Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-08T19:09:53.852Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Second Thoughts on Smallholders: Tea Production, The State, and Social Differentiation in the Rize Region

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2015

C. M. Hann
C. M. Hann*
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge, Department of Social Anthropology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Many specialists in comparative farming systems and agrarian social structures have recognized in recent decades the resilience and vitality of non-capitalistic family farming (Harriss, 1982; Shanin, 1987). For Turkey, both the general characteristics and many regional variations were well established by Aresvik (1975). Recent work by Çağlar Keyder (1983) has traced the genesis of modern Turkish rural society back to the Ottoman period and outlined the different trajectories that particular types of community may undergo, utilizing an explanatory framework grounded in political economy. The main thrust of Keyder's argument is that the free peasantry which played an important role throughout Anatolian history has been emphatically consolidated in the Republican period. In particular, the dramatic changes of the 1950s ushered in an era of petty commodity producer domination.

Type
Articles
Information
New Perspectives on Turkey , Volume 4 , Fall 1990 , pp. 57 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © New Perspectives on Turkey 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aresvik, Oddvar. 1975. The Agricultural Development of Turkey. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Berend, Iván T. 1990. The Hungarian Economic Reforms 1953-1988. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cowen, Michael. 1981. “Commodity Production in Kenya's Central Province,” in Heyer, J., Roberts, P. and Williams, G. (eds.), Rural Development in Tropical Africa. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hann, C.M. 1980. Tázlár: A Village in Hungary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hann, C.M. 1985a. A Village Without Solidarity; Polish Peasants in Years of Crisis. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hann, C.M. 1985b. “Rural Transformation on the East Black Sea Coast of Turkey: A Note on Keyder,” Journal of Peasant Studies, 12 (4), pp. 101–10.Google Scholar
Hann, C.M. 1990. Tea and the Domestication of the Turkish State. Huntingdon: Eothen Press (SOAS Occasional Papers in Modern Turkish Studies No. 1).Google Scholar
Harriss, John (ed.). 1982. Rural Development: Theories of Peasant Economy and Agrarian Change. London: Hutchinson Educational.Google Scholar
Keyder, Çağlar. 1983. “Small Peasant Ownership in Turkey: Historical Formation and Present Structure,” Review, 7 (1), pp. 53–107.Google Scholar
Lamb, Geoffrey and Mueller, Linda. 1982. Control, Accountability and Incentives in a Successful Development Institution : The Kenya Tea Development Authority. Washington: World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 550.Google Scholar
Meeker, Michael E. 1972. “The Great Family Aghas of Turkey: A Study of A Changing Political Culture,” in Antoun, R. and Hank, I. (eds.), Rural Politics and Social Change in the Middle East. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Robertson, A.F. 1987. The Dynamics of Production Relationships; African Share Contracts in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shanin, Teodor (ed.). 1987. Peasants and Peasant Societies. Oxford: Basil Blackwell (second edition).Google Scholar
Stirling, Paul (ed.). Forthcoming. Culture and Economy in Turkish Villages. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar