¹ Smith, Joan, Wallerstein, Immanuel and Evers, Hans-Dieter (eds.), Households and the World Economy (Beverly Hills, 1984).Google Scholar

² Janvry, Alain de, The Agrarian Question and Reformism in Latin America (Baltimore, 1981).Google Scholar

³ Deere, Carmen and Wasserstrom, Robert, ‘Ingreso Familiar y Trabajo no Agrícola entre los Pequeños Productores de América Latina y El Caribe’, in Novoa, A. R. and Posner, J. L. (eds.), Agricultura de Ladera en América Tropical: Informe Técnico No. 11 (Turrialba, Costa Rice, 1981), pp. 151–67.Google Scholar

⁴ de Janvry, The Agrarian Question and Reformism.

⁵ Maclachlan, Morgan D., ‘From Intensification to Proletarianization’, in Maclachlan, M. D. (ed.), Household Economies and their Transformations: Monographs in Economic Anthropology, No. 3 (Lanham, 1987), pp. 1–27.Google Scholar

⁶ Heynig, Klaus, ‘The Principal Schools of Thought on the Peasant Economy’, CEPAL Review, vol. 16, 04 (1982), pp. 113–40.Google Scholar

⁷ See Lehmann, H., ‘After Chayanov and Lenin: New Paths of Agrarian Capitalism’, Journal of Development Economics, vol. 11 (1982), pp. 133–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stavenhagen, R., ‘Basic Needs, Peasants, and the Strategy for Rural Development’, in Nerfin, M. (ed.), Another Development: Approaches and Strategies (Uppsala, 1977).Google Scholar

⁸ Bartra, Roger, Estructura Agraria y Clases Sociales en México (Mexico City, 1974).Google Scholar

⁹ Janvry, Alain de and Vandeman, Ann, ‘Patterns of Proletarianization in Agriculture: an International Comparison’, in Maclachlan, M. D. (ed.), Household Economies and their Transformations, pp. 28–73Google Scholar; Heynig, ‘The Principal Schools of Thought on Peasant Economy’.

¹⁰ de Janvry and Vandeman, ‘Patterns of Proletarianization’.

¹¹ Maclachlan, ‘From Intensification to Proletarianization’.

¹² Brush, Stephen, ‘Who Are Traditional Farmers?’, in Maclachlan, (ed.), Household Economies and their Transformations, pp. 143–54.Google Scholar

¹³ Heynig, ‘The Principal Schools of Thought on the Peasant Economy’; Stavenhagen, Rodolfo, ‘Capitalism and the Peasantry in Mexico’, Latin American Perspectives, vol. 5 (1978), pp. 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴ Roseberry, William, Coffee and Capitalism in the Venezuelan Andes (Austin, 1983).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Boyer, Jefferson C., ‘Agrarian Capitalism and Peasant Praxis in Southern Honduras’, unpubl. PhD diss., University of North Carolina, 1982Google Scholar; Stares, Rodney, La Economía Campesina en la zona Sur de Honduras: 1950–1970 (Choluteca, Honduras: Prepared for the Bishop of Choluteca, 1972)Google Scholar; Stonich, Susan C., ‘Development and Destruction: Interrelated Ecological, Socioeconomic, and Nutritional Change in Southern Honduras’, unpubl. PhD diss., University of Kentucky, 1986Google Scholar; White, Robert, ‘The Adult Education Program of Acción Cultural Popular Hondureña: an Evaluation of the Rural Development Potential of the Radio School Movement in Honduras’, St Louis University, 1972Google Scholar; White, Robert, ‘Structural Factors in Rural Development: the Church and the Peasant in Honduras’, unpubl. PhD diss., Cornell University, 1977.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Stonich, Susan C., ‘The Dynamics of Social Processes and Environmental Destruction: a Central American Case Study’, Population and Development Review, vol. 15, no. 2 (1989), pp. 269–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stonich, Susan C. and DeWalt, Billie R., ‘The Political Economy of Agricultural Growth and Rural Transformations in Honduras and Mexico’, in Reeves, E. and Smith, S. (eds.), Human Systems Ecology: Studies in the Integration of Political Economy, Adaptation, and Socionatural Regions (Boulder, 1989), pp. 202–30Google Scholar; Stonich, Susan C., ‘Lands and People in Peril: Ecological Transformation and Food Security in Honduras’, in Ferguson, A. and Whiteford, S. (eds.), Harvest of Want: the Quest for Food Security in Central America and Mexico (Boulder, in press).Google Scholar

¹⁷ For a thorough discussion of the human systems ecology paradigm see Bennett, John, The Ecological Transition: Cultural Anthropology and Human Adaptation (New York, 1976Google Scholar) and Bennett, , ‘The Micro-Macro Nexus: Typology, Process, and System’, in DeWalt, B. and Pelto, P. (eds.), Micro and Macro Levels of Analysis in Anthropology: Issues in Theory and Research (Boulder, 1985), pp. 23–54Google Scholar. The phrase ‘human systems ecology’ was introduced in 1979 by Dan Rose, an anthropologist with the Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning at the University of Philadelphia. Bennett would concede that he is not the first nor the only anthropologist to be concerned with hierarchical institutional systems—although there is widespread disagreement as to what constitutes a system in sociocultural terms. Bennett's paradigm of human systems ecology holds a middle ground between more ‘idealistic’ understandings of systems (e.g., Leach, Edmund, The Political Systems of Highland Burma (Boston, 1964Google Scholar)) and materialistic perceptions (e.g. Harris, Marvin, Cultural Materialism: the Struggle for a Science of Culture (New York, 1979Google Scholar)). Bennett differs from the materialist position most distinctly in repudiating monistic and unidirectional determinism—while at the same time his advocacy of the importance of values and goals for human behaviour does not diminish the importance of the biophysical environment and human biology.

¹⁸ Kearney, Michael, ‘From the Invisible Hand to Visible Feet: Anthropological Studies of Migration and Development’, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 15 (1986), pp. 331–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

¹⁹ For examples from recent work on the household see Netting, R. McC, Wilk, R. and Arnould, E. (eds.), Households: Comparative and Historical Studies of the Domestic Group (Berkeley, 1984Google Scholar) and Smith, Wallerstein and Evers, Households and the World Economy. For relevant studies on household economic strategies see Schmink, Marianne, ‘Household Economic Strategies: a Review and Research Agenda’, Latin American Research Review, vol. 19, no. 3 (1984), pp. 87–101Google Scholar. For research specifically on migration the following are helpful: Bach, Robert and Schraml, Lisa, ‘Migration, Crisis, and Theoretical Conflict’, International Migration Review, vol. 16, no. 2 (Summer, 1982), pp. 320–44CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Safa, Helen (ed.), Toward a Political Economy of Urbanization in Third World Countries (Delhi, 1982Google Scholar) and Wood, Charles, ‘Equilibrium and Historical-Structural Perspectives on Migration: a Comparative Critique with Implications for Future Research’, International Migration Review, vol. 16, no. 2 (Summer, 1982), pp. 298–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁰ See Stonich, ‘Development and Destruction’, for a more comprehensive discussion of the research methodology including the sampling procedures, data base creation and data analysis.

²¹ Stonich, ‘Development and Destruction’.

²² See Boyer, ‘Agrarian Capitalism and Peasant Praxis’; White, ‘The Adult Education Program’, and ‘ Structural Factors in Rural Development’; and Stonich, ‘Development and Destruction’ for more complete discussions of the history of the growth of capitalist agriculture in southern Honduras.

²³ Brignoli, Hector Pérez, ‘Growth and Crisis in the Central American Economies’, Journal of Latin American Studies, vol. 15 (1983), pp. 365–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁴ White, ‘Structural Factors in Rural Development’.

²⁵ Boyer, ‘Agrarian Capitalism and Peasant Praxis’.

²⁶ Secretaría Técnica del Consejo Superior de Planificación Económica y Secretaría General de la Organización de Estados Americanos (CSPE/OEA), Proyecto de Desarrollo Local del Sur de Honduras (Tegucigalpa, 1982).Google Scholar

²⁷ DeWalt, Billie R., ‘Microcosmic and Macrocosmic Processes of Agrarian Change in Southern Honduras: the Cattle Are Eating the Forest’, in DeWalt, and Pelto, (eds.), Micro and Macro Levels of Analysis in Anthropology, pp. 165–86.Google Scholar

²⁸ Stonich, ‘Development and Destruction’.

²⁹ Ibid., pp. 143–55. Figures from 1988 are from Secretaría de Planificación, Presupuesto, Coordinación y, Censo Nacional de Población y Vivienda 1988 (Resultados Preliminares) (Tegucigalpa, 1988).Google Scholar

³⁰ Durham, William, Scarcity and Survival in Central America: The Ecological Origins of the Soccer War (Stanford, 1979), pp. 123–6.Google Scholar

³¹ Stonich, , ‘Development and Destruction’, pp. 129–43.Google Scholar

³² United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Agricultural Assessment of Honduras (Tegucigalpa, 1978), pp. 236.Google Scholar

³³ The history of the south from conquest until the 1980s resulted in a spatial distribution in which the greatest number of people lived in the least favourable agricultural zones. At all points of time for which data were available, highland densities were approximately twice those in the lowlands. However, rates of growth differ considerably depending on the time period involved. For example, population densities increased 50% and 56% in the highlands and lowlands respectively between 1950 and 1961, a period of immigration from other areas; between 1961 and 1974 densities in the highlands increased only 12% while those in the lowlands increased 45%, the result of highland to lowland migration; finally between 1974 and 1985 highland rates overtook lowland rates of increase, 39% to 17%. Stonich, , ‘Development and Destruction’, p. 148.Google Scholar

³⁴ Ibid., pp. 148.

³⁵ Molina, Guillermo, ‘Población, estructura productiva y migraciones internas en Honduras: 1950–60’, Revista de Estudios Sociales Centroamericanos (1972).Google Scholar

³⁶ Between 1950 and 1985, the urban population of Honduras grew from 18% to 40% of the total population—a rate of increase unsurpassed by any other Central American country. United Nations, Estimates and Projections of Urban, Rural, and City Population, 1950–2025 (New York, 1985Google Scholar). The growth of major urban centres in the south was part of this national trend. Although growth was centred in Choluteca, the major urban centre, it also included Nacaome and San Lorenzo as secondary cities. During the period 1950 to 1985, the population of Choluteca increased 560%, growing at an annual rate of 5.5% between 1950 and 1961, 6.5% between 1961 and 1974, and 7.1% between 1974 and 1985. Stonich, , ‘Development and Destruction’, p. 151.Google Scholar

³⁷ CSPE/OEA, p. 97.

³⁸ Ibid., pp. 97–9.

³⁹ Ibid., pp. 112–4.

⁴⁰ See, for example, Boyer, ‘Agrarian Capitalism and Peasant Praxis’; Boyer, Jefferson C., ‘From Peasant Economia to Capitalist Social Relations in Southern Honduras’, Southeastern Latin Americanist, vol. 27 (1984), pp. 1–22Google Scholar; Durham, Scarcity and Survival; Stares, La Economía Campesina; Stonich, ‘Development and Destruction’; Stonich, ‘The Dynamics of Social Processes…’; Stonich and DeWalt, ‘The Political Economy of Agricultural Growth’; White, ‘The Adult Education Program’; and ‘Structural Factors in Rural Development’.

⁴¹ Stonich, , ‘Development and Destruction’, pp. 254–301.Google Scholar

⁴² The household emerged as multi-dimensional, complex, and fluid—the elastic household—varying in terms of membership and in production strategies depending on factors affecting the adequacy of agricultural production, the availability of wage labour and other cash alternatives, the stage in the life course, and so on. Despite considerable diversity among households in the total configuration of economic strategies, the range of income-generating activities were similar: (1) Subsistence (domestic) activities done outside market relations which resulted in directly consumable goods; (2) Petty commodity production and commerce; (3) Wage labour/capital relationships with remuneration in wages or in kind; (4) Remittances that usually took place without immediate reciprocal exchange of labour or commodities; and (5) Contractual relationships over the use of land, animals, or equipment that led to rental income.

⁴³ Boyer, , ‘From Peasant Economia to Capitalist Social Relations’, p. 21Google Scholar; Stonich, , ‘Development and Destruction’, pp. 255–62.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Stonich, , ‘Development and Destruction’, pp. 233–40.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ A sample of five households in each of the two communities (total of ten households) discussed later in this article were chosen for a detailed household budget study. Householders were given materials with which to record daily sources and amounts of income and expenditures for one year. A research assistant who resided in the community collected and summarised these tallies every week. Further details on methodology and results are available from the author. Data were collected so as to be comparable with the household budget study done by Jefferson Boyer, ‘Agrarian Capitalism and Peasant Praxis’, in an adjacent area of southern Honduras in 1978. Boyer analysed nine household budgets and found that off-farm income comprised from 19% to 29% of total household monetised income. Although he does not separate migration incomes from off-farm incomes, per se, he does report that the majority of off-farm income is generated by seasonal agricultural wage labour done within the south. Further information on Boyer's budget study can be found in Boyer, Jefferson C. and Church, Tammie A., ‘Qué hay en la bodega? The Vanishing Reserves of Peasant Economies in Southern Honduras’, paper presented at the conference of the Southeastern Council of Latin American Studies (Mérida, Yucatán, 1987).Google Scholar These results support a number of other studies of peasant economy in Latin America. Deer and Wasserstrom, ‘Ingreso Familiar y Trabajo no Agrícola’, reviewed ten such studies. They found that the average percentage of income derived from off-farm employment ranged from 6% to 89% and that in five of the ten studies off-farm employment contributed more than 50% of total cash income. Further, the proportion of cash income derived from off-farm salaries was greater for low-income families with the smallest landholdings and dropped sharply for higher income families who owned large farms.

⁴⁶ Stonich, , ‘Development and Destruction’, pp. 223–57.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Ibid., ch. vi.

⁴⁸ Stonich and DeWalt, ‘The Political Economy of Agricultural Growth’.

⁴⁹ Orocuina and San Esteban are pseudonyms for two communities located in the southern highlands.

⁵⁰ In both communities the descendants of the initial founding families owned approximately 80% of the total land that was owned by members of the community. However, in San Esteban, this land was distributed among 26 (37%) of all households while in Orocuina, six (9%) households owned 87% of all land owned. Seventy-two percent of the land owned in Orocuina was purchased rather than inherited. In contrast, in San Esteban, land was almost equally divided between having been purchased and inherited. The suggestion that land was perceived as a commodity in Orocuina is supported by the fact that only one household in San Esteban reported selling land at any time (0.5 mzs.) while II households in Orocuina reported doing so (138 mzs.). See Stonich, ‘Development and Destruction’, for further comparisons of the two communities in terms of differences in patterns of household economic strategies and in the ways each community was integrated into the capitalist system.

⁵¹ Ibid.

⁵² Why and how these two communities established these contrasting social and economic patterns was extremely difficult to determine. An evaluation of the agricultural/natural resource potential revealed no significant differences. The initial settlement of these two communities has not been documented making it difficult to assess how and to what extent current patterns had their roots in that time period. Interviews with local residents, however, suggested that the period of initial settlement was basic in the formation of current social and land use patterns. See Stonich, ‘Development and Destruction’ for a discussion of differences in initial settlement patterns.

⁵³ Ibid.

⁵⁴ Ibid.

⁵⁵ Although it is plausible to characterise the first movement as a forced response to a set of so-called ‘push’ factors and the second much smaller movement attracted by ‘pull’ factors, such depictions are oversimplifications and fail to capture the complexity and the importance of migration either as a vital off-farm income generating activity or as an articulatory mechanism.

⁵⁶ Mallon, Florencia, The Defense of Community in Peru's Central Highlands: Peasant Struggle and Capitalist Transition, 1860–1940 (Princeton, 1983), p. 249Google Scholar, argues that the most important variable affecting migration decisions is the changing needs of families throughout their development cycles. The household dependency ratio (the ratio of producing to consuming family members) and the labour resources that are available both within and outside the household over time are of undeniable importance. As I have shown elsewhere (Stonich, ‘Land and People in Peril’), such families are at much higher nutritional risk as well.