Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:32:04.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modernisation Revisited: Market Structures and Competent Farmers in Södermanland County, Sweden, during the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 October 2008

Kirsti Niskanen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the last two decades interpretations of agrarian modernisation have been the subject of critical debate. In neo-classical tradition, agrarian economists and economic historians have traditionally laid emphasis on the diffusion of technology and on the commercialisation of production. They have customarily been interested in the development of agricultural output and incomes, and basically understood modernisation as an evolutionary process by which commercial, market oriented production was substituted for traditional, subsistence production. During the 1970s and the 1980s agrarian sociologists and historians posed the question in more social and historical terms, seeking to determine which type of producers, large farmers or family farmers, were the bearers of modernisation. The traditional Marxian standpoint, as is well known, was that capitalist farming — in spite of delays and problems inherent in agricultural production — would come to dominate the agrarian sector through technical innovation and large scale production. Opposing this, neo-Marxian/neo-Chayanovian interpretations claimed that family farming, due to the innate characteristics of that particular production form, provided family farmers with a competitive advantage in relation to large scale production. According to this, more ‘social’ historical tradition, the social organisation of family based production was the key to understanding the viability, or even superiority, of family farming in the industrialised and urbanised societies of western Europe and North America.

Type
Research Article
Information
Rural History , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , October 1997 , pp. 175 - 193
Copyright
Copyright © Edinburgh Mathematical Society 1997

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

Notes

1 The principal theoretical issues are discussed e.g. in Ulf, Jonsson et al. , Problems of a Peasant Based Development Strategy: Use and Misuse of Historical Experiences (University of Geneva, Monograph No 6, 1993).Google Scholar For a parallell discussion within the field of development studies and rural sociology, see Vandergeest, Peter, ‘Commercialization or Commoditization: A dialogue between perspectives’, Sociologia Ruralis 28 (1988), 2–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Long, Norman and Jan, DouweVan Der, Ploeg, 'New Challenges in the Sociology of Rural Development. A rejoinder to Peter Vandergeest, Sociologia Ruralis 28 (1988), 30–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For an overview of Marx's scattered analysis of the development of the agrarian sector under capitalism, see Dugget, Michael, ‘Marx on Peasants’, The Journal of Peasant Studies 2 (1975), 159–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar also Grigg, David, The Dynamics of Agricultural Change (London, 1982), pp 195–214Google Scholar and Jonsson, Ulf and Pettersson, Ronny, ‘Friends or Foes? Peasants, Capitalists and Markets in West European Agriculture, 1850–1939’, Review, Fernand Braudel Centre 12 (1989), 535–8.Google ScholarPubMed A more specific analysis of the German and Russian agrarian Marxist discussion around the turn of the century is reviewed in Hussein, Athar and Tribe, Keith, Marxism and the Agrarian Question (London, 1981, 1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Dovring, Folke, Land and Labour in Europe in the Twentieth Century: A Comparative Survey of Recent Agrarian history (The Hague, 1965; Third revised edition), ch 3, especially pp. 121–3, 135–6Google ScholarJonsson, et al. , Problems of a Peasant Based Development Strategy, pp. 5–33, 74–92Google ScholarJonsson, Ulf and Pettersson, Ronny, ‘Friends or foes’, pp. 538–9.Google Scholar For the development of the agrarian structure in Sweden, see Gulbrandsen, Odd, Strukturomvandlingen i jordbruket (Stockholm, 1957), p. 44Google ScholarSeyler, Hans, Hur bonden blev lönearbetare. Industrisamhälllet och den svenska bondeklassens omvandling (Lund, 1983), pp. 131–34Google ScholarMorell, Mats ‘Farm Structure and Market Integration in Swedish Agriculture During the Interwar Years’, paper presented at The Eleventh Economic History Congress (Milan, 1994).Google Scholar

3 The basic arguments of the article are based on Niskanen, Kirsti, Godsägare, småbrukare och jordbrukets modernisering, Södermanlands län 1875–1935 (Large Farmers, Small Farmers and the Modernisation of Agriculture, Södermanland County, Sweden, 1875–1935, Diss. with English summary, Stockholm, 1995).Google Scholar

4 Gerschenkron, Alexander, Bread and Democracy in Germany (New York, 1966), pp. 37–88Google ScholarTracy, Michael, Agriculture in Western Europe: Challenge and Response 1880–1980 (London, 1982, Second Edition), pp. 22, 34, 108Google ScholarFriedman, Harriet, ‘World market, State and Family Farm: Social Bases of Household Production in the Era of wage Labour’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 20 (1978), 571–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Cannadine, David, The Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy (New Haven and London, 1990), pp. 25–32Google Scholar and Lieven, Dominic, The Aristocracy in Europe, 1815–1914 (Basingstoke and London, 1992), pp. 92–4, 97–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Jensen, Einar, Danish Agriculture: Its Economic Development (Copenhagen, 1937), pp. 212–20Google ScholarJonsson, Ulf, Jordmagnater, landbönder och torpare i sydöstra Södermanland 1800–1880 (Stockholm, 1980), pp. 106–7Google ScholarKöll, Anu-Mai, Tradition och reform i västra Södermanlands jordbruk 1810–1890: Agrar teknik i kapitali smens inledningsskede (Stockholm, 1983), pp. 162–7Google ScholarPeterson, Gunilla, Jordbrukets omvandling i västra Östergötland 1810–1890 (Stockholm, 1989), pp. 72–9Google ScholarPeltonen, Matti, Talolliset ja torpparit. Vuosisadan vaihteen maatalouskysymys Suomessa (Helsinki, 1992), pp. 135–42.Google Scholar For a more nuanced discussion of the east Prussian junkers' economic and political role, see e.g. Schissler, Hanna, ‘Junkers: Notes on the Social and Historical Significance of the Agrarian Elite in Prussia’, Moeller, Robert G. (ed), Peasants and Lords in Modern Germany (London, Sydney 1986), pp. 24–51.Google Scholar

6 Fridlizius, Gunnar, Swedish Corn Export in the Free Trade Era (Lund, 1958), pp. 70–5.Google Scholar

7 Thomas, Birgit Nüchel-Brinley, Dansk-engelsk samhandel (Århus, 1966), pp 148–9Google ScholarTracy, , Agriculture in Western Europe, table 2.2. p. 45.Google Scholar

8 For detailed arguments, see Niskanen, , Godsägare, smabrukare och joråbrukets modernisering, ch 2, pp. 13–36.Google Scholar

9 Ibid. pp. 13–14.

10 Jensen, , Danish Agriculture, p. 220;Google ScholarKuuse, Jan, ‘Havrets inrikesavsättning’, Ekonomiskhistoriska studier tillägnade Artur Attman (Göteborg, 1977)Google ScholarFridlizius, Gunnar, ‘Från spannmålstunnor till smördrittlar’, Malmö stads historia. Fjärde delen (1870–1914), ed. Oscar, Bjurling, (Malmö, 1985), pp. 395–441Google ScholarNiskanen, , Godsägare, småbrukare och jordbrukets modernisering, pp. 17–20.Google Scholar

11 Niskanen, , Godsagare, smdbrukare och jordbrukets modernisering, ch 3, pp. 37–55.Google Scholar

12 Ibid.

13 Jensen, , Danish Agriculture, pp. 315–53Google ScholarJonsson, et al. , Problems of a Peasant Based Development Strategy, pp. 54–63.Google Scholar

14 Niskanen, , Godsägare, småbrukare och jordbrukets modernisering, ch 3, pp. 37–55.Google Scholar

15 Niskanen, , Godsägare, smdbrukare och jordbrukets modernisering, p. 94, table 6.1.Google Scholar

16 Ibid. pp. 103–4, table 6 p. 103.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid., ch 5, pp. 75–83.

19 Ibid.

20 The classical concepts of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft by Ferdinand Tonnies have been reintroduced in contemporary Swedish sociological discussion by Asplund, Johan, Essä om Gemeinschaft och Gesellschaft (Gothenburg, 1991).Google Scholar

21 Niskanen, , Godsägare, småbrukare och jordbrukets modernisering, ch. 7, pp 121–55.Google Scholar See even Georgson, Henrik, ‘De traditionella storjordägarnas handlingsalternativ vid mötet med kapitalismen. Den traditionella auktoriteten som resurs och begränsning’ (Department of Economic history, Stockholm, 1995, unpublished report)Google Scholar and Kämpe, Erik, Studier angående de svenska hushållningssällskapen, Uppsala, 1923.Google Scholar

22 Niskanen, , Godsägare, smårukare och jordbrukets modernisering, ch. 7, p. 30, table 2.6.Google Scholar

23 Morell, Mats, ‘Småbruket, familjejordbruket och mekaniseringen. Aspekter på det sena 1800-talets och det tidiga 1900-talets svenska jordbruk’, Bonden i dikt och verklighet, ed. Bo, Larsson, (Stockholm, 1993), p. 100Google ScholarNiskanen, , Godsägare, småbnikare och jordbrukets modernisering, p. 31, table 2.7.Google Scholar

24 Niskanen, , Godsägare, småbrukare och jordbrukets modernisering, pp. 48–51, 56.Google Scholar

25 Friedman, Harriet, ‘World Market, State and Family Farm’, pp. 545–86Google ScholarFriedman, Harriet, ‘Household Production and the National Economy: Concepts for the Analysis of Agrarian Formations’, The Journal of Peasant Studies 1 (1980), pp. 159–84.Google Scholar

26 See e.g. Vandergeest, , ‘Commercialization or Commoditization’ and Michel Blanc ‘Family Farming in a Changing World’, Sociologia Ruralis 34 (1994:4), 280–92 for reviews of the debate.Google Scholar

27 See Friedman, Harriet, ‘Family Enterprises in Agriculture: Structural Limits and Political Possibilities’, Graham, Cox, Philip, Lowe and Michael, Winter (eds.), Agriculture: People and Policies (London, 1986), 41–60CrossRefGoogle ScholarFriedman, Harriet, ‘Patriarchal Commodity production’, Social Analysis, 20 (1986), 47–55.Google Scholar

28 Encouraging family farmers to modernise production, improve production methods and increase productivity through prize awards was an international phenomenon, introduced by agricultural societies in west European countries during the decades around the turn of the century. Ronald Hubscher and Ulf Jonsson have used same kind of sources in their analysis of small farmers economic strategies and of sharecropping in French agriculture. See Hubscher, Ronald, ‘La petite exploitation en France: Reproduction et competitive (fin XIXedebutXXe siècle’, Annales; Économies, Sociétes, Civilisations, 40 (1985), 3–34Google ScholarJonsson, Ulf ‘The paradox of Share Tenancy under Capitalism: A Comparative Perspective on Late Nineteenth- and Early Twentieth-Century French and Italian Sharecropping’, Rural History 3(1992), 191–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Niskanen, , Godsagare, småbrukare och jordbrukets modernisering, pp. 180–1.Google Scholar

30 See also Jonsson-Pettersson, , ‘Friends or foes’, pp. 546–50.Google Scholar

31 Niskanen, , Godsägare, småbrukare och jordbrukets modernisering, pp. 188–98.Google Scholar

32 Ibid.