Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Akram-Lodhi & Kay - 2010 - Surveying The Agrarian Question - Part 2
Akram-Lodhi & Kay - 2010 - Surveying The Agrarian Question - Part 2
Akram-Lodhi & Kay - 2010 - Surveying The Agrarian Question - Part 2
Surveying the agrarian question (part 2): current debates and beyond
A. Haroon Akram-Lodhi and Cristóbal Kay
This two-part article surveys the origin, development and current meaning of the
‘agrarian question’. Part One of the survey explored the history of the agrarian
question, elaborating its origin in the work of Marx, Engels, Kautsky, and Lenin,
and its development in the work of Preobrazhensky, Dobb, Brenner, and others.
Part Two of the survey identifies seven current variants of the agrarian question
Downloaded by [University of Bath] at 10:52 03 January 2012
and critically interrogates these variants in order to understand whether, and if so,
how, the location of small-scale petty commodity food and farm production
within contemporary capitalism has been reconfigured during the era of
neoliberal globalisation. Together, the two parts of the survey argue that the
agrarian question continues to offer a rigorously flexible framework by which to
undertake a historically-informed and country-specific analysis of the material
conditions governing rural production, reproduction, and the process of agrarian
accumulation or its lack thereof, a process that is located within the law of value
and market imperatives that operate on a world scale.
Keywords: agrarian question; agrarian change; rural development; rural
transformation; peasant studies; globalisation
industrialisation and accumulation, and the ease or difficulty with which such an
appropriation may occur (Byres 1991a). The accumulation problematic has, under a
variety of guises, underpinned a large and significant body of rural research for more
than eight decades at both a macro political economy and a micro political economy
level, using analytical approaches and methods derived from both historical
materialism and other, more orthodox branches of social theory.
The second problematic, which Bernstein called ‘production’, has its origins more
centrally in the classic work of Kautsky (1988, orig. 1899) and Lenin (1964, orig.
1899) and, to a lesser extent, Marx (1976, orig. 1867). This problematic explores ‘the
extent to which capitalism has developed in the countryside, the forms that it takes
and the barriers which may impede it’ (Byres 1991a, 10). A central moment in the
development of rural capitalism is, as was stressed in the first part of this survey, the
emergence of generalised rural wage labour and, as a corollary, the emergence of
agrarian capital as a consequence of ‘the dispossession of pre-capitalist predatory
Downloaded by [University of Bath] at 10:52 03 January 2012
landed property and the peasantry’ (Bernstein 2006, 451). Thus, this problematic
explores the micro political economy issues affecting the structural transformation of
petty commodity producing peasant labour into its commodified form, labour-
power, through both the restructuring of rural labour processes, shifts in the
technical coefficients of production, and processes of peasant class differentiation,
processes that were highlighted by Kautsky and Lenin in the classical exposition.1
Like the accumulation problematic, the production problematic has also under-
pinned an extensive body of rural research over more than eight decades, a large
proportion of which does not use analytical frameworks derived from historical
materialism.
The third problematic Bernstein called ‘politics’, and is drawn directly from the
theorisation of Engels (1950, orig. 1894). In countries which have or which have had
large peasant populations, political formations and forces seeking social justice and
human emancipation have had to explicitly seek to create and sustain alliances with
strata within the peasant population when such political formations and forces have
been successful in facilitating social, political and economic change. This
problematic we would render in more specific terms: that, following the debate on
the transition from feudalism to capitalism (Sweezy et al. 1976, Aston and Philpin
1985) and Byres’ (2006) critique of Brenner (1977, 1986), the balance of class forces
and class struggle should be placed at the heart of the rural politics problematic. This
should be done in order to make clear the dynamic tensions that exist between
prevailing structures of domination, subordination and surplus appropriation and
the capacity of individuals and social classes to express agency in order to transform
and transcend these structures. So the politics problematic examines the impact of
the balance of class forces on political forms and processes and their subsequent
impact on the evolution of agrarian change and structural transformation. The
politics problematic is significant because the factors conditioning or constraining
the agrarian change explicit in both the accumulation and production problematics
can shape and be shaped by rural struggle. As with the accumulation and production
problematics, the politics problematic has underpinned an important body of rural
research.
By the mid-1990s it was clear in historical materialist agrarian political economy
that the problematics of the agrarian question could be usefully combined in a
1
The analytical complexities of the term ‘peasant’ were discussed in Part One of this survey.
The Journal of Peasant Studies 257
rigorous but flexible analytical framework to explore the processes that contribute to
or constrain the emergence of agrarian capital and rural capitalism. Within these
problematics, the key dynamic process in the emergence of agrarian capital and
agrarian capitalism was the transformation – or non-transformation, or indeed even
partial transformation – of petty commodity producing peasants into wage labour,
and hence labour-power, through complex forces of dispossession. This process is
central because, as was noted in the first part of this survey, in order for peasants to
be so transformed they must be, in some way, divorced from the land that they work,
which in turn compels them to fundamentally reconfigure their livelihoods. Once
they are no longer able to produce a sufficient fraction of their consumption needs,
they must start to sell their labour and buy the food, clothing and shelter that they
previously provided, at least in part, themselves. Thus, wage labour gets sold to
urban employers, rural capitalist farmers and non-farm enterprises, and to petty
commodity producers that are being transformed into emerging agrarian (proto-)
Downloaded by [University of Bath] at 10:52 03 January 2012
stereotyped and too narrow’ (Byres 1996, 3–4). Byres fascination with these
historical puzzles led him to start to undertake a ‘broad comparative study’ of ‘the
historical experience of capitalist agrarian transition’ (1996, 3–4) in England,
Prussia, the United States, France, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, a preliminary
sketch of which was published almost two decades ago in the form of an important
and influential essay (Byres 1991b).2 Bernstein (1994) has produced an extremely
useful summary table of the key characteristics of Byres’ paths of agrarian transition,
which is reproduced in Table 1 with additional material from Byres (2003) and
Bernstein (2010) incorporated by us.
To this work Byres has, more recently, added additional examples to his range of
broad comparative experiences (Byres 2003). An important conclusion Byres draws
from this comparative analysis is that many context-specific ‘paths’ of agrarian
transition have been attempted (Byres 1991b, Bernstein 1994) within the context of
both capitalist and post-capitalist modes of production, and that agrarian transitions
Downloaded by [University of Bath] at 10:52 03 January 2012
can operate both within the dominant paths identified or within their interstices. A
critical variable in understanding a specific path of agrarian transition is, as
emphasised by Brenner (1986) and Byres (2009), class struggle, both between
dominant and subordinate classes and within subordinate classes undergoing
processes of socio-economic differentiation, and the role of the state in shaping or
succumbing to class struggle.
2
In an even earlier, albeit more limited, attempt Byres (1977) already tackled the agrarian
question in a comparative and contemporary context. For a comparative analysis of the
transition to agrarian capitalism between Europe and Latin America, see Kay (1974), and
between South Korea, Taiwan and Latin America, see Kay (2002).
3
In addition to those already mentioned in part one of this survey (Akram-Lodhi and Kay
2010), see Harris (1978), Harriss (1980), de Janvry (1981), Murray and Post (1983), Cox and
Littlejohn (1984), Pearce (1985), Saith (1985), Mamdani (1987), Levin and Neocosmos (1989),
Watts (1989, 2002), Brass (1990), van der Ploeg (1993), Roseberry (1993), Drew (1996),
McLaughlin (1998) and O’Laughlin (2009), amongst others.
4
Important contributions to dependency theory with implications for the agrarian question
and agrarian transition include Frank (1967), Emmanuel (1969), Sunkel (1969), Dos Santos
(1973), Furtado (1973), Amin (1974) Thomas (1974), Palma (1978), Cardoso and Faletto
(1979), Kay (1989), Larraı́n (1989), Weeks (1991), and Saul and Leys (2006).
5
The mode of production debate is very much rooted in the concerns of the agrarian question,
and can be considered an attempt to apply the analytical framework of the agrarian question
to specific circumstances. The mode of production debate can be broadly portioned in two: the
contributions of French anthropologists working in an Althusserian tradition, such as Rey
(1971, 1973, 1975) and Meillassoux (1980), amongst others; and the debate over the
development of capitalism in rural India, including Patnaik (1971, 1972), Chattopadhyay
(1972a, 1972b), Thorner (1982) and a host of others. Important general contributions to the
mode of production debate include Banaji (1972, 1977), Laclau (1977) and Taylor (1979).
Downloaded by [University of Bath] at 10:52 03 January 2012
1. The English path From serfs to tenants From feudal lords to Trinity of landowners Rents held in check, 1846 repeal of Corn Agrarian transition
(15C.–19C.) (14C.–15C.). private landowners – tenant (capitalist) allowing for Laws marks from below:
Gradual (enclosures [16C.– farmers – wage investment. To dominance of ‘classic’ model of
differentiation of 19C.]) workers (16C.– some extent industrial capital transition to
the peasantry 19C.) ‘improving’ (cheap food) capitalist farming
landlords. that develops
‘Agricultural productive forces
revolution’ of 18C. and facilitates
develops the capitalist
productive forces industrialisation;
special features
include an
accommodating
vs. obstructive
landowner class
2. The Prussian path Enserfment of a free Called Junkers: Junker transition Limited development Restricted home Agrarian transition
(16C.–19C.) peasantry 16C. (commercial) to estate economy – of the productive market constrains from above:
Abolition of manorial Gutswirtschaft with forces industrialisation ‘Internal
serfdom 1807 production – mostly tied labour metamorphosis of
Grundherrschaft (former serfs). feudalist landlord
From 1870s economy’,
increasingly capitalism from
(migrant) wage above (Lenin).
labour Contrast south and
west of Germany:
no junkers,
differentiation of
peasantry,
emergence of
The Journal of Peasant Studies
capitalist farming
(continued)
259
Downloaded by [University of Bath] at 10:52 03 January 2012
260
Table 1. (Continued).
Investment in Character of
Case Peasants Landlords Form of production farming Intersectoral links transition
3. The American path No feudalism. In the South, slave In the North and Extensive cultivation Capitalist Agrarian transition
(second half of Absence of tenancy owners become West, rise and of vast land industrialisation in from below in the
19C.) in North and West, landlords consolidation of frontier. South constrained North and West:
but sharecropping family farming Mechanisation by character of ‘petty’ commodity
in the South after from 1860s, from 1870s capitalist farming. production from
the abolition of especially with develops the State support of (a) below gives rise to
slavery settlement of productive forces colonisation of powerful
internal land prairies (19C.); (b) development of
frontier west of commercial family productive forces
Mississippi. In the farming and capitalist
South, landlords (subsidies), 1920s industrialisation.
become capitalist Agrarian
farmers. Relative transition from
absence (and high above in South, but
costs) of wage with stifled
labour capitalist
A. Haroon Akram-Lodhi and Cristóbal Kay
industrialisation
4. The French path From serfs to tenants From feudal property Post 1789: family Limited development Protracted transition Agrarian transition
(15C.–20C.) (by 15C.) Strong to purely rentier farming (including of the productive after 1789, marked from below:
resistance by landlords (vs. tenanted and forces until 20C. by tenacity of small differentiated
village community England, Prussia) share-cropping) in peasantry and its peasantry fail to
to enclosures. Very central and political weight metamorphose
limited southern France. into capitalist
differentiation 1840s on: agriculture, stifling
development of capitalist
capitalist farming industrialisation
in northern France
(continued)
Downloaded by [University of Bath] at 10:52 03 January 2012
Table 1. (Continued).
Investment in Character of
Case Peasants Landlords Form of production farming Intersectoral links transition
5. The Japanese path Tenancy central Mostly resident in Landlord–tenant Extreme labour Heavy state taxation Agrarian transition
(second half of (increased 1860s– countryside (vs. family farming. intensity. Very of peasantry. from above:
19C.–20C.) 1945) France) (To post-1945 land heavy rents in kind Problem of cheap primitive
reform: owner (rice). Strong food supply and accumulation
cultivators) interest of colonial policies borne by peasantry
landlords in (see below) (‘semi-
improvement feudalism’?). Key
role of state in (a)
securing
conditions of ‘high
rent landlordism’;
(b) taxing
peasantry; (c)
controlling
peasantry
6. The Taiwanese/ Tenancy central (as Japanese as well as Landlord–tenant Extreme labour Cheap food for No agrarian
South Korean path Japan) indigenous family farming intensity. Heavy Japanese transition: colonial
(a) Japanese (colonial system) rents and taxes on industrialisation (and ‘semi-
colonial period peasantry. feudal’?)
(first half of 20C.) Improvement by exploitation of
landlords/state peasantry without
capitalist
agriculture or
capitalist
industrialisation
(continued)
The Journal of Peasant Studies
261
Downloaded by [University of Bath] at 10:52 03 January 2012
262
Table 1. (Continued).
Investment in Character of
Case Peasants Landlords Form of production farming Intersectoral links transition
7. The Taiwanese/ Land reforms Landlords eliminated Owner-cultivation of Extreme labour Substantial net Agrarian transition
South Korean path very small farms intensity capital transfers from below,
(b) 1950s, 1960s that use family through heavy imposed from
labour taxation, especially above: state
intersectoral terms ‘substitutes’ for
of trade landlords:
primitive
accumulation for
industrialisation
with ‘self-
A. Haroon Akram-Lodhi and Cristóbal Kay
exploitative
peasantry’ and
‘super exploitative
state’
Source: Bernstein (1994) with additional material from Byres (2003) and Bernstein (2010).
The Journal of Peasant Studies 263
that surrounded it.6 But the historical puzzles identified by Byres, which in
themselves are in part an outcome of an engagement with dependency theory, the
mode of production debate, and the work of Bill Warren, and the lack of a clearly
singular and unique explanatory variable that resolves the agrarian question and
facilitates a process of agrarian transition have led to a broad re-examination of the
characteristics of the agrarian question and agrarian transition since the mid 1990s,
as an outgrowth of the changed world-historical context.
During the heyday of agrarian reform, and particularly during the 1950s and
1960s, an explicit objective of state policy was, in line with the prevailing
Keynesianism of the period and in response to pressure from peasant movements,
to use state intervention as a means of boosting domestic demand through an
expansion of the home market. Increased domestic demand was expected, through
its impact on growth, to be a principal transmission mechanism by which rural
accumulation would proceed, and hence, in the explicitly articulated rhetoric of
Downloaded by [University of Bath] at 10:52 03 January 2012
6
A good summary of Warren is found in Leys (1996). Important contributors in this tradition
include Hyden (1980), Gülap (1986), Sender and Smith (1986, 1990), Berman and Leys (1993),
Sender and Pincus (2006) and Kiely (2009).
7
The reality was different. Undervalued agricultural products subsidised the growth of an
urban proletariat and undermined agriculture, while this period was also marked by the rise of
cheap food imports in many developing countries, which further undermined domestic
agriculture.
264 A. Haroon Akram-Lodhi and Cristóbal Kay
the early part of the twenty-first century, under a regime of neoliberal globalisation,
is agrarian transition possible, or indeed, even relevant?
In making this claim, Bernstein focuses upon two key issues that he believes need
to be confronted. The first is that the development of the forces of production on a
global scale has, in the past 50 years, meant that, globally, agriculture has effectively
become ‘decoupled’ from the process of capital accumulation. This proposition is
supported by the extent to which agricultural production is located on the periphery
of global capital accumulation, which is of course driven by manufacturing and
services, and particularly financial services, on a world scale. In this sense, then, the
agrarian question of transnational capital has been resolved: transnational capital
does not require access to surplus agricultural resources in order to facilitate
accumulation,8 and there are also, at the same time, non-rural and indeed non-
national sources of capital that can be used to sustain national capital accumulation.
It is therefore, according to Bernstein, no longer necessary that capital reorganise
Downloaded by [University of Bath] at 10:52 03 January 2012
8
While Clapp (2009) and Ghosh (2010) stress that the entanglement of finance capital with
agriculture has dramatically increased, this is not about facilitating the accumulation of
surplus value but rather about reallocating existing stocks of surplus value.
Downloaded by [University of Bath] at 10:52 03 January 2012
the enclosure food regime: it is a conclusion that is shared with AQ3, but as a result of
a different theoretical apparatus.
The fifth agrarian question we identify is the ‘corporate food regime agrarian
question’, or AQ5, which is associated with Philip McMichael (2009). Like Araghi,
McMichael argues that the contemporary agrarian question needs to be defined
within and through the world-historical conjuncture. Unlike Araghi, McMichael
stresses the specificity of the world-historical moment: financialisation, neoliberal-
ism, and the creation of a global food regime that fosters a commodity and
accumulation ‘fetish’ in agriculture. According to McMichael, focusing on capital as
both a relation of production and, embedded within that, a relation of circulation
allows the economic to be politicised. But the politicisation of the economic must
also analytically incorporate global peasant resistance (Borras 2008), which has
developed a praxis premised on a critique of the conditions of the global movement
of capital at this historical conjuncture, focusing upon the global politics of food in
Downloaded by [University of Bath] at 10:52 03 January 2012
The second of these missing links is the ‘ecological agrarian question’, which we
shall refer to as AQ7. Notable amongst those that could be said to adopt this
position would be Piers Blaike (1985), Tony Weis (2007), Michael Watts (2009), as
well as John Bellamy Foster (2009). The ecological agrarian question is predicated
on the proposition that the rural production process, agrarian accumulation and
rural politics have ecological dynamics: the biophysical agroecological setting by
definition must directly impact upon the process of production and hence processes
of class formation, whether it be in the assets that are available to rural producers,
the adoption of techniques and technologies that are or are not suitable to the
agroecology, and in the food and non-food products that are eventually produced
using biophysical resources. In so doing, agroecological resources, whether
monetarily costed or non-costed, can contribute to or constrain the process of
accumulation. Furthermore, the balance of class forces and the operation of the
formal and informal rural social and political institutions that result from this
Downloaded by [University of Bath] at 10:52 03 January 2012
balance shape and are shaped by a set of agroecological relations embedded within a
biophysical context through which individual and collective agency are refracted. So,
a failure to address the ecological dimensions of production, accumulation and
politics renders any understanding of the agrarian question, at best, quite limited,
particularly in light of the agroecological degradation caused by contemporary
corporate agricultural practices. The agrarian question must critically investigate the
character of ecological relationships and the ways in which they impinge upon and
alter the resolution or otherwise of the agrarian question, and in so doing address
contradictions of class and ecology if it is going to explain social change in
contemporary rural settings.
During this decade the agrarian question has generated a level of intense debate
within political economy that belies its age. But now the level of sophistication in its
analysis of rural transformation and the complex diversity through which
contemporary farming in developing capitalist countries has encountered the
neoliberal phase of globalisation has resulted in not one agrarian question with
three problematics but seven different agrarian questions. So it is important to
identify what the seven positions have in common: the use, as the critical analytical
variable, of the balance of forces, locally, nationally, and internationally, between
capital and labour, which are conjuncturally and contextually specific.
Here then is the heart and soul of the debate about the contemporary relevance
of the agrarian question: conflicting assessments of the balance of forces in an age of
neoliberal globalisation. AQ1 sees struggles between differentiating peasantries and
the emergence of agrarian capital and rural capitalism as highly contingent and
context-specific. AQ2 sees struggles over the terms and conditions of access to wage
labour as an outcome of the central dynamic force in rural change, the establishment
of rural capitalism, as well as being a source of socioeconomic and spatial
differentiation. AQ3 adopts a capital-theoretic perspective to argue that the struggle
over rural livelihoods is the central thrust of a politically-charged agrarian question
of labour, which is increasingly divorced from capital. AQ4 sees struggles between a
globalising capitalism and peasants dispossessed through enclosure and differentia-
tion as part of the world-historical establishment of the law of value and a
consequent effort to reduce the value of labour-power in order to increase the rate of
relative surplus value for capital. AQ5 also uses a world-historical perspective to
identify an agrarian question of food, as the struggle over rural livelihoods becomes
the central thrust of a politically-charged agrarian question between globalising
270 A. Haroon Akram-Lodhi and Cristóbal Kay
capital and globalising labour. AQ6 is critical of the conception of struggle and
agrarian change in other formulations of the agrarian question, stressing that these
need to be gendered. Similarly, AQ7 suggests that the political ecology of struggle
and agrarian change shapes and is shaped by biophysical contradictions in
capitalism that are integral to any understanding of the agrarian question.
There are clearly possible complementarities between analyses of the con-
temporary balance of forces witnessed in each of these approaches: certainly, for
example, AQ6 and AQ7 may or may not be consistent with the other five approaches
to the agrarian question. However, more tellingly, there are also clear differences in
the assessment of the balance of forces within all of these perspectives, differences
that might threaten to create an impasse in agrarian political economy if, rather than
the process of agrarian change, the differences themselves became the sterile purpose
of debate.
Downloaded by [University of Bath] at 10:52 03 January 2012
linked, but need not be. Of course, crop specificities have an important bearing on
patterns of specialisation and hence the extent of commodification. Secondly, the
productive subsector that produces to sell must strive under the market imperative to
improve its competitive profitability within a law of value that is global in scope. By
way of contrast, the market imperative for the productive subsector that produces
lesser amounts for exchange and greater amounts for direct use is not only that of
product markets subject to the law of value but also that of the market for labour-
power.
These two distinctions allow the identification of two forms of farm production
that can typically be found in much of the rural worlds of Africa, Asia and Latin
America. One is an export-oriented capitalist and proto-capitalist subsector that is
both more closely integrated into the global agro-food system than ever before and,
crucially, within the context of the law of value, more important to the
internationalised circuit of capital. This is because it acts as a provider of agro-
Downloaded by [University of Bath] at 10:52 03 January 2012
food commodities that lower the value of labour-power in the advanced capitalist
countries, and hence raises the rate of relative surplus value.9 The second is a petty
commodity producing peasant subsector, for which the market imperative has also
become more binding than was previously the case; this is both for products that are
sold on markets subject to the law of value and in the market for labour-power that
is productive, often for the first time, of surplus value. Peasants, straddling farm and
off-farm activity, have become increasingly reliant on income arising from the sale of
their commodified labour-power as waged labour.
9
Some might argue that agriculture’s importance to capital is now as a source of agrofuels.
However, despite massive US investment in agrofuels they account for only a small share of its
gasoline usage, and agrofuels do not have the potential to power capitalist production. What
they do demonstrate, though, are the stark biophysical contradictions of the global food
system.
272 A. Haroon Akram-Lodhi and Cristóbal Kay
thus be basic packing and processing carried out, although again this need not be the
case. Linkages into export markets are very important and very diverse for this
subsector, albeit in a manner that is restricted by the regulatory activities of
transnational capital. These include, very importantly, the global supermarket chains
that have an increasing influence over what should be produced, how it should be
produced, and by whom it should be produced within internationalised circuits of
capital.
In the wake of the 2008 global food crisis the dynamics of the export-oriented
capitalist and proto-capitalist subsector have changed because of the emergence of
‘land-grabbing’ by a diverse range of countries. In order to secure accessible food
supplies a number of agriculturally-constrained countries have sought to buy or lease
millions of hectares of land in Africa, Asia and Latin America. While these processes
are too recent to draw any empirically-supported conclusions, it is nonetheless the
case that export-oriented private-equity or sovereign wealth fund-controlled
capitalist farms are being established for export, and that this may take place on
the basis of the enclosure of land operated by petty commodity producers,
predicated upon the use of a waged labour force drawn from the dispossessed. This
trend has thus served to further promote the establishment of export-oriented
capitalist farming in developing capitalist countries.
In general, then, the emerging export-oriented capitalist, proto-capitalist and rich
peasant subsector is witnessing the generation of surplus value and agricultural
profitability under a market imperative regulated by dominant classes. This
demonstrates sharpened global value relations in a world food system governed by
highly internationalised circuits of capital seeking to raise the rate of relative surplus
value. A key point to make, then, is that interventions into the export-oriented
productive subsector that came about as a result of neoliberal agrarian restructuring
were designed to enhance the rate of relative surplus value over a prolonged period
of time and in so doing improve capital accumulation on a global scale. This sits
quite uncomfortably with AQ3.
and ecological characteristics of landscapes may shape behaviour and identity, and
in this sense economic relations are refracted through and embedded within a
broader set of social relations. Nonetheless, in terms of its economic characteristics
this productive subsector is for the most part far more labour-intensive in its
technical coefficients of production, with correspondingly lower levels of capitalisa-
tion and greater challenges involved in reaping economies of scale and scope.
It is important to stress that this productive subsector is not homogenous; even
marginal differences in the technical coefficients of production and the ability to
capture incremental economies of scale and scope, when placed within the context of
crop specificities, can lead to the emergence of stratification amongst farms as the
capacity to produce food and non-food output surplus to consumption requirements
generates processes of peasant class differentiation. At the same time, petty
commodity producers can be differentially engaged in non-farm activities, which
are, overall, growing in importance for many, with implications for processes of
Downloaded by [University of Bath] at 10:52 03 January 2012
Semi-proletarianisation
Standing beside these two forms of farm production is a significant and increasing
proportion of the global rural population that is seeking, day by day, refuge in their
274 A. Haroon Akram-Lodhi and Cristóbal Kay
small plot of land, producing agricultural products for food security reasons while
simultaneously engaged in selling their labour-power to capitalist farmers, richer
proto-capitalist peasants, or non-farm capitalists (Kay 2000). This stratum tries to
retreat from the market imperative in terms of their food production, as they can no
longer compete with cheap food imports or with local capitalist farmers.
Nonetheless, for them the market imperative holds, in that, in order to survive,
they must be able to sell their increasingly commodified labour-power, which is
productive of surplus value, and an inability to sell labour-power results in
pauperisation. This then is why this stratum is separated from the productive
agricultural subsectors: with insufficient means of production, they do not produce
for exchange but rather sell their ability to work and, indeed, their potential to
produce surplus value.
This stratum was described by Lenin in the first part of this survey as being semi-
proletarian: neither peasant nor proletarian, this part of the rural population is
Downloaded by [University of Bath] at 10:52 03 January 2012
10
For a similar mode of analysis, see FitzGerald (1985).
The Journal of Peasant Studies 275
agricultural exports from developing capitalist countries across Asia, Africa and
Latin America. Many countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, have become
net food importers. There has also been a significant change in the composition of
agricultural trade, in that traditional agricultural exports and traditional tropical
products have not grown as rapidly as non-traditional agricultural exports such as
fresh and processed fish and seafood and fruit and vegetables: changes that clearly
reflect shifts in the food regime as agro-food transnational capital differentially
incorporates capitalist farmers and petty commodity producers from developing
capitalist countries. The result: countries have become increasingly oriented towards
production for export in both the capitalist and the petty commodity producing farm
subsectors as a ‘neoliberal agricultural export bias’ has been configured.
These shifts are illustrated in Figure 1 and Table 3. The solid line in Figure 1
displays the share of agricultural exports in total agricultural production for
developing capitalist countries between 1986 and 2007, while the dashed line
Downloaded by [University of Bath] at 10:52 03 January 2012
provides a trend for that data. The figure is unambiguous: between 1986 and 2007
the share of exports in agricultural output for developing capitalist countries almost
doubled. The significance of this trend should not be underestimated: during the
same period agricultural exports as a share of world exports declined dramatically
(Akram-Lodhi 2000). So processes of neoliberal globalisation have clearly fostered a
neoliberal agricultural export bias in developing capitalist countries as the
international division of labour of the corporate food regime solidified.
Table 3 disaggregates the data for part of the period contained in Figure 1 by
broadly defined agricultural commodities. Table 3 demonstrates the restructuring of
developing capitalist country agricultural exports since the early 1980s, in which
tropical products have noticeably declined in their importance while fish and seafood
and fruit and vegetables have become far more important. Although it is not
demonstrated in the table, another marked structural change has been the increased
significance in these categories of fresh products, many of which are now packed and
(Wilkinson 2009).
At the same time though it must be stressed that the petty commodity
producing peasant subsector in this set of countries is exposed to the law of value.
This conditions the character of its material extended reproduction, in particular
subjecting it to processes of differentiation as a consequence of both accumulation
and enclosure. As a result, alongside rapid rates of accumulation there can still
be high degrees of poverty and inequality, marked semi-proletarianisation
and, for many, food insecurity, as is clearly demonstrated in both Brazil and
Vietnam.
uniformity’.
11
For a political economy analysis of the ongoing world food crisis, see the symposium articles
in the Journal of Agrarian Change 10(1), 2010.
The Journal of Peasant Studies 279
rural labour regimes, and hence the agrarian question. If such is indeed the case, then
rural transformation and its intersection with the development of capitalism – the
agrarian question – continues to have relevance.
But this two-part survey suggests that there is not a set of standard, uniform
lessons that can be learnt from the contemporary reflection of the agrarian question.
Rather, for us the agrarian question offers a sufficiently nuanced account that
rigorously yet flexibly captures both the common processes at work in the
countryside of developing capitalist countries as well as the substantive diversity,
rooted in globally-embedded, historically-informed and country-specific trajectories
of variation, which can cumulatively assist in understanding paths of agrarian
transition and the challenge facing global peasant movements confronting global
capital. Admittedly, the lack of certainties that can be ascribed to this analytical
framework might be, for some, a disappointment. For us, it is an indication of its
theoretical and empirical coherence, providing the analytical tools and analytical
Downloaded by [University of Bath] at 10:52 03 January 2012
References
Akram-Lodhi, A.H. 2000. The agrarian question in an age of new capitalism. In: J.
Toporowski, ed. Political economy and the new capitalism: essays in honour of Sam
Aaronovitch. London: Routledge, pp. 114–31.
Akram-Lodhi, A.H. 2007. Land, markets and neoliberal enclosure: an agrarian political
economy perspective. Third World Quarterly, 28(8), 1437–56.
Akram-Lodhi, A.H. 2008. (Re)imagining agrarian relations? The World Development Report
2008: Agriculture for Development. Development and Change, 39(6), 1145–62.
Akram-Lodhi, A.H. 2009. Modernizing subordination? A South Asian perspective on the
World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. The Journal of Peasant
Studies, 36(3), 611–20.
Akram-Lodhi, A.H. and C. Kay, eds. 2009. Peasants and globalization: political economy, rural
transformation and the agrarian question. London: Routledge.
Akram-Lodhi, A.H. and C. Kay. 2010. Surveying the agrarian question (I): unearthing
foundations, exploring diversity. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 37(1), 177–202.
Akram-Lodhi, A.H., S.M. Borras, Jr and C. Kay, eds. 2008. Land, poverty and livelihoods in an
era of globalization: perspectives from developing and transition economies. London:
Routledge.
Amin, S. 1974. Accumulation on a world scale. New York: Monthly Review Books.
Araghi, F. 2000. The great global enclosure of our times: peasants and the agrarian question at
the end of the twentieth century. In: F. Magdoff, F.H. Buttel and J. Bellamy Foster, eds.
Hungry for profit: the agribusiness threat to farmers, food, and the environment. New York:
Monthly Review Press, pp. 145–60.
Araghi, F. 2009. The invisible hand and the visible foot: peasants, dispossession and
globalization. In: A.H. Akram-Lodhi and C. Kay, eds. Peasants and globalization: political
economy, rural transformation and the agrarian question. London: Routledge, pp. 111–47.
Aston, T.H. and C.H.E. Philpin, eds. 1985. The Brenner debate: agrarian class structure and
economic development in pre-industrial Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Banaji, J. 1972. For a theory of colonial modes of production. Economic and Political Weekly,
7(52), 2498–502.
Banaji, J. 1977. Modes of production in a materialist conception of history. Capital & Class, 3,
1–44.
Berman, B. and C. Leys, eds. 1993. African capitalists in African development. Boulder, CO:
Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Bernstein, H. 1994. Agrarian classes in capitalist development. In: L. Sklair, ed. Capitalism and
development. London: Routledge, pp. 40–71.
Bernstein, H. 1996/1997. Agrarian questions then and now. The Journal of Peasant Studies,
24(1/2), 22–59.
The Journal of Peasant Studies 281
Bernstein, H. 2000. The peasantry in global capitalism. In: L. Panitch and C. Leys, eds.
Socialist register 2001: working classes, global realities. London: The Merlin Press, New
York: Monthly Review Press and Halifax: Fernwood Publishing.
Bernstein, H. 2004. ‘Changing before our very eyes’: agrarian questions and the politics of
land in capitalism today. Journal of Agrarian Change, 4(1–2), 190–225.
Bernstein, H. 2006. Is there an agrarian question in the 21st century? Canadian Journal of
Development Studies, 27(4), 449–60.
Bernstein, H. 2009. Agrarian questions from transition to globalization. In: A.H. Akram-
Lodhi and C. Kay, eds. Peasants and globalization: political economy, rural transformation
and the agrarian question. London: Routledge, pp. 239–61.
Bernstein, H. 2010. Capitalism and development. Halifax: Fernwood Books.
Blaikie, P. 1985. The political economy of soil erosion in developing countries. London:
Longman.
Borras, S.M., Jr. 2008. La Vı́a Campesina and its global campaign for agrarian reform.
Journal of Agrarian Change, 8(2/3), 258–89.
Borras, S.M., Jr., M. Edelman and C. Kay, eds. 2008. Transnational agrarian movements
confronting globalization. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Downloaded by [University of Bath] at 10:52 03 January 2012
Emmanuel, A. 1969. Unequal exchange: a study of the imperialism of trade. New York:
Monthly Review Press.
Engels, F. 1950. The peasant question in France and Germany. In: K. Marx and F. Engels:
selected works, vol. 2. London: Lawrence and Wishart, pp. 420–40. First published in 1894.
FitzGerald, E.V.K. 1985. The problem of balance in the peripheral socialist economy: a
conceptual note. World Development, 13(1), 5–14.
Foster, J.B. 2009. The ecological revolution: making peace with the planet. New York: Monthly
Review Press.
Frank, A.G. 1967. Capitalism and underdevelopment in Latin America: historical studies of
Chile and Brazil. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Furtado, C. 1973. The concept of external dependence in the study of underdevelopment. In:
C.K. Wilber, ed. The political economy of development and underdevelopment. New York:
Random House, pp. 118–23.
Ghosh, J. 2010. The unnatural coupling: food and global finance. Journal of Agrarian Change,
10(1), 76–91.
Gülap, H.N. 1986. Debate on capitalism and development: the theories of Samir Amin and
Bill Warren. Capital & Class, 28, 139–59.
Downloaded by [University of Bath] at 10:52 03 January 2012
Harris, R. 1978. Marxism and the agrarian question in Latin America. Latin American
Perspectives, 5(4), 2–26.
Harriss, J. 1980. Contemporary Marxist analysis of the agrarian question in India. Madras
Institute of Development Studies, Working Paper No. 14. Madras: Institute of
Development Studies.
Henson, S. 2007. New markets and their supporting institutions: opportunities and constraints
for demand growth. Available from: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2008/
Resources/2795087-1191427986785/HensonS_NewMrkts&TheirSupportngInstns%5B1%
5D.pdf [Accessed 26 November 2009].
Hobsbawm, E.J. 1994. Age of extremes: the short twentieth century, 1914–1991. London:
Michael Joseph.
Hyden, G. 1980. Beyond ujamma in Tanzania: underdevelopment and an uncaptured peasantry.
Riverside: University of California Press.
de Janvry, A. 1981. The agrarian question and reformism in Latin America. Baltimore, MD:
John Hopkins University Press.
Kautsky, K. 1988. The agrarian question, 2 volumes. London: Zwan Publications. First
published in 1899.
Kay, C. 1974. Comparative analysis of the European manorial system and the Latin American
hacienda system. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 2(1), 69–98.
Kay, C. 1989. Latin American theories of development and underdevelopment. London:
Routledge.
Kay, C. 2000. Latin America’s agrarian transformation: peasantization and proletarianiza-
tion. In: D.F. Bryceson, C. Kay and J. Mooij, eds. Disappearing peasantries? Rural labour
in Africa, Asia and Latin America. London: ITDG Publishing, pp. 123–38.
Kay, C. 2002. Why East Asia overtook Latin America: agrarian reform, industrialisation and
development. Third World Quarterly, 23(6), 1073–102.
Kiely, R. 2009. The globalization of manufacturing production: Warrenite fantasies and
uneven and unequal realities. In: A.H. Akram-Lodhi and C. Kay, eds. Peasants and
globalization: political economy, rural transformation and the agrarian question. London:
Routledge, pp. 169–89.
Laclau, E. 1977. Politics and ideology in Marxist theory. London: New Left Books.
Larraı́n, J. 1989. Theories of development. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Lenin, V.I. 1964. The development of capitalism in Russia. Moscow: Progress Publishers. First
published in 1899.
Levin, R. and M. Neocosmos. 1989. The agrarian question and class contradictions in South
Africa: some theoretical considerations. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 16(2), 230–59.
Leys, C. 1996. The rise and fall of development theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Mamdani, M. 1987. Extreme but not exceptional: towards an analysis of the agrarian question
in Uganda. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 14(2), 191–225.
Marx, K. 1956. Capital: a critique of political economy, vol. 2. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
First published in 1885.
The Journal of Peasant Studies 283
A.H. Akram-Lodhi and C. Kay, eds. Peasants and globalization: political economy, rural
transformation and the agrarian question. London: Routledge, pp. 190–213.
Oya, C. 2009. Introduction to a symposium on the World Development Report 2008:
Agriculture for Development? Journal of Agrarian Change, 9(2), 231–34.
Palma, G. 1978. Dependency: a formal theory of underdevelopment or a methodology for
the analysis of concrete situations of underdevelopment? World Development, 6(7–8), 881–
924.
Patnaik, U. 1971. Capitalist development in agriculture: a note. Economic and Political
Weekly, 6(39), A123–A124 þ A126–A130.
Patnaik, U. 1972. On the mode of production in Indian agriculture: a reply. Economic and
Political Weekly, 7(40), A145–A151.
Pearce, R. 1985. The agrarian question. In: Z.G. Baranski and J.R. Short, eds. Developing
contemporary Marxism. London: Macmillan, pp. 58–85.
Preobrazhensky, E. 1965. The new economics. Oxford: Clarendon Press. First published in
1926.
Roseberry, W.W. 1993. Beyond the agrarian question in Latin America. In: F. Cooper et al.
Confronting historical paradigms: peasants, labor, and the capitalist world system in Africa
and Latin America. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Rey, P.P. 1971. Colonialisme, néo-colonialisme et transition au capitalisme. Paris: Maspero.
Rey, P.P. 1973. Les alliances de classes. Paris: Maspero.
Rey, P.P. 1975. The lineage mode of production. Critique of Anthropology, 3, 27–79.
Saith, A., ed. 1985. The agrarian question in socialist transitions. London: Frank Cass.
Saul, J. and C. Leys. 2006. Dependency. In: D.A. Clark, ed. The Elgar companion to
development studies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 111–15.
Sender, J. and J. Pincus. 2006. Capitalism and development. In: D.A. Clark, ed. The Elgar
companion to development studies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 45–9.
Sender, J. and S. Smith. 1986. The development of capitalism in Africa. London: Methuen.
Sender, J. and S. Smith. 1990. Poverty, class and gender in rural Africa: a Tanzanian case study.
London: Routledge.
Sunkel, O. 1969. National development policy and external dependence in Latin America.
Journal of Development Studies, 6(1), 23–48.
Sweezy, P., et al. 1976. The transition from feudalism to capitalism. London: Verso.
Taylor, J. 1979. From modernization to modes of production. London: Macmillan.
Thomas, C. 1974. Development and transformation: the economics of the transition to socialism.
New York: Monthly Review Press.
Thorner, A. 1982. Semi-feudalism or capitalism? Contemporary debates on classes and modes
of production in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 17(49), 1961–8.
van der Ploeg, J.D. 1993. Rural sociology and the new agrarian question. Sociologia Ruralis,
33(2), 240–60.
Vanhaute, E. 2009. From famine to food crisis: what history can teach us about local and
global subsistence crises. Available upon request from: vanhaute@ugent.be
284 A. Haroon Akram-Lodhi and Cristóbal Kay
Wood, E.M. 2009. Peasants and the market imperative: the origins of capitalism. In: A.H.
Akram-Lodhi and C. Kay, eds. Peasants and globalization: political economy, rural
transformation and the agrarian question. London: Routledge, pp. 37–56.
World Bank. 2007. World development report 2008: agriculture for development. Washington,
DC: The World Bank.
World Bank. 2009. World development Indicators. Available from: http://ddp-ext.worldbank.org.
cat1.lib.trentu.ca:8080/ext/DDPQQ/member.do?method¼getMembers&userid¼1&query
Id¼6 [Accessed 26 November 2009].
Cristóbal Kay is Emeritus Professor in Development Studies and Rural Development at the
International Institute of Social Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Hague, The
Netherlands; Adjunct Professor of International Development Studies at Saint Mary’s
University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; and Professorial Research Associate in the
Department of Development Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University
of London. He is an editor of the Journal of Agrarian Change. Email: Kay@iss.nl