Barlett. Adaptative Strategies

8/14/2019 Barlett. Adaptative Strategies

1/30

Adaptive Strategies in Peasant Agricultural Production

Author(s): Peggy F. BarlettReviewed work(s):Source: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 9 (1980), pp. 545-573Published by: Annual ReviewsStable 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 formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Annual Reviewsis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toAnnual Review of

Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2155747?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2155747?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs


2/30

Ann.Rev.Anthropol 980. 9:545-73Copyright) 1980 by AnnualReviews nc. All rights eserved

ADAPTIVE STRATEGIES IN *9667PEASANT AGRICULTURALPRODUCTIONPeggy F. BarlettIDepartment f Anthropology,EmoryUniversity,Atlanta,Georgia30322INTRODUCTIONConsiderableocialscienceresearch as beencarriedoutinrecentyearsonagricultural hangeamongpeasant armers n developing ountries.Thisresearchhas beennoteworthyor two reasons.On the one hand, there isa trendtoward oiningtheapproaches f economicanthropology ndcul-turalecology n thestudyof production rocessesn peasant ommunities.Inmanycases, his combination f approachesranscendshe substantivist-formalist ontroversyf the 1960sand movesthe focusof research owardadaptive trategies nd theintegration f individualdecisionsand commu-nity patterns.Second,researchon agricultural roduction elatesmoredirectly hanmanyareasofanthropologyo current ssuesof globalconcernandprovidesrelevantdata to practitioners s well as to academics.With an increasingawareness f worldwidenequalitiesn the distributionf foodandproduc-tive resources nd offoodshortagesn somecountries, ttentionhas turnedto the smallfarmers f theworld,whoselands employ hemajorityof theworld'speople,but whose productivitys being rapidly outstrippedbyrecent ncreasesn population.The failureof the development ecade ofthe 1960sto amelioratehese conditionsor to improve tandards f livingin most ruralareashas led to a greaterconcern,bothwithin nternationaldevelopment genciesand withinnationalgovernments,o understandheagricultural ecisionsof thesepeasant armers.

11 ratefully cknowledgehe comments ndhelpof AllanHoben,FrankCancian,BillieDeWalt,MaryBall,andBarbaraMelvin n the preparationf this review.5450084-6570/80/1015-0545$01.00


3/30

546 BARLETTIn recentyears,anthropology ithinacademia nd appliedanthropologyhave grown closer together,especially n the area of development n-thropology. Moreanthropologistsrefinding mploymentndevelopmentagencies nd nacademic epartments utsideanthropology.ssuesof ruraldevelopment,echnological hange,and ocaltransformationsndthe influ-ence of world markets,nationaldevelopmentpolicy, ecologicaldegrada-tion, population pressure,and political movements have motivatedanthropologicalesearchn all areasof the world,and the resultsof thisresearchhave direct implications or developmentprogramsand policy.The formationof the Anthropological tudy Groupon AgrarianSystemswithin he AmericanAnthropological ssociation,and its newsletter,Cul-

tureand Agriculture, ave increased he interchange etweenanthropolo-gists with similar interests and between anthropologistsand otherdevelopment rofessionals. hese communication ffortspinpoint he im-portanceof synthesizing nd refining he researchdone on agriculture.The basicunitof study n the research eviewedhere s the family arm,locatedprimarilyn developing ountries.Althougha distinctionbetweenpeasants nd farmers may be useful for certain analyses, rom theperspective evelopedhereof productionprocesses,t can be blurred.Thewords are used belowinterchangeablyor severalreasons.Traditionally,peasantshave been seen to be partsof nonindustrialocieties,but mostcountriesof the worldtodayboast someindustry.Withroads,radio,andgovernment rograms nteringevenveryremoteregions, he isolationofruralpopulationss rapidlybreakingdown.Recent ncreasesn populationin many agricultural reas has led to increasedmigration o cities andtowns,andthis trendcontributeso the other nfluences hat aretransform-ing traditionalagrariannstitutions uch as sharecropping, atron-clientrelations,and ritualcycles. Furthermore, esearchon familyfarms n theUnitedStateshas shown hat methodsusedto understand easantproduc-tionstrategies realsoapplicableoindustrial griculture. ll farmersmakechoices on how to allocate the resourcesavailable o them, all operatewithin he culturaland nstitutionalnvironmentnwhichtheyare ocated,and all face vagariesof weather,health,and prices.For thepurposeof comparability,tudiesof pastoralists nd of peasantswhospecializeprimarilyn craftproduction avenot been ncludedn thisreview.The vast literature n the GreenRevolutionhasalso beenavoided,with a few exceptions,due to space considerations.Formalism,Substantivism, nd AdaptiveStrategiesSeveralaspectsof the substantivist-formalistontroversyand the debateover whether ormaleconomic heorybasedon marketexchanges an beapplied o non-Western ultureshave been clarifiedand revised n recentresearch. t hasbeenemphasizedhat formalmaximizationheoriesof the


4/30


5/30

548 BARLETTdeterminehatBantuwomenareresponsibleorcookingandfieldweeding,but eachwomanmuststill decidehowto allocateher timebetween ookingandweeding.Though he Bantusay a fixednumberof cattle are requiredforcertainpayments, all our evidencepointsto the fact that a goat maybe substitutedor a cow. . . (90).Inspiteof considerable iscussion f thispointin recentyears,however, he tendency oward uniformism s stillquite strong,and many otherwise nterestingpieces of researchdo notexplore ndividual ariationsn the agricultural atternsdiscussed 48, 66,79, 121, 123, 135, 182, 186, 195, 197).Gudeman rgues hatbeginning nanalysisof theeconomywith individ-ual decisionsratherthan with groupsor systems confusescause witheffect 94). While he anthropologicalerspectiveees ndividuals s moldedby the groupsor systemswhichsurround hem, these latterforces can bestudiedas theoutcomes fpreviousndividual ecisions,with feedbackntothe experienceof living actors (25a). Thus, the inheritedpatternsareprecedentshat peopleuse to constructpatternsof coping 25a). Manyof the authorsto be discussedbelow have focusedon individualchoiceswhilealsointegratingnto theiranalyses heinstitutional, roup,and othermacrosocial actorswhich mpact ndividuals such as the organization faccess to productiveresources).The patternsof paramount nterest tosubstantivistsantherebybe seenfromthe perspective f actorsand theirchoices,a different ut notantithetical erspectiveromthat of theinstitu-tionsthatprovision ociety 96a,97).A relatedview s thatof Sahlins 164),inwhichthe environment urrounding n actor ncludesboththe naturalenvironment nd thecultural, ocial,andpoliticalenvironment reatedbyotherhumanbeings.Madewithinthiscontext, ndividual hoices ormthebehavior,norms,and attitudeswhichcomprise he groupsandsystemsof currentandsucceeding enerations.Adaptation rovides theoretical ramework asedonbiologicalnotionsof evolutionand naturalselectionand incorporateshe heterogeneity findividualswithinwidergrouppatterns 5, 24, 25, 25a,64, 119a, 152, 179,190).Bennett 24) separatesheshort-rangehoicesofindividuals s adjust-ments to their environmentsadaptive strategies)from the long-rangechangesthat result from these choices (adaptiveprocesses).Whitten&Whitten(190) make a similardistinction n developing he conceptofadaptive trategies orindividuals ndforaggregates. hisperspectiventhe behaviorof farmershasgenerated onsiderable ecentwork andis theprimary ubjectof this review.Considerableesearchhasalsobeencarriedout usingthe framework ftheadoptionof innovations, ut thisapproachs less useful hana strate-gies approach or severalreasons.The innovationadoptionperspectivemayimplythat thepre-innovationtate is static or tradition-boundatherthana reasonable esponse o circumstances;t oftenimpliesas well that


6/30

PEASANTAGRICULTURALPRODUCTION 549the innovationsare inherentlymprovements nd good for all classesoffarmers23, 30, 127, 135, 151, 162, 196).Further, heinnovation doptionapproachends o see change n termsofisolated raits,rather hanrelationsbetween ndividuals ndresources,n a complexwhole (60,63, 64, 72, 159,166, 172,193).Whilechangesn agriculture, othin new cropsand in newtechnologyand productionmethods,will undoubtedly ontinue o be thecentral focus of researchon peasant production, hese changescan bestudiedwithless potentialbiasandmoresophistication y lookingat agri-culturalchangeby focusingon adaptive trategies.The term adaptation s borrowed rom evolutionary iologydoes notimplythat the resulting in or fur is the only solution o a specific nviron-mental ituation,nor does t implythat the solution s the best one, giventheresources t hand.It conveys nstead hat the adaptation as sufficientpositive eaturesor the complexof traits o beperpetuated, hile heremayalsobenegativeeatures.nthesame ight,research nagricultural dapta-tionsdiscusses ong-term cologicaldegradation f the environment52)orshort-termnequitiesn accessto resources76) or solutionswhich can beseento exacerbateheproblem 82).Likewise,ustas theevolution fplantsand animals s constrainedythestructurewhichcurrentpopulations avegenetically nherited, o too are humangroupsand individuals ffectedbyinherited ultural tructures.Within heframework f adaptation,hen,thesubstantivist oncernswith institutionsandprocessesareintegratedwiththe formalistemphasison choiceandstrategy.A final advantage f the focus on individuals nd their behaviors s themethodological igorwhichhas begunto emergen the descriptions f theproduction rocess 2, 13,38,40, 45,46, 64, 75, 84, 87, 112,116,129, 178).Notonlyhavecarefulmeasuresestedsubjectivempressionsfagriculturalchange,but alsothisrigorclarifies he diversityn choicesmadeand leadsthe researcher o look at the causalvariablesand theirrelationships.Thus,thegoalsof the studyof adaptive trategiesn peasantagriculturalproduction re:(a) carefuldescription f current trategies nd the diver-sitywithinthosechoices; b) determinationf the variables ndconditionsthatcreateand reinforcehosediverse trategies; c) clarification,f possi-ble,of thecausalpriority f some variables verothers;and(d) predictionof the futuredirections nd the long-term mplications f those choices asthey affectboth currentagriculturalhangeand long-termadaptivepro-cesses of agricultural hange.FACTORSAFFECTING AGRICULTURALSTRATEGIESThe widerangeofvariableshat affectpeasantproduction trategies erivesnot only from the complexityof thesechoices but also fromthe diverse


7/30

550 BARLETTresearchproblemswhich have beenaddressed.The majority f anthropo-logicalresearchon agriculturaltrategies xploresmacrolevelactors hatcan be divided nto two aspects,the naturalenvironment nd the social,political,economic,and institutional nvironmentwhich ncludescommu-nity and regional orces as well as nationaland international nes. Theinteraction f these variablesmakespossible he rangeof agricultural p-tions available.These optionsare weighedby the decisionmaker,usuallystudiedas thehousehold nit.Thehousehold's eedsandgoalsarematchedwith its resources, nd the resultingproduction trategies hen have feed-backs both on the decisionsof other individualsand on the macrolevelenvironmentalactorsas well. Thesepointswill be takenup in turn.The NaturalEnvironmentMost studies indicate that environmentalactorsplay a crucial role indeterminingwhat land uses are possibleor profitable.A rangeof environ-mental factorssuch as altitude(128, 146), rainfall 3, 155), temperature(148), incidenceof wind (13), and inclineare mentioned69, 71, 136, 197).Norman(140)adds evapotranspirationate andsoil type(108, 111, 188),while Beals seespotentialor wells andirrigation s crucial n SouthIndia(21, 116, 128). Adejuwon's 3) studyof the intensityof cocoa productionin westernNigeria oundthat seedlings equire egular ainfall o survive,thoughonceestablishedheydidnotseem o beaffected yrainfallpatterns.Thus, precipitationimited he spreadof cocoa into newareaswith appro-priatesoil quality.Perrin& Winkelmann153)conclude romsix studiesof corn and wheatin various world areas that agroclimaticone andtopography re the key variantsthat explain the nonadoptionof newvarieties see also 42).Insectsanddiseasesare an importantaspectof the environment155).Messenger 122)shows howthe adventof the eelworm n the 1920son anIrish island requiredpotatofieldsto be fallowed or4 yearsafterthe firstharvestto control the pest. The resulting and shortageencouragedhecommunityo makemore ields, reating oilfromseaweed ndcompost.Rubinargues hatagriculturaltrategiesnthe southernUnitedStateswerelimitedby cattleticksandpoornativegrasses hatpreventedheprofitableestablishment f mixedfarmingas in the North(161).Greenwood92), however,goes beyondmost studies of environmentalimpact o linksoil type to variationsn behavior. n a Basquecoastalarea,farmerspecialize ither ndairyand cattleproduction rin truck arming,dependingon whether he farm has poorerclay soils or the bettersandysoils.Greenwoodound hat86%of the farms n thecommunity onformto the correct and use based on soil type (92). The remaining14%sufferedromfamily aborconstraintswhichkeptthem fromthe agricul-turaloptionspossibleon their lands.


8/30

PEASANTAGRICULTURALPRODUCTION 551The interactionbetweentechnologyand environmentalonstraints swell illustrated yMorgan's esearch n highlandKenya(132). AreasthatAfricanshad left uncultivatedor a varietyof reasonswereusedby Eu-

ropean ettlers orstableexportagriculturehrough heuse of plows,oxen,and wells. In spite of erraticrainfall,whitescould set offthe profitsof agood yearagainst hefailureof a harvest n a yearof drought,whichwouldforceanAfrican ultivatorntostarvation 132).Sufficientapital o investin thistechnologywasimportantn explaining hedifferent roductivity ftheselands, whentheywere purchasedby Africans,after1961.Gerhart 83) nicelyillustrates he complexityof separatinghe naturalenvironmentromotherfactorswhichaffectproductiondecisions.One ofthreeagroclimaticones nwesternKenyahad lowadoption atesof hybridcorn.He notesthatthiszone has lower rainfall,more erraticrain,poorersoilsanddrainage, nd hencehigherriskto crops,andthathybridsdo notseemto be particularly roductivehere.In addition,however, he zoneisgeographicallysolatedand suffers rompoorerroads,poorer nput avail-ability, ower evelsofcontactwithagriculturalxtensionworkers, greaterdistance rom the keyresearch enterandfrominput outlets,and a laterintroductionf hybridvarietiesnthe firstplace 83). Thus,environmentalconstraintson hybridcornarecloselylinked to economic,political,andinformationalactors.Studiesdifferwidelyin the extent to which environmentalactors aremeasured.Kirkby 116)mappedheOaxaca egionofMexicowithcareandfound a numberof agricultural ecisionsthat are constrainedby waterresources.Hatch(105) has a number f interestinguggestions bout nsectdamageand soil fertilizationn coastalPeru, but has no measurementsoexplore hemwith.Turneralsobaseshis analysison the despoliation ftheenvironment,utwithoutmeasures 183).Bennettargues hatranchersin SaskatchewanandIndians)areconstrainedromfarmingbecause heirsoilsarenotgoodenough orgrains 24),thoughnomeasurementsf soilqualityaregiven.Yet these soilsareundoubtedlyarsuperioro the landsusedby farmersn manydeveloping ountries;heir poor qualitycomesfromaninteraction f prices,markets,echnology,andpopulationdensityand arenot basedon an absoluteagronomic apability.

TheSocial,Political,and EconomicEnvironmentThehumanenvironments alsocrucial o decisionsonagriculturalroduc-tion.Manystudiesof peasantanduseindicate heimportance f transpor-tation acilities 13,38, 104, 148),marketingmechanisms78,97, 140, 148),price structures15, 20, 36, 38, 49, 69, 139, 140, 176),and othergovern-mentalpolicies.Mostofthese actorshave ongbeenrecognized s influenc-ingtheoutcomeofanyeconomicdecision,but researchersaveonlyrarely


9/30

552 BARLETTspelledout the directeffectson landuse. Therefore,he discussionbelowis limited o pointingout a fewof the less obviouswaysin which landusedecisionsare affectedby the economic,political,and socialenvironment.Market onditions suallynteractwithprices o affectproductiontrate-gies. Claytonnotesthat subsistenceorn cannotbe obtainedn themarketin Tanzania nd so farmers lacehigh priorityon plantinga relatively ighacreageof corn andweeding t well (49).This decisionmeansthat cottonis plantedate,which owers ts productivityof concern o the government,whichdesireshigherexports).Claytonalsopoints out that cottonvaluesare relatively ow and that investmentsof land and labor in cornyieldbetterreturns 49, p. 247).A similar eriesofmarket onstraints ffectPaezIndians n Colombia 147, 148),and the reverseholds for the Malayanfarmers tudied rom 1929-1933,who continued heir rubberproductionandpurchased ice nspiteofgovernmentrogramso increase iceproduc-tion (49).Marketing tructures nd roadsare also documentedo have dramaticimpactson traditionalgriculturaltrategies11, 13, 15,36, 38, 52, 53, 166).Forman& Riegelhaupt 78) showhow rationalization f the marketingprocess n northeastern razilexerts pressureson smallfarmers,makingthem less competitivehan largecommercial arms.Smith(175)exploresthe variables which determine production alternatives in westernGuatemala, indingthat the distancefrom a centralarea is a primarycriterion, ollowedby locationnear a ladinomarkettown, and then bypopulation ensity.Barkley 12)notesthat U.S. farmers lso face a rapidlychanging ocialenvironment,haracterized y vertical ntegrationinkingbanks, input suppliers,governmentagencies,and food processors,allof whose activities must be coordinated or agriculturalproduction obegin.Governmentpoliciesand politicalhistoryare seen as componentsofunderstandingoffeeproductionn PuertoRico(197),cottonproductionnTanzania 120),ejidosn Mexico 50, 76),securityof landtenureandhenceinvestmentsn land (104, 107), and responses o new technology 80, 88,99). Argyres 8) discusses he effectof government griculturaloliciesonproductivityn a Romanian griculturalooperative nd notessomebitter-ness and alienationamong the peasants,who say, Wepretendwe areworking,andthey pretend hey arepayingus (8).Cole & Wolf(57) compareheverydifferent esponses f twovillages nnorthItaly to theadventof roadsand thedeclineof traditionalgriculturalpractices.They ookto different oliticalhistories,attitudesoward hecityand rural ife, differenthouseholdpower structures,nheritance ustoms,levelsof consumption, nd reinvestmento explain he highrate of outmi-gration n one villageand the intensification nd capitalization f dairyproductionn the other.The ethnic andhistoricaldifferences etween he


10/30

PEASANTAGRICULTURALPRODUCTION 553twovillagesareheldto bemore mportanthan ocationortopography,ndthesemacrolevel actorsarediscussed though withoutmeasurement) stheyaffect he household's bility o respondo thepostwar hanges.Saint(166) also carefully inks governmentpolicy, world markettrends,andregional hanges o effectson eachspecific ropoption n Bahia,Brazil.InCostaRicaaswell,beefprices,governmentoanprograms, ndnewfoddergrassesmakecattlea moreviableoptionthanwas true a decadeago (15).HOUSEHOLDS AS UNITS OF ANALYSISMostresearch npeasantagriculturaltrategies akes hehouseholdasthemain unitof production ndconsumption nd the unitwithinwhichagri-culturalchoices aremade(95, 154, 182, 189). Householdshaveaccess toresources uch as land, water, abor,and information ndhaveneeds andgoals suchas a certaindiet,education,and otheraspectsof theirstandardofliving.Boththeresources ndthe needsarestronglyaffected ythewidersocietyandthekindsofvariablesustdiscussed, ndthelinebetweenmacrolevel and household evel factors is often arbitrary.Nevertheless, ecentadvancesn determiningoth the variablesnvolved n agriculturaltrate-gies and the interactions etweenthesevariableshave comethroughde-tailedanalysison thehousehold evel.Theseadvances an be divided ntofour mainissues:1. Populationdensityandagriculturalntensification.2. Stratificationn accessto resources.3. The influenceof householdabor resources.4. Cycles in householdresourcesandneeds.Finally, he roleofindividual ariation ndofvalueshas beennoted nsomeresearch,and the important nterconnection f strategieshas also beenexplored.PopulationDensityandAgriculturalntensificationManyresearchersn recentyearshavefounda closerelationship etweenpopulation ensity,a household's ccess o landresources, ndtheintensityof agriculturalroduction14, 19,20, 33, 47, 48, 52, 53, 66, 82, 89, 98, 99,102,104, 117,136-138,141,142,156,162, 183,187).Most of thesestudiesconfirm he sequencedescribedby Boserup 31) and tracethe transitionfrommoreextensiveanduse to shorter allowperiods,greater ttention osoilfertility, hangeso cropswithhigherproductivity,ndincreasedaborinvestment n production.Hanks(99) showsthatrice cultivation n Thai-land is supplemented ithotherproductive ctivities o longaspopulationdensity s low.When andbecomes carce,householdshaveno alternativetodependencenrice(138)with tshighproductivityn smallplotsofland.Thequalityof thedietmay alsodeclinewithintensification. uthenberg


11/30

554 BARLETT(162) notes thatthe shift from high qualitymilletsand maize n Tanzaniato higher-yieldingtarchcrops such as cassavaandsweet potatoes.Cattleproduction s replacedby sheep and goats, and eventuallyanimals aregrazedonly on fallow fields nsteadof on pastures see also 104).Manyof thesestudiesdocumentBoserup's lawof leasteffort, s farm-ers' resistance o intensification nd to some innovationsstems from arecognition f thedeclining eturns o labor 14, 15,72, 99, 104, 116, 162).Turner 183) notes that the Tzeltal of Chiapaswill not adopt terracingthough they haverecentlybegun manuring heir fields.While he admitsreturns o laborwithterracing re low, he does not explore he possibilitythat thereturnso labor n traditional orn production re still too highincomparisonwith the labor of terracing.The huge investmentof laborrequired yterracingaisesagain heissueof compulsionnthe intensifica-tion of agriculture eyonda certainpoint (161).Barlett's 14) analysisof caloricreturns o labor rom intensive armingand traditionalwiddenagriculturen CostaRica connects hemacrolevelvariablesand populationpressurewith individualagricultural trategies.Population ncreaseeads o shortened allowperiodswhich n turn owerssoil fertility n the less intensive ystem.Eventually, eturns o laborfromthesetraditionalmethods all lower than the returns o labor n the moreintensive ystem, herebymotivatingarmers o maximize heiryieldsandadoptthe moredifficultarming echniqueswhile still following he law ofleast effort.Two recent studies have refined Boserup'stheory. Rubin'sresearchargues hat climate s a limiting actorand must be added,togetherwiththepoliticalstructure, s a determinant f the people/landratio n under-standingagriculturalistory 161). Smith,as notedabove, inkspopulationdensitywithVonThunen's istance rom he market enter, hough hetwovariables reshownto complementachother,sincepopulations usuallydensestaroundmarket owns,which arein turnusually ocated n denseareas(174, 175).Stratificationn Accessto ResourcesAlongwithincreased ttention o diversitywithinthepeasant ommunity,researchhas alsobegunto explore he effectsof differential ccess to re-sourceson householddecisions.Durhamnotesthat thedistribution f landis more mportanthanoverallpopulationdensity n explaining ifferencesin fertilityandmortality ates n Guatemala67, 68).Barlett 15),Acheson(2), and Rask(157) show that household andresources re a majordeter-minantof different rop mixes and householdproductioncombinations,and DeWalt(62, 64) explainsdifferentialesponse o government gricul-


12/30

PEASANTAGRICULTURALPRODUCTION 555tural nnovation rogramsn thesameway(42, 59, 166).Hildebrand106)describesan unusualagricultural evelopmentprogramn Guatemalanwhich different gronomic ecommendations ere developed or differentsizes of farms n anattempt o workwiththedifferent riorities nd needsofsmall,medium, nd arge armers.Access o landnotonly nfluences ropchoicebutalso the amountof landplanted o eachcrop(13, 15, 38, 43, 44,46, 147). Acheson(2) shows how a family'sresource ombinations eter-minetheirjudgmentof a good nvestment or thoseresources.The conditionsunderwhichfamiliesobtain and for cultivations alsoimportant n the way they use it (96). Landless farmerswho have nosecurityof rentalcan only plantannualcrops, and will not attemptsuchland improvements s ridging,draining,or extensivemanuring 13, 121,181).Evenwhererentalagreements rotectthe tenant's nvestment,pro-ductionstrategies reaffected:Edwards71) notes that bananaproductionon rented andsin Jamaica s less intensive,andreports hattenantscon-sciouslyinvestless labor until theirmarginalcosts are close to half themarginalproductof the labor since he tenantkeepsonlyhalfthe harvest).A particularlyhorough tudy of the effectsof traditional enancyrulescomes fromTakahashi181),for a communitynear Manila n the Philip-pines.Lowproductivity flandandresistance oagriculturalmprovementsare linkedto the very highrate of tenancy.Tenants,who are indebted otheir andlords, ftento thepointthat theirtotal shareof the harvestwillnotbe sufficientorepay heirdebts,customarily ireother aborersoworktheir ieldswhile heythemselvesworkonothers' ields.Since andlordswillpayhalfthewagesof anyonehiredby a tenant,and sincecreditors annottouch the wage incomeof debtors, or debtrepayment, enantswho needmoneyto liveon reciprocate y hiringeachotherfordaylabor.Efforts oimprove iceproductionwillbenefitprimarilyhelandlord, nd tenantsareconsequentlyeluctant o investmuch careorcapital n theimprovementsavailablen thearea.Landlords,ikewise, eel that returns o theircapitalwillbe higheroutsideof agriculture,ndthus areunwilling o maketheseimprovementshemselves.Thelocationof land n relation o thehouseholdalsoaffectsagriculturaldecisions(64, 128). Epsteinnotes that less productivecropsare chosenamongfarmers n south India who inherit land in distantvillages(72).Edwards iscusseshesameneed orsupervisionf tomato ields nJamaica(71). Whetherowned or rented, and plots in diverse ocationspermitavarietyofcrops o begrownandspread nvironmentalisks 22, 71, 72, 121,128, 144, 146, 198).Capitalresources reusuallycloselylinked withaccess to landin mostof theareasstudied.DeWalt 62, 64)illustrates ow land andcapitalaffectlanduse decisions.Whendividedntoquartiles asedonwealth, he farmers


13/30

556 BARLETTin a Mexicanejidoadopteda new foddercropat the ratesof 0%, 15%,13%, and 45% respectively.Thisrisky new land use required ignificantamountsof cash on hand,and creditwas not available, husdiscouragingall but the wealthiest armers.Althoughprofitsaveragedone thirdmorethan othercropoptions, oddercropswerenot a reasonable ptionfor allmembers f thecommunity, uenot to peasant raditionalismr conserva-tism butto riskand scarcecapital.Creditavailability nd capitalresourceswerealsoseenby Edwards 71), Nash (135),Perrin&Winkelmann153),and Rochin(158) to inhibitadoptionof new agriculturalechnology.Nationalinequalitiesn resourcedistributionhave been discussedbysomeauthorsasbiasing he kindsof newagriculturalechnologydeveloped(29, 61, 118). Largecommercialarmersand ranchersarebetter able toexploitgovernmentoliciesandbecauseheyhavemore nfluence nexper-imentstations,newtechnology eveloped herebenefits hemmore hantheless influential mall farmers.Increasingattentionhas also been given in recent years to risk anduncertaintyn agricultural ecisions 38, 41, 77, 129, 135, 148-150, 153,160, 170, 195,196),andresearchhas shown that householdresources recloselyconnectedwiththe responses o riskyor uncertain hoices.Schluter& Mount(170) foundin one Indiandistrictthat thoughgroundnuts reboth moreprofitable nd morelabor ntensive, amilieswitha high work-er/landratio preferred otton productionbecause t was less risky. Theyfurthernoted that risk was a much greaterfactor for householdswithunirrigated and, but that the high cost of irrigationwas an additionalconstraint n cropchoices; herangeof household esourceshusinteractswith riskfactors.Roumasset160),on the otherhand,found that a risk-neutralmodelpredictsbetterthan thosewhichincluderisk, though Ka-minsky 115)responds y pointing ut thatnoneof themodelsusedpredictsmore than 50%of the variance tudied.Cancian's tudyof Zinacantecocornfarmerswasone ofthe first o linkuncertaintyo theinternal tratifica-tion withinthecommunity 38).His research,ater testedworldwide40),showed that the wealthiestquartile nnovatesmost rapidly,havingmoreresources o investandbeingbetterable to recover, houldthedecisionbea disaster.The owestquartilennovatesheleast,eitherbeingunable orisk[supportingWharton 189)]or refusingo compete 38, p. 142).Lowmiddleranks nnovatemorethanhigh middleranksbecause heyhave lessto lose andare moreanxiousto improve heir economicstatus. Cancianthenprobes he difference etweenrisk anduncertainty 40, 41) andfindsthat nnovations readopted ttwophasesortimeperiods,he earlierphasehaving higheruncertainty.Again, adoptionbehavior s affectedby eco-nomicrankand followsthe patternnotedabovefor the highuncertaintyphasewhilecloselycorrelatingwith rankfor the low uncertainty hase.


14/30

PEASANT GRICULTURALRODUCTION 557Cancian'sworkconcludeshat though ormalmodelsassume armers cton knowledge,n fact,farmersmust often act beforethey can know (41).Ortiz 150) exploreswhatfarmersake nto accountasthey makedecisionsunderuncertainty. hefound hat Paezfarmersdo not actually orecast hefuture,but rather ormulate xpectations f the futurebasedonrecentpastexperience. tudieswhich ake armers obestrictmaximizersmustassumethat their decisions are based on estimatedprobabilities nd that theirrisk-aversionits utility curves.In both cases, Ortiz arguesthat these as-sumptionsareincorrect, incefarmersmaynot even be able to determinethe probability f an outcome(see also 28a).A number of authorshave explored traditionalmechanismsused to

reducerisk. Plantinga varietyof crops (1, 81, 91, 109, 110, 149, 182) orintercropping ithin hesame ields 1, 71, 139, 140)both cushionenviron-mental risk. Laborsharingand food sharingpatternsalso bufferagainsthardtimes (109, 147),while investmentsn socialcapital may be neces-sarynot onlyto reduceriskbut to assureaccessto resources ver thelongrun (28a, 103, 104, 116, 155).The Influenceof HouseholdLaborResourcesAgricultural ecisionsare alsoaffectedby the laborresources vailable othe household 15, 17, 20, 34, 35, 49, 60, 92, 100, 104, 135,139, 171).Theuneven demand or labor duringthe agricultural ycle can resultin un-deremploymentt some timesof the yearand laborshortagesduringpeakdemand 35, 100).In contrast,Edwards 71) maintains hat,in his studyof Jamaicanarming, there s littlescopefor increasing.. familylaborin farming p. 165).Evenif laborscarcity s brief, t putsa premiumon the wise investmentof family abor,andseveral tudiesmeasure he marginalutilityof labor ndifferent ctivities 17, 20, 49, 104).When the Tanzanian armers tudiedby Clayton(49) have to choose betweenweedingcorn or pruningcoffeebushes, he increasen the coffeeharvest s greaterwhenlabor s investedthere,to the chagrinof the agriculturalxtensionagentwho seekshighercornproduction.Lowerreturns o labor n the off seasonare toleratedbymanypeasanthouseholdseeking o maximize eturns o family abor(17,21).Opportunitiesor off-farm mployment lso affectproductiondecisions,especiallywhen returnsperlabor unit arehigherwith wagelabor(2, 44,46, 76, 104, 116,120).Barber11)holds that the low returnso laborbothinoff-farmmploymentndon the farm nRhodesia ontributeoapatternin whichmen alternatebetweenwagelabor and subsistence griculture.Chayanov 43) has provided complexmodelof the interaction f thesevariables-householdabor, andresources, ndagriculturalntensity.His


15/30

558 BARLETTperspective tresses he two-sidednatureof family aboras needs(consum-ers)and resources workers), nd predicts hat the intensityof labor nvest-ment will be determined y the ratiobetween he two (69, 165, 182). Suchan outcome s dependent pona desire or a constant tandard f living 17)and abundant and,and neithercondition s commonamong he countriesof the world today. Chawdhari t al (42) and Alvarez & Andrew (6),however, ind that family needs are the crucial determinant f both theamountof land plantedand responsivenesso price incentives.Moerman(129) and Greenwood 92) note the role of changing amily consumptionstandardsand theireffecton agricultural ecisions, hough this area hasbeen relativelyneglected 95).

Finkler 76) criticizesChayanov'smodel for not includingother scarceresources, uch as capitaland irrigationwater, which clearlyaffectfarmstrategies.Minge-Kalman125, 126),on the other hand,findsChayanov'sperspective seful n understanding hy intensiveberry armingn Europeallowsfamilyfarms o compete uccessfullywith mechanized griculture.Barkley 12) makesa similarpointfor family arms n the U.S. Barlett 17)testsseveralpartsof Chayanov'sheorywithdata romCostaRicaandfindsqualified upport or the hypothesis hat smallerfarms will accept lowerreturns o labor.Larger amilies,however, annotbe shown o accept owerreturns o their laborthoughthey do work more than smaller amilies.Von Rotenhan's esearch 188) n Sukumalandn SouthernTanzania iestogetherChayanov'sheorywithBoserup. n areaswhere and s abundantandpopulation ensity s low, family ncome s foundto varydirectlywiththe laborresources f the household.Whenpopulationdensityrises,how-ever,and landscarcityimits heproductivity f labor, herelationbetweenfamily incomesandfamily size declines n importance.The organization f laborresources utside he family s also an impor-tant factor n some areas.Epstein 72)describeshow theJapanesemethodof riceproductionwas not adopted n south Indiabecause he extra aborof transplantingwould not be repaid o the teamof planterswho receivea fixedwagefortheworkof plantingrice. Farmerswereconstrainedromexertingpressure o try this new plantingmethod becauseof the highdemand ortheseteamsat planting imeandthedangerof beingunable ofindanyonewillingto plantat all. It would be interestingo determinefthe overallpopulation ensityof this areaof India s significantlyelow hatof areaswhichhaveadopted heJapanesemethod.Changesn agriculturaltechnologyn Javaadversely ffectedwage laboropportunities,nd hencefamily ncomes n a similarecologicalsituation 178).Cycles n HouseholdResources nd NeedsBennett 26, 27)elaboratesChayanov's cycleof familysize by seeing hehouseholdand the farm enterprise s two interacting. nits,each with its


16/30

PEASANTAGRICULTURALPRODUCTION 559own separatecycle over time. The results of long-termstudy of theseSaskatchewanarmersand ranchers how a numberof patterns n theseinteractionsand determine hat investmentand capitalization re morelikely to occur at certainphases.Further,householdneedsmay inhibitinvestmentnakey pointofthe enterprise ycleandaccess olandresourcesis a second determinativeariable, hough Bennettstresses he intercon-nectedness f the diverse actorsn the agrifamilyystem. Salamon 168)identifies ourdevelopmentalyclesin farms n Illinois anddemonstratesthatageat firstpurchase f land is thebestpredictor f whichpatternanyone farmerwill conform o.Whileno otherauthorhas describedimilarlydetailedcycles n produc-tion strategies or farms n developing ountries,Ortiz(148) stresses heimportance f the farmcyclein certainagricultural ecisions, uchas thesize of coffeeplantings,whichis decidedonce or at most twiceduringafarmer'sifetime.Netting (136) showsthatfamilyneedsaffect and use atdifferentphases-such as the plantingof large quantitiesof eleusineforgruel by one man with many smallchildren.Symes (180) notesthat theproductivityof Irish farms is loweredby an unresponsive and market,whichwouldallowfluctuationsn family aborresourceso be matchedbyfarmsize. Edwards71), andFriedrich 81) discussthe adverseeffectsofinheritance atterns n thedevelopment f thefarmand theadjustment fland and laborresources ver the familycycle.IndividualVariation,Values,and the InteractionofStrategiesRelativelyittle attentionhas beengiven recently o the roleof personalityvariablesn productiondecisions.This neglectmay be a reaction o thetendencyof past studies of personalityand individualcharacteristicsoblame he victim by failingto see all the constraintsn operation 64).Whilesomeresearchers avenoted ndividual ifferencesnlabor ntensity,skills,or entrepreneurship13, 21, 22, 72, 108),thesedifferences aveingeneralnot been foundto be determinative.Personalvaluesandattitudes rerejected s causalvariables yAshcraft(9), Peacock(151), andSimmons 173). Moermanconcludes hat often,differencesn householdcompositionand personality o mergethat it isimpossible o saywhich is paramount 129, p. 147).Berry(28) expecteddifferencesn economic ntrepreneurshipmongNigerian ocoa farmers oreflectpersonality ifferences ndreligiouspreferences, ut found insteadthatthedeclineofexportpalmproducts ndthedemobilization f warriorsat the end of the YorubaWarsprovided he impetus o pushyoungmeninto experimentingwithnew cashcropssuch as cocoa.Greenwood92)concludeshat theyoungergeneration f Basque arm-ers is abandoninghighly profitable nd commercializedamilyfarms to


17/30

560 BARLETTfollow the Basque raditionof collectivenobility and dignity in work.Preferringwage labor in factories,at a lower standardof living, thesechildrenof dairyandvegetable armersare unwilling o followtheir par-ents'occupation,whichhas forcedmany n the eldergenerationo sell theirfarms. Greenwood'smethodologycomparesan averageyear's pay in afactorywith the average arm family'syearly earnings,but he does notcalculate the labor investmentnecessary o obtain these sums, nor theintensityof labor.Withhis reference o 18-hourdays of workon vegetablefarms n the peakseasonof July and Augustand high laborcosts in sellingas well as producing,he suggestions strong hat Chayanovianalculationsmay prove lluminating.On the otherhand, Greenwoodmay be rightthat

cultures more haneconomics ndthe upwardmobilityof life in the citymay outweigh he loss in family ncome.Valuesthatare sharedby the communityor by groupswithinthe com-munitycan be seento be the outcomeof pastadaptiveprocesses.Especiallyin maintaininghe uniqueadaptations f ethnicgroups,valuescan play animportant olein agricultural ecisions.The religiousbeliefsof the Cana-dianHutterites, or nstance, reshownby Bennett 24) to motivatea lowerlevelof consumptionhan hatof theirneighbors, nd thustoallowa higherrate of reinvestmentn the enterprise.The competitiveadvantage f suchastrategy asshownbythecyclicalexpansion fHutterite ommunities ndlands) llustrates ow the strategies hosenby one personor group nfluencethe decision-makingnvironment f others.Berryand otherscriticizemuchdecision-makingesearchorfailingtorecognize hat farmchoicesare not made ndependentlyf each othernorindependently f the decisionsmade by others (28a, 41, 114). Cummings'research nmiracle iceproductionnVietnamprovides n excellent xam-ple (57). Traditionalloating ice was completely eplacedby high-yieldingvarietiesnonly3 years,becausehecropping ycleof thenew ricevarietiesleft fieldsfallowduringthe main floodingseason.Sincethese innovativefarmersdid not tend theirfieldsat these floodtimes,waterhyacinthwentunchecked, nddebrisandstrong loodcurrentsno longerslowedbysolidplantingsof rice) damagedhe traditional icecropsof the other farmers.When one thirdof the fieldswere fallow(fromHYV adopters),nearlyallfarmers ad some oss to theirharvests nd some ostmore hanhalf.Whenhalf the fields werein HYV, traditionalrice productionwas no longerprofitableor anyone.Williams 194)documents imilarpressures n farmersn Mexicofromthe irrigation ycle,whichperpetuates ugarcanemonocroppingsee also116, 128).Orlove 143)discussesa situationn which communalandsandpasturesn Peruareexploitedorlong-termustained ields, huscontrast-ing with Hardin's 101) pessimisticview of the commonsand Eckholm's


18/30

PEASANTAGRICULTURALPRODUCTION 561(70) recital of short-term gricultural ecisions'effectson the long-termviabilityof resources see also 93, 119). These authorselaborate he oftenimplicit feedbackprocesses hat productiondecisionshave on the largesystemand the decision-makingnvironment f others.Collier 52) elaborates ow the subsistence trategies fdifferent ommu-nities in one regionof Mexicoare basedon the uniqueresource ombina-tionsavailable o each.He then follows the implications f these differentstrategiesor the standard f living, amily ize, age of marriage,nheritancepractices,and kinshippatternsof the communties.By showinghow theseeffect environmental uality,he points out the long-termmplications fcurrentadaptationsor futureproductionpossibilities.SCOPEAND METHOD OF RESEARCHResearch n peasantproduction trategies asbeencharacterized y a widerangeof goalsandof methodsused o achieve hosegoals.Moststudieshavefocusedprimarilynindividual ouseholdswithina community r a groupof communities44), thoughsome havetakena moreregional ocus(52,53). Manyresearchers ave tried to understand ecisionsat one pointintime (84), while othershave taken a longer-range, iachronicperspective(28). Each of theseperspectives resents ts own measurementssues.Inunderstandinggriculturalhoices, hereare alsodivergent esearch oals:todeterminehe farmers' wn conceptions f whatthey aredoingandwhy,to study these decisions rom an outsiders'perspective, r to combine hetwo goals.These issues will be explored n turn.For the most part, researchon agricultural trategiesassumes hat theactorsaremale; he roleof women s seldomnoted and evenmore rarelyexplored.Thoughmostresearchers, henasked,willagree hat someof thefarmers hey studiedwerewomen, languageand research ocus tends toimply that thereare no womenfarmersor decisionmakers.Knight (1 17)is unusually orthright y mentioning hatwomencontrolcertainagricul-turalspheres n Tanzaniabut he could not talk with them about theirdecisions.Mueller133)andSalamon&Keim(167)discusswomen'spowerintheagriculturaletting.Ashraf 10) andMoock 130)discusswomenandagricultural roductionromsurveydata;Moock'sdatashowthatwomen'sfieldsnKenyaareasproductivesmen's,but with fewercapital nputsandmore labor.Wilkening& Bharadwaj 191, 192)and Sawer(169) discussfarmwomen nthe UnitedStates.Currens'58) analysisof innovations ndchangenriceproductionnnorthwestLiberia ncludeswomen nhisstudyas a naturaloutcomeof the sexualdivisionof laborand resourcesseealso177).


19/30

562 BARLETTMeasurement f VariablesResearcherswho struggle o determine he importance f the diversevari-ablesthat affecthousehold trategieshave found accuratemeasurement fthese variables imilarlydifficult. n peasant ocieties, andquantity s theeasiest o specify,and some researchers ave verified he measurements ffields (13, 38, 44, 92, 109). Labor is more difficult o measure, houghJohnson 112),refiningErasmus' 73) earlierwork,has developed methodof spotobservations t random imes whichgenerates n estimateof laborinvestment n variousactivities.Hatch (105) is unusually horough n de-scribing he minutedetailsof cornproductionn coastalPeruand measuressome of the diversityn thesepractices.In orderto evaluate he returnsor profitability f different griculturaloutcomes,Chibnik 45) argues hat production or household onsumptionis more accurately aluedat its purchaseprice,not its saleprice.Calcula-tions often used by economists o determineprofitability nd returns odifferent esources re shownby Barlett 16) to sometimesdistort armers'decisionsby leavingout important riteria rom their own assessments fdifferent ptions.Her datafromCostaRica supportChayanovian eturns-to-labor calculationsas more useful in predictingagricultural hoices.Acheson (2) finds the reverse, that ganancia calculationsof Mexicanhouseholds an leadto unprofitablenvestment ecisions, houghhiscalcu-lationsare aimedat a normative ssessment f decisionsaswell as descrip-tion. Bennett (26, 27) uses panelsof collaborators nd surveydata tocomparewithinformants' wn conceptions f farmmanagementtyleandquality.Cancian38)and DeWalt(64)likewiseavoidproblems f measur-ing householdwealthby arbitrarilyutting he communitynto fourranks,verifiedby informants' erceptions s well as their own.The Useof Modelsand the Role of CognitionModels borrowed romeconomicsand accountinghave been used by anumberof researcherso try to understandhe behaviorof farmers 65,151).Production unctions ndfactoranalysis, ommonamongeconomistsandgeographers,renow usedoccasionally y anthropologistsswell(64,74-76, 92, 117).Internal ateof returncalculations2), game heory 116),event-matchingr gamblingmodels(116), and Shackle's heoryof focusloss and focusgain (32, 148)have been used in the literature.Otherre-searchershave been less successful n being able to use surveydata tounderstand uraldynamics 11, 23, 54, 56, 69, 131, 134, 151, 185)oftenfrom he lackof the farmers' ointof viewandan ethnographicontextwithwhichto interpret urveyresults.Gladwin(86) critiques he use of these decisionmodelsfor beingableonlyto determine owclosely he behavior tudied onformso researchers'


20/30

PEASANTAGRICULTURALPRODUCTION 563assumptions boutfarmers;he stresses hat such modelscannotdiscoverconstraints r variables hat the researcher as not anticipated 7, 12, 37,185). Othersecho this concernby pointingout the extent to which manytools of economicsarenormative,designed o recommend dealpractices(from the criteriaof the economist),rather than to describe he actualpractices f farmers ndtheircriteriaof choice(17, 41, 114).Johnson 114)alsocautions hat formalmodelsof behavior equirewoassumptionshatcannotbe met: first, that the human mind works like a computer,whenthere s evidence hat it does not, and second, hat inputs ntothedecisionprocess can be simplifiedand approximatedwhen in fact each factor isvastlymorecomplex hanthe computerwill allow. The reductionof thiscomplexityof real life situations, ogetherwith the valuesoperationalizedin the models 88, 159),means hat the modelingprocess s inevitably rudeandneeds the broadstrokesof ethnography.Thesepointsalso relate o the extentto whichresearch eeksto describethe decisionprocessand ts constraintsromthe farmer's wnpointof viewortodescribet fromanoutsider's robserver's erspective.C.H. Gladwin(87) has developed theoryof choicewhichmodelswhat s reallygoingonin farmers'heads. Starting rom the perspective hat real-lifedecisionsinvolve implifying euristics see also 150),Gladwinpostulates two-stageprocess.In Stage I, alternativesare eliminated n a manner similar toTversky's limination y aspects 184). In StageII, ordered lternatives repassed hroughunordered onstraintsfromtheenvironmentr the socialcontext).Thehighestordered lternativehatpassesall constraintss cho-sen.Thistheory s testedby developingreediagramsorspecificdecisionsina number flocations 85-87) andthentesting hediagrams n aseparatesampleof the population.The modelsare shown to predict 85-95% offarmers'choices. Whether he constraintsand nodesin the decisiontreecome from informants'tatements r the observer's ypothesess not im-portant o longas thevariables cut hesample ntodivergent roupsandso long as the modelpredicts 85, 87).H. Gladwin&Murtaugh88)refine histheoryby developingheconceptof preattention, defined as information processing which lies outside ofordinary ttention ndawareness.Decisionsandpartsofdecisionsnevery-daylife lie inthepreattentivephere,andthereasoning ehind herejectionof innovationsor the allocationof resourcesmay similarilybe foundinfarmers'preattentive rocesses.Farmerscan talk aboutthese issues whenasked (therebymovingthe decisioninto the attentivesphere),but theauthorssuggestthat someresearcherswho have concluded hat peasantsaretradition-boundnd conservativemayhaveneglected o explorepreat-tentive factors. Further,for agricultural echnologyto be successfullyadopted, t must take accountof these preattentive riteria.Hildebrand


21/30

564 BARLETT(106)reasons imilarly,arguing hattechnologymustbe developedbasedon the farmers' assessmentof his or her scarce resources,not theagronomist's.Hanksprovidesan example,notingthe resistanceo tractorcultivationn Thailand n spiteof the increase n plantingspeedbecausespeedsnotnecessarily seful 99,p. 54). Likewise,Gladwin& Murtaugh(88) suggest hat the preattentive ssumptions f socialscientistscan leadto erroneousmodelsand measurementsf farmers'behavior.Anotherperspective n the issue of cognition s presentedby Chibnik(46), whoargues hat n situationswhere t is difficulto elicitfarmers' ulesof choice,or in realmsof human ife whereno clearrules exist (152),thestatisticalbehaviorapproachs preferable.His methodology omparesdi-vergentbehavioral utcomesand then attempts o constructa statisticalprofileof the relevantvariables hat determinehoseoutcomes.Variablescanbederivedrom nformants'tatements,romobservations,r fromtheresearcher'sypotheses.Thisapproachmakesno attempt o postulate hecognitivedecisionprocess f the farmer, utdoesseekto explainandpredictbehavior n the basisof the variablesmeasured 15, 17, 38,62, 111).Whilefarmersn twocommunitiesn Belize cannotthemselves aywhether heirfamilysize or the village heylivein is more mportantn determiningheirallocationof laborbetweencash croppingandwagelabor,Chibnik's46)use of the statistical ehavior pproachhowsthatthe different haracteris-tics of the two villagesdeterminemuchmore of the differences etweenlabor allocations n these households.Thus, the statisticalbehaviorap-proachcan explorebehaviorpatternsand relationships etweenvariablesof whichthe actorsthemselvesare unaware.Barlett 13, 15) andBennett 26, 27) have attemptedo bringthesetwoperspectiveso bearon the samesubject.Barlettexplores armers' ssess-ments of different rop optionsin CostaRica and compares hese emicunderstandings ith statisticalanalysesof thesesame variables.Bennettcomparesolkcategories f managementtylewithsurveydata anddeter-minesthat developers suallyappearn the secondandthirdgenerationof a place, but thatdevelopmentccursonlywhenfamilyneedscoincidewiththe needs of the enterprise.Towardan ImprovedMethodologyA numberof veryfinestudieshave delineated elevantvariables ffectingfarmers'production trategiesand have measured he internalvariationwithinthe community, othin the variables ndin agricultural ecisions.Theyhavenot, however, akenan additional tep to look for patternsofhouseholdson the basisof theirdivergentchoicesand then linkedthesepatternso variationsnthedeterminantariables51,71, 99, 105, 108,121,129, 135, 136, 148, 182). Nash's work providesan example(135). He


22/30

PEASANT GRICULTURALRODUCTION 565discussesthe decisionto plant sesamumas a second crop in highlandBurma,noting the role of rainfall,access to irrigation, ufficient apital,householdcomposition,and price expectations.Some householdshavegreateraccess to capital, while others own land favorably ocated nearirrigation anals, but these variablesare not linked to specificoutcomesregarding easamum roduction.Nash foregoes he opportunity o specifywhichhouseholds aveaccess o capital,viamoneylendersrrelatives, ndthento provethat thesehouseholdsare morelikelyto plantsecondcrops,fromdataon their anduse. Sucha procedurewouldstrengthen is discus-sionof thecropping trategies ndwouldalso leadnaturallyo a discussionof why some householdsdo not have accessto capitalwhile othersdo.

Such a procedure,whilemoving he study of production ecisionsawayfrom any possibledistortionof impressions nd intuition,nevertheless l-lows for the close interaction nd empathywith the farmers tudiedthatis the strength f anthropologicalesearch.As the researcherntuits mpor-tant issueswhichwill elucidate he problem tudied,attention o the mea-surement f variables ndto their nteractionwill move hese ntutionsromthe researcher's reattentive phereto the attentivesphere,where theiraccuracycan be verified.Thisprocedure equiresa willingnesso grapplewith the difficultyof organizinghuman life into measurable arameterswhichcanbeusedto understand ehavior ndadaptationwithoutdenyingthe complexity hat exists.Thispoint echoesCancian 39), who argues hat anthropologicalontri-butionsto ruraldevelopmentffortswill not comeas an analogto dwarfwheator miracle ice.Ourgoal s not to defineyetanother key actor hathas been left out of models so far, but ratherto stressthe complexityofvariables hatcanaffectagriculturaltrategies nddevelop mprovedmeth-odologies or determining,n any one context,which aremoreimportantinunderstandingndpredicting ehavior.Current esearchs movingawayfromaskingyes/no questionsike isrisk mportant? nd isaccess o landthekey? and towardquestionshat seekto definewhenandin whatwayriskand landresources re mportant.Withinsucha perspective,heissuesofcognition,he statistical ehavior pproach, ndtheutilityof modelsandmeasuresromotherfieldscan be evaluated or theircontributionsowardansweringhese kindsof questions.CONCLUSIONHowpeopleproduceood has come to be a subjectof considerablenterestin recentyears,reflecting oth the relative carcityof foodin someworldareasand the growingawarenessof the limits to the global capacitytoabsorbpopulation.Anthropologistsndotherresearchersavemademajor


23/30

566 BARLE1Tstrides n the studyof agricultural roduction trategies,and these newdevelopmentsn understandingroductionprocessesandchangeare nowfeedingbackto refine he generalstudyof humanculturesandsocieties.Through loserattention othe diversitywithinpeasant ommunities,hedelineationof the relevantvariables hat determinedifferentproductionstrategieshasbecomepossible.Combininghe localidiosyncraciesf timeand place with nationaleconomic, politicaland social institutionsandforcespermitsheidentificationf therangeofpossibleproductionhoices.Thehousehold's esources nd needshavebeen shown to haveimportantdeterminativeoles n the choiceprocess,and theoutcomesof pastchoiceshave beenshownto affectboththe decisionsof otherindividuals ndalsothelargernaturalandsocialenvironmentwithinwhich thosedecisionsaremade.Futureresearchs needed o explore helong-rangempactofproductionstrategies ndadaptive rocesses, articularlyn lightof theever-increasingdamage o theworldecosystem ndtherapidpaceof proposedechnologi-cal changes n agriculture.Weneed to exploresuch householdevelques-tions as: to whatextent can householdresourcesbe substituted or eachother?Whencan laborbe substituted or capitalor land?What are theeffects of changinghouseholdneeds and consumptionpatterns?Whatdifference oes it makeif researchaddresses tself eitherto farmers'ownunderstandingsf theirproductiontrategies r to searchoutunconsciouspatternsn agriculturalhoices?Ormustit do both?Whataspectsof theeconomicsystemas a whole are missedby a focus on actorsand theiradaptive trategies?We needmorelong-term esearch o elucidatecyclesin familiesandfarmsand to link themto changinghouseholdneeds,re-sources,anddecisions.We need to understand etterthe householddeci-sionprocessasdifferent ersonalities,exes,andagescontributeo thefinalallocationsof familyresources.As stratificationncreaseswithinpeasantcommunities,withinthe developing ountries,and between he developedand developingnations,we need to know more aboutthe effectsof thisconcentration f resourcesas well as strategiesused to adaptto it andcombat t.The strengthof anthropologicalesearchon agriculturalproductionhas been thatwe talkwithfarmersoverextendedperiodsof time andtryto see the decision-makingnvironmentn all its holistic complexity.This approachmay accountfor some of the fuzziness of our analysesand the diversityof perspectivesused. However,with greaterattentionto carefulmeasurement nd data collection and to demonstratingherelevantvariablesand theirinterrelations,we can move forwardstrong-ly to assert the value of our understandingsf agriculturalproductionstrategies.


24/30

PEASANT AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION 567LiteratureCited

1. Abalu,G. 0. I. 1976. A note on cropmixturesunder indigenous onditionsin NorthernNigeria. J. Dev. Stud.12(3):212-202. Acheson,J.M. 1980.Agriculturalusi-ness choices n a Mexicanvillage.SeeRef. 16, pp. 241-643. Adejuwon, . 0. 1962.Crop-climatee-lationship:The exampleof cocoa inWesternNigeria.Niger.Geogr. . 5(1):21-324. Alberti, G., Mayer, E. 1974. Recip-rocidade Intercambio n los AndesPeruanos. eru: nst.Estud.Peru.PeruProbl.No. 12.260 pp.5. Alland,A. 1970.Adaptationn CulturalEvolution: n Approacho MedicalAn-thropology. ewYork:ColumbiaUniv.Press.205 pp.6. Alvarez,J., Andrew,C. 0. 1977.Sup-ply responseby traditional nd com-merical producersof basic grains inLDC's.South.J. Agric.Econ. July,pp.157-627. Anderson,J. R., Dillon, J. L., Har-daker,J. B. 1977.Agricultural ecisionAnalysis.Ames: owaStateUniv.Press.344pp.8. Argyres,A. 1978. Peasants and theRomanianommandconomy:A socialorganizationalpproach.PresentedatAnn. Meet. Am. Anthropol.Assoc.,77th,Los Angeles.16pp.9. Ashcraft,N. 1973.ColonialismndUn-derdevelopment:rocessesof PoliticalEconomicChange n BritishHonduras.New York: TeachersColl. Press. 180PP.10. Ashraf,M. n.d. Noteson the Role ofRuralPakistaniWomenn Farming nthe N W FrontierProvince.MexicoCity:CIMMYT. pp. (Mimeo)11. Barber,W. J. 1960.Economic ational-ity and behavior atternsn an under-developed rea:A casestudyof Africaneconomicbehavior n the Rhodesias.Econ.Dev. Cult.Change8(3):237-5112. Barkley,P. W. 1976.A contemporarypoliticaleconomyof family farming.Am. J. Agric.Econ.58(5):812-1913. Barlett,P. F. 1975.Agriculturalhangein Paso:Thestructuref decision-mak-ing in a CostaRicanpeasantcommu-nity.PhD thesis.ColumbiaUniv.,NY.250 pp.14. Barlett,P.F. 1976.Labor fficiencyndthe mechanismof agricultural volu-tion.J. Anthropol. es. 32(2):124-4015. Barlett,P. F. 1977.The structure f de-cision makingin Paso. Am. Ethnol.4(2):285-308

16. Barlett,P. F., ed. 1980.Agriculturale-cisionMaking:Anthropologicalontri-butions to Rural Development.NewYork:Academic. n press17. Barlett,P. F. 1980.Cost-benefit naly-sis: A test of alternativemethodologies.SeeRef. 16, pp. 137-6018. Barth,F. 1967.On the study of socialchange.Am Anthropol. 9(6):661-6919. Basehart,H. W. 1973.Cultivationn-tensity,settlement atterns, nd home-stead ormsamong he Matengo f Tan-zania.Ethnology12(1):57-7320. Baum,E. 1968.Landuse in the Kilom-beroValley.See Ref. 162, pp. 23-5021. Beals,A. R. 1974. VillageLifeinSouthIndia: CulturalDesign and Environ-mental Variation.ArlingtonHeights,Ill: AHM Publ. 189pp.22. Beardsley,R. K., Hall,J.W.,Ward,R.E. 1959. Village apan.Univ.ChicagoPress.498 pp.23. Benito,C. A. 1976.Peasants' esponseto modernizationrojectsn minifundiaeconomies.Am J. Agric.Econ. 58(2):143-5124. Bennett,J. W. 1969. NorthernPlains-men:AdaptiveStrategyand AgrarianLife. Chicago:Aldine. 352pp.25. Bennett,J. W. 1976. The EcologicalTransition:CulturalAnthropologyndHumanAdaptation.New York:Perga-mon. 378 pp.25a. Bennett, . W. 1976.Anticipation,d-aptation,and the conceptof culture.Science 192:847-5326. Bennett, .W. 1980.Managementtyle:A conceptandamethod orthe analysisof family-operatedgricultural nter-prise.See Ref. 16, pp. 203-3727. Bennett,J. W. 1980.Of Timeand theEnterprise: arm Management s anAdaptive ystem n theNorthAmericanAgrifamily.Minneapolis: niv. Minn.Press.In press28. Berry,S. S. 1975.Cocoa,Custom, ndSocio-Economichangen Rural West-ernNigeria New York:OxfordUniv.Press.240 pp.28a. Berry,S.S. 1980.Decisionmaking ndpolicy makingin ruraldevelopment.

See Ref. 16, pp. 319-3529. Bieri, J., de Janvry,A., Schmitz,A.1972.Agriculturalechnologyand thedistribution f welfare gains. Am. J.Agric.Econ. 54:801-830. Biggs,H. H., Tinnermeier, . L., eds.1974.SmallFarmAgricultural evelop-ment Problems.Fort Collins: Colo.StateUniv. 168pp.


25/30


26/30

PEASANT AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION 56962. DeWalt, B. R. 1975. Inequalities nwealth, adoptionof technology,andproduction n a MexicanEjido.Am.Ethnol.2(1):149-6863. DeWalt,B. R. 1978.Appropriateech-nology in ruralMexico:Antecedentsand consequencesof an indigenouspeasant innovation. Technol. Cult.19(1):32-5264. DeWalt,B. R. 1979.ModernizationnaMexicanEjido.New York:CambridgeUniv. Press.301pp.65. Dillon,J. L.,Heady,E. 0. 1960.Theo-riesof choice nrelation o farmer eci-sions.IowaStateUniv.Agric.Exp.Stn.Bull. 485. 24 pp.66. Drucker, C. B. 1977.To inherittheland:Descentanddecisionn NorthernLuzon.Ethnology 1(1):1-2067. Durham,W. H. 1977.Scarcity ndsur-vival:Theecological riginsof conflictbetweenEl Salvadorand Honduras.PhD thesis. Univ. Mich.,Ann Arbor.300 pp.68. Durham,W. H. 1979.Scarcity ndSur-vival in CentralAmerica:EcologicalOriginsof the Soccer War. StanfordUniv. Press.209pp.69. Dutia, B. P. 1957.Theoryof choiceofproducts by a cash cum subsistencegrower. ndianEcon.J 5(2):215-2170. Eckholm,E. P. 1976.Losing Ground:Environmentaltressand WorldFoodProspects.New York:Norton.223 pp.71. Edwards,D. 1961.Reporton an Eco-nomic Study of Small Farming inJamaica.Glasgow:MacLehose,Univ.Press. 370 pp.72. Epstein,T. S. 1962.EconomicDevelop-mentand SocialChange n S. India.ManchesterUniv.Press.353 pp.73. Erasmus,C. J. 1967.Culture hange nNorthwest Mexico. In ContemporaryChange in TraditionalSocietiesIII:Mexican and PeruvianCommunities,ed. J. H. Steward, p. 3-129. Urbana:Univ. Ill. Press.302pp.74. Finkler,K. 1978.Fromsharecroppersto entrepreneurs: easant householdproduction trategiesunderthe Ejidosystem of Mexico. Econ. Dev. Cult.Change27:103-2075. Finkler,K. 1979.Applying conomet-

ric techniques to economic anthro-pology.Am. Ethnol.6(4):675-8176. Finkler,K. 1980.Agrarian eformandeconomicdevelopment:When sa land-lord a clientanda sharecropperispa-tron?SeeRef. 16,pp. 265-8077. Fogg,D. C. 1965.Agriculturalnd so-cialfactorsaffectinghedevelopmentfsmallholder griculturen easternNi-

geria. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change13:278-9278. Forman,S., Riegelhaupt, . F. 1970.Marketplace and marketing ystem:Towarda theoryof peasanteconomicintegration.Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist.12:188-21279. Fox, J. J. 1977. Harvestof the Palm:EcologicalChangenEastern ndonesiaCambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.290 pp.80. Franke,R. W. 1974.Miracle eedsandshattereddreamsin Java. Nat. Hist.83:1(Jan.)81. Freidrich,K. H. 1968.Coffee-bananaholdingsat Bukoba: he reasonsforstagnationat a higher level. See Ref.162, pp. 175-21282. Geertz, C. 1963.Agriculturalnvolu-tion. Berkeley/Los Angeles: Univ.Calif.Press.176pp.83. Gerhart, . 1975.TheDiffusion f Hy-bridMaize n WesternKenya.MexicoCity: CIMMYTabridgedversion.57PP.84. Gladwin,C.H. 1976.A viewof theplanpuebla:An application f hierarchicaldecisionmodeIs.Am. J. Agric.Econ.58:881-8785. Gladwin,C. H. 1979.Productionunc-tionsanddecisionmodels.Am. Ethnol.6(4):653-7486. Gladwin,C. H. 1979.Cognitive trate-gies and adoptiondecisions:A casestudyof nonadoption f an agronomicrecommendation.Econ. Dev. Cult.Change28(1):155-7487. Gladwin,C. H. 1980.A theoryof real-life choices:Applicationsoagriculturaldecisions.See Ref. 16, pp.45-85.88. Gladwin,C. H., Murtaugh,M. 1980.The attentive/preattentiveistinctionin agrcultural decision making.SeeRef. 16,pp. 115-3689. Gleave,M.B.,White,H. P. 1969.Pop-ulationdensityandagriculturalystemsin West Africa. In Environment ndLand Use nAfrica,ed.M. F. Thomas,G. W. Whittington, p. 273-300. Lon-don:Methuen.554pp.90. Goodfellow,D. M. 1950.Principles fEconomicSociology.London: Rout-ledge.289 pp.

91. Gould,P. R. 1963.Managainsthis en-vironment:A game theoretic frame-work.InEnvironmentnd CulturalBe-havior,ed. A. P. Vayda,pp. 234-51.GardenCity,NY: Nat.Hist. Press.485PP.92. Greenwood,D. J. 1976. UnrewardingWealth: The CommercializationndCollapseof Agriculturen a Spanish


27/30

570 BARLETTBasque Town.New York:CambridgeUniv. Press.223 pp.93. Gross,D. R., Underwood,B. A. 1971.Technologicalhangeandcaloric osts:Sisalagriculturen northeasternrazil.Am. Anthropol. 3:(3):725-4094. Gudeman, . 1978.TheDemise fa Ru-ralEconomy: romSubsistenceo Capi-talism in a Latin American Village.Boston:Routledge& KeganPaul. 176PP.95. Halperin,R. 1977. Introduction: hesubsistence conomy n peasantsoci-eties. See Ref.97, pp. 1-1696. Halperin,R. 1977. RedistributionnChanKom:A case for Mexicanpoliti-cal economy.See Ref.97, pp. 79-8596a. Halperin,R. 1980.Newandoldin eco-nomicanthropology.m.Anthropol.npress97. Halperin,R., Dow, J., eds. 1977.Peas-antLivelihood:tudiesnEconomic n-thropologynd CulturalEcology.NewYork:St. Martin's. 32 pp.98. Halpern, .M. 1958.ASerbianVillage.New York:ColumbiaUniv.Press.146PP.99. Hanks, L. M. 1972. Rice and Man.Chicago:Aldine.174pp.100. Hansen,B. 1969. Wagesand employ-ment nEgypt.Am.Econ.Rev. 59:298-313 (June)101. Hardin,G. 1977. Managing he Com-mons. San Franscisco:Freeman.294PP.102. Harner,M. J. 1970.Populationpres-sureandthe socialevolution f agricul-turalists. Southwest. J Anthropol.26:67-86103. Harris,A. 1972.Someaspectsof agri-culture n Taita.In PopulationGrowth:Anthropological imitations, ed. B.Spooner, p.180-89.Cambridge,Mass:MITPress.25 pp.104. Haswell,M. 1973. TropicalFarmingEconomics.London:Longman. 74pp.105. Hatch,J. K. 1976.TheCornFarmers fMotupe:A Studyof Traditional arm-ingPracticesn NorthernCoastalPeru.Land TenureCent. Monogr.,No. 1.Madison:Univ.Wis.246 pp.106. Hildebrand, . E. 1977.SocioeconomicConsiderationsn Multiple CroppingSystems.Guatemala:nst.Cienc.Tech-nol.Agric.SectorPublicoAgric.22pp.(Mimeo)107. Hill,P. 1970.MigrantCocoa armersnSouthern Ghana New York: Cam-bridgeUniv. Press.265 pp.108. Johnson,A. W. 1971.Sharecroppersfthe Sertaa StanfordUniv. Press. 153PP.

109. Johnson,A. W. 1971.Security ndrisk-takingamongpoorpeasants.n Studiesin EconomicAnthropology,d. G. Dal-ton, pp. 144-51. Am. Anthropol.As-soc. Anthropol.Stud.No. 7. 242 pp.110. Johnson,A. W. 1972. ndividualityndexperimentationn traditional gricul-ture.Hum. Ecol. 1:149-59111. Johnson,A. W. 1974. Ethnoecologyand plantingpracticesn a swiddenag-riculturalystem.Am.Ethnol.1(1):87-101112. Johnson,A. W. 1975.Time allocationin a Machiguenga ommunity.Eth-nology 14(3):301-10113. Johnson,A. W. 1978.QuantificationnCulturalAnthropology.tanfordUniv.Press.231 pp.114. Johnson,A. W. 1980.Thelimitsof for-malism in agriculturaldecision re-search.SeeRef. 16, pp. 17-43114a. Johnson,G. L.,Halter,A. N., Jensen,H. R., Thomas,D. W., eds. 1961.AStudy of ManagerialProcessof Mid-westernFarmers.Ames: Iowa StateUniv.Press.221 pp.115. Kaminsky, M. 1979. Comment toRoumasset.SeeRef. 185,pp. 65-68116. Kirkby,A. 1973.The use of land andwaterresourcesn thepastandpresentvalleyof Oaxaca,Mexico.Mem.Mus.Anthropol.No. 5. Ann Arbor:Univ.Mich. 174 pp.117. Knight, C. G. 1974. Ecology andChange.NewYork:Academic. 00pp.118. Lipton,M. 1977.WhyPoorPeopleStayPoor.Cambridge,Mass:HarvardUniv.Press.467 pp.119. Margolis,M. 1977.Historicalperspec-tiveson frontier gricultures anadap-tivestrategy.Am. Ethnol.4(1):42-64119a. McCay,B. J. 1978. Systemsecology,people cology,and heanthropologyffishingcommunities.Hum. Ecol. 6(4):397-422120. McHenry,D. E. Jr.1973.The utilityofcompulsion n the implementation fagriculturalolicies:A casestudy romTanzania. Can. J. Afr. Stud. 7(2):305-16121. Mencher,J. 1978.Agriculturend So-cial Structure in Tamilnadu:PastOrigins,Present Transformations,ndFuture Prospects.Durham:CarolinaAcademicPress.314pp.122. Messenger, . C. 1969. nisBeag: sleofIreland. New York:Holt, Rinehart&Winston.136pp.123. Messerschmidt, . A. 1976.Ecologicalchangeandadaptation mong he Gu-rungsof the Nepal Himalaya.Hum.Ecol. 4(2):167-85


28/30

PEASANTAGRICULTURALPRODUCTION 571124. Miller,R. 1974.Are familistsamoral?A testof Banfield's moralamilism y-pothesis n a SouthItalianvillage.Am.Ethnol. 1:515-35125. Minge-Kalman,W. J. 1977.On the the-ory andmeasurementfdomesticaborintensity.Am.Ethnol.4(2):273-84126. Minge-Kalman,W.J. 1977.Familypro-ductionand reproductionn industrialsociety:A field studyof changesduringthepeasant o workerransitionn Eu-rope.PhDthesis.ColumbiaUniv.,NY.128pp.127. Miracle,M. P. 1968. Subsistence gri-culture :Analyticalproblemsand al-ternative oncepts.Am.J. Agric.Econ.

50:292-310128. Mitchell,W. P. 1977.Irrigation arm-ingintheAndes:Evolutionarymplica-tions.See Ref. 97, pp. 36-59129. Moerman, M. 1968. AgriculturalChangeand PeasantChoice n a ThaiVillage.Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press.227 pp.130. Moock,P. R. 1973. The efficiency fwomenas farmmanagers:Kenya.Am.J. Agric.Econ.58(5):831-35131. Moock,P. R. 1978.Education ndtech-nical efficiencyn smallfarm produc-tion. Presentedat Comp. Int. Educ.Soc. Ann.Meet.,MexicoCity132. Morgan,W. T. W. 1972.The WhiteHighlands f Kenya.See Ref. 156133. Mueller,M. 1977.Womenand men,powerandpowerlessnessn Lesotho. nWomen ndNationalDevelopment:heComplexitiesf Change,ed. WellesleyEd.Comm.,pp.154-66.Univ.ChicagoPress.346 pp.134. Mwamufiya,M.,Fitch,J.B. n.d. LaborUsePatternsforheProductionfMaizein SouthernZaire.MexicoCity:CIM-MYT. 11pp.135. Nash, M. 1965. The GoldenRoad toModernity:VillageLife in Contempo-raryBurma New York:Wiley.333pp.136. Netting,R. McC. 1968.HillFarmers fNigeria:CulturalEcology f theKofyarof theJosPlateau.Seattle:Univ.Wash.Press.259 pp.137. Netting,R. McC. 1969.Ecosystemsnprocess:A comparativetudyofchangein two WestAfrican ocieties. n Eco-logicalEssays,ed. D. Damas,pp. 102-12.Nat. Mus.Can.Bull.230138. Netting, R. McC. 1974. Agrarianecology.Ann.Rev.Anthropol. :21-56139. Norman,D. W. 1971. nitiating hangein traditional griculture. gric.Econ.Bull.Afr. 13:31-52140. Norman, D. W. 1974. Rationalizingmixedcroppingunder ndigenous on-

ditions:The exampleof N. Nigeria.J.Dev. Stud. 11(l):3-21141. Norman,D. W. 1977.Economic atio-nality of traditional Hausa drylandfarmersn the northof Nigeria.SeeRef.176, pp. 63-91142. Nukunya,G. K. 1975.Population res-sure, and enure ndagriculturalevel-opment. nPopulation, cology, ndSo-cial Evolution, d. S. Polgar,pp. 191-217. The Hague:Mouton.354 pp.143. Orlove,B. S. 1976.The tragedyof thecommons evisited:Landuse and envi-ronmental uality n high-altitudeAn-dean grasslands. n Hill Lands, pp.208-14. Proc.Int.Symp.,WestVirginiaUniv., Morgantown144. Orlove,B. S. 1977.Integrationhroughproduction:he useof zonationnEspi-nar. Am.Ethnol.4(1):84-101145. Orlove,B. S. 1977.Inequality mongpeasants: heformsandusesof recipro-cal exchangen AndeanPeru.SeeRef.97, pp. 201-14146. Orlove,B. S. 1977.Alpacas,SheepandMen: The WoolExportEconomyandRegional ociety n Southern eru.NewYork:Academic.270 pp.147. Ortiz,S.R. 1967.The structure f deci-sion-makingamong Indians of Co-lombia. In Themes n EconomicAn-thropology, d. R. Firth, pp. 191-228.ASA Monogr.No. 6. 292 pp.148. Ortiz,S.R. 1973. Uncertaintiesn Peas-ant Farming:A ColombianCase. NewYork:HumanitiesPress.294 pp.149. Ortiz,S.R. 1979.Theeffectof riskaver-sion strategies n subsistence ndcashcrop decisions.In Risk, UncertaintyandAgricultural evelopment,d.J.A.Roumasset, pp. 231-46. New York:Agric.Dev. Counc.453 pp.150. Ortiz,S. R. 1980. Forecasts,decisionsand the farmers' esponseo uncertainenvironments. ee Ref. 16,pp. 177-202151. Peacock,D. L. 1972. The adoption fnewagricultural racticesn N. E. Bra-zil:An examinationffarmersdecisionmaking.PhDthesis.Mich.StateUniv.,EastLansing.340 pp.152. Pelto, P. J., Pelto,G. H. 1975. Intra-culturaldiversity:Some theoreticals-sues. Am. Ethnol.2(1):1-18

153. Perrin,R., Winkelmann, . 1976.Im-pediments to technical progressonsmall versus arge arms.Am.J. Agric.Econ. 58(5):888-94154. Polanyi,K. 1957.The economyas in-stitutedprocess. n Tradeand Marketin theEarlyEmpires, d. K. Polanyi,C.Arensberg,H. Pearson, pp. 243-70.New York:FreePress.382 pp.


29/30


30/30

PEASANTAGRICULTURALPRODUCTION 573cultural ntensityn thehumid ropics.Hum.Ecol. 7(3):269-83188. Von Rotenhan,D. 1968.Cotton arm-ingin Sukumaland:ashcropping ndits implications. eeRef. 162,pp. 51-86189. Wharton, C. R. 1971. Risk, uncer-tainty, and the subsistencefarmer:Technological nnovation and resis-tanceto change n the contextof sur-vival.SeeRef. 109, pp. 152-79190. Whitten,N. E. Jr.,Whitten,D. S. 1972.Social strategiesand social relation-ships.Ann. Rev.Anthropol. :247-70191. Wilkening,E. A., Bharadwaj, . 1967.Dimensionsof aspirations,workrolesand decision-makingmonghusbandsand wives in Wisconsin.J. MarriageFam. 29:703-11192. Wilkening,E. A., Bharadwaj, . 1968.Aspirationsnd ask nvolvement sre-lated to decision-makingmong farmhusbands and wives. Rural Soc.33:30-45193. Wilkinson,R. G. 1973. Povertyand

Progress:An EcologicalPerspectivenEconomic Development.New York:Praeger. 25 pp.194. Williams,A. W. Jr. 1970.San IgnacioCuatemoc:A canalirrigating ommu-nityinthe TehuacanValley.Anthropol.Q.43(1):39-54195. Williams,G. 1977. Differentialriskstrategies s cultural tyleamong arm-ers in the LowerChubutValley,Pata-gonia.Am. Ethnol.4:65-83196. Winkelmann, . 1976. TheAdoptionfNewMaize Technologyn PlanPuebla,Mexico. Mexico City: CIMMYT.14PP.197. Wolf,E. R. 1956.SanJose:Subculturesof a traditional offeemunicipality.In ThePeopleof PuertoRico, ed. J. H.Steward, p. 171-264.Urbana:Univ.Il-linoisPress.540 pp.198. Yang,M. C. 1945.A ChineseVillage:Taitou,Shantung rovince.New York:ColumbiaUniv.Press.275 pp.

Documents

Barlett. Adaptative Strategies