. 163. Rutz, H. J. 1977.Individual decisions ratioandfunctional economic systems: nality and environmental adaptation. Am. Ethnol.4(1):156-74 164. Sahlins,M. D. 1964. Cultureand environment: the study of cultural in Anthropology, ecology. In Horizons Aldine. ed. S. Tax,pp. 132-47.Chicago: 288 pp. 165. Sahlims, M. D. 1971.The intensityof in primitive domesticproduction sociof the Chayanov eties:Socialinflections slope. See Ref. 109,pp. 30-51 166. Saint,W. 1977. Thesocialorganization of cropproduction: Cassava,tobacco, and citrusin Bahia,Brazil.PhD thesis. CornellUniv., Ithaca,NY. 373 pp. 167. Salamon,S., Keim, A. M. 1979.Land ownershipand women's power in a midwestern farming community. J. Fam. Feb: 109-19 Marriage 168. Salamon, S., O'Reilly, S. M. 1979.Family land and developmentalcycles among Illinois farmers. Rural Soc. 44(3):525-42 B. J. 1973.Predictors of thefarm 169. Sawer, in generalmanagewife's involvement ment and adoption decisions. Rural M. G. G., Mount,T. D. 1976. 170. Schluter, Some managementobjectivesof the
Soc. 38(4):412-26

PRODUCTION PEASANTAGRICULTURAL
in the humidtropics. culturalintensity Hum. Ecol. 7(3):269-83 D. 1968.Cottonfarm188. Von Rotenhan, and Cashcropping ing in Sukumaland: SeeRef. 162,pp. 51-86 its implications. 189. Wharton, C. R. 1971. Risk, uncertainty, and the subsistencefarmer: Technologicalinnovation and resistance to changein the contextof survival.See Ref. 109,pp. 152-79 D. S. 1972. N. E. Jr.,Whitten, 190. Whitten, Social strategiesand social relation1:247-70 ships.Ann. Rev.Anthropol. E. A., Bharadwaj, L. 1967. 191. Wilkening, Dimensionsof aspirations, work roles amonghusbands and decision-making and wives in Wisconsin.J. Marriage Fam. 29:703-11 L. 1968. E. A., Bharadwaj, 192. Wilkening, as reandtaskinvolvement Aspirations lated to decision-making among farm husbands and wives. Rural Soc. 33:30-45 193. Wilkinson,R. G. 1973. Povertyand

573

on An EcologicalPerspective Progress: Economic Development.New York: 225 pp. Praeger. 194. Williams,A. W. Jr. 1970.San Ignacio commuA canal irrigating Cuatemoc: Valley.Anthropol. nity in the Tehuacan Q. 43(1):39-54 195. Williams, G. 1977. Differentialrisk as cultural styleamongfarmstrategies ers in the LowerChubutValley,Patagonia.Am. Ethnol.4:65-83 of D. 1976. TheAdoption 196. Winkelmann, in Plan Puebla, NewMaizeTechnology Mexico. Mexico City: CIMMYT. 14 197. Wolf,E. R. 1956.SanJose:Subcultures of a "traditional" coffeemunicipality. In ThePeopleof PuertoRico, ed. J. H. Univ.IlSteward, pp. 171-264.Urbana: linois Press.540 pp. 198. Yang, M. C. 1945.A ChineseVillage: New York: Province. Shantung Taitou, Univ. Press.275 pp. Columbia
PP.