Towards a New Political Economy

of Agriculture
Towards a New Political Economy
of Agriculture

Edited By<br/>

William H. Friedland <br/>

Lawrence Busch <br/>
Frederick H. Buttel<br/>
Alan P. Rudy
First published 1991 by Westview Press, Inc.

Published 2021 by Routledge

605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

Copyright © 1991 Taylor & Francis

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any
form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publishers.

Notice:
Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used
only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Towards a new political economy of agriculture I edited by William H.
Friedland ... [et al.].
p. em. - (Westview special studies in agriculture science
and policy)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Agriculture and state. 2. Produce trade-International
cooperation. I. Friedland, William H. II. Series.
HD1428.T67 1991
338.1'8-dc20 90-24456
CIP

ISBN 13: 978-0-3672-1200-1 (hbk)

ISBN 13: 978-0-3672-1481-4 (pbk)

DOI:10.4324/9780429269493
 Contents

About the Contributors vii

1 Introduction: Shaping the New Political Economy of

Advanced Capitalist Agriculture
William H. Friedland1

PART I: Agriculture and Agri-industry in the New National and

International Divisions of Labor
2Some Recent Tendencies in the Industrial
Reorganization of the Agri-food System
David Goodman 37
3 Changes in the International Division of Labor.
Agri- food Complexes and Export Agriculture
Harriet Friedmaiin 65
4 Agriculture and Agribusiness: Transformations and Trends in Italy
Giovanni Mottura and Etuo Mingione 94

PART II: Agricultural Crisis and the Restructuring of Agriculture

and Agri-industry
5 The Historical Roots of the Present Agricultural Crisis
Jean-Pierre Berlan 115
6
Agriculture and the New Division of Labor
Enrico Pugiiese 137
7 The "Disappearing Middle": A Sociological Perspective
Frederick H.Buttel and Pierre LaRamee 151
PART III: The Political Economy of the Technological
Transformation of Agri-food Science and Technology
8 Agriculture in U.S. Fordism: The Integration of
the Productive Consumer
Martin Kenney, Linda M, Lobao, James Curry,
and W. Richard Goe 173
9 The Political Economy of Agricultural Research in the Third World
Shripad D. Deo and Louis E. Swanson 189

PART IV: Agriculture and the State: Historical

and Comparative Perspectives
10 Theorizing New Deal Farm Policy: Broad Constraints
of Capital Accumulation and the Creation of a Hegemonic Relation
Steve McClellan 215
11 The Institutionalization of Grower-Processor Relations
in the Vegetable Industries of Ontario and New York
Michael Eden Gertler 232
12 Economic and Ecological Crises:
Transforming Swedish Agricultural Policy
David Vail 256
13 Farm Policies and Fanner Strategies: The Case of Norway
ReidarAlmaas 275
14 Portuguese Agriculture and the State:
An Outline of the Past 25 Years
Manuel Belo Moreira 289

PART V: The Political Economy of Gender: Women and Agriculture

15 Women and Agriculture in the United States:
A State of the Ait Assessment
William H. Friedland 315
16 Women and Agriculture in the Third World: A Review and Critique
Laura Raynolds 339

365
INDEX
 About the Contributors

Reidar Almaas is Professor at die Center for Rural Research, University of

Trondheim, Norway.

Jean-Pierre Berlan is Professor of Economics at Universite d'Aix Marseille

n, France.

Lawrence Busch is Professor of Sociology at Michigan State University.

Frederick H. Buttel is Professor of Rural Sociology and Faculty Associate in

the Program on Science, Technology and Society at Cornell University.

James Curry is a PhD. candidate in Development Sociology at Cornell

University.

Shripad Deo is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Sociology at the

University of Kentucky.

William H. Friedland is Professor of Community Studies and Sociology at the

University of California, Santa Cruz.

Harriet Friedmann is Professor of Sociology at the University of Toronto.

Michael Gertler is Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of

Saskatchewan.

W. Richard Goe is Senior Research Associate in the School of Urban and

Public
Affaire Carnegie-Mellon University.
at

David Goodman is Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of

California, Santa Cruz.

Martin Kenney is Associate Professor in the Department of Applied

Behavioral Science at the University of California, Davis.

Pierre LaRamee is Assistant Professor of Sociology at St Lawrence

University.
Linda M. Lobao is Assistant Professor in the Department of Agricultural
Economics and Rural Sociology at Ohio State University.

Steve McClellan is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Sociology at

Florida State University.

Enzo Mingione is Professor of Urban and Rural Sociology and Director of the
Institute of Sociology at the University of Messina, Italy.

Manuel Belo Moreira is Professor of Rural

Sociology in the Technical
Institute
of Lisbon, Portugal.

Giovanni Mottura is Professor of Economic Sociology at the University of

Modena, Italy.

Enrico Pugliese is Professor of Sociology at the University of Naples, Italy.

Laura T. Raynolds is a Ph.D. candidate in the field of Development Sociology

at Cornell University.

Alan P. Rudy is a Ph.D. candidate in Sociology at the University of California,

Santa Cruz.

Louis E. Swanson is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of

Kentucky.

David Vail is Professor of Economics at Bowdoin College.

 1
Introduction:
Shaping the New Political Economy
of Advanced Capitalist Agriculture
William H. Friedland
with the assistance of
Frederick H. Buttel and Alan P. Rudy

This book originated in a miniconference held during the 50th

Anniversary meeting of the Rural Sociological Society in Madison,
Wisconsin in August 1988. The. reasons that miniconference on political
economy was held in conjunction with the annual meeting of a sociological
society will be explained later in this chapter.
This introduction begins by explaining the origin of the volume's title
and, in so doing, explores the reasons for the Madison miniconference.
This is followed by an historical discussion of theoretical analysis of agri-
culture in populist and marxist circles and the relationship of marxist ana-
lyses to the agrarian, peasant, and colonial questions. This discussion will
reveal a major hiatus in the analysis of agriculture by marxist writers.
Next, the developments of the f970s are examined by chronicling how
a new generation of neopopulist rural sociologists and neo-marxist scholars
in the U.S. "rediscovered" agriculture. This rediscovery led to the emer-
gence of a new disciplinary sub-field, the sociology of agriculture. The
formulation of this field took place in parallel with similar developments

I am grateful for helpful comments and suggestions from Jim O'Connor.

DOl: I 0.4324/9780429269493-1
 Introduction

among European scholars. Scholars from other disciplines such as

anthropology,
social and oral history, economics, and geography have also
contributed
to the new sub-field. These developments, in turn, led participants to

begin referring to their common activity as the political economy of

agriculture.
The ways in which the field has emerged over the last two decades is
then examined. The discussion thai turns to a consideration of the
intellectual
substance of the new political economy of agriculture, assessing die
parameters of the field and some of the topical areas that are emerging but
which were not encompassed in the Madison miniconference and, hence,
ate not included in this volume. This introductory chapter concludes with
a brief analysis of the chapters of this book according to the way they are

organized in the volume.

The New Political Economy of Capitalist Agriculture

Central to the chapters in this volume is that something

new is

happening
inagriculture something
practices
-
different from earlier
agricultural
different from earlier of
and, importantly, qualitatively stages
capitalist
agriculture. What can begenetically called the food sector has been
repeatedly and qualitatively transformed over the last sesquicentenaiy.
Most recently, the economic crisis of the early 1970s, a crisis substantially
a product of larger structural cycles within capitalism and, more specific to

agriculture, the Soviet-American grain deal, contributed to the final

emergence
of new national and international divisions of labor in all sectors of
the global economy, including agriculture. This coming forth of a global
food regime had been immanent for some time; its fruition resulted from
the conjunction of several crises in the early 1970s producing the final
1
emergence of a new, but still nascent, stage of global economy.
Related to the changes in global economies and agricultural
production,
something new is occurring in the analysis of agriculture, specifically
in the political economy of capitalist agriculture. As a result of the social
movements of the 1960s, coincident with the economic crises that began in
the 1970s, new populist and marxist critiques of capitalist agriculture began
to merge. Particularly within the marxist tradition, theoretical analysis of
agrarian social relations and die revolutionary character of peasantries has
a significant history. What has occurred with the new international

1
See Friedmann 1987, for a summary of the recent transitions of the global food
economy, and Agnew and Corbridge 1989, Gordon 1988 and Thrift 1989 for
, ,

assessment* for the long-term significance of changes in the world economy.

William Friedland

division(s) of labor in agriculture is the heightened search for a political

economic theory which explains the social and production relations of food
and agriculture since, as is stressed below, theorization of the peasantry,
rurality, and/or fanning is no longer adequate.
For better or worse, the critiques presented here are largely from the
industrialized nations of Europe and North America (though several
chapters address topics which encompass issues beyond the core capitalist
economies while two chapters [on technology and gender] draw heavily on
Third World-oriented literatures that have new implications for issues of
concern in the advanced capitalist world). Nonetheless, within the
advanced industrial nations, neo-marxist analysis has become consolidated,
transforming social analysis and the analysis of agricultural social relations,
one result of which is the articles in this collection.
A key component of the new national and international relations in

agriculture, and central to the populist and neo-marxist critical theories, is

that the modern developments in agriculture are capitalist in character.
This means that the modern crisis of capitalist agricultural accumulation
must be placed in the context of historical transitions within all sectors of
the global capitalist economy. This is die transition from the national and
international relations associated with post-World War II U.S. hegemony
to the global economy now characterized by interrupted and increasingly
uneven accumulation (MacEwan and Tabb 1989 ; Gottdiener and Komninos
1989), by state fiscal crises (see O'Connor's [1973] pioneering analysis),
and by a realignment of economic power from the west eastward.
Analysis of capitalist social and production relations demands class
analysis, studies of capital accumulation via the exploitation of labor and
labor markets, and attention to localized developments in production and
reproduction as mediated reflections of global trends.
Finally, the political economy of new relations within global
capitalism
requires an examination of the transitions which began long before the
immediate historical era, from polyglot local farming practices to
concentrated
corporate-capitalist agricultural production. This movement from
rural farming to industrial agriculture is directly related to the development
of new productive practices and new economic formations within, and
outside,the food sector. Peasant production, simple commodity production
(i.e., fanning), and the "Fordist" (see Aglietta 1979; Lipietz 1987 ; lessop
1988; and Kenney et al. in this volume) extension of chemical and
mechanical agriculture across the globe have given way to a highly
industrialized
and capitalized food sector which utilizes generic inputs for the
production of durable foods. Simply put, the present situation is one in
which the connotations of "farming" -
in particular, rurality and
community,
but also other categories that are limited to national economies,
nation-states, and national societies are giving way to vertically and
-
horizontally integrated production, processing, and distribution of generic
inputs for mass marketable foodstuffs. These developments cannot be
encompassed by traditional analyses of agriculture neoclassical, populist,
-

and marxist -
and demand a new theoretical approach to political
economy,
an approach with which this volume seeks to grapple. The principal
theoretical variations emerging in the literature and major theoretical issues
at stake within the political economy of agriculture will then be discussed.

Populism and Marxism:

The Development of a Critical Agricultural Social Science

Capitalist economies experience cyclical crises. While it has not been

possible to suggest that agricultural production has approached full
capitalization
until recently, agricultural markets have long experienced cyclical
crises, mostly associated with overproduction (Berlan 1989; Ehrensaft
1980). These crises have periodically resulted in radicalized politics most
often associated with populism, and less often with marxism, depending on
the political traditions of particular regions and nations.
In this context, since the 1880s, populism's power has been embodied
in its ability to mobilize people in persistent, if erratic, social movements,
oftenagrarian in character. The weakness of populism has been its failure
toproduce an enduring and useful theoretical analysis (though, typified by
Rodefeld et al [1978] and Strange [1989] much of the more sophisticated
,

work in this genre has undeniable utility).

Populist struggles generally undertake simple, usually local but
occasionally
capitalistdeveloping into regional and national, attacks on large-scale
enterprises, recognizing the damage monopolies of economic power
can do to specific communities. The strength of populism has been its

ability to identify processes of economic concentration within capitalism;

its failure has centered on an inability to grapple with fundamental
processes of capitalist development
-

i.e., class analysis, commodity

fetishism, uneven and combined development -
which has meant that its
movements, which re-surface phoenix-like with economic crises, have not
generated an enduring theoretical analysis. Rather, as each new form of
populism develops, a few theoreticians are generated to work with its more
populist practitioners yet without a coherent, long-lasting, analytic
paradigm.
teen
The history of marxist analyses of agriculture has very different,
although marxists have certainly ignored the development of agriculture in
advanced capitalist nations for too long. The mandan case varies from
that of populism if only because, historically, marxist analysis has focused
primarily on Europe and Asia rather than on the United States, where
populism has had a major home. More importantly, unlike populism,
marxist analysts had an early theoretical preoccupation with agriculture
-

although that preoccupation was not focused on agriculture per se.

Marx, himself, seeing the peasantry as a doomed class lost in the
stupefying parochial conditions of rural life, paid only sporadic attention to
2
agriculture. Instead, he concentrated his analytic powers on the industrial
proletariat of the nineteenth century. Despite Mane's distress at the
parochialism
of die peasantry and his emphasis on the proletariat, two classic
analyses of agriculture appeared early within the marxist tradition. The
first, Karl Kautsky's Die Agrarfrage (1988 [1899] The Agrarian -

Question)
was enormously influential in shaping the views

political
of the marxist
parties in die early 1900s. The second, V.I. Lenin's The Development
of Capitalism in Russia (1943a [1899]), while influential in Russia, did not
have a significant impact on marxist thinking outside of Russia until after
the Russian revolution of 1917, a revolution which elevated Lenin's
writings
into canon for several generations of marxists.3
While Kautsky's writing in Germany at the turn of the century in
effect "settled" die agrarian question for most marxists fa* the next seven
decades, in fact, neither he no- Lenin wrote their studies because they were
interested in agriculture in itself. It is only possible to understand how
agriculture, as a sphere of production, came to be studied by marxists by
considering the problematics that spurred the production of these two
now-classical studies of agriculture. 4

2
The attention Marx gave to agriculture far transcends the ubiquitous quotations
about "the idiocy of rural life" sad the likening of the peasantry to "a sack of potatoes."
For a thorough discussion of Marx's writings on agriculture and natural resources, see
Pcrelmsn 1990. Specifically, there were four major foci in Marx's analyses of
agriculture: (1) the expropriation of the peasantry as a basis for primitive accumulation
(especially in Capital Vol. 1, and Theories of Surplus Value; (2) an occasional
implication that independent peasant production of commodities exists outside the
capitalist mode of production (in Theories of Surplus Value); (3) the theory of ground
rent (in Capital Vols. 2 and 3); and (4) the (often misinterpreted) comment in The

Eighteenth Brumaire about the peasantry being like "a sack of potatoes."
3
Lenin was far more prolific in writing about agriculture and the peasantry than
Kautsky, a reflection of the industrial backwardness of Russia and the much greater
social importance of the Russian peasantry. See, for example, Lenin 1943 b (written in
1908 but not published until 1918), and 1943c [1903].
4
For a thorough analysis of the agrarian question in marxist circles in the early
stages of the development of marxist and socialist movements see Hussain and Tribe
1981. Volume 1 of this two-volume publication deals with "German Social Democracy
aid the Peasantry 1890-1907"; Volume 2 discusses "Russian Marxism and the
Peasantry 1861-1930."
 Kautsky's Die Agrarfrage was published in 1899.5 This study
attempted to resolve an issue which had arisen within the German Social
Democratic Party as to the relationship of the German peasantry to social
democracy (i.e., the parliamentary road to socialist power). The debate
arose out of the rapid growth of the party and its successes in winning the

loyalty and adherence of the urban proletariat Some segments of the party
leadership were concerned that the structure of German politics would
preclude
the party from achieving political power unless the party's base was
broadened beyond the proletariat. In 1894, Georg von Vollmar and several
other German social-democrats suggested that the party begin the active
pursuit of a peasant following (Russell 196S: 152-163; Steenson 1981 :
181-188). It was as part of this debate, culminating in the abandonment of
the peasantry at the Breslau Congress in 189S, that Kautsky wrote what
later emerged as Die Agrarfrage.
Published only a decade after the legalization of the party, it should
be noted that the debate on the peasantry took place in the context of the
larger debate over what came to be known as revisionism (Steenson 1978 :
Chapter 4 83-131). Revisionists in the German Social Democratic Party
,

suggested that the growth and homogenization of the proletariat, and

therefore
the revolutionary importance that Marx and Engels had attributed to
the proletariat, were not taking place. 6 It was within the context of this
larger debate that Kautsky addressed his analysis of the peasantry, holding
it to be a class doomed to proletarianization, even if die process would
inevitably be protracted More specifically, Kautsky envisioned a continual
process by which capitalist economic relations would dominate peasant
production. Rather than a self-sufficient peasantry that would be
economically
strong and manifest political efficacy, Kautsky predicted the ultimate
demise of the class, With Germany's rapid industrialization and the
enormous
growth of its proletariat, his analysis proved to be largely correct
In Russia, Lenin's problematic developed around the question of
whether capitalism had established a sufficient base in Russian society.
Early Narodnik (populist) revolutionaries had formulated an analysis which
found that Russian capital was too feeble, and czarism too powerful, to

5
No English translation of Die Agrarfrage appeared is its entirety until 1988
(Kautsky 1988 [1899]). Prior to this time, an early application by an American
socialist appeared several years after Kautsky'a publication (Simons 1903). The only
appearance of significant portions of Die Agrarfrage in English took the form of s
translation by Banaji in 1976 in Economy and Society (see also Btatfi 1980).
6
For an excellent summary of these debates, see Husstin and Tribe (1981); for &
collection of major documents in these debates, see Hussaia and Tribe (1984).
establish capitalism in Russia.7 Later, they saw the czarist state as Russia's
"main capitalist force," the creator and defender of the exploitative classes
which yielded a capitalism that was intrinsically parasitic and unstable
because of its dependence on foreign markets. The Narodniks nonetheless
held that it would be feasible to skip the capitalist stage of development
and make a direct transition to a socialist society based on traditional
socialistic forms (the Russian commune, or mir found among Russia's
peasantry).
Lenin, in company with other marxists of the time, in opposition to
the Narodnik analysis, argued that capitalism was already established in
Russia and was developing extensively despite its immediate weaknesses.
Lenin confronted a very different situation than did Kautsky: the sheer size
and weight of Russia's peasantry constituted a very different social
situation
from that of Germany since, by comparison, Russian capital and the
Russian proletariat woe minuscule. Concentrated in a handful of major
industrial locations and still rooted in its peasant background, Russia's
proletariat was only beginning to manifest feeble organizational capabilities
when Lenin addressed the development of capitalism in Russia.
Lenin therefore had a dual problematic. On the one hand, he had to
explain capitalist development in Russia; on the other, he had to come to
grips with what appeared to be the central role that Russia's peasantry
might play in the coming revolutionary struggle. The Development of
Capitalism
in Russia, written by Lenin while banished by the Czar to Siberia
in the late b and published in 1899, the same year that Kautsky's
work was published, represented Lenin's struggle with these problematics.
Reluctant to abandon the peasantry as a revolutionary force, Lenin
consideredthe political role of the peasantry in The Development..., as well as
in other analyses, as he struggled to resolve the vexing question of the
peasantry's relationship to the proletariat After all, had not Engels (1978
[1850]) written extensively on the question of peasant revolt?
Lenin's "resolution" had him at odds with many of his Social
Democratic
comrades. Rather than focusing his interests exclusively on the
proletariat, Lenin contended that the possibilities of a proletarian and
8
peasant revolutionary alliance should not be overlooked. This was a
position
to which he would adhere in a variety of writings for the better part

7
It should be recognized, however, as Shanin (1984 : 8) has stressed, that the
Narodniks were quite heterogeneous in composition and beliefs. It is mainly due to
Lenin's writings, in which he used the notion of populism to pertain to a handful of
texts, that the characterizations in this paragraph have come to represent the ostensibly
dominant tendencies in Russian populism.

8Strains of this position lasted through to his "Preliminary Draft of Theses on the
Agrarian Question" ( Lenin 1943e [1920JX in which he maintained that the dispossessed
agrarian strata could be a (partial) social base for revolutionary socialism.
of a decade before, finally, like Kautsky, turning exclusively to the
proletariat in the search of revolutionary energy.
The issue of the peasantry and agriculture
-
was effectively
-

"settled,"
at least until the Russian revolution of 1917, with the publication of
Die Agrarfrage, which quickly became a classic in Europe. This work was
translated into most European languages the sole major exception being
-

English. The basic analysis of Die Agrarfrage, which directed social

democratic energies away from the peasantry and maintained a focus on
the working class, was reinforced by the continual growth of the European
social democratic parties, their memberships, and their increased influence
in parliaments. This convinced most Social Democrats that Kautsky's
analysis was fundamentally correct that the peasants were not a
-

consequential
social class, that they were fated to be proletarianized, and that
agriculture would follow the general outlines and patterns of industry's
development. 9
After Kautsky's and Lenin's works "settled" the issue of the peasantry
and agriculture, part of the loss of interest by marxists in agriculture
resulted from the variety of other issues which arose with the development
of European capitalism and imperialism. As the European powers
established
colonial domination in Asia and Africa, imperialism and war
became major concerns for theorists such as Lenin (1943d [1916]).
The onset of the nrst world war caused the overnight collapse of the
social democratic discussion in the Second International (the European-dominated
social democratic international) on imperialism and war as the
various national parties supported their governments on entry into the war.
This created a new problematic for those socialists who opposed the war.
for them the question became, how to turn the imperialist war into a civil,
i.e., class, war? That discussion became of burning concern after February
1917 when, in Russia, a spontaneous and disorganized revolt brought down
the rotting carcass of czarism. From that time on, the issue of the Russian
revolution came to dominate marxist and socialist thinking.
With the Bolshevik success in November 1917, the question of the
peasantry (let alone agriculture) in the Soviet Union subsided. For die
next five years, it was widely believed that the Russian revolutionary
success
was accidental and, unless buttressed by revolutionary successes
elsewhere
in Europe, particularly in Germany, the Russian revolution could not
be sustained. By 1923, however the possibilities of a German or French
revolution had played themselves out. If the Russian revolution was to

9
It should be noted that the peasantry proved to be a pivotal base of electoral
support in several of the now-longstanding Nordic social democracies (Esping-Anderson
1985).
survive, support would have to come from other places. Enchanted by the

possibilities in China where political ferment continued after a spontaneous

revolution overthrew the corrupt Ching dynasty in 1911, Russia's
revolutionaries
turned their attention to the massive peasant societies of Asia.
Again the focus centered initially on the minuscule, if enormously
concentrated,
proletariat in China's cities. It was therefore left to a heretical Mao
Tse-Tung to articulate a new version of the abandoned Leninist (mentation
toward the peasantry. 10
After the collapse of theproletarian orientation in the massacre of
Shanghai workers by Chiang Kai-shek, Mao's analysis of class relations
in
peasant society, while paying little attention to agriculture as a sphere of
production in and of itself, proved to be a winner, although it took several
decades and China's experience in the second world war
-
to provide
-

the empirical evidence. effectiveness with which the Chinese

Communists
The mobilized the peasant population not only to impede Japanese
-

expansion during the war, but to bring down Chiang Kai-shek's brutal
Kuomintang regime left the world breathless.
-

Traditional marxist theonzation, however, continued to emphasize

imperialism and colonialism and the underdevelopment of Asia's
economies rather than orient itself to the peasantry and agrarian social
relations,
though these last two "questions" generated some interest Thus, it
was the colonial, national, and associated peasant questions but not
-

agriculturethat preoccupied marxist theoreticians. This approach was

-

buttressed
by the successes of national and movements and
rebellions
Asia, Latin America,
in Africa anti colthe
after oniasecond
and l world The war.
Chinese revolution followed by similar events in Cuba and Vietnam,
was

establishing an apparent revolutionary dualism: peasantries appeared to be

central to anticolonial and nationalist revolutions in "developing" countries,
whereas industrial proletarians were to continue to be the key to
revolutions
in core "developed" nations. In neither case, however, did agriculture
11
emerge as a problematic for marxist analysts.

10 Mao's two key writings on this topic were "Analysis of the Classes in Chinese
Society" (Mao 1967a [1926]) and "Report of Investigation on the Peasant
Movement in Hunan" (Mao 1967b [1927]). A fine historical account of the tortuous
process by which the peasant revolutionary orientation was developed in China will be
found in Selden (1971). Friedland et al. (1982: Chapter 3) presents a theoretical
discussion of the emergence of revolutionary theory encompassing the peasantry as a
driving force.
11
As an aside, a bizarre incident took place in the United States between 1928
and 1934 (Record 1951 : 60-71). Emphasizing the importance of the national and
colonial questions, Communist theoreticians introduced the notion that Negroes in the
U.S. south constituted a colony and, as a consequence, it was necessary for American
communists to advocate Negro rights to self-determination, s concept seen as leading to
the emergence of a distinctive Negro nation in the south. This formulation emphasized
 The Agricultural Social Sciences in the U.S.:
The Abandonment and the Rediscovery of Agriculture

During the interwar years in the U.S.,

agricultural social and
productive
relations disappeared marxist problematic
as a rurality assumed
as was

to be peasant-like, a relationship believed to be well understood. But the

situation was hardly better in non-marxist social science. In the United
States, for example, at the same time that the largest single scientific
agricultural
complex in the world was being constructed (i.e., the land-grant
system of agricultural experiment stations, the extension service, and the
Agricultural Research Service of the the U.S. Department of Agriculture
[Busch and Lacy 1983 : Chapter 1 ; Rossiter 1979]), the institutions of U.S.
agricultural science were directed away from the analysis of social
relations
in agriculture through a series of "incidents" that made clear the
agricultural
sciences were to be focused on productivity and not on the
analysis of social relations in agriculture (Friedland 1979). Linking
themselves
at an early stage to "progressive" agriculture agricultural research
-

and development oriented to the market agricultural scientists resisted the

-

critical examination of social relations in the U.S. agriculture.

This tendency reacted its zenith after the second world war when the
U.S., well into its imperial mission, encouraged agricultural economists and
rural sociologists to study and work in Africa, Asia, and Latin America as
part of international development policy. The results continue to this very
day: U.S. agricultural social scientists know more about land tenure
arrangements and agricultural social relations in Malaysia, Bolivia, and the
Philippines than they do in Wisconsin, California, and Mississippi.
This situation remained intact until the mid-1970s when a critical
social analysis of U.S. and European agriculture began to be formulated.
The focus, here, shall be ondevelopments in the United States; the
resuscitation
of critical agricultural social analysis in Europe follows a different -

particularly a country-specific trajectory, and the unraveling of the

-

European
complexity should be left to Europeans (but see Mouzelis 1976 ; and
Goodman and Redclift 1988).
By the mid-1970s, American agriculture was beginning to experience
another major economic crisis. The post-war period, while having ups and
downs, was one of almost continuous expansion for much of U.S.
agriculture.
The contrast with the post World War I period was notable. The

the agrarian, i.e., peasant-like, character of Negroes as an agriculturally-based social

category in the southern U.S. It is important to note that this formulation was
significantly different from the concept, developed during the 1960s, of Blacks as an
internal colony (Blauner 1972) a concept that generated considerable interest at a time
,

when much of the Black population had become urbanized outside of the south.
period up to and including the first world war had constituted a "golden
age" for U.S. agriculture. With the expansion of the U.S. population up to
the war and the demands for food production during war, U.S.
agriculture
the
had expanded continuously after the 1890s. The immediate post-war
period saw the inception of a profound recession as market demand for
agricultural commodities declined while production expansion continued.
By 1922, U.S. agriculture was experiencing a crisis from which it did not
emerge until the second world war. Experience following the second
world war could hardly have been more different Entering an imperial
phase in which U.S. hegemony became global, die agricultural capability of
the United States became an integral part of its mission: food became a
political weapon. Successive events, including die Korean war, the
exportation
of food aid, and the Vietnam war, all that successive
meant
Secretaries
of Agriculture assigned die responsibility
were induce U.S.to
farmers
produce
to The Republican regimes initiated by Dwight
mare.
Eisenhower's presidency accepted this mission with a zest embodied in
Ezra Taft Benson's advice to U.S. farmers to plant "fencerow to fencerow,"
an injunction which helped complete the transition in U.S.
agriculture
to a fully market-oriented economy.
If this
system wonted
fairly well for U.S. farmersgeneral,
in a
process
of economic concentration in U.S. agriculture steadily pushed smaller
producers to the auction block. This was a gradual process, however,
largely unmarked by any special events until the petroleum crisis of 1973,
the Soviet-American grain deal, and the emergence of a global economic
downturn in the early 1970s. By 1975, many American farmers were
experiencing a crisis similar to that which had followed the first world war.
From this point on, U.S. agriculture experienced successive crises with
only occasional minor relief. It was this fact which began to impress itself
on the intellectual agricultural community after 1973.
That intellectual community, found in the social science departments
of the land-grant colleges of agriculture, was composed almost entirely of
agricultural economists and rural sociologists. Hie agricultural economists
were paradigmaticaily unable to confront the post-1973 crisis since their

hegemonic model was based on neoclassical economics; almost to a

person,
they saw the economic crisis as simply another adjustment in the
economic system of agriculture. The theory they espoused suggested that,
while many small or inefficient producers would fall by the wayside, this
was a necessary step in establishing a new equilibrium in agriculture, an

equilibrium in which a smaller number of efficient producers (who would,

necessarily, be larger in individual unit size) would supply the demands of
the market more efficiently.
In rural sociological circles, the situation was less sanguine. Smaller
in numbers, and certainly in influence in the land-grant institutions, rural
sociologists generally did not share the neoclassical paradigm of the
agricultural economists. Moreover, rural sociology had experienced a
boom let of its own during the period in which United States hegemony
spread abroad. The "demand" for sociologists and rural sociologists to
"explain" events in the Third World was part of a much larger
development
which hundreds of U.S. scholars (this writer included)
in were sent
abroad tolearn about an incredibly broad range of topics ranging from
land in Malaya to trade unions in Tanganyika (as these nation-states were
thenknown).
By the early 1970s, a whole new generation of rural sociologists had
been drained. On the whole, the immediate post-war generation had been
trained in a rural sociology which had learned the dangers of challenging
the hegemony of production agriculture and its intellectual articulators, the
agricultural economists. What made difference with the new
generation the
was the profound intellectual crisis which the U.S. experienced during
the decade of the 1960s with the anti-war, civil rights, and student
movements.
It impossible be student, undergraduate
was tograduate,
a or

during
the 1960s and
early ignore 1970s and
developments. those And
sociology
-
and other social science students found themselves involved in the
-

radicalizing student movement.

Thus, rural sociology graduate students during this period were formed
under sharply different circumstances than the previous cohort which had
conducted its graduate studies during the expansion of U.S. hegemony of
the late 1940s and 1950s. The radicalization of the new generation of
rural sociologists often developed when they saw their parents and
neighbors
(most of them came from agriculturally-based families) going
bankrupt
and disappearing from agriculture. Accompanying the general
radicalization
of the American students, the new generation of rural sociologists
politicized their involvement in the U.S. apparatus abroad which was, in
-

any case, contracting because of the inability of the U.S. to command its
presence in Vietnam and at home.
-

This new generation therefore undertook a step which the previous

generation (with one or two notable exceptions) had been unable to take,
for the first time in three decades, turning attention to U.S. agriculture.
Another major began to develop in the
intellectual influence had also
U.S. academy at this
point: the New Left. Initially intellectually formless
except for its hostility to the Vietnam war and its support of the civil
rights movement, the New Left arrived on the U.S. scene with an
intellectual
tabula rasa. Its intellectual work began primitively with the
inauguration
of journals such as Studies on the Left, but the New Left did not begin
its profound intellectual growth until after the movement had begun to
decline. Until that time, the development of the movement of activism
- -

had been the preoccupation of the New Left which prided itself on having
left the Old Left, with its interminable discussions, behind.
 Once the student and anti-war movements disappeared, the widespread
search for intellectual explanations began. Thousands of students who had
been activated during the "movement period" returned to the universities,
preparing to enter academic employment Many of these students sought
to understand what had happened to their movement, and this brought

many, in turn, to a new version of marxism now often referred to as neo-marxism.

Thus the contingent conjunction of the now-endemic agricultural crisis,

a decline in New Left activism, and the entry of many followers of the
New Left into the academy, set the stage for the emergence of a new and
critical orientation in the agricultural social sciences.

The Evolution of the Sociology of Agriculture

That rural sociology in the United States had eschewed systematic

analysis of agriculture became clear during a one-day meeting held at the
University of California, Davis, prior to the annual meeting of the Rural
Sociological Society (RSS) in 1978. This was a "rump" meeting initiated
by several younger rural sociologists, some still graduate students, who
were acutely dissatisfied with the state of U.S. agriculture, the destruction
of family-based farming, and the relative indifference of agricultural
scientists
and the agricultural economists to the crisis in U.S. agriculture.
The Davis meeting represented the first coming-together of the two
intellectual strands that would develop in rural sociology with augmentation
from other social scientists not part of the rural sociological network.
These two strands were the neopopulist and neo-marxist tendencies.
Neither
strand crystallized immediately; the Davis meeting provided the first
opportunity for both to understand their common antipathy to developments
in U.S. agriculture, to the role of the government (not yet defined as "the
state") in accomplishing the demise of family-based agriculture, and to the
failure of the agricultural social sciences to acknowledge the destruction of
family-based farming as a "problem." If both strands could find common
enemies, it became clear that there were also fundamentally different
orientations.
If both were concerned with the process of economic
concentration,
the neopopulists searched for some practical way to come to grips
with the disappearance of family-based farming whereas the neo-marxists
searched for some practical way to come to grips with the way in which
the laws of capitalist development were manifested in agriculture. Both
strands could sympathize with the movements developing in the midwest.
The neo-marxists, however, felt uncomfortable with the inability of the
neopopulists to understand that what was going on in agriculture was the
working through of fundamental processes of capitalist economic
development For their part, the neopopulists did not see the efficacy of an

attack upon capitalism as solving the pressing problem of farm

bankruptcies.
After the 1978 session, a series of meetings occurred within which
much intellectual ferment unfolded. Two patterns of activities began to
emerge: meetings held on an ad hoc basis during which new research on
agriculture was reported, and, as a concomitant, the beginnings of
publication
on agriculture reflecting the new approach.

following the Davis meeting, as research proliferated, a very informal

miniconference -

indeed, it almost an "underground" meeting

was was -

organized in conjunction with the annual gathering of the Rural

Sociological
Society in 1981. At this session the new tendency became named the
sociology of agriculture. The significance of this meeting in Guelph,
Ontario rests not only on the number of papers that were presented which
permitted the clustering of panels, but, more importantly, on the fact that a
new area of research had crystallized that deserved recognition. Up to that

point, no existing body of sociological knowledge "covered" this material.

Yet another meeting was held in conjunction with the annual meeting
of the American Sociological Association in Detroit in 1983. This session,
now explicitly focused on the sociology of agriculture, was held at the

University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. Like the Guelph session, the

number of papers reinforced the notion of a field that was no laager
"emergent" but had "arrived."
While these meetings were taking place in North America, other
meetings
took shape internationally. In 1978, at the World Congress of
Sociology
in Uppsala, Sweden, several papers on agriculture were presented. An
informal group met and requested the International Sociological Association
executive committee to include several sessions on the sociology of
agriculture
the world congress, scheduled for Mexico
at next 1982. This in
request was granted, mid several sessions were held at Mexico City.
Attendees in Mexico called for a more permanent structure within the
International Sociological Association to encourage the development of
interests in the sociology of agriculture internationally. An Ad Hoc Group
was formalized in accordance with ISA rules, and five sessions were

requested for the 1986 meeting in New Delhi, India. At the New Delhi
meetings the Ad Hoc Group was "promoted" to a Working Group and
subsequently to a Research Committee. As a Research Committee, the
Sociology
Agriculture
of group is entitled to sponsor numerous sessions at the
quadrenniel world congresses.
In 1988, taking advantage of the Worid Congress of Rural Sociology
in Bologna, Italy, a series of sessions woe incorporated into its
deliberations
by focusing on the role of the state in agriculture. At this same
Congress, the tendencies toward internationalization which had begun in
Uppsala were brought to full fruition as a one-day pre-meeting, Ancore die
12
Agrarfrage, was held
While these developments unfolded in academic meetings, the parallel
publication process was taking place. The appearance of Change in Rural
America: Causes, Consequences, and Alternatives (Rodefeid et al., 1978),
presaged the initiation of the sociology of agriculture in published form.
Based partially on older writings but incorporating new materials, this text
reflected the rural sociological origins of the emergent new focus on
agriculture,
This volume was followed by the first set of studies that
represented the new approach more explicitly; embodying populist and
neo-marxist analyses, The Rural Sociology of the Advanced Societies:
Critical
Perspectives (Buttel and Newby 1980) was the first clear theoretical
elaboration of the field, yet still reluctant (as manifested by its title) to
depart from the rural sociological connection. Subsequent studies by many
contributors over the next several years saw the final crystallization of the
sociology of agriculture as a respectable literature. In this respect, synoptic
overviews by Newby (1978, 1980, 1982, 1983a, 1983b) and Buttel (1982)
helped to define and shape the emergent field.
As research proliferated, several "problems" and ideas crystallized for
scholars working in this field. Fethaps the first of these was that sociology
as the key label was too limiting for the work being dons; what was

emerging represented a broader approach that, during die next few years,
became designated as the political economy of agriculture.
Most sociologists conducting research on agriculture were acutely
aware of the separation that had occurred historically between rural
sociology
and
agricultural deploring economics. While
separation, this most
sociologists were sensitive to the restricted outlook that agricultural
economics had "achieved" an outlook not only overly focused on the
-

neoclassical paradigm but one which, on the whole, failed to grasp the
social and political totality of modem agriculture. One thing particularly
seen as missing was critical analyses of major areas of inquiry. There
were simply too many topics in agriculture that were not being examined

by agricultural economists, let alone by rural sociologists.

At the same time, most of the researchers in the developing field of
the sociology of agriculture found that a significant amount of their work
drew and derived from "economic" data data upon which whole new
-

constructions were being developed but without which the new scholarly
developments were impossible.
12
Again the agrarian question. The title of the pre-congress meeting deliberately
conjoined Italian and German. The agrarfrage designation sought to ground
discussions in the original marxian frame of reference while modernizing both theory
and analysis.
 Three other disciplines entered the research area, political
soon
science,
anthropology, geography. sociologists
and While many had been
concerned for decades with issues of rural policy, die policy aspects of
agriculture had largely been surrendered to the agricultural economists
who, on the whole, took a restricted view of policy and, as well, often set
out policy options in terms of their neoclassical perspective. As for
politics,
there had been a notable accumulation of a political science and
political
sociology literature over the decades, usually by political scientists and
sociologists who utilized their agricultural subject matter to pursue
generalized
political issues but who were disinterested in the politics of agriculture
itself (Banfield 1951 ; Selznick 1953 ). With one major exception
(Hadwiger 1982), agricultural politics and policy represented constricted
and limited topics that scholars waking in the field of the sociology of
agriculture recognized as critical to understanding the agricultural
complexes
of advanced capitalist societies.
The anthropological approach often augmented by oral history
-

methods began
-
to be appreciated as microanalytic studies turned to such
issues as the persistence of family-based farming and (he detailed
organization
of labor processes in distinctive agricultural commodities (see, for
example, Chibnik 1987 ). In any case, practitioners of both disciplines, on
the one hand, were drawn into the developing field of the sociology of
agriculture while, on the other hand, sociologists increasingly found
themselves
using approaches rooted in these two disciplines.
The geographical approach was probably most strongly represented in
Europe, particularly among the British. Although there had been an early
neo-marxist and neopopulist study by an American geographer (Vogeler
1981), it was left to the British and Canadians to introduce a systematic set
of geographic concerns about agriculture {Fuller 1984; Hogg art and Buller
1987; Marsden et al. 1986 , 1987).
Yet another intellectual strand close to the developing scholarly
came

movement, although always retaining a clear independence. This was the

formation of the New World Agriculture Group (NWAG) by biological and
ecological scientists at a number of universities. Adhering to a clear-cut
marxist frame of reference, this group, while focusing heavily on providing
support to agricultural research in revolutionary societies such as
Nicaragua, also became concerned with some of the topics being studied
by participants in the political economy network, particularly agricultural
labor (Vandermeer 1981) and the environmental effects of large-scale
capitalist
agricultural production (Levins and Lewinton 1985 ).
Additionally, as studies of the social organization of scientific activity
proliferated, social analyses of the agricultural sciences began to emerge.
Studies by Busch and Lacy (1983; 1986), Hadwiger (1982) , and Ruttan
(1982) provided the first thorough description of die agricultural science
network in the United States.
 What became increasingly clear as the field emerged was that the
designation sociology, white convenient, failed to grasp, in terms of the
historic parameters of a very flexible and adaptive discipline, the
complexity
of agricultural social relations. In this respect, what emerged was an
interest in what conventional social science circles might refer to as
interdisciplinary
work, a term that undoubtedly would be rejected by most of
the participants in this tendency. Most neo-marxist social scientists do not
perceive of themselves as interdisciplinarians. Further, the term political
economy emphasizes die impossibility of disaggregating the social from the
economic, political, cultural or, indeed, the scientific.
A second major trend also became discernible: the emergence of
comparativeand global perspectives. Comparative analysis has long been an
important methodology in the social sciences. The comparative analysis of
national agricultural systems began to make clear the existence of four
distinctiveloci for potential intellectual work: the agricultural systems of
advanced capitalism, the Third World, of "socialist" or centrally-planned
economies, and of the global economy.
The cross-national comparative approach has not yet developed as a
distinctive subfield in the new political economy of agriculture. In one
sense, nationally-based perspectives continue to dominate the field. This
limiting focus is understandable given the complex character of national
agricultural systems; developing a thorough understanding of a national
system, much less a global one, requires years (if not decades) of research.
Thus, the generation of a truly comparative approach to understanding
national systems remains a nascent but critical item on the agenda.
Pressing
volume.
forward with this urgent task is one of the key purposes of this

Major Developments in the New Political Economy of Agriculture

The past decade has seen a proliferation of published research on the

political economy and the sociology of capitalist agriculture. This section,
without claiming to be exhaustive, presents some of the major findings
elicitedover this period. Briefly, this section describes several major
research areas that have been developed.
Despite the nascent character of the discipline, it has become quite
clear that there are common features of capitalist agricultural systems when
compared cross-nationally. In such varied contexts as Canada, Great
Britain,
France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, the Scandinavian countries, Spain,
and the United States, there exist common intellectual orientations and
problematics. First among these commonalities is the issue of the "survival
capability" of family-based farm units in the light of the declining
significance of agriculture for national economies and labor markets.
While the nomenclature of the problem -
for example, pluriactivité in
France and part-time farming in the U.S. -
varies, the central issue focuses
on the increased concentration of agricultural production in a miniscule
percentage of very large units and the increase in the number of farmers
sustaining their presence in agriculture through off-farm sources of income
(see, e.g., Bonanno 1987 ).
In the United States, formulations such as "part-time farming," the
"disappearing middle," "rural turnaround," "rural renaissance," "hobby
farmers," "tax-loss farmers," "farmettes," and "retirement farms" represent
attempts to come to grips with what became known in the last years of the
Carter administration in the 1970s, as the "changing structure of
agriculture"
(U.S. Department of Agriculture 1981). Confronting the increased
share of national production concentrated in the largest 200,000 agricultural
units and representing continuity in developments that had spearheaded the
formation of the sociology of agriculture approach, debate has been
continuing
-
and now represents a significant part of the literature on -

persistence
versus disappearance of family farming (or, as it is sometimes

referred to, the "family labor farm," i.e., the agricultural production unit
which is of sufficient economic strength to provide an economic base to a
family and whose labor is provided, in the majority, by family members).
Two distinctive approaches have emerged as this literature has
crystallized.
The first
emphasizes the
persistence, adaptibility, flexibility and of
smaller units; the second sees the continuing demise of such units and their
conversion into units in which a growing share of family income is derived
from off-farm sources. To a considerable degree the differences in
approach have developed from the methodology used by scholars in
investigating
this phenomenon. Microanalytic approaches, particularly those of
anthropology and oral history, typically emphasize the persistence theme
(see, for example, the papers in Chibnik 1987 and in Gladwin and Truman
1989 ; see also Salamon and Klein 1979, Salamon and O'Reilly 1979,
Salamon 1980) whereas macroanalyses tend to emphasize demise. Here
the problem is to reconcile what the perspective of the observer permits,
on the one hand, and that which it obfuscates, on the other. The literature

being produced on this topic not only includes debates between the two
approaches, but an attempt on the part of some of those emphasizing the
persistence theme to develop a better understanding of the factors
contributing
to differentiation and demise.
An essential element for the development of truly cross-national
comparative analysis requires that national-level analyses use common
categories of analysis and be knowledgeable about the character of
agricultural
systems in nations other than those in which scholarly expertise
exists. This part of the process is only just beginning, and an essential
elementin its evolution is to bring together scholars with in-depth knowledge
of their own national agricultural systems in contexts in which they can
begin to explore the commonalities and variations more explicitly. This
was the notion that underlay the approach to the agenda of the miniconference
from which the papers in this volume were drawn.
Although an explicitly cross-national comparative approach has not yet
emerged in the new political economy of agriculture, the emphasis on
global
issues is cme about which most scholars have become acutely sensitive.
This has become particularly manifest in several different areas.
First, there has been a growing recognition that the so-called

agricultural
is endemic national
"crisis" of
structural and to every economy
advanced capitalism and exhibits continuity in a series of overproduction
"crises" over more than a century. A tetter understanding of the ubiquity
of "crisis," the way it has manifested itself differentially within national
social formations, and the transnational market and nonmarket forces that
are contributing to it, represents one set of topics that have begun to be

explored (Goodman and Redclift 1989 ).

A second topic emerges from the larger literature concerned with the
restructuring of capitalist economies, a concern that has emerged in part as
a result of the decline of the British and American economies and the

growth in significance of those of Germany and Japan. Restructuring,

however, is far more profound than the shift in significance of national
economies; it has to do much mm with the development of a new
international
division of labor in production, distribution, finance capital, and
labor markets and relations. 13 And while much of the scholarly research on
this topic has taken place in production and circulation spheres other than
agriculture, there is now a growing concern to understand how
internationalization
processes operate in the realms of food and fiber production,
transformation into commodities, and access to money-capital and labor
(e.g., Sanderson 1985, 1986) and what the limits of internationalization are.
There have been profound new developments globally in agricultural
production. While "basic" wage-foods and industrial raw material
commodities
such as wheat, sugar, and cotton have long been implicated in global
markets, recent decades have seen die emergence of mass markets for
"luxury" commodities such as table grapes, citrus, frozen concentrated
orange juice, and kiwifruit. But other commodities, "intermediate" between
the old mass production crops and die newer luxury items, are also
entering
into more profound global production relations and distribution circuits.
These new "intermediate" commodities, which include processing tomatoes

13
We thus recognize that the traditional usage of "new international division of
labor" (e.g., Fiobel 1980) has implied a narrow focus on the relocation of
manufacturing activity from high- to tow-wage zones (Gordon 1988). In fact, the "new
internationalization" has been as or more profound in areas of credit and money capital
(Green 1987; Jenkins 1987) labor (Sassen 1988) and agriculture (Sanderson 198S).
, ,
and raisins, must be understood in a global context For example, the
entry of Greece into the European Economic Community had profound
effects cm the production of American raisins and, in turn, on the
economics
of the U.S. wine industry. Although research requires a global
approach, difficulties are often encountered because of the paucity of
research "at the base"; that is, there is, all too frequently, inadequate
research material concerning what is happening at the national level for
these commodities which now operate so profoundly in global markets.
Nevertheless, some research has begun to undertake the complex task of
understanding the global, international, and regional developments in the
production and distribution of food and fiber, the forces that are
contributing
to the elaboration of global systems, and the consequences at national
levels of such developments.
Yet another aspect of the global developments in agricultural political
economy involves a more explicit formulation: the articulation between the
agricultural production and distribution systems of advanced capitalism and
the Third World.
In marxian (and other) intellectual traditions, the relations between the
First and Third Worlds were encompassed in formulations involving
"imperialism," "colonialism," "neocolonialism," "unequal exchange,"
"surplus extraction," and the distinction between "central and peripheral
accumulation," and so on (see, for example, Brewer 1981 ; Corbridge
1986 ). These formulations have not lost their salience but they describe
generalized relationships and, arguably, give too much stress to idealized
core-periphery differences and tend to ignore heterogeneity within both
core and periphery. In considering the specificities of agriculture, the
intention has been to elucidate more recent exploitative relationships,
relationships
distinctive to agriculture, between First and Third World nations
arid, particularly, to explore the character of what might be called
transnational
agriculture.
Classical colonialism and imperialism referred to direct political and
economic exploitation in a global division of labor in which raw materials
were transferred from the Third to the First World at cheap prices. Recent

developments in the international division of labor have witnessed many

changes and refinements in what remains a basically exploitative
relationship,
but one which has become more diffused through the mediation of
global commodity markets (including markets in money-capital [Green
1987 ] and labor [ Sassen 1988 ]) rather than through the more direct,
immediate, and transparent
political military and domination of
imperialism.
In the new forms, while production of traditional agricultural
commodities
such sugar often remains based in tropical Third World nations,
as
"newer" commodities are entering into global commerce. Brazil's position
as the leading world exporter of frozen concentrated orange juice is
exemplary. Now a major world producer of oranges, Brazil consumes this
commodity only-in small quantities as a fresh product; the bulk of
production
is destined for world market distribution, with domestic consumption
of frozen concentrate being inconsequential because of the inequality of
income distribution in Brazil and the lack of domestic demand for a
commodity
whose consumption presumes the availability of household
refrigeration.
Similarly, the availability of table grapes in countries such as the
U.S.,
Great Britain, Germany, Sweden, etc., in mid-winter represents
the
emergence
of a new fresh fruit distribution system that integrates production in
the southern hemisphere especially from Chile with consumption in the
- -

northern hemisphere. The rapid spread of new food forms -

for example,
kiwifruit (originally marketed from New Zealand) -

represents yet another

case of die integration of production and distribution globally. The

complexity
of these distribution systems is such that, in 1988, the discovery of
two grape berries laced with cyanide collapsed the entire Chilean
distribution
network, costing an estimated $260 million through the destruction of
over 8% of Chile's annual production of grapes in the distributional
pipeline
(The Packer, July 22, 1989: 1A). Thus, the articulation between the
food and fiber production and distribution systems of First and Third
Worlds constitutes a topic that should be encompassed within the new
political
economy of captitalist agriculture.

Lacunae in the Political Economy of Agriculture Literature

If the new political economy of agriculture has developed quite

remarkably in the past decade, a number of topics that "obviously" might
have been studied remain -
at least in part, if not completely in a
-

research limbo. These include the analysis of industrial organization, the

character and location of economic concentration, the agricultural labor
market, the comparative analysis of agricultural worker organization,
environmental issues, rent, and policy analysis.
One topic that has been strangely absent in the early development of
the sociology of agriculture and present only in limited and somewhat
distorted
form in agricultural economics is that which seeks to understand the
confluence of organization and economic concentration. While sociologists
have been interested in industrial organization since the emergence of
industrial sociology after the second world war, that field became
increasingly
circumscribed as it focused on the analysis of formal organization.
Strangely, however, this approach, which seeks to understand the inner
workings of industrial organization, has constituted a major vacuum, up
until the present, in the sociology of agriculture. Nor have agricultural
economists given much attention to the inner workings of agricultural
organizations whether of general farm organizations, commodity
-

organizations,
special-purpose agricultural organizations, or individual agricultural
farm firms. Agricultural economists have looked at some of the economic
ramifications of organizations such as marketing-order organizations. This
literature, however, is devoid of any material that provides an
understanding
of how such organizations function, i.e., the political economy of
agricultural
organization. Thus, for this type of organization at least, we know
more about the consequences of their behavior thanks to the work of the
-

agricultural economists than we do as to why they do what they do, and

-

how they do it. Although this would seem to be an obvious research topic
for sociologists, that has not been the case.
Another aspect of this topic concerns the interrelationship of
organization
and economic concentration. Here the approach taken by one branch
of economics, neoclassical industrial organization, could be usefully applied
to understanding the new political economy of capitalist agriculture. This
requires the utilization of a commodity systems approach (Friedland et al.
1978; Friedland 1984) and the asking of such questions as: where, in the
chain of production and distribution of particular commodities, does
concentration
occur? Does it occur at the level of growers, grower
cooperatives,
marketing orders, processors, bulk purchasers of the commodity as a
food input, etc.? Further, how shall we account for the variable
organizational
develop differing
structures that in provide locations but which
identical
identical
-
or near topic explored by Michael
-
outcomes, a Gertler in
this volume. political
The organizations
economy of
-
their internal
processes, organizational interrelationships, the relationship of organization
to the state represents
-
a topic which has just begun to crystallize in the
14
new political economy of agriculture.
Several additional topics, still very much in the process of formation
and not yet very well developed at least in the English-speaking segment
-

of the new political approach

economy should be mentioned. One of
-

these, the character of agricultural labor markets and their relationship to

the changing structure of global, national, and regional economies, is very
well developed in the Italian context The topic has become one of
interest within other European countries but has not yet had significant
resonance in the United States or Canada. One major aspect of the
problem,
international migration of agricultural labor, is still bound up with
national analysis and tends to be characterized by a focus on localized and
detailed descriptive studies. Some work has begun, however, which seeks
to develop a more explicitly comparative dimension. This is an area that

14
Use innovations in integrating class analysis and organizational sociology by
Clegg (1989) and others make this task immeasurably easier, however.
begs for building on the base of localized studies and one which, we
believe, will develop more explicitly in the coming period (following, for
example, Sassen's [1988] path-breaking work on the internationalization of
labor and capital).
One topic that has not been explored in a very systematic fashion,
somewhat surprisingly since it concerns a key idea in marxism, is that of
working class organization and struggle. While there are many studies of
the development of working class organization at the national level, the
comparative analysis of the agricultural working class has been almost
nonexistent. In this respect, the national orientation of marxists is quite
profound, if somewhat embarrassing.
Yet another issue has to do with what might be referred to as policy
or "applied" activity. "Policy" formulation has been historically established
as the domain of the agricultural economists and, in most cases, issues
have been framed as to how to confront problems such as how to reduce
the national (or, in the case of Europe, die European Community) burden
of agricultural subsidies or how to grapple with the relationship between
national overproduction and the world market for agricultural commodities.
While rural sociologists have long been concerned about "application" and
"applied work," a somewhat different orientation is emerging within the
new political economy of apiculture. In the older rural sociological

tradition,
"application" referred to the work that social science extension did on
such topics as community development, community reorganization, or
community
resuscitation.
The of
new political economy agriculture, however, has been bereft of
policy discussions, at least until recently. In part this is a function of the
newness of these debates; in part this is also a reflection of the inability of
mandsi scholars to break with the modern formulations of traditionalist
paradigms -
of social democracy (with its welfare state and regulatory
approaches to agriculture), or Leninism (with its notion of collective
farms), or of cooperative forms (particularly of the Israeli models) and to
-

develop distinctly new approaches.

Many scholars, in their resuscitation of marxism in its current neo-marxist
form, have focused heavily on breaking with classical formulations
and developing their analyses in new directions. While highly creditable,
this approach has taken theoretical form and preoccupied its devotees to
the point that they have overlooked what has been referred to in marxism
as praxis. Its followers have forgotten the eleventh of Marx's "Theses on
Feuerbach" (Marx 1976 [1845]) which calls for philosophers not simply to
understand the world but to change it.
This approach, not fully shared within the new political economy of
agriculture network, derives from one segment of researchers who have not
abandoned the hopes that socialism initially held out hopes that have
-

been frustrated by the nightmares of the gulag, the Cambodian genocide,

and the Peoples' Army tanks in Tienanmen Square. These horrors, made
in the name of socialism, remain an indelible part of socialism's heritage.
Some of those involved in the new political economy of agriculture have
found these experiences to be structurally integrated with marxism and
have therefore withdrawn from a search for application. Others still
believe in the humane and humanistic character of socialism and want to
find ways to take the initial impetus of Die Agrarfrage and apply it to our
time along with the lessons that should be learned from the Russian
revolution
and its aftermath, and the collapse of Communist Party domination
in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
Finally, researchers in the new political economy of agriculture have
been slow to delve into the important, but complex linkages between
natural-ecological processes and agricultural production systems. This area
of work is relatively well advanced with respect to Third World agriculture
(see, e.g., Redclift 1987). And while this task has begun within the New
World Agriculture Group, as noted earlier, and there exist provocative
points of departure (see, for example, Frankel 1983 , and the new journal
Capitalism, Nature, Socialism), there remains a need for serious social
science
scholarship on phenomena such as the degradation of the forces and
conditions of production in modern agriculture, the articulation of
agriculture- and food-related movements with the larger "new social
movements"
ensemble, and the role of environmental in shaping food concerns

and agricultural policies.

Toward A "New" Political Economy:

15
The Intellectual Transition in the Analysis of Agriculture

It was stressed earlier that the new political economy of agriculture

manifests its "newness" in both the emergent realities of the transnationalization

of agriculture on the one hand, and on new theoretical approaches
on the other. This section focuses more precisely on the latter aspect of
the new political economy. Before doing so, however, it is important to
stress that this notion of "new political economy" should be taken neither
to imply that there is an identifiable category of "old," inferior political
economy nor that this volume contains a homogeneous collection of papers
that adhere to a singular, superior theoretical framework. Our notion of
new political economy, then, should be viewed more as a description of

important tendencies in the literature and in research than as a prescription

of the form of analysis. The following paragraphs will identify some of

15
This section was written by Frederick H. Buttel.
the important tendencies that the more recent literature in the political
economy of agriculture and many of the papers in this volume have
followed.
As thepolitical economy of agriculture began to take shape in the late
1970s, unsurprisingly, it reflected the nature of the adjacent literatures from
which it borrowed (e.g., peasant studies, development theory) and, as well,
the nature of western neo-marxism of the time. The implications of this
heritage woe three-fold. First, there was a stress on generalizing or
deductive theories 16 of agrarian transition (for example, caricatures of
Lenin's theory of differentiation of the peasantry). Second, the political
economy of agriculture scholarship in its early years focused heavily
around the "agrarian question," relatively narrowly construed as debates on
the transformation vs. persistence of the "family farm" and on the political
economy of agriculture as a production sector, i.e., in relative isolation
from other sectors. 17 Finally, this early scholarship often had a
preoccupation
with depicting how capitalism in agriculture was distinct from, and
incompletely penetrated by, or insulated from modem industrial capitalism.18

The new political economy, by contrast, involves postures that have

begun to depart substantially from the emphases of the late 1970s.
Increasingly, the more mature scholarship, for reasons internal to the
political
economy of agriculture community as well as larger trends within neo-marxist
analysis, exhibits a considerable degree of departure from the
deductivist postures of a decade ago. Though this trend was anticipated by
Mouzelis (1976) many years ago and furthered by the work of Goodman
and Redclift (1982) and Goodman et al. (1987) during the 1980s, the
notion of there being multiple processes and routes of capitalist penetration
and transformation of agriculture is increasingly accepted. Much of the

16
See Sayer (1987) for a provocative account of how western marxism,
especially the varieties of neo-marxism that predominated in the 1970s, tended to
rigidity marxist categories, to strive for an illusory generalizeability, to ignore the
humanist and dialectical underpinnings of Marx' thought, aad to stress positivist
methodologies.
17
Neo-marxist scholarship of the time was largely focused on debates between
"Chayanovian msrxistt" (as Lehmaen [1986] portrays the wort of Fricdmann [1980]
aad Mann sad Dickinson [1978]) versus those working from truncated versions of
Lenin's and Kautsky's theories (e.g., de Janvry 1980).

18 Major variants of this approach included functionalist arguments (e.g.,

Veigopolous' [1978] contention that a smallholder peasantry is functional to capitalist
accumulation) and "modes of production" arguments (e.g., that agricultural production
constitutes a distinct, if not noncapitalist, mode of production [Amin and Veigopolous
1974]).
scholarship in this volume (e.g., the papers by Mottura andandMingione,
Buttel and LaRamee) explicitly or works on this premise. A
implicitly
somewhat different departure from the deductivist structural reasoning of
the early scholarship in the field is Mooney's (1988) blending of neo-marxism
and neo-weberianism into a sociology of agriculture that stresses
the subjectivity of actors.
Second, the departure from late 1970s scholarship that is arguably the
most obvious -
and yet dramatic is the reconceptualization of agriculture
-

to stress a new set of problematics that transcend the traditional agrarian

question, based as it was on an historically-circumscribed period of state-building

(McMichael and Buttel 1990). These new problematics involve,
in particular, the nature of the articulations between agriculture, agricapitalist
enterprises, the state, and non-agricultural institutions. Not only
does the recent scholarship, exemplified by several chapters in this volume
(particularly those in Part I ), take a broader view of food and agriculture
than was typically the case a decade ago, but recent theories and research
approaches are much more sensitive to die interrelations between
agriculture
and "other sectors" (e.g., Friedmann and McMichael, 1989, and
Goodman et al., 1987 ; Kenney et al., this volume). In a certain sense, the
modern political economy of agriculture is ironically returning to the more
general problematics of Kautsky and Lenin, who, far more than their late
1970s disciples, recognized the mutual relations between agriculture and
nonfarm industry, the state, and other institutions (e.g., Friedmann, in this
volume). At the same time, a mere assertion of the imprimatur of the
classics will not do, as the transnationalization of agriculture has dictated
that our categories not be limited to those of national economy and
nation-state.
The theory and research in this volume also represent a significant
change from the late-1970s preoccupation with the differences between
agrarian and nonagrarian capitalism. Much of the early theorizing in the
political economy of agriculture took as its point of departure die fact that
the structure of agricultural production is premised on dynamics that are
fundamentally distinct from those of industrial capitalism, or that
agriculture
is a nondynamic, lagged, or "backward" form of industrial capitalism.
As Pugliese stresses in this volume, there has recently been a discernible
trend nonfarm labor processes in Italy to replicate those found in
for
agriculturefor some time (e.g., informatization, pluriactivity, intermittent
employment, etc.). Goodman likewise demonstrates below that agri-industry,
more often than not, has set the trends that ultimately become

generalized in many nonfarm industries. Thus, recent scholarship has

moved away from privileging nonagricultural industry as the motor force
of social change in agriculture.
 The Organization of This Book

The papers in this volume were prepared, with two exceptions, for a
miniconference held in conjunction with the 50th Anniversary meeting of
the Rural Sociological Society. The miniconference on the Political
Economy
of Agriculture, held in Madison, Wisconsin, 12-15 August 1987,
brought together the authors of the papers contained hare and others in a
series of sessions that provided an opportunity for continuous exchange on
a number of emergent issues.

Holding a series of meetings on political economy in the context of

the annual meeting of rural sociologists may appear to be somewhat
unusual; that such a meeting could be held in conjunction with the annual
assemblage of rural sociologists indicates the willingness of the program
committee of the RSS to host these sessions, i.e., the openness of rural
sociologists to new approaches and ideas and the degree to which interest
in agricultural matters has now become pervasive in American rural
sociology.
In many respects, the organization of the book follows the
organization
of the miniconference but there have been changes because the
some

papers of some contributors to the conference have not been included in

this book and the two papers on women and agriculture were not part of
the original conference. The paper by Friedland on women in U.S.
agriculture
was delivered at the annual meeting of the American Sociological

Association heid immediately after the Madison meeting. The paper by

Raynolds on women and agriculture in the Third World was "discovered"
during the course of the Madison meeting.
The first part of this volume, on "Agriculture and Agri-industry in
New National and International Divisions of Labor," focuses on the
transformation of agri-food systems. Consisting of papers by David
Goodman,
Harriet Friedmann, and Giovanni Mottura and Enzo Mingione, these
authors examine the complex integration of food systems with agriculture
and the emergence of the global agri-food system. The Goodman paper
extends the analysis of Goodman et al. (1987) by showing how appropriationist
and substitutionist aspects of agricultural technology have shaped the
major patterns of structural change in agri-industry. Friedmann's paper
delineates the deconstruction of an older global agricultural regime, which
involved a division of labor between advanced capitalist countries and
tropical
agricultures, and the transition of the international division of labor in
agriculture into the current global food regime based on commodity substi-tutionism
in the production of durable foods within and for a world market.
The contribution by Mottura and Mingione, in addition to demonstrating
the enormous adaptibility of capitalist agriculture in incorporating
significant numbers of small, highly productive, family-based units and
underemployed workers into a highly modernized agricultural system,
demonstrates the articulation between agrarian and agri-industrial
restructuring
in Italy over the past two decades.
The second of Crisis the volume focuses and the
part on "Agricultural
Restructuring of Agriculture and Agri-Industry." The paper by Jean-Pierre
Berlan discusses the emergence of soy production in the United States,
showing soy's contribution to the formation of the global meat complex.
Berlan also analyses a larger topic: how political and technological
developments in modern agriculture combine to make overproduction crises
inevitable. Enrico Pugliese's paper examines die development of the
modern agricultural labor market and demonstrates the new congruence
between this labor market and urban-industrial labor markets. The chapter
by Frederick Buttel and Pierre LaRamee turns to a consideration of the
"disappearing middle" debate in U.S. agriculture, suggesting that while die
notion has empirical validity, it is a "pseudo-theory" that must be better
grounded in the changing social relations of modem agriculture,
particularly
the 1970s agricultural investment boom and the global farm crisis of
the 1980s.
Part 3 of the book, consisting of papers by Martin Kenney, Linda
Lobao, James Curry, and Richard Goe, and by Shripad Deo and Louis
Swanson, deals with "Political Economy of Technological
Transformation
the
of Agri-Food Science and Technology." The paper by Kenney st al.,
building on earlier work (Kenney et al. 1989) focuses on how the concepts
of Fordism and regimes of accumulation can be usefully applied to
understanding
technological and structural change in Midwestern agriculture.
Kenney and colleagues also focus on how biotechnology might spearhead
future changes, toward either mass production of homogeneous
commodities
or specialization depending on the as-yet unknown character of the

new regime of accumulation. The Deo-Swanson papa examines the way

in which the agri-science network of the United States contributed to die
emergence of neocolonial agricultures in the Third World.
Part 4 is focused on Agriculture and the State: Historical and
ComparativePerspectives." The first paper, by Steve McClellan, approaches
agriculture and the state from the vantage point of debates within neo-marxist
and neo-weberian state theories. McOellan argues that statism, the
prevailing theoretical perspective on New Deal agricultural policy
formation,
conflates autonomy from class interests with autonomy from class
relations. He then suggests how the work of Fred Block, Nicos
Poulantzas, and Antonio Gramsci can help to understand how an accumulationist
farm policy was developed during the Great Depression. Michael
Gertler's chapter explores the role that state policy plays in rationalizing
the potentially anarchic relations between vegetable processors mid farmers.
Through comparative analysis of Ontario and New York, in which
geophysical
conditions are homogeneous, he shows how distinct patterns of state
intervention in vegetable product markets have evolved since World War
II. David Vail's paper on Sweden focuses on what cuirendy remains an
unusual situation, one in which a nation-state may be preparing to treat
agriculture as an environmental amenity rather than as a modality of food
security or capital accumulation. With the growth of environmental
mobilization
in the realms of food and agriculture, however, the Swedish case
may assume wider importance in the 1990s. Reidar Almaas' paper deals
with the debates in policy formulation in Norwegian agriculture, showing
how these debates influence state policy and critically affect the structure
of Norwegian agriculture. Manuel Moreira's paper demonstrates the role
of state policy in shaping the distinctive features of Portuguese agriculture,
in which systems of smallholder peasant farms in its north and
unproductive
latifundia in the south have been sustained.
Part 5 deals with a topic the role of women in agricultural
-

production
and reproduction that should be discussed in most of the papers hut,
-

because of traditional foci, is not. As noted earlier, Friedland's paper

focuses on women in U.S. agriculture whereas Raynolds' examines women
in Third World agriculture. Both papers set distinctive questions to be
considered in expanding the political economy of capitalist agriculture.

Conclusion

Finally, it should be noted that the papers in this volume only begin
the examination of the new political economy of capitalist agriculture.
Before a more comprehensive analysis becomes possible, much preliminary
research is required. Several topics not covered by these papers have been
mentioned earlier in this chapter. As the network of scholars interested in
and conducting research on the political economy of capitalist agriculture
grows, we can expect that some of these topics will begin to be elucidated.

References

, Michel 1979:
Aglietta A Theory of Capitalist Regulation London : New Left .

Books .

Agnew, John and Stuart Corbridge 1989: The New Geopolitics: The Dynamics of
Geopolitical Disorder Pp. 266 288 in RJ. Johnson and PJ. Taylor (eds.), A
.
-

World in Crisis? Oxford: Basil Blackwell .

Amin, Ssmir sad Kostas Vergopoulos 1974: La Question Paysanne et le

Capitalism
,Paris : Anthropos .

Banaji , Jarius 1976: A Summary of Selected Parts of Kautsky's The Agrarian

Question Economy and Society 5 , 1 , February: 2 49
.
,
-
.

______
1980: Summary of Selected Parts of Kautsky's The Agrarian Question .

Pp. 39 82 in Frederick H. Buttel aid Howard Newby (eds.), The Rural

-

Sociology
of Advanced Societies: Critical Perspectives Montclair, New Jersey:
.

Allanheld, Osmun .
Banfield , Edward C. 1951 : Government Project Glcncoe : Free Press . .

Berlan Jem-Pierre 1989: Capital Accumulation, Transformation of Agriculture,

,

and the Agricultural Crisis In A. MacEwan and W. K. Tabb , Instability and .

Change in the World Economy New York: Monthly Review Press. .

Blauner, Robert 1972: Racial Oppression in America New York: Harper . & Row .

Bonanno Alessandro 1987: Small Farms Boulder: Westview

, . .

Brewer Anthony 1981 : Marxist Theories of Imperialism London:

, .
Routledge &
Keg Paul an .

Busch Lawrence aid William B.

, Lacy 1983: Science, Agriculture, and the Politics
of Research Boulder Westview . .

(eds.) 1986: The Agricultural Scientific Enterprise: A System in

Transition
_____Boulder: Westview . .

Buttel Frederick H. 1982: The Political Economy of Agriculture in Advanced

,

Industrial Societies: Some Observations on Theory end Method Pp. 27 55 in .

-

Scott G. McNall (ed.), Current Perspectives in Social Theory Greenwich, .

Connecticut : JAI Press .

_____
and Howard Newby (eds.) 1980: The Rural Sociology of the Advanced
Societies: Critical Perspectives Montclair, New Jersey : Allanheld, Osmun . .

Chibnik, Michael (ed.) 1987: Farm. Work and Fieldwork Ithaca : Cornell .

University Press .

Clegg Stewart 1989: Organization Theory and Class Ananlysis Berlin : Dc

, .

Gruyter .

Corbridge Stuart 1986: Capitalist World Development London : Macmillan

, . .

de Janvry Alain 1980: Social Differentiation in Agriculture and the Ideology of

,

Neopopulism Pp. 155 168 in Frederick H. Buttel and Howard Newby (eds.),
.
-

The Rural Sociology of the Advanced Societies Montclair, New Jersey: .

Allanheld, Osmun .

Ehrensaft ,Philip 1980: Long Waves in the Transformation of North American

Agriculture: a First Statement Cornell Journal of Social Relations 15 : 65 83 . ,
-
.

Engeis Frederick 1978 [ 1850]: The Peasant War in Germany Pp. 397482 in
, .

Karl Marx and Frederick Engeis Collected Works New York: International , .

Publishers . Vol. 10 .

Esping-Andersen Gosta 1985: Politics Against Markets ,

. Princeton : Princeton
University Press .

Frankel Boris 1983: Beyond the State? Dominant Theories

,
and Social Strategies .

London: Macmillan Press .

Friedland , William H. 1979: Who Killed Rural Sociology? A Case Study in the
Political Economy of Knowledge Production Paper read at the 1979 Annual .

Meeting of the American Sociological Association .

______
1984: Commodity Systems Analysis: An Approach to the Sociology of
Agriculture Pp. 221 235 in Hairy K. Schwarzweller (ed.), Research in Rural
.
-

Sociology and Development: A Research Annual Greenwich, Connecticut: .

JAI Press .

Amy Barton Bruce Dancis Michael Rotkin and Michael Spiro

, , , ,
1982:
______

Revolutionary Theory Totowa, New Jersey : Allanheld, Osmun . .

 _____
, Barton , Amy E. and Robert J. Thomas 1981 :
, Manufacturing Green
Gold: Capital, Labor, and Technology in the Lettuce Industry . New York:
Cambridge University Press .

Friedmann, Harriet 1980: Household Production and the National Economy:

Concepts
for the Analysis of Agrarian Formations Journal of Peasant Studies 7
2 : 158 184 -
.
. , ,

_____
1987: The Family Perm end the International Food Regimes In Teodor .

Shanin (ed.), Peasants and Peasant Societies Oxford : Basil Blackwell . .

_____
and Philip McMichael 1989: Agriculture and the State System: The Rise
and Decline of National Agricultures, 1870 to the Present Sociologies Ruralis ,

29 : 93 117 -
.

Frobel, Folker 1980: The New Development of the World Economy Tokyo : .

United Nations University .

Fuller, Anthony M. 1984: Part-time Farming: The Enigmas aid the Realities Pp. .

187 219 in Harry K Schwarzweller (ed.), Research in Rural Sociology and

-

Development Vol. 1 Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press Inc

, ,. .

Gladwin Christina and Kathleen Truman (eds.) 1989: Food and Farm: Current
,

Debates and Policies Lanham, MD : University Press of America . .

Goodman , David and Michael Redclift 1982: From Peasant to Proletarian . New
York: St Martins .

1988: Problems in Analyzing the Agrarian Transition in Europe

Comparative
.

_____ Society History Studies in and , 30 : 784 791 -

.

_____ (eds.) 1989: The International Farm Crisis London : Macmillan Press . .

Goodman , David, Bernardo Saij and John Wilkinson 1987: From Farming to ,

Biotechnology Oxford : Basil Blackwell . .

Gordon, David M. 1988: The Global Economy: New Edifice or Crumbling

Foundations
New Left Review 168 : 24 64
. ,
-
.

Gottdiener Mark and Nikos Komninos (eds.) 1989: Capitalist Development and
,

Crisis Theory: Accumulation, Regulation and Spatial Restructuring London: .

Macmillan Press .

Green , Gary P. 1987: Finance Capital and Uneven Development . Boulder West-view.

Hadwiger ,Don F. 1982: The Politics of Agricultural Research Lincoln :

University
.

of Nebraska Press .

Hoggart , Keith and Henry Buller 1987: Rural Development: A Geographical

PerspectiveLondon: Croom Helm .

Hussain , Athar and Keith Tribe 1981 : Marxism and the

.

Agrarian Question
London
.

:Macmillan .

_____
(eds.) 1984: Paths of Development of Capitalist Agriculture: Readings
for German Social Democracy, 1891-99 London : Macmillan Press
Translation
, .

by Ben Fowkes .

Jenkins Rhys 1987: Transnational Corporations and Uneven Development

London
, .

: Methuen .
Jessop , Bob 1988: Regulation Theory, Post-Fordism end the State: More Than a

Reply to Werner Bonefield

Capital and Class 34 : 147 168 . ,
-
.

Kautsky , Karl 1988 [ 1899]: The Agrarian Question London : Zwan Publications . .

Translated by Peter Burgess .

Kenney, Martin, Linda M. Lobao , James Cuny, and W. Richard Goe 1989:
Midwestern Agriculture in Midwest Fordism: From the New Deal to
Economic Restructuring Sociologia Ruralis 19: 131 148 . ,
-
.

Lehmann David 1986: Two Paths of Agrarian Capitalism or a Critique of Chay-anovian

,

Marxism Comparative Studies in Society and History 28 : 601 627

. ,
-
.

Lenin, V.I. 1943s [ 1899]: The Development of Capitalism in Russia Pp. 95 259 .
-

in V.I. Lenin Selected Works New York: International Publishers Vol. 1

, . . .

_____
1943c [ 1903]: To the Rural Poor Pp. 243 310 in V.I. Lenin Selected .
-
,

Works New York: International Publishers Vol. 2

. . .

_____
1943b [ 1908]: The Agrarian Question in Russia at the End of fee
Nineteenth Century Pp. 13 91 in V.I. Lenin, Selected Works New York:
.
-
.

International Publishers Vol. 1 Written in 1908; not published until 1918

. . .

______ 1943d [ 1916]: Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism Pp. 3 119 .
-

in V.I. Lenin, Selected Works Moscow : International Publishers Vol. 5 . . .

_____
1943e [ 1920]: Preliminary Draft of Theses on the Agrarian Question .

Pp. 218 230 in V.I. Lenin , Selected Works Moscow : International Publishers
-
. .

Vol. 10 .

Levins , Richard and Richard Lewinton 1985: Cambridge : Harvard University Press .

Lipietz Alain 1987: Mirages and Miracles London: Verso

, . .

MacEwan Arthur and William K. Tabb (eds.) 1989: Instability and Change in the
,

World Economy New York: Monthly Review Press . .

Mann Susan A. and James M. Dickinson 1978: Obstacles to the Development of a

,

Capitalist Agriculture Journal of Peasant Studies 5 : 466 481 . ,

-
.

Mao , Tse-Tung 1967a [ 1926]: Analysis of Classes in Chinese Society Pp. 13 21 .

-

in Mao Tse-Tung , Selected Works Peking : Foreign Languages Press Vol. 1 . . .

_____
1967b [ 1927]: Report of Investigation of the Peasant Movement in an

Hunan Pp. 23 59 in Mao Tse-Tung, Selected Works Peking : Foreign

.
-
.

Languages Press Vol. 1 , .

Marsden , Tory , Richard Munton , Sarah Whstmore, and Jo Little 1986: Towards a
Political Economy of Capitalist Agriculture: A British Perspective
International
.

Journal of Urban and Regional Resources 10, 4 : 498 521 ,

-
.

Sarah J. Whatmore sad Richard J.C Munton 1987: Uneven

Development
.
, ,

___ and the Restructuring Process in British Agriculture: A Preliminary

Exploration Journal of Rural Studies 3 : 297 308
. ,
-
.

Marx Karl 1976 [ 1845]: Theses on Feuerbach Pp. 3 5 in Karl Marx and -

Frederick
.
,

Engels Collected Works New York: International Publishers Vol. 5

, . . .

McMichael Philip and Frederick H. Battel 1990: New Directions in fee Political
,

Economy of Agriculture Sociological Perspectives forthcoming. . ,

Mooney Patrick H. 1988 : My Own Boss? Boulder Westview Press

,
.

Mouzelis Nicos 1976: Capitalism and fee Development of Agriculture

,
. Journal of
Peasant Studies 3 : 483 492 ,
-
.
Newby, Howard 1978: The Rural Sociology of Advanced Capitalist societies In .

Howard Newby (ed.), International Perspectives in Rural Sociology Chichester: .

Wiley .

1 980 : Rural Sociology -

A Trend Report . Current Sociology , 28 : 1-141.
Spring .

______
1982: Rural Sociology In These Times The American Sociologist 17 . , ,

May 60 70 : -
.

______ 1983a: The Sociology of Agriculture: Toward New Rural Sociology a

.

Annual Review of Sociology 9 : 67 81 ,

-
.

_____
1983b: European Social Theory and She Agrarian Question: Toward a
Sociology of Agriculture Pp. 109 123 in Gene F. Summers (ed.), Technology
.
-

and Social Change in Rural Areas: A Festschrift for Eugene A Wilkemng .

Boulder Westview .

O'Connor, James 1973: The Fiscal Crisis of the State New York: St. Martins . .

Perelman , Michael 1990: Marx's Importance es a Theorist of Natural Resources .

Paper prepared for the Working Conference on Environment and Society, Feb .

9-10, 1990 at the University of California, Santa Cruz .

Record , Wilson 1951: The Negro and the Communist Party Chapel Hill :
University
.

of North Carolina Press .

Redelift, Michael 1987: Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions .

London : Methuen .

Rodefeld, Richard D. , Jan Flora , Donald Voth, Isao Fujimoto , and Jim Converse
(eds.) 1978: Change in Rural America: Causes, Consequences, and
Alternatives
St Louis : C.V. Mosby
. .

Rossiter , Margaret W. 1979: The Organization of the Agricultural Sciences Pp. .

211 248 in Alexandra Oleson and John Voss (eds.), The Organization of
-

Knowledge in Modern America, 1860-1920 Baltimore : Johns Hopkins .

University Press .

Russell , Bertrand 1965: German Social

Democracy New York: Simon and
Schuster
.

Ruttan Vernon W. 1978: Reviewing Agricultural Research Programs

Agricultural
, .

Administration 5 : 1 18 ,
-
.

1982: Agricultural Research Policy Minneapolis : University of

Minnesota
.

_____ Press .

Salamon Sonya 1980: Ethnic Differences in Farm Family Land Transfers Rural
, .

Sociology 45 , 2, Summer 290 308

,
-
.

_____
and Ann Mackey Keim 1979: Land Ownership and Women's Power in
a Midwestern Farming Community Journal of Marriage and the Family 41 , .
,

February : 109 119 -

.

_____
and Shirley M. O'Reilly 1979: Family Land and Development Cycles
Among Illinois Farmers Rural Sociology 44 , 3 , Fall : 525 542 .
,
-
.

Sanderson, Steven E. 1986: The Emergence of the 'World Steer':

Internationalization
and the Foreign Domination in Latin American Cattle Production Pp. .

123 148 in F. LaMond Tullis and W. Ladd Hollist (eds.), Food, the State, and
-

International Political Economy . Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press .

_____ (ed.) 1985: The Americas in the New International Division of Labor .

New York: Holmes & Meier.

Sassen , Saskia 1988: The Mobility of Labor and Capital Cambridge : Cambridge
.

University Press .

Sayer Derek 1987:

, The Violence of Abstraction Oxford : Basil Blackwell . .

Selden, Marie 1971 : The Yerum Way in Revolutionary China Cambridge : Harvard .

University Press .

Selznick Philip
Berkeley University 1953: TVA and The Grass Roots : of
California
.
,

Pros .

Shanin , Teodor 1984: Late Marx: Gods and Craftsmen In T. Shanin (ed.), Late
.

Marx and the Russian Road . New York: Monthly Review Press .

Simons A. M. 1903: The American Farmer Chicago : Charles H. Kerr

, . .

Steenson, Gary P. 1978: Karl Kautsky 1854-1938 Pittsburgh: University of

Pittsburgh
.

Press .

"

_____ Penny!" 1981 :

Democracy Not One Man! Not One German Social
1863-1914 Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press
. .

Strange Marty 1989: Family Farming Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press

, . .

Thrift Nigel 1989: The Geography of International Economic Disorder Pp. 16 78

, .
-

in R.J. Johnson and P.J. Taylor (eds.), A World in Crisis? Oxford: Basil
Blackwell .

United States Department of Agriculture 1981 : A Time to Choose: Summary

Report on the Structure of Agriculture Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department .

of Agriculture .

Vandenneer John 1981 : Tomatoes in the Midwest: Agricultural Research and

,

Social Conflict Science For The People Jan.-Feb.: 5-8 25 30 , ,

-
.

Vergopoulos Kostas 1978: Capitalism and Feasant Productivity Journal of

, .

Peasant Studies 5 : 446 481 ,

-
.

Vogeier, Ingolf 1981 : The Myth cf the Family Farm: Agribusiness Dominance of
U.S. Agriculture . Boulder Westview .
Introduction: Shaping the New Political Economy of Advanced
Capitalist Agriculture
Aglietta, Michel 1979: A Theory of Capitalist Regulation. London: New Left Books.
Agnew, John and Stuart Corbridge 1989: The New Geopolitics: The Dynamics of Geopolitical
Disorder. Pp. 266-288 in R.J. Johnson and P.J. Taylor (eds.), A World in Crisis? Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Amin, Ssmir sad Kostas Veigopolous 1974: La Question Paysanne et le Capitalism, Paris:
Anthropos.
Banaji, Jarius 1976: A Summary of Selected Parts of Kautsky's The Agrarian Question .
Economy and Society, 5, 1, February: 2-49.
Banaji, Jarius 1980: Summary of Selected Parts of Kautsky's The Agrarian Question . Pp. 39-
82 in Frederick H. Buttel aid Howard Newby (eds.), The Rural Sociology of Advanced
Societies: Critical Perspectives. Montclair, New Jersey: Allanheld, Osmun.
Banfield, Edward C. 1951: Government Project. Glcncoe: Free Press.
Berlan, Jem-Pierre 1989: Capital Accumulation, Transformation of Agriculture, and the
Agricultural Crisis. In A. MacEwan and W. K. Tabb , Instability and Change in the World
Economy. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Blauner, Robert 1972: Racial Oppression in America. New York: Harper & Row.
Bonanno, Alessandro 1987: Small Farms. Boulder: Westview.
Brewer, Anthony 1981: Marxist Theories of Imperialism. London: Routledge & Keg an Paul.
Busch, Lawrence aid William B. Lacy 1983: Science, Agriculture, and the Politics of Research.
Boulder Westview.
Busch, Lawrence William B. Lacy (eds.) 1986: The Agricultural Scientific Enterprise: A System
in Transition. Boulder: Westview.
Buttel, Frederick H. 1982: The Political Economy of Agriculture in Advanced Industrial
Societies: Some Observations on Theory end Method. Pp. 27-55 in Scott G. McNall (ed.),
Current Perspectives in Social Theory. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.
Buttel, Frederick H. and Howard Newby (eds.) 1980: The Rural Sociology of the Advanced
Societies: Critical Perspectives. Montclair, New Jersey: Allanheld, Osmun.
Chibnik, Michael (ed.) 1987: Farm. Work and Fieldwork. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Clegg, Stewart 1989: Organization Theory and Class Ananlysis. Berlin: Dc Gruyter.
Corbridge, Stuart 1986: Capitalist World Development. London: Macmillan.
de Janvry, Alain 1980: Social Differentiation in Agriculture and the Ideology of Neopopulism.
Pp. 155-168 in Frederick H. Buttel and Howard Newby (eds.), The Rural Sociology of the
Advanced Societies. Montclair, New Jersey: Allanheld, Osmun.
Ehrensaft, Philip 1980: Long Waves in the Transformation of North American Agriculture: a
First Statement. Cornell Journal of Social Relations, 15 : 65-83.
Engeis, Frederick 1978 [1850]: The Peasant War in Germany. Pp. 397482 in Karl Marx and
Frederick Engeis , Collected Works. New York: International Publishers. Vol. 10.
Esping-Andersen, Gosta 1985: Politics Against Markets. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Frankel, Boris 1983: Beyond the State? Dominant Theories and Social Strategies. London:
Macmillan Press.
Friedland, William H. 1979: Who Killed Rural Sociology? A Case Study in the Political
Economy of Knowledge Production. Paper read at the 1979 Annual Meeting of the American
Sociological Association.
Friedland, William H. 1984: Commodity Systems Analysis: An Approach to the Sociology of
Agriculture. Pp. 221-235 in Hairy K. Schwarzweller (ed.), Research in Rural Sociology and
Development: A Research Annual. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.
Friedland, William H. , Amy Barton , Bruce Dancis , Michael Rotkin , and Michael Spiro 1982:
Revolutionary Theory. Totowa, New Jersey: Allanheld, Osmun.
Friedland, William H. Amy Barton Bruce Dancis Michael Rotkin Michael Spiro , Barton, Amy E.
, and Robert J. Thomas 1981: Manufacturing Green Gold: Capital, Labor, and Technology in
the Lettuce Industry. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Friedmann, Harriet 1980: Household Production and the National Economy: Concepts for the
Analysis of Agrarian Formations. Journal of Peasant Studies, 7, 2: 158-184.
Friedmann, Harriet 1987: The Family Perm end the International Food Regimes. In Teodor
Shanin (ed.), Peasants and Peasant Societies. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Friedmann, Harriet and Philip McMichael 1989: Agriculture and the State System: The Rise
and Decline of National Agricultures, 1870 to the Present Sociologies Ruralis, 29 : 93-117.
Frobel, Folker 1980: The New Development of the World Economy. Tokyo: United Nations
University.
Fuller, Anthony M. 1984: Part-time Farming: The Enigmas aid the Realities. Pp. 187-219 in
Harry K Schwarzweller (ed.), Research in Rural Sociology and Development, Vol. 1,.
Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press Inc.
Gladwin, Christina and Kathleen Truman (eds.) 1989: Food and Farm: Current Debates and
Policies. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Goodman, David and Michael Redclift 1982: From Peasant to Proletarian. New York: St
Martins.
Goodman, David Michael Redclift 1988: Problems in Analyzing the Agrarian Transition in
Europe. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 30 : 784-791.
Goodman, David Michael Redclift (eds.) 1989: The International Farm Crisis. London:
Macmillan Press.
Goodman, David , Bernardo Saij , and John Wilkinson 1987: From Farming to Biotechnology.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Gordon, David M. 1988: The Global Economy: New Edifice or Crumbling Foundations. New
Left Review, 168 : 24-64.
Gottdiener, Mark and Nikos Komninos (eds.) 1989: Capitalist Development and Crisis Theory:
Accumulation, Regulation and Spatial Restructuring. London: Macmillan Press.
Green, Gary P. 1987: Finance Capital and Uneven Development. Boulder West-view.
Hadwiger, Don F. 1982: The Politics of Agricultural Research. Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.
Hoggart, Keith and Henry Buller 1987: Rural Development: A Geographical Perspective.
London: Croom Helm.
Hussain, Athar and Keith Tribe 1981: Marxism and the Agrarian Question. London: Macmillan.
Hussain, Athar Keith Tribe (eds.) 1984: Paths of Development of Capitalist Agriculture:
Readings for German Social Democracy, 1891-99, London: Macmillan Press. Translation by
Ben Fowkes .
Jenkins, Rhys 1987: Transnational Corporations and Uneven Development. London:
Methuen.
Jessop, Bob 1988: Regulation Theory, Post-Fordism end the State: More Than a Reply to
Werner Bonefield. Capital and Class, 34 : 147-168.
Kautsky, Karl 1988 [1899]: The Agrarian Question. London: Zwan Publications. Translated by
Peter Burgess .
Kenney, Martin , Linda M. Lobao , James Cuny , and W. Richard Goe 1989: Midwestern
Agriculture in Midwest Fordism: From the New Deal to Economic Restructuring. Sociologia
Ruralis, 19 : 131-148.
Lehmann, David 1986: Two Paths of Agrarian Capitalism or a Critique of Chay-anovian
Marxism. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 28 : 601-627.
Lenin, V.I. 1943a [1899]: The Development of Capitalism in Russia. Pp. 95-259 in V.I. Lenin ,
Selected Works. New York: International Publishers. Vol. 1.
Lenin, V.I. 1943c [1903]: To the Rural Poor. Pp. 243-310 in V.I. Lenin , Selected Works. New
York: International Publishers. Vol. 2.
Lenin, V.I. 1943b [1908]: The Agrarian Question in Russia at the End of fee Nineteenth
Century. Pp. 13-91 in V.I. Lenin , Selected Works. New York: International Publishers. Vol. 1.
Written in 1908; not published until 1918.
Lenin, V.I. 1943d [1916]: Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Pp. 3-119 in V.I. Lenin
, Selected Works. Moscow: International Publishers. Vol. 5.
Lenin, V.I. 1943e [1920]: Preliminary Draft of Theses on the Agrarian Question. Pp. 218-230 in
V.I. Lenin , Selected Works. Moscow: International Publishers. Vol. 10.
Levins, Richard and Richard Lewinton 1985: Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lipietz, Alain 1987: Mirages and Miracles. London: Verso.
MacEwan, Arthur and William K. Tabb (eds.) 1989: Instability and Change in the World
Economy. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Mann, Susan A. and James M. Dickinson 1978: Obstacles to the Development of a Capitalist
Agriculture. Journal of Peasant Studies, 5 : 466-481.
Mao, Tse-Tung 1967a [1926]: Analysis of Classes in Chinese Society. Pp. 13-21 in Mao Tse-
Tung , Selected Works. Peking: Foreign Languages Press. Vol. 1.
Mao, Tse-Tung 1967b [1927]: Report of an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan.
Pp. 23-59 in Mao Tse-Tung, Selected Works . Peking: Foreign Languages Press, Vol. 1.
Marsden, Tory , Richard Munton , Sarah Whstmore , and Jo Little 1986: Towards a Political
Economy of Capitalist Agriculture: A British Perspective. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Resources, 10, 4: 498-521.
Marsden, Tory Richard Munton Sarah Whstmore Jo Little , Sarah J. Whatmore , sad Richard
J.C. Munton 1987: Uneven Development and the Restructuring Process in British Agriculture:
A Preliminary Exploration. Journal of Rural Studies, 3 : 297-308.
Marx, Karl 1976 [1845]: Theses on Feuerbach. Pp. 3-5 in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels ,
Collected Works. New York: International Publishers. Vol. 5.
McMichael, Philip and Frederick H. Buttel 1990: New Directions in fee Political Economy of
Agriculture. Sociological Perspectives , forthcoming.
Mooney, Patrick H. 1988 : My Own Boss? Boulder Westview Press.
Mouzelis, Nicos 1976: Capitalism and fee Development of Agriculture. Journal of Peasant
Studies, 3 : 483-492.
Newby, Howard 1978: The Rural Sociology of Advanced Capitalist societies. In Howard
Newby (ed.), International Perspectives in Rural Sociology. Chichester: Wiley.
Newby, Howard 1980: Rural Sociology - A Trend Report. Current Sociology, 28 : 1-141.
Spring.
Newby, Howard 1982: Rural Sociology In These Times. The American Sociologist, 17, May:
60-70.
Newby, Howard 1983a: The Sociology of Agriculture: Toward a New Rural Sociology. Annual
Review of Sociology, 9 : 67-81.
Newby, Howard 1983b: European Social Theory and She Agrarian Question: Toward a
Sociology of Agriculture. Pp. 109-123 in Gene F. Summers (ed.), Technology and Social
Change in Rural Areas: A Festschrift for Eugene A Wilkemng. Boulder Westview.
O'Connor, James 1973: The Fiscal Crisis of the State. New York: St. Martins.
Perelman, Michael 1990: Marx's Importance es a Theorist of Natural Resources. Paper
prepared for the Working Conference on Environment and Society, Feb. 9-10, 1990 at the
University of California, Santa Cruz.
Record, Wilson 1951: The Negro and the Communist Party. Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press.
Redclift, Michael 1987: Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions. London:
Methuen.
Rodefeld, Richard D. , Jan Flora , Donald Voth , Isao Fujimoto , and Jim Converse (eds.)
1978: Change in Rural America: Causes, Consequences, and Alternatives. St Louis: C.V.
Mosby.
Rossiter, Margaret W. 1979: The Organization of the Agricultural Sciences. Pp. 211-248 in
Alexandra Oleson and John Voss (eds.), The Organization of Knowledge in Modern America,
1860-1920. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Russell, Bertrand 1965: German Social Democracy. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Ruttan, Vernon W. 1978: Reviewing Agricultural Research Programs. Agricultural
Administration, 5 : 1-18.
Ruttan, Vernon W. 1982: Agricultural Research Policy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Salamon, Sonya 1980: Ethnic Differences in Farm Family Land Transfers. Rural Sociology,
45, 2, Summer 290-308.
Salamon, Sonya and Ann Mackey Klein 1979: Land Ownership and Women's Power in a
Midwestern Farming Community. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, February: 109-119.
Salamon, Sonya Ann Mackey Keim and Shirley M. O'Reilly 1979: Family Land and
Development Cycles Among Illinois Farmers. Rural Sociology, 44, 3, Fall: 525-542.
Sanderson, Steven E. 1986: The Emergence of the 'World Steer': Internationalization and the
Foreign Domination in Latin American Cattle Production. Pp. 123-148 in F. LaMond Tullis and
W. Ladd Hollist (eds.), Food, the State, and International Political Economy. Lincoln: University
of Nebraska Press.
Sanderson, Steven E. (ed.) 1985: The Americas in the New International Division of Labor.
New York: Holmes & Meier.
Sassen, Saskia 1988: The Mobility of Labor and Capital. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Sayer, Derek 1987: The Violence of Abstraction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Selden, Marie 1971: The Yerum Way in Revolutionary China. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Selznick, Philip 1953: TV A and The Grass Roots. Berkeley: University of California Pros.
Shanin, Teodor 1984: Late Marx: Gods and Craftsmen. In T. Shanin (ed.), Late Marx and the
Russian Road. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Simons, A. M. 1903: The American Farmer. Chicago: Charles H. Kerr.
Steenson, Gary P. 1978: Karl Kautsky 1854-1938. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Steenson, Gary P. 1981: " Not One Man! Not One Penny!" German Social Democracy 1863-
1914 . Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Strange, Marty 1989: Family Farming. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Thrift, Nigel 1989: The Geography of International Economic Disorder. Pp. 16-78 in R.J.
Johnson and P.J. Taylor (eds.), A World in Crisis? Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
United States Department of Agriculture 1981: A Time to Choose: Summary Report on the
Structure of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Vandermeer, John 1981: Tomatoes in the Midwest: Agricultural Research and Social Conflict
Science For The People, Jan.-Feb.: 5-8, 25-30.
Vergopoulos, Kostas 1978: Capitalism and Feasant Productivity. Journal of Peasant Studies,
5 : 446-481.
Vogeler, Ingolf 1981: The Myth cf the Family Farm: Agribusiness Dominance of U.S.
Agriculture. Boulder Westview.

Some Recent Tendencies in the Industrial Reorganization of the Agri-

food System
Armstrong, D. G. 1987: Impact of Biotechnology on Animal Health, Production and Nutrition.
Biotech 87, 1, 1.
Bogue, A. G. 1983: Changes in Mechanical and Plant Technology: The Corn Belt, 1910-1940.
The Journal of Economic History, 43, 1: 1-25.
Braunholtz, J. T. 1981: Crop Protection: The Evolution of a Chemical Industry. In D. H. Sharp
and T. F. West (eds.), The Chemical Industry. Chichester: Ellis Horwood Ltd.
Bull, A. T. , G. Holt , and M. D. Lilley 1982: Biotechnology: International Trends and
Perspectives. Paris: OECD.
Buttel, F. H. 1983: Beyond the Family Farm. Pp. 87-107 in G. F. Summers (ed.), Technology
and Social Change in Rural Areas. Boulder. Westview.
Buttel, F. H. , J. T. Cowan , M. Kenney , and J. Kloppenberg Jr. 1983: Biotechnology in
Agriculture: The Political Economy of Agribusiness Reorganization and Industry-University
Relationships. In H. K. Schwarzweller (ed.), Research in Rural Sociology and Development.
Greenwich: JAL Press.
Buttel, F. H. and I. G. Youngberg 1982: Implications of Biotechnology for the Development of
Sustainable Agricultural Systems. In W. Lockeretz (ed.), Environmentally Sound Agriculture.
New York: Praeger.
Bye, P. and A. Mounier 1984: Les Futurs Alimentaires et Energetiques des Biotechnologies.
Grenoble: Presses Universitaires des Grenoble.
Cherfas, J. 1982: Man-Made Life: A Genetic Engineering Primer. Oxford: Basil Black well.
Congressional Research Service (CRS) 1984: Recent Advances in the Plant Sciences.
Washington D.C.: USGPO.
Cormack, C. 1987: New EEC Legislation on Agricultural Raw Materials for Biotechnology.
Biotech 87, 1, 1.
Coulomb, P. and H. Delorme 1989: French Agriculture and the Failure of Its European
Strategy. In D. Goodman and M. R. Redclift (eds.), The International Farm Crisis. London:
Macmillan.
Cox, S. W. R. 1982: The Role of Microelectronics in Agriculture and Horticulture. Chemistry
and Industry, 4, April.
Cross, M. 1985: Down on the Automatic Farm. New Scientist, 108 (1483), November, 21.
Dunnill, P. 1981: Biotechnology and Industry. Chemistry and Industry, 4, April.
Eisenberg, S. K. n.d.: A New Approach to the Industrialization of Agricultural Crops. Whittaker
Agri-Systems, Whittaker Corporation. Mimeo.
Fite, G. 1980: Mechanization of Cotton Production Since World War II. Journal of Agricultural
History, 54, 54.
Forst, R. H. and G. E. Frick 1979: Dairy. In L. P. Schertz et al. (eds.), Another Revolution in
U.S. Farming? Washington D.C.: USDA.
Friedmann, H. 1982: The Political Economy of Food: The Rise and Fall of the Post-War
International Food Order. In M. Burawoy snd T. Skocpol (eds.), Marxist Enquiries: Studies of
Labor, Class and States. American Journal of Sociology, 88. Supplement.
Goodman, D. and M. R. Redclift (eds.) 1989: The International Farm Crisis. London:
Macmillan.
Goodman, D. , B. Sorj , and J. Wilkinson 1987: From Farming to Biotechnology: A Theory of
Agro-Industrial Development. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Johnson, D. G. 1983: Agriculture and U.S. Trade Policy. In J. W. Rosenblum (ed.), Agriculture
in the Twenty-First Century. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Kenney, M. , J. Kloppenberg Jr ., F. H. Buttel , end J. T. Cowan 1983: Genetic Engineering
and Agriculture. Biotech 83, 1.
Kidd, G. 1987: Macroeconomics of Seed and Plant Biotechnology in the 1990's. Biotech 87, 1,
1.
Kloppenberg, J. Jr. 1984: The Social Impacts of Biogenetic Technology in Agriculture: Past
and Present. In G. M. Beraxdi and C. C. Geisler (eds.), The Social Consequences and
Challenges of New Agricultural Technologies. Boulder. Westview Press.
Lichtfield, J. H. 1983: Single Cell Proteins. Science, 219, 11, February.
Mann, S. A. and J. M. Dickinson 1978: Obstacles to the Development of a Capitalist
Agriculture. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 5, 5.
Murray, R. 1978: Value and Theory of Rent: Part Two. Capital and Class, 4, Spring.
Ng, T. K. , R. M. Busche , C. C. MacDonald , and R. W. F. Hardy 1983: Production of
Feedstock Chemicals. Science, 219, 11, February.
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) 1984: Commercial Biotechnology, An International
Analysis. Washington D.C.: U.S. Congress.
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) 1985: Technology, Public Policy and the Changing
Structure of American Agriculture: A Special Report for the 1985 Farm Bill. Washington D.C.:
U.S. Congress.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 1979: Impact of
Multinational Enterprises on National Scientific and Technical Capacities: Food Industry. Paris:
OECD.
Parker, K. J. 1980: Probable Future of Natural Products as Chemical Raw Materials. In
Biotechnology: A Hidden Past, A Changing Future. The Hague: TNO.
Rama, R. 1985: Some Effects of the Internationalization of Agriculture on the Mexican
Agricultural Crisis. In S. Sanderson (ed.), The Americas in the New International Division of
Labor. New York: Holmes and Meier.
Rasmussen, W. D. 1982: The Mechanization of Agriculture. Scientific American, 247 (3),
September.
Rexen, F. and L. Munck 1984: Cereal Crops for Industrial Use in Europe. Biotech 87, 1, 1.
Roth, J. A. 1987: Development of Immunomodulators for Use in Domestic Animals. Biotech
87, 1, 1.
Sharp, M. 1982: Biotechnology in Europe: A Technology in Transition. Unpublished
manuscript.
Technical Change Center 1985: The United Kingdom Food Processing Industry. London:
Technical Change Center.
Van Arsdall, R. N. and H. C. Gilliam 1979: Pork. In L.P. Shertz et al. (eds.), Another
Revolution in U.S. Farming ? Washington D.C.: USDA.
Vergopoulos, K. 1974: La Question Paysanne et le Capitalisme. Paris: Anthropos.
Wilkinson, J. 1987: Europe within the World Food System: Biotechnologies and New Strategic
Options. FAST Exploratory Dossier, DG X11/122/87-EN.
Wittwer, S. H. 1980: Research and Technology Needs for the 21st Century. East Lansing,
Michigan: Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station. Publication no. 9502.

Changes in the International Division of Labor: Agri-food Complexes

and Export Agriculture
Adams, Jane H 1988: The Decoupling of Farm and Household: Capitalist Development and
U.S. Agriculture. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 30, 3: 453-481
Aglietta, Michel 1979: A Theory of Capitalist Regulation. London: Verso.
Aglietta, Michel 1982: World Capitalism in the Eighties. New Left Review, 136: 541.
Amin, Samir 1980: Class and Nation, Historically and in the Present Crisis. New York: Monthly
Review.
Arrighi, Giovanni and Jessica Drangel 1986: The Stratification of the World Economy: An
Exploration of the Semiperipheral Zone. Review (Fernand Braudel Center), 10, 1: 9-74.
Belasco, Warren J. 1987: Ethnic Fast Foods: The Corporate Melting Pot Food and Foodways,
2 : 1-30.
Bertrand, Jean Pierre , Catherine Laurent , and Vincent Leclercq 1983: Le Monde du Soja.
Paris: Maspero.
Brydon, John M. 1988: Some Recent Changes in the Underlying Political Basis of Europe's
Rural Policies. Paper presented at the Symposium on Comparative National Perceptions and
Political Significance of Rural Areas, Wye Plantation, November 18-20. Unpublished.
Busch, Larry 1987: Our Daily Bread: The Political Economy of Wheat Paper presented at the
Ruralk Sociological Society, Madison, WI. Unpublished.
Cardoso, Fernando and Enzo Falletto 1979: Dependency and Development in Latin America.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Chase-Dunn, Christopher 1981: Interstate System and Capitalist World Economy: One Logic
or Two? International Studies Quarterly, 25, 1: 19-42.
Davis, L. J. 1989: Philip Morris' Big Bite. New York Times Magazine, April 9: 30.
Davis, Mike 1978: Review (Fernand Braudel Center), 2, 2: 207-269.
de Janvry, Alain and Elizabeth Sadoulet 1988: Surplus Production and the Debt Crisis:
Articulation of National Agricultures in the late 1980s. Paper presented at The World Congress
for Rural Sociology, Bologna, Italy, June 26-July 2.
Deyo, Frederick C. 1981: Dependent Development and Industrial Order. New York: Praeger.
Evans, Peter 1979: Dependent Development. Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press.
Feder, Ernest 1987: The Odious Competition Between Man and Animal Over Agricultural
Resources in the Underdeveloped Countries. Review, 3, 3: 463-500.
Fink, Deborah 1987: Fanning in Open County, Iowa: Women and the Changing Farm
Economy. In Michael Chibnik , Farm Work and Field Work: American Agriculture in
Anthropological Perspective. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Frank, Andre Gunder 1978: Dependent Accumulation and Underdevelopment. London:
Macmillan.
Friedmann, Harriet 1982: The Political Economy of Food: The Rise and Fall of the Post-War
International Food Order. In Michael Buroway and Theda Skopol (eds.), American Journal of
Sociology, vol.88, Special Supplement
Friedmann, Harriet 1986: Patriarchal Commodity Production. Pp. 47-55 in Alison MadEwan
Scott (ed.), Rethinking Petty Commodity Production. Special Edition of Social Analysis no.20.
Friedmann, Harriet 1987: Family Farms and International Food Regimes. Pp. 247-258 in
Teodor Tanin (ed.), Peasants and Peasant Societies. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Friedmann, Harriet 1989: Family Wheat Farms and Third World Diets: A Paradoxical
Relationship Between Unwaged and Waged Labor. In Jane L. Collins and Martha E. Giminez
(eds.). Work Without Wages: Comparative Studies of Housework and Petty Commodity
Production. Binghamton, N.Y.: SUNY Press.
Friedmann, Harriet 1990: The Origins of Third World Food Dependence. Pp. 13-31 in Henry
Bernstein , Ben Crow , Maureen Mackintosh and Charlotte Martin (eds.), The Food Question:
Profits Versus People? London: Earthscan.
Friedmann, Harriet and Philip McMichael 1989: Agriculture and the State System: The Rise
and Decline of National Agricultures. Sociologia Ruralis, 19, 2: 93-117.
Froebel, Folker , Jurgen Heinrichs , and Otto Kreye 1980: The New International Division of
Labor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
George, Susan 1976: How the Other Half Dies. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
George, Susan 1981: Les Sratéges de la Faim. Geneve: Editions Grounauer.
Gereffi, Gary 1983: The Pharmaceutical Industry and Dependency in the Third World.
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Gereffi, Gary and Miguel Korzeniewicz 1990: Commodity Chains and Footwear Exports in die
Semiperiphery. In William Martin (ed), Semiperipheral States in the World Economy. Westport,
CT: Greenwood Press.
Giedion, Sigfried 1969: Mechanization Takes Command, A Contribution to Anonynous History.
New York: Norton.
Goodman, David , Bernardo Sorj , and John Wilkinson 1987: From Farming to Biotechnology.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Goody, Jack 1982: Cooking, Cuisine, and Class. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gouin, D.M. , D. Hairy , and D. Perraud 1985: Quebec, France, Etats-Unis: Crise Laitaire et
Transformation de Modes de Regulation Sectoriels. Univeriste Laval, Departement
d'Economie Rurale, Quebec, et INRA, Economic et Sociologie Rurale, Station de Grenoble et
Pots, unpublished.
Gouveia, Lourdes 1990: Rurual Crisis, North aid South: The Role of Wheat i the United States
and Venezuala. Paper presented at the World Congress of Rurual Sociology, Madrid, 6,7 and
8 July, 1990.
Gramsci, Antonio 1971: Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York: International
Publishers. Translated and edited by Q. Hoare and G.N. Smith .
Gussow, Joan 1984: Food Security in the United States: A Nutritionalist's Viewpoint. In
Lawrence Busch and William B. Lacy (eds.), Food Security in the United States. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Hathaway, Dale E. 1987: Agriculture and the GATT: Rewriting the Rules. Washington D.C.:
Institute for International Economics.
Hoogvelt, Ankie 1982: The Third World in Global Development. London: Macmillan.
Hopkins, Raymond and Donald Puchala 1980: Global Food Interdependence. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Hounshell, David A. 1984: From the American System to Mass Production, 1800-1932.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
International Organization 1978: International Organization, Special Issue on Food. Raymond
Hopkins and Donald Puchala (eds.) vol.32, no.3,
Johnson, D. Gale 1973: World Agriculture in Disarray. London: Macmillan.
Johnson, D. Gale 1975: World Food Problems and Prospects. Washington D.C.: American
Enterprise Institute.
Kenney, Martin , James Curry , and Todd Stockwell 1987: Contextualizing Agriculture Within
Postwar U.S. Society: Fordism as an Integrative Theory. Working Paper #15, Technology,
Innovation, Social Change Project, Department of Agricultural Econmics and Rural Sociology,
Ohio State University.
Kloppenberg, Jack 1988: First the Seed: The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology, 1492-
2000 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lappe, Frances Moore and Joseph Collins 1979: Food First. New York: Baliantine.
Lipietz, Alain 1984: Imperialism or the Beast of the Apocalypse. Capital and Class, 22: 81-109.
Lipietz, Alain 1989: An Alternative Design for the Twenty First Century. Unpublished draft of a
paper proposed for Options in Economic Design, edited by S.G. Pendse .
Mahler, Vincent A. 1986: Controlling International Commodity Prices and Supplies: The
Evolution of United States' Sugar Policy. In P. Lamond Tullis and W. Ladd Hollist (eds.), Food,
the State, and International Political Economy. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska
Press.
Mann, Susan 1987: The Rise of Wage Labor in the Cotton South: A Global Analysis. The
Journal of Peasant Studies, 14, 2: 412-429.
Marshall, Alfred 1977: Principles cf Economics. London: Macmillan.
Mennell, Stephen 1985: All Manners of Food; Eating and Taste in England and France from
the Middle Ages to the Present. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Mintz, Sidney 1985: Sweetness and Power. New York: Viking.
Molitor, G.T.T. 1980: The Food System in the 1980's. Journal of Nutrition Education, 12,
(Suppl. 1): 103-111.
Murphy, Tom 1987: Potato Capitalism: McCain and Industrial Fanning in New Brunswick. In
Garry Buxrill and Ian McKay , People, Resources, cmd Power: Critical Perspectives on
Underdevelopment and Primary Industries in the Atlantic Region. Frederickton, New
Brunswick: Acadiensis Press for the Grosebrook Research Institute of Atlantic Canadian
Studies.
Poleman, Thomas T. 1983: World Hunger Extent, Causes, and Cures. Pp. 41-75 in D. Gale
Johnson and G. Edward Schuh (eds.), The Role of Markets in the World Food Economy.
Boulder, Co: Westview.
Radice, Hugo 1984: The National Economy - A Keynesian Myth? Capital and Class, 22: 111-
140.
Rowe, J.W.F. 1965: Primary Commodities in International Trade. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Sanderson, Stephen 1986: The Emergence of the 'World Steer': International and Foreign
Domination in Latin American Cattle Production. In F. Lamond Tullis and W. Ladd Hollist
(eds.), Food, the State, and International Political Economy. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of
Nebraska Press.
Scobie, James 1964: Revolution on the Pampas: A Social history of Argentinian Wheat, 1860-
1910. Austin, Tx: University of Texas Press.
Skinner, Joseph K. 1985: Monthly Review, 37: 25-33.
Smith, Adam 1970: The Wealth of Nations, Book 1. Harmonsworth: Penguin.
Smith, Page and Charles Daniel 1982: The Chicken Book. San Francisco: North Point Press.
Sterngold, James 1987: Shaking Billions from the Beatrice Tree. New York Times, September
6: Fl.
Swain, Nigel 1985: Collective Farms Which Work ? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Szelenyi, Ivan 1988: Socialist Entrepreneurs. Madison, Wi: University of Wisconsin Press.
United Nations Pood and Agriculture Organization annual : Trade Yearbook. United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization: New York.
United Nations Pood and Agriculture Organization annual annual: Production Yearbook.
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization: New York.
United States Bureau of the Census annual : Statistical Abstract of the United States.
Washington D.C.: USGPO.
United States Bureau of the Census annual annual: Census of Wholesale Trade. Washington
D.C.: USGPO.
United States Department of Agriculture 1986: Outlook '87 Charts. Washington D.C.: USGPO.
United States Department of Agriculture 1985, 1986a: Food Marketing Review. Washington
D.C.: USGPO.
United States Department of Agriculture nnual: Food Consumption, Prices, and Expenditures.
Washington D.C.: USGPO.
Vail, David 1987: Unique and Common Aspects of Sweden's Current Agricultural Crisis. Paper
Presented at the Rural Sociological Society, Madison Wi. Aug. 11-15.
Wallerstein, Immanuei 1974: The Modern World-System. New York: Academic Press.
World Bank 1986: Poverty and Hunger. Washington D.C.: World Bank.
World Development 1977: World Development, Special Issue on World Food Situation, vol.5,
no.5-7.
Yotopoulos, Pan A. 1985: Middle-Income Classes sad Food Crises: The 'New' Food-Feed
Competition. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 33, 2: 462-483.

Agriculture and Agribusiness: Transformations and Trends in Italy

Barberis, C. 1985: Lc due agricolture: teoric e problcmi. Sociologia Urbana e Rurale, 18.
Boccella, N. 1982: II Mezzogiomo sussidiato. Milano: Angeli.
Brusco, S. 1980: Agricoltura ricca e classi sociali. Milano: Feltrinelli.
Catanzaro, R. (ed.) 1979: L'imprenditore assistito. Bologna: II Mulino.
Fanfani, KM et al. 1989: Le imprese contoterziste in Emilia Romagna. Modena: Duplicated
University Papers.
Gruppo Ricerche Qrganizzative suite Cooperazione (GROC) 1986: II sistema delle
intedipendenze. Analisi organizzativa delle forme associative e cooperative operand in
agricoltura e net sistema igro-mdustriale dell'Emilia Romagna. Facolta' di Scienze Politiche,
Bologna,
Ievoli, C. 1986: Economic di dimcnsione e strutture di mercato nell'industria alimentare. La
Question# Agraria, 23.
Koning, N. 1987: Aziendc agricole familiari e capitalism) industrials. La Questions Agraria, 25.
Lega Delle Cooperative, Atti del Convegno Intornazionale 1986: Produzione agricola e
impresa cooperativa per il mercato agro-alimentare.
Leon, P. 1983: Impresa cooperativa e impresa eapMMcu, L'Impresa, 5.
Mingione, E. (ed.) 1981: Classi sociali e agricoltura meridionale: contraddizioni e prospettive.
Milano: Giuffrg
Mottura, G. 1987a: Indagine sui magazzini frigor'tferi ad uso alimentare. Bologna: FLAI.
Mottura, G. 1987b: II conditio senza awenture. Quanmt'anni di stratcgia ruralista nelle
campagne italiane (1944-1987). Studi e Ricerche del Dipartimeato di Economia Politics dell
Universita diModena, n.47.
Mottura, G. 1988a: Agricoltura e sistemi locali di formaziorus. Padova: Marsilio. unedited
collection.
Mottura, G. and E. Mingione 1989: Agriculture and Society: Remarks on Transformations and
New Social Profiles in the Case of My. Agriculture and Human Values, 6, 1,2:47-58.
Picchi, A. (ed.) 1978: Studio sulle condizioni per lo sviluppo di attivita' turistiche in zone
agricole di montagna. Roma: ISPES.
Pugliese, E. 1983: I braccianli agricoli in Italia. Tra mercato del lavoro e assisteraa. Milano:
Angeli.
Sapelli, G. (ed.) 1981: II movimento cooperativo in Italia. Storia e problem. Torino: Einaudi.
Zan, S. 1982: La cooperazione in Italia. Ban: De Donate.

The Historical Roots of the Present Agricultural Crisis

Abramovitz, Moses 1956: Resource and Output Trends in the United States Since 1870. New
Yoik: National Bureau of Economic Research. Occasional Paper #52.
Barger, Harold and Hans H. Landsberg 1942: American Agriculture, 1899-1939, a Study of
Output, Employment and Productivity. Washington D.C: National Bureau of Economic
Research.
Berlan, Jean-Pierre 1983: L'industrie des Semences, Economic et Politique. Economie Rurale,
158, Novembre-Decembre: 18-28.
Berlan, Jean-Pierre 1987: Recherches sur I'Economie Politique d'un Changement Technique:
les Mythes du Mais Hybride. Thèse d'Etat Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique-
CEDERS.
Berlan, Jean-Pierre , Jean-Pierre Bertrand , and Laurence Lebas 1976: Le Complexe Soja des
Etat-Unis. Paris: Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique.
Berlan, Jean-Pierre Jean-Pierre Bertrand Laurence Lebas 1978: Eléments sur le
Dévclopement du Complexe Soja dans le Monde. Revue Tiers-Monde, 17, 66: 307-330.
Busch, Lawrence 1984: Science, Technology, Agriculture, and Everyday Life. Pp. 289-316 in
Harry K. Schwarzweller (ed.), Research in Rural Sociology and Development. Greenwich,
Connecticut: JAI Press.
Buttel, Frederick H. , Jack Kloppenberg, Jr. , Martin Kenney , and H. Tadlock Cowan 1983:
Genetic Engineering and the Restructuring of Agricultural Research. The Rural Sociologist, 3,
3: 132-144.
Dieffenbach, E.M. and R.B. Gray 1960: The Development of the Tractor. In Yearbook of
Agriculture. Washington DC: United States Government Printing Office.
East, Edward M. 1923: Man at the Crossroad. New York: Scribner & Sons.
Fite, Gilbert C. 1953: George N. Peek and the Fight for Farm Parity. Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press.
Hermitte, Marie Angéle 1988: L'Affaire Moore, ou la Diabolique Notion de Droit Propriété. Le
Monde Diplomatique, 21, Decembre: 22.
Hightower, Jim 1973: Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times: a Report of the Agribusiness
Accountability Project on the Failure of America's Land Grant College Complex. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Schenkman Publishing Company.
Johnson, Glenn L. and Leroy Quance 1972: The Overproduction Trap in U.S. Agriculture.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
Kloppenburg, Jack R. 1988: First the Seed: The Political Economy of Plany Biotechnology
1492-2000. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lamer, Mirko 1957: The World Fertilizer Economy. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
Lewontin, Richard C. and Jean-Pierre Berlan 1986: Technology, Research, and the
Penetration of Capital: The Case of U.S. Agriculture, Monthly Review, 38, 3, July-August: 21-
34.
Lewontin, Richard C. Jean-Pierre Berlin 1986: The Political Economy of Hybrid Com. Monthly
Review, 38, 3, July-August: 35-47.
MacEwan, Aurthur and William K. Tabb (eds.) 1989: Instability and Change in the World
Economy. New York: Monthly Review Foundation Inc.
National Commission on Food Marketing 1966: Report. Washington DC: United States
Government Printing Office.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 1987: Politique Nationale et
Echanges Agricoles, Etudes par pays, Japon 1987. Washington, DC: OECD Publications and
Information Center.
Peek, George N. and Hugh S. Johnson 1922: Equality for Agriculture. Moline, Illinois: H.W.
Harrington.
Pike, Clarence E. 1972: Japanese Overseas Aid and Investments — Their Potential Effects on
World and U.S. Farm Exports. In Foreign Agricultural Economic Report No. 81. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Agriculturs/Economic Research Service.
Rasmussen, Wayne D. 1960: Readings in the History of American Agriculture. Champaign:
University of Illinois Press.
Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr. 1957: The Age of Roosevelt: Crisis of the Old Order 1919-1933.
New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Schultz, Theodore 1971: Investment in Human Capital. New York: The Free Press.
Solow, Robert 1957: Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function. Review of
Economics and Statistics, August.
United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1975: Historical Statistics of
the United States, Colonial Times to 1970. Washington, DC: United States Government
Printing Office.
Wallace, Henry A. and Earl N. Bressman 1937: Corn and Corn Growing. New York: Wiley and
Sons.
Winrock Report Science for Agriculture : Report of a Workshop on Critical Issues in American
Agricultural Research. New York: Rockefeller Foundation.
Yokes, Arnold P. and L. M. Church 1918: Tractor Experience in Illinois. Farmer's Bulletin, 963,
June.

Agriculture and the New Division of Labor

Bourquelot, Francoisc 1981: Les Salaries Agricoles en France. Paris: Maison des Sciences de
1'homme. Mimeo.
Boyer, Robert 1986: La Flexibilite du Travail en Europe. Paris: La Decouverte.
Busch, Lawrence (ed.) 1981: Science and Agricultural Development. Totowa: Allenheld,
Osmun.
Buttel, Frederick H. 1983: Beyond the Family Farm. Pp. 87-107 in Gene F. Summers (ed.),
Technology and Chance in Rural Areas: A Festschrift for Eugene A. Wilkening. Boulder:
Westview.
Cavazzani, Ada and Anthony Fuller 1982: International Perspective on Part-Time Farming.
GeoJournal, 6, 6.
Darendorf, Ralf and et al. 1986: Labor Market Flexibility. Paris: OECD.
Doeringer, Peter and Michael Piore 1971: Internal Labor Markets and Manpower Analysis.
Lexington: Heath.
Fano, Ester 1988: The Wastage of Men: Technical Progress, Unemployment and Full
Employment Programs in the U.S. in the 20th Century. Rome: Dipartimento di Scienze
Economiche, Universita di Roma. Unpublished paper.
Fisher, Lloyd H. 1953: The Harvest Labor Market in California. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Fonte, Maria 1988: Nuove Tenderize Nella Sociologie Rurale USA. La Questione Agraria , 29.
Friedland, William H. 1984: The Labor Force in U.S. Agriculture, Pp. 143-181 in Lawrence
Busch and William B. Lacy (eds.), Food Security in the United States. Boulder, Colorado:
Westview.
Friadland, William H. 1984: Commodity Systems Analysis: An Approach to the Sociology of
Agriculture. Pp. 221-235 in Harry K. Schwarzweller (ed). Research in Rural Sociology and
Development: A Research Annual. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.
Friedland, William H. , Amy E. Barton , and Robert J. Thomas 1981: Manufacturing Green
Gold: Capital, Labor, and Technology in the Lettuce Industry. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Gordon, David 1972: Theories of Poverty and Underemployment. Lexington: Heath.
Gordon, David M. , Richard Edwards , and Michael Reich 1982: Segmented Work, Divided
Workers: the Historical Transformation of Labor in the United States. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Kautsky, Karl 1966: Die Agrarfrage. Stuttgard: Dietz.
Kerr, Clark 1954: The Balkanization of Labor Markets. Pp. 92-110 in E. Wight Bakke et al.,
Labor Mobility and Economic Opportunity. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lindley, Robert 1987: New Areas and New Forms of Employment Growth in France,
Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and the U.K. Bruxelles: Commission of the European
Communities. Mimeograph.
McWilliams, Carey 1939: Factories in the Field. Boston: Little, Brown.
Mingione, Enzo 1990: Fragmented Societies. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Nadel, Henri 1987: New Forms and New Areas of Employment Growth: Final Report for
France. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publication of the European Communities.
Newby, Howard 1977: The Deferential Worker: a Study of Farm Workers in East Anglia.
London: Allen Lane.
O'Connor, James 1973: The Fiscal Crisis of the State. New York: St. Martins Press.
O'Connor, James 1984: Accumulation Crisis. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Paid, Ray 1985: Divisions of Labor. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Pugliese, Enrico 1983: I Braccianti Agricoli in Italia. Milano: Franco Angeli Editore.
Redcliff, Nanneke and Enzo Mingione (eds.) 1986: Beyond Employment: Household , Gender
and Subsistence. New York: Basil Blackwell.
Stankiewicz, Francois 1987: Les Strategies d'Enterprises Face aux Resources Humaines:
l'Apres Taylorism. Paris: Economica.
Taylor, Paul S. 1983: On the Ground in the 30s. Salt Lake City: G. M. Smith.
Wells, Miriam J. 1984: The Resurgence of Sharecropping: Historical Anomaly or Political
Strategy? American Journal of Sociology, 90, 1: 1-29.

The "Disappearing Middle": A Sociological Perspective

Banaji, J. 1980: A Summary of Selected Pats of Kautsky's The Agrarian Question . Pp. 39-82
in F. H. Buttel and H. Newby (eds.), The Rural Sociology of the Advanced Societies. Montclair,
N.J.: Allanheld, Osmound and Co.
Barlett, P. 1984: Microdynamics of Debt, Drought, and Default in South Georgia, American
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66: 836-843.
Barlett, P. 1987: The Crisis in Family Faming: Who Will Survive?. Pp. 29-57 in M. Chibnick
(ed.), Farmwork and Fieldwork. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Bollman, R. D. 1983: Expending and Decling Farm Firms: Numbers and Implications.
Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 31:134-142.
Buttel, F. H. 1983: Beyond the Family Farm. Pp. 87-107 in G. F. Summers (ed.). Technology
and Social Change in Rural Areas, Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Buttel, F. H. 1984: Agricultural Land Reform in America. Pp. 55-72 in C. C. Geisler and F. R.
Popper (eds.). Land Reform, American Style. Totowa, NJ.: Rowman and Allanheld.
Buttel, F. H. 1989: The U.S. Farm Crisis and the Restructuring of American Agriculture:
Domestic arid International Dimensions. Pp. 46-83 in D. Goodman and E. M. Redclift (eds.),
The. International Farm Crisis. London: Macmillan.
Buttel, F. H. and M. E. Gertler 1982: Small Farm Businesses: A Typology of Farm, Operator,
and Family Characteristics with Implications for Public Research and Extension Policy. Journal
of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council, 11 : 35-44.
Cochrane, W. W. 1979: The Development of American Agriculture. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
de Janvry, A. 1980: Social Differentiation in Agriculture and the Ideology of Neopopulism. Pp.
155-168 in F. H. Buttel and H. Newby (eds.). The Rural Sociology of the Advanced Societies.
Montclair, N J.: Allanheld, Osmun.
de Janvry, A. 1981: The Agrarian Question and Reformism in Latin America. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
de Janvry, A. and E. P. LeVeen 1986: Historical Forces that Have Shaped World Agriculture: a
Structural Perspective. In K. A. Dahlberg (ed.), New Directions for Agriculture and Agricultural
Research. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allanheld.
Edwards, C. , M. G. Smith , and R. N. Petersen 1985: The Changing Distribution of Farms: A
Markov Analysis. Agricultural Economics Research , 37: 1-16.
Ehrensaft, P. 1983: The Industrial Organization of Modem Agriculture. Canadian Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 31: 122-133.
Ehrensaft, P. , P. LaRamee , R. D. Bollman , and F. H. Buttel 1984: The Microdynamics of
Farm Structural Change in North America: the Canadian Experience and Canada-U.S.A.
Comparisons. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66: 823-828.
Ehrensaft, P. P. LaRamee R. D. Bollman F. H. Buttel 1985: The Microdynamics of Farm
Structural Change in Canada: Implications for U.S. Agriculture. Cornell Rural Sociology
Bulletin, 142, March 1985.
Friedland, W. H. , A. H. Barton , and R. J. Thomas 1981: Manufacturing Green Gold. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Friedland, W. H. and E. Pugliese 1989: Class Formation and Decomposition in Capitalist
Agriculture: Compartive Perspectives. Sociologia Ruralis, 19, 29: 149-165.
Friedmann, H. 1978: World Market, State, and Family Farm: Social Bases of Household
Production in an Era of Wage Labor. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 20: 545-
586.
Friedmann, H. 1980: Household Production and the National Economy. Journal of Peasant
Studies, 7: 158-184.
Gladwin, C. H. and R. Zabawa 1984: Microdynamics of Contraction Decisions: A Cognitive
Approach to Structural Change. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66 : 29-835.
Goodman, D. and M. Redclift 1982: From Peasant to Proletarian. New York: St. Martin's
Press.
Goodman, D. , B. Sorj , and J. Wilkinson 1987: From Farming to Biotechnology: A Theory of
Agro-Industrial Development. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Johnson, G. L. 1986: Agricultural Surpluses – Research on Agricultural Technologies,
Institutions, People, and Capital Growth. Pp. 57-70 in M. Gibbs and C. Carlson (eds.), Crop
Productivity – Research Imperatives Revisited . Proceedings of an International conference
held at Boyne Highlands Inn, MI, and Arlington, VA, October, December 1985.
LaRamee, P. 1989: Mobility md Differentiation in Advanced Capitalist Agriculture: the Case of
Canada. Cornell University. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation.
Lenin, V.I. 1956: The Development of Capitalism in Russia. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Lenin, V.I. 1967: New Data on ihe Laws Governing the Development of Capitalism in
Agriculture; Part One. Capitalism and Agriculture in the United States of America. Pp. 117-205
in The Collected Work of V.I.Lemn. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Madden, J. P. and H.T. Baker 1981: An Agenda for Small Farms Research. Washington, D.C.:
National Runl Center.
Mann, S. A. and J. M. Dickinson 1978: Obstacles to the Development of a Capitalist
Agriculture. Journal of Peasant Studies,5:466-481,
McMichael, P. 1977: The Concept of Primitive Accumulation: Lenin's Contribution. Journal of
Contemporary Asia, 7:497-512
Office, of Technology Assessment (OTA) 1986: Technology, Public Policy, and the Changing
Structure of American Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: OTA.
Pfeffer, M. J. 1983: Social Origins of Three Systems of Farm Production in the United States.
Rural Sociology,48 : 540-562.
Rodefeld, R. D. 1980: Farm Structural Characteristics: Recent Trends, Causes, Implications,
and Research Needs – Exerpts. Pp. 1-80 in L. Twee ten et al. (eds.), Structure of Agriculture
and Information Needs Regarding Small Farms. Washington, D.C.: National Rural Center.
Rogers, S. C. 1987: Mixing Paradigms cm Mixed Farming: Anthropological and Economic
Views of Specialization in Illinois Agriculture. Pp. 58-89 in M. Chibnik (ed.), Farm Work and
Fieldwork. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Salomon,S. 1987: Ethnic De&iminants of Farm Community Behavior. Pp. 167-188 in M.
Chibnik (ed.), Farm Work and Fieldwork. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Smith, L. W. and R. Coltrane 1981: Hired Farm Workers: Background and Trends for the
Eighties. Rural Development Research Report No. 32., Washington, D.C.: Economic
Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Steeves, A. D. 1979: Mobility Into and Out of Canadian Agriculture. Rural Sociology, 44 : 566-
583.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1981: A Time to Choose. Washington, D.C.: USDA.

Agriculture in U.S. Fordism: The Integration of the Productive

Consumer
Achilladelis, B. A. and M. Cines 1987: A Study of Innovation in the Pesticide Industry: Analysis
of the Innovation Record of an Industrial Sector. Research Policy, 16 : 175-212.
Adams, R. 1977: The Boston Money Tree. New York: Thomas Crowell.
Aglietta, M. 1979: A Theory of Capitalist Regulation: The US Experience. London: Verso.
Berger, S. 1971: Dollar Harvest. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company.
Berlan, J. P. 1982: Reexamen de L'Analyse Economique du Changement Technique: La Cas
du Mais Hybride. University of Aix-Marseille II. Unpublished paper
Berlan, J. P. 1987: Long Term Origins of the World Agricultural Crisis. Paper presented at the
Rural Sociological Society meetings (11-15 August).
Berry, W. 1977: The Unsettling of America. San Francisco: Sierra Club.
Bertrand, J. , C. Laurent , and V. Leclercq 1983: Le Monde du Soja. Paris: Editions La
Decourverte.
Brooks, N. , T. Stucker , and J. Bailey 1986: Income and Weil-Being of Farmers and the Farm
Financial Crisis. Rural Sociology, 51, 4: 391-405.
Bultena, G. , P. Lasley , and J. Geller 1986: The Farm Crisis: Patterns and the Impacts of
Financial Distress Among Iowa Farm Families. Rural Sociology, 51, 4: 436-448.
Busch, L. and W, Lacy 1987: Our Daily Bread: The New Biotechnologies and the
Restructuring of the Wheat Industry. Paper presented at the Rural Sociological Society
Meetings (11-15 August).
Buttel, F. and I. Youngberg 1982: Energy Policy and Agriculture. Proceedings of the Academy
of Political Science, 34, 3: 122-133.
Carson, R. 1962: Silent Spring. Greenwich, CT: Fawcett Publications.
Cochrane, W. 1979: The Development of American Agriculture: A Historical Analysis.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Davis, J. 1980: Capitalist Agricultural Development and the Exploitation of the Propertied
Laborer. Pp. 133-154 in F. Buttel and H. Newby (eds.), The Rural Sociology of Advanced
Societies. Montclair, NJ: Allenhead, Osmun and Co..
DeVroey, M. 1984: A Regulation Approach to the Interpretation of Contemporary Crisis.
Capital and Class, 2, 3: 45-65. Summer.
Drabenstott, M. , M. Henry , and L. Gibson 1987: The Rural Economic Policy Choice.
Economic Review of the Federal Reserve Board of Kansas City, January.
Florida, R. and M. Feldman 1987: Housing in U.S. Fordism: The Class Accord and Postwar
Spatial Organization. International Journal of Urban Regional Research, forthcoming.
Goe, W. and M. Kenney 1987: The Political Economy of the Privatization of Agricultural
Information. Agricultural Administration, forthcoming.
Goodman, D. 1987: Restructuring of Food and Agricultural Systems in the Present Food
Crisis. Paper presented at the Rural Sociological Society meetings 11-15 August.
Goodman, D. , B. Sorj , and J. Wilkinson 1987: From Farming to Biotechnology. London:
Blackwell.
Gramsci, A. 1980: Prison Notebooks. New York: International Publishers.
Green, G. 1984: Credit and Agriculture: Some Consequences of the Centralization of the
Banking System. Rural Sociology, 49, 4: 568-579.
Harrison, B. 1987: Lecture at Ohio State University. 17 March 1987.
Humphrey, C. and F. Buttel 1982: Environment, Energy, and Society. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Kenney, M. , F. Buttel , J. Cowan , end J. Kloppenburg 1982: Genetic Engineering and
Agriculture: Exploring the Impacts of Biotechnology on Industrial Structure, Industry-University
Relationships, and the Social Organization of US Agriculture. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Rural Sociology Bulletin No. 125.
Kenney, M. F. Buttel J. Cowan J. Kloppenburg and R. Florida 1987: Beyond Mass Production:
The Social Organization of Production and Innovation in Japan. Politics and Society,
forthcoming.
Kindleberger, C. 1978: Manias, Panics and Crashes. New York: Basic Books.
Kirkendall, R. 1987: Up to Now: A History of American Agriculture From Jefferson to
Revolution to Crisis. Unpublished paper for the Social Science Agricultural Agenda Project
presented at the Spring Hill Conference Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota (9-11 June).
Kloppenburg, J. R. 1988: First the Seed: The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology 1492-
2000. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kloppenburg, J. R. and C. Geisler 1985: The Agricultural Ladder Agrarian Ideology and the
Changing Structure of US Agriculture. Journal of Rural Studies, 1, 1.
Lewontin, R. 1982: Agricultural Research and the Penetration of Capital. Science for the
People, January-February -. 12-17.
Lipietz, A. 1987: Mirages and Miracles. London: Verso.
Lowi, T. 1976: The End of Liberalism. New York: Norton.
Lowitt, R. 1984: The New Deal and the West. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Luoma, E. 1967: The Farmer Takes a Holiday. New York: Exposition Press.
Mandel, E. 1980: The Second Slump. London: Verso.
Mann, S. and J. Dickinson 1978: Obstacles to the Development of a Capitalist Agriculture.
Journal of Peasant Studies, 5, 4 : 466-481.
Mann, S. J. Dickinson 1980: State and Agriculture in the Two Eras of American Capitalism. In
Frederick Butte ! and Howard Newby (eds.), The Rural Sociology of Advanced Societies.
Montclain Allenhead, Osmun & Co..
Mann, S. J. Dickinson 1987: One Furrow Forward, Two Furrows Back: A Marx-Weber
Synthesis for Rural Sociology. Rural Sociology, 52, 2: 264-283.
Martinson, O. and G. Campbell 1980: Betwixt and Between: Farmers and the Marketing of
Agricultural Inputs and Outputs. In F. Battel and H. Newby (eds.), The Rural Sociology of
Advanced Societies. Montclain Allenhead, Osmun & Co..
Matusow, A 1970: Farm Policies and Politics in the Truman Years. New York: Atheneum.
McConnell, G. 1977: The Decline cf Agrarian Democracy. New York: Atheneum.
Mooney, P. 1983: The Law of die Seed. Development Dialogue, 1-2: 1-172.
Mooney, P. 1983: Toward a Class Analysis of Midwestern Agriculture. Rural Sociology, 48, 4:
563-584.
Mooney, P. 1986: The Political Economy of Credit in American Agriculture. Rural Sociology,
15, 4: 449-470.
Mooney, P. 1987: Desperately Seeking: One-Dimensional Mann and Dickinson. Rural
Sociology, 52, 2: 286-295.
Murdock, S. , D. Alhrecht , R. Hamm , F. Leistritz , and A. Leholm 1986: The Farm Crisis k the
Great Plans: Implications for Theory and Policy Development Rural Sociology, 51, 4: 406-435.
National Commission on Agricultural Trade and Export Policy 1986: New Realities: Toward a
Program cf Effective Competition. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Agriculture.
Noel, A. 1987: Accumulation, Regulation, and Social Change: An Essay on French Political
Economy. International Organization, 41, 2: 303-333.
Piore, M. and C. Sabel 1984: The Second Industrial Divide. New York: Viking Penguin.
Reisner, M. 1986: Cadillac Desert. New York: Viking Penguin.
Saloutos, T. 1982: The American Farmer and the New Deed. Ames: Iowa State University
Press.
Schickele, R. 1954: Agricultural Policy. New Yoifc McGraw Hill.
Selznick, P. 1984: TV A and the Grass Roots. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Shover, J. 1965: Cornbelt Rebellion. Urbaria: University of Illinois Press.
Skocpol, T. and K. Finegold 1982: State Capacity and Economic Intervention in the Early New
Deal. Political Science Quarterly, 97. Summer.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Indicators of the Farm Sector.
USDA, Economic Research Service, various years.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1986: Agricultural Resources. USDA,
Economic Research Services. June, Ar-2.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1988: Agricultural Statistics 1988.
Washington D.C.: USDA.
United States Department of Commerce 1976: Statistical Abstract of the United States.
Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
Williams, R. 1987: Fordson, Farmail, and Poppiri Johnny. Urban a: University of Illinois Press.
The Political Economy of Agricultural Research in the Third World
Abrol, D. 1983: American Involvement in Indian Agricultural Research. Social Scientist, 11, 10:
8-26.
Ahmed, A. 1985a: Building Indigenous Capacity in Advanced Technology. Third World Affairs :
326-335. Annual.
Ahmed, A. 1985b: Scientific Community in India. Bulletin of Science, April-May: 18-25.
Alvares, C. 1986: The Great Gene Robbery. The lllustrated Weekly of India, March 23-29: 8-
17.
Amin, S. 1980: Class and Nation: Historically and in the Current Crisis. New York: Monthly
Review Press.
Anderson, R. S. 1983: Cultivating Science as Cultural Policy: A Contrast of Agricultural and
Nuclear Science in India. Pacific Affairs, 56, Spring: 38-50.
Barthes, R. 1972: Mythologies. New York: Hill and Wang.
Berlan, J.-P. and R. Lewontin 1986: Breeders' Rights and Patenting Life Forms. Nature, 322,
August 28: 785-788.
Bhaneja, B. 1979: Parliamentary Influence on Science Policy in India. Minerva, Spring: 70-97.
Bijman, J. , K. van den Doel , and G. Junne 1986: Impact of Biotechnology on Living and
Working Conditions in Western Europe and the Third World European. Amsterdam:
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, mimeograph.
Bijman, J. K. van den Doel G. Junne K. van den Doel , and G. Junne 1988: From Green
Revolution to Brown Revolution. Economic and Political Weekly, 23, 43: 2205-2207.
Brady, N. C. 1985: Agricultural Research and U.S. Trade. Science, 229, 235, November 1:
499.
Brass, P. 1982: Institutional Transfer of Technology: The Laadgrant Model and Agricultural
University at Pantnagar. In R.S. Anderson , P. Brass , E. Levy and B. M. Morrison (eds,),
Science, Politics and the Agricultural Revolution in Asia. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Brockway, L. 1979: Science and Colonial Expansion: The Rise of the British Royal Botanical
Gardens. New York: Academic Press.
Busch, L. 1984: The Canadian Associates of the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. In P.
Ehrensafi end F. Knelman (eds.), The Right to Food. Montreal.
Busch, L. and W. Lacy 1986: Biotechnology and the Restructuring of the World Food Order.
Paper presented at the XI World Congress of Sociology.
Busch, L. and C. Sachs 1981: The Agricultural Sciences and the Modern World System.
Totowa, NJ: Alienheld Osmun.
Business Week 1986: How Brazil is Barrelling into the Big Time. August 11. pp.38-40.
Byres, T. J. 1981: The New Technology, Class Formation and Class Action in the Indian
Countryside. Journal of Peasant Studies, 8, 3: 405-454.
Campacci, N. 1989: A Patent Case for Survival South, 100, February: 78.
Clairmonte, F. F. 1988: Third World Debt: Anatomy of Genocide. Economic and Political
Weekly, 23, 8: 357-358.
Cleaver, H. M. Jr. 1972: The Contradictions of the Green Revolution. Monthly Review, 24,
June: 80-111.
Dahlberg, K. A. 1979: Beyond the Green Revolution: The Ecology and Politics cf Global
Agricultural Development. New York: Plenum Press.
Davenport, E. 1910: Shall We Ask for Further Legislation in the Interest of Agriculture? If So,
What? Proceedings of the American Association of Agricultural Colleges and Experiment
Stations.
Dickson, D. 1979: Science aid Political Hegemony in the 17th Century. Radical Science
Journal, 8 : 7-37.
Dickson, D. 1984: The New Politics of Science. New York: Pantheon Books.
Dickson, D. 1985: Gandhi Shakes Up Indian Science. Science, 230, November 29: 1016-
1017.
Dogra, B. 1985: Foodgrains Exports is a Hungry Land. Economic and Political Weekly, 20, 11:
490-491.
Doyle, J. 1987: U.S. Foreign Agricultural Policy and fee Less Developed Counttries. In B.A.
Yesilda , C.D. Brocket ! and B. Dniry (eds.), Agrarian Reform in Reverse: The Food Crisis in
the Third World. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Doyle, J. 1985: Altered Harvest: Agriculture, Genetics and the Fate cf the World's Food
Supply. New York: Viking Press.
Dutt, S. 1983: India and the Third World: Altruism or Hegemony ? London: Zed Press.
Editor , 1985: Unwanted Foodgrains. Economic and Political Weekly, 20, 15: 617-618.
Fitzgerald, D. 1986: Exporting American Agriculture: The Rockefeller Foundation in Mexico,
1943-53. Social Studies of Science, 16 : 457-483.
Foreign Agriculture 1986: U.S. Seeds Flourish in Overseas Markets. December.
Frankel, O. H. 1970: Genetic Dangers in the Green Revolution. World Agriculture, 19 : 9-13.
Frobel, F. 1980: The Current Development of the World Economy. Tokyo: United Nations
University.
Frobel, F. , J. Heinrich , and O. Kreye 1980: The New International Division cf Labor:
Structural Unemployment in Industrialized Countries and Industrialization in Developing
Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Glaeser, B. 1987: Green Revolution Revisited: Critiques and Alternatives. London: Allen &
Unwin.
Goodman, D. , B. Sorj , and J. Wilkinson 1987: From Farming to Biotechnology: A Theory of
Agro-industrial Development. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Habermas, J. 1971: Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston: Beacon Press.
Herring, R. J. 1983: Land to the Tiller: The Political Economy of Agrarian Reform in South
Asia. New Haven, Connecticut Yale University Press.
Hill, C. 1972: Partial Historians and Total History. Times Literary Supplement, 24, November:
7.
Hobsbawm, E. J. 1979: The Development of the World Economy. Cambridge Journal of
Economics, 3 : 305-318.
Hobsbawm, E. J. 1981: Looking Forward: History and the Future. New Left Review, 125,
January -February: 3-19.
Humphrey, H. H. 1957: U.S. Senate, Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry Hearings:
Policies and Operations of PL480. 84th Congress, First Session P129.
Jayaraman, K .S. 1985: Quest for Self-reliance Runs into Trouble. Nature, 318, November 14:
93.
Jayaraman, K and A. Anderson 1988: India and U.S. Quarrel Over Intellectual Property.
Nature, 336, November 10: 102.
Jennings, B. H. 1988: Foundations cf International Agricultural Research: Science and Politics
in Mexican Agriculture. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Joyce, C. 1985a: Brazil Goes Back to Its Roots. New Scientist, July 18: 39-41.
Joyce, C. 1985b: Research Recovers from the Dark Age. New Scientist, July 18 : 36-38.
Karim, M. B. 1986: The Green Revolution: An International Bibliography. New York:
Greenwood.
Kloppenburg, J. R. Jr. 1988: First the Seed: The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology,
1490-2000. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakshman, N. 1986: Why Do Our Scientists Commit Suicide? The lllustrated Weekly of India,
December 14: 8-17.
Lepper, R. 1989: The Bank Changes Tack. South, 100, February: 7.
Lawson, H. 1986:: The Fallacy of Scientific Objectivity"" Science "Fiction": The Fallacy of
Scientific Objectivity. Listener, 15, 2948, February 20: 12-13.
Lehmann, D. (ed.) 1974: Land, Landlords and Agrarian Reforms. London: Prasger.
Lele, U. and A. Goldsmith 1989: The Development of Agricultural Research Capacity: India's
Experience with the Rockefeller Foundation and Its Significance for Africa. Economic
Development and Cultural Change, 37, 2: 305-343.
Levins, R. sad R. Lewontin 1985: The Dialectical Biologist. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Lewin, R. 1982: Funds Squeezed for International Agriculture. Science, 218, 4575: 866-867.
Lewontin, S. 1983: The Green Revolution and the Politics of Agricultural Development in
Mexico Since 1940. University of Chicago. Ph. D dissertation.
Marcotte, P. and L. Swanson 1987: The Disarticulation of Fanning Systems Research with
National Agricultural Systems: Bringing FSR Back In. Agricultural Administration and
Extension, 27 : 75-91.
McCoy, A. 1971: Land Reform as Counter-revolution. Bulletin cf Concerned Asian Scholars,
Winter-Spring: 14-49.
Mitra, A. 1977: Terms cf Trade and Class Relations. London: frank Cass.
Mooney, P. R. 1980: Seeds of the Earth: A Private or Public Resource International Coalition
for Development Action. London and Ottawa: Inter Pares.
Mooney, P. R. 1983: The Law of fee Seed: Another Development and Plant Genetic
Resources. Development Dialogue, 1 - 2.
Mooney, P. R. 1985a: The Law of the Lamb. Development Dialogue, 1 : 99-108.
Mooney, P. R. 1985b: The Law of the Sad Revisited: Seed Wars at fee Circo Massimo.
Development Dialogue, 1 : 139-152.
Moraze, C. 1979: Science and the Factors of Inequality: Lessons of the Past and Hopes for
the Future. Paris: UNESCO.
Naqvi, S. 1973: Class Character of State Power in India. Social Scientist, April-June: 83-90.
National Commission on Agriculture 1976: Report cf the National Commission on Agriculture
Part XI: Research, Education and Extension. New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation,
Government of India.
New Scientist 1982: Foreign Fields Save Western Crops. New Scientist, 96, October 28: 218.
News From CGIAR 1985: Biotechnology at the CGIAR. an interview with Donald Plucknett
Qasa, E. 1981: The International Rice Research Institute and the Green Revolution: A Case
Study on the Politics of Agricultural Research. University of Hawaii. Ph. D dissertation.
Qasa, E. 1986: The Political Economy of International Agricultural Research: A Review of the
CGIAR'g Response to Criticising of the 'Green Revolution'. In B. Glaeser (ed.), Green
Revolution Revisited: Critique and Alternatives. London: Allen & Unwin.
Qasa, E. and B. H. Jennings 1982: Science and Authority in International Agricultural
Research. Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, 14, 4: 30-44.
Omvedt, G. 1983: Capitalist Agriculture and Rural Classes in India. Bulletin of Concerned
Asian Scholars, 15, 3: 30-54.
Pearse, A. 1980: Seeds of Plenty, Seeds of Want. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pichare, M. M. 1987: Science Policy: Statements and Actions. Economic and Political Weekly,
22, 8: 318-321.
Plucknett, D. L. 1985: Development Dialogue, 1 : 97-102.
Propp, K. M. 1968: The Establishment of Agricultural Universities in India A Case Study of the
Role of USAID-US. University Technical Assistance, Urbana: University of Illinois.
Redclift, M. 1984: Development and the Environmental Crisis: Red or Green Alternatives ?
London: Methuea.
Reichert, W. 1982: Agriculture's Diminishing Diversity: Increasing Yields and Vulnerability.
Environment, 24, 9: 6-11, 39-43.
Safeeulla, K. M. 1977: Genetic Vulnerability: The Basis of Recent Epidemics in India. Annals
of the New York Academy of Sciences, 287 : 72-85.
Selbourne, D. 1982: Through the Indian Looking Glass. London: Zed Press.
Shand, H. 1987: Socio-economic impact of Biotechnology on Agriculture in the Third World.
Paper presented at the Agricultural Bioethics Symposium. November 4.
Shapin, S. and S. Schaffer 1985: Leviathan and the Air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the
Experimental Life. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Shiva, V. and J. Bandopadhyay 1980: The Large and Fragile Community of Scientists in India.
Minerva, 18, 4: 575-594.
Sun, M. 1986: Engineering Crops to Resist Weed Killers. Science, 231, March 21: 1360-1361.
Inter-Agency Working Group on Competitive and Transfer Aspects of Biotechnology 1983:
Biobusiness World Data Base. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
Velho, L. M. L. S. 1985: Science on the Periphery: A Study of the Agricultural Scientific
Community in Brazilian Universities. University of Sussex. Ph. D dissertation.
Wilkes, G. 1983: Current Status of Crop Germpksm. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 1, 2:
131-181.
Yoxen, E. J. 1981: Life as Productive Force: Capitalizing the Science and Technology of
Molecular Biology. In L. Levidow and R.M. Young (eds.), Science, Technology and Labor
Process: Marxist Studies. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
Yoxen, E. J. 1983: Gene Business: Who Should Control Biotechnology ? London and Sydney:
Pan Books.
Zilinskas, R. 1987: The International Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology.
Technology in Society, 9, 1: 8-17.

Theorizing New Deal Farm Policy: Broad Constraints of Capital

Accumulation and the Creation of a Hegemonic Relation
Benedict, Murray R. 1953: Farm Policies of the US. 1790-1950. New York: Twentieth Century
Fund.
Block, Fred 1977: The Ruling Class Does Not Rule, Socialist Revolution, 7: 6-28.
Block, Fred 1987: State Theory: Essays in Politics and Post-Industrialism. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Carnoy, Martin 1984: The State and Political Theory. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.
Daniel, Pete 1981: The Transformation of the Rural South. Agricultural History, 55, 3: 231-248.
Domhoff, William 1967: Who Rules America? Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Finegold, Kenneth 1980: From Agrarians to Adjustment: The Political Origins of New Deal
Agricultural Policy. Politics and Society, 11, 1: 1-27.
Fite, Gilbert C. 1954: George Peek and the Fight for Farm Parity. Norman, Oklahoma:
University of Oklahoma Press.
Fite, Gilbert C. 1964: American Agriculture and Farm Policy since 1900. New York: Macmillan.
Gilbert, Jess and Steve Brown 1981: Alternative Land Reform Proposals in the 1930's: The
Nashville Agrarians sad the Southern Tenant Farmer's Union. Agricultural History, 55: 351-
369.
Gilbert, Jess and Carolyn Howe 1988: Beyond State vs. Society: Theories of the State and
New Deal Agricultural Policies. Unpublished paper.
Gramsci, Antonio 1971: The Prison Notebooks. New York: International Publishers.
Hooks, Gregory 1983: A New Deal for Farmers and Social Scientists: The Politics of Rural
Sociology in the Depression Era. Rural Sociology, 48, 3: 386-408.
Kirby, Jack Temple 1983: The Transformation of Southern Plantations, c.19201960.
Agricultural History, 57, 3: 257-276.
Kirkendall, Richard S. 1966: Social Scientists and Farm Politics in the Age cf Roosevelt.
Columbia, Missouri: University of Missouri Press.
Mann, Susan A. 1984: Sharecropping in the Cotton South: A Case of Uneven Development in
Agriculture. Rural Sociology, 49, 3: 412-429.
McClellan, Steve 1987: The AAA and Capitalist Agriculture. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida State
University. Unpublished M.S. Thesis.
Miliband, Ralph 1969: The State in Capitalist Society. New York: Basic Books,
Mills, C. Wright 1956: The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mooney, Patrick H. 1983: Toward a Class Analysis of Mid-western Apiculture. Rural
Sociology, 48, 4: 563-584.
Perkins, Van L. 1969: Crisis in Agriculture: The AAA and the New Deal. Berkley: University of
California Press.
Pfeffer, Max J. 1983: Social Origins of Three Systems of Farm Production in the United
States. Rural Sociology, 48, 4: 540-562.
Poulantzas, Nicos 1978: State, Power, Socialism. London: New Left Books.
Poulantzas, Nicos 1973: Political Power and Social Classes. London: New Left Books.
Rassmussen, Wayne D. 1983: The New Deal Farm Programs: What They Were and Why
They Survived. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65: 1158-1162.
Saloutos, Theodore 1982: The American Farmer and the New Deal. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State
Press.
Skocpol, Theda and Kenneth Finegold 1982: State Capacity and Economic Intervention in the
Early New Deal. Political Science Quarterly, 97, 2: 255-278.
Weber, Max 1968: Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. New York:
Bedminster Press.
Wiener, Merle 1978: Cheap Food, Cheap Labor: California Agriculture in the 1930's. Insurgent
Sociologist, 8, 2-3, Fall: 181-190.

The Institutionalization of Grower-Processor Relations in the

Vegetable Industries of Ontario and New York
Apostle, Richard , Gene Bairette , Anthony Davis , and Leonard Kasdan 1985: Land and Sea:
The Structure of Fish Processing in Nova Scotia: A Preliminary Report. Halifax: St, Mary's
University. Goresbrook Research Institute for Atlantic Canada Studies, Report Series.
Armbruster, Waller J. and Edward V. Jesse 1983: Fruit and Vegetable Marketing Orders, Pp.
121-158 in Walter J. Armbruster , Dennis R. Henderson and Ronald D. Knutson (eds.),
Federal Marketing Programs in Agriculture: Issues and Options. Danville: Interstate.
Associated New York State Food Processors 1985: A History of the Canning and Freezing
Industry in New York State. Rochester: Associated New York State Food Processors.
Breimeyer, Harold F. 1983: Agricultural Marketing Policy in Perspective. Pp. 1-20 is Walter J.
Armbruster , Dennis R. Henderson and Ronald D. Knutson (eds.), Federal Marketing
Programs in Agriculture: Issues and Options. Danville: Interstate.
Bunje, Ralph B. 1980: Cooperative Farm Bargaining and Price Negotiations. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative Information Report
Call, David Lincoln 1958: The Organization and Operations of the New York Canning Crop
Growers Cooperative, Inc. Cornell University. M.S. thesis.
Chase-Lansdale, Wilson Compton 1980: The Political Economy of Farmer Bargaining:
Cooperative and Proprietary Processor Response to Farmer Bargaining. Michigan State
University. Ph.D. dissertation.
Chazanof, William 1977: Welch's Grape Juke: From Corporation to Cooperative. Syracuse:
Syracuse University Press.
Clement, Wallace 1986: The Struggle to Organize: Resistance in Canada's Fishery. Toronto:
McClelland and Stewart.
Cooperative Union of Ontario 1961: Final Report: Commission on Relationships Between
Cooperatives and Marketing Boards. Cooperative Union of Ontario.
Cochrane, Willard W. 1979: The Development cf American Agriculture: A Historical Analysis.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Coleman, William D. 1988: Business and Politics: A Study of Collective Action. Kingston and
Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
Cox, Graham , Philip Lowe , and Michael Winter 1985: Changing Directions in Agricultural
Policy: Coiporatist Arrangements in Production and Conservation Policies. Sociologia Ruralis,
25, 2: 130-153.
Davis, John Emmeus 1980: Capitalist Agricultural Development mid the Exploitation of the
Propertied Laborer. Pp. 133-153 in Frederick H. Buttel and Howard Newby (eds.), The Rural
Sociology cf the Advanced Societies. Montclair Allanheld Osmun.
Frederick, Donald A. 1984: Supreme Court Modifies Michigan Bargaining Act Farmer
Cooperatives, 51, November: 22.
Friedland, William H. 1984: Commodity Systems Analysis: An Approach to the Sociology of
Agriculture. Pp. 221-236 in Harry K. Schwarzweller (ed.), Rural Sociology and Development,
Vol. 1, Focus on Agriculture. Greenwich: JAI.
Friedland, William H. and Amy E. Barton . 1975; Destalking the Wily Tomato: A Case Study in
Social Consequences in California Agricultural Research. Davis: University of California,
Department of Applied Behavioral Sciences. Research Monograph No. 15.
Friedland, William H. Amy E Amy E. Barton , and Robert J. Thomas 1981: Manufacturing
Green Gold: Capital, Labor, and Technology in the Lettuce Industry. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Gates, Paul W. 1968: History of Public Land Law Development. Washington, D.C.: Public
Land Law Review Commission.
Gertler, Michael E. 1986: Toward a Social and Political Economy of the Processing Vegetable
Industries of Ontario and New York. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Canadian
Association for Rural Studies, Winnipeg.
Gertler, Michael E. 1987: Grower-Processor Relations and the Structure of the Processing
Vegetable Industry in Ontario. Papa- presented at a joint session of the Annual Meetings of
the Canadian Association for Rural Studies and the Canadian Sociology and Anthropology
Association, Hamilton.
Gertler, Michael E. 1990: Organizations and Structural Change in the Processing Vegetable
Industries in Ontario and New York. Ph.D. dissertation. Cornell Univerity, Ithaca NY.
Goldberg, Ray A. 1972: Profitable Partnerships: Industry and Farmers Coops. Harvard
Business Review, 50, March-April: 108-121.
Harris, H. M. Jr. , E. V. Jesse , R. E. Torgerson , J. D. Shaffer , and L. Garoyan 1983:
Cooperatives and Bargaining. Pp. 199-237 in Walter J. Armbruster , Dennis R. Henderson and
Ronald D. Knutson (eds.), Federal Marketing Programs in Agriculture: Issues and Options.
Danville: Interstate.
Havens, A. Eugene and Howard Newby 1986: Agriculture and the State: an Analytical
Approach. Pp. 287-304 in A. Eugene Havens , Gregory Hooks , Patrick H. Mooney and Max J.
Pfeffer (eds.), Studies in the Transformation of US. Agriculture. Boulder: Westview. Rural
Studies Series of the Rural Sociological Society.
Ingalsbe, Gene 1985: Market-Oriented Climate Changing Bargaining Cooperative Role.
Farmer Cooperatives, 51, March: 24-26.
Judge, Edward E. & Sons 1986: The Almanac of the Canning, Freezing, and Preserving
Industries, 1986. Westminster, MD: Edward E. Judge & Sons.
Keuchel, Edward F. J. 1970: The Development of the Canning Industry in New York State to
1960. Cornell University. Ph.D. dissertation.
Lane, Stewart H. 1982: Agricultural Marketing Handbook, Third edition. Guelph: University of
Guelph, School of Agricultural Economics and Extension Education. Extension Publication
AEEE/82/7.
Lash, Scott and John Urry 1987: The End of Organized Capitalism. Madison: The University of
Wisconsin Press.
Lockyer, Peter 1983: An Uncertain Harvest: Hard Work, Big Business, and Changing Times in
Prince Edward County, Ontario. Ottawa, Ontario: Carleton University. M.Sc. thesis.
Marchak, M. Patricia 1987a: Ideological Perspectives on Canada, Third edition. Toronto:
McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
Marchak, M. 1987b: Uncommon Property. Pp. 3-31 in Patricia Marchak , Neil Guppy and John
McMullan (eds.), Uncommon Property: The Fishing and Fish-Processing Industries in British
Columbia. Toronto: Methuen.
Marion, Bruce W. 1976: Vertical Coordination and Exchange Relationships: Concepts and
Hypotheses. Pp. 179-195 in Bruce .W Marion (ed.), Coordination and Exhange in Agricultural
Subsectors. Madison: North Central Regional Research Project NC 117 Monograph 2.
Marion, Bruce W. 1985: The Organization and Performance of the US. Food System.
Lexington: Lexington Books.
Offe, Claus 1985: Disorganized Capitalism: Contemporary Transformations of Work and
Politics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Ontario Department of Agriculture 1922: Addresses on Cooperative Marketing by Mr. Aaron
Sapiro, Hon. Manning W. Doherty, Hon. E. C. Drury. Toronto: Clarkson W. James.
Ontario Vegetable Growers" Marketing Board 1986: 42nd Annual Report. London: Ontario
Vegetable Growers Marketing Board.
Perkin, G. F. 1962: Marketing Milestones in Ontario, 1935-1960. Toronto: Ontario Department
of Agriculture.
Poetschke, L. E. and W. Mackenzie 1956: The Development of Producer Marketing Boards in
Canadian Agriculture. Edmonton: University of Alberta, Department of Extension.
Raup, Philip M. 1978: Cooperatives, Capper-Volstead and the Organization and Control of
Agriculture. Pp. 11-17 in Bruce W. Marion (ed.), Agricultural Cooperatives and the Public
Interest. Madison: North Central Project 117. Monograph 4.
Sullivan, J. M. 1982: A Statistical Summary of Marketing Boards in Canada, 1980-81. Ottawa:
Agriculture Canada.
Thomas, Robert J. 1985: Citizenship, Gender, and Wort Social Organization of Industrial
Agriculture. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Warnock, John W. 1988: Free Trade and the New Right Agenda. Vancouver: New Star Books.
Winter, Michael 1984: Corporatism and Agriculture in the U.K.: The Case of the Milk Marketing
Board. Sociologia Rural is, 24, 2: 106-119.n

Economic and Ecological Crises: Transforming Swedish Agricultural

Policy
Andersson, Thorsten 1986: Se åkermarken som en skyddsareal. Land, 24, 13: 57. June.
Avery, Graham 1987: Agricultural Policy: European Options and American Comparisons.
European Affairs, 1, Spring: 62-74. (Amsterdam).
Bolin, Olof 1985: Makten over Maten. In Ekonomi - Fakta . Uppsala: Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences. Nr 4.
Boston Globe 1987: Swedes to dismande nuclear reactors. 7 October.
Carlsson, Gunilla 1986: Produktion och konsumtion av jordbruksprodukter 1985.
Jordbruksekonomiska meddelanden, 5, May (Stockholm) Statens Jordbruksnämnd: 166-179.
(Production and consumption of farm products).
Cohen, Marshall 1982: Sweden's Agricultural Policy. Foreign Agricultural Economic Report ,
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Degersand, Allan 1987: Jordbrukspolitiken har kapsejsat Svenska Dagbladet, 30 May.
(Agripolicy has capsized).
Drake, Lars 1987: The Value of Preserving the Agricultural Landscape. Balatoaszeplak,
Hungary: Vth European Congress of Agricultural Economists. August.
Helgstrand, Lars and Lars Höök 1987: Intensiteten måste säankas. Land, 24 July. (Intensity
must be reduced).
Landqvist, Per-Erik 1987: 400,000 hektar söker nya grödor. Svenska Dagbladet, 1 June.
(400,000 hectares seek new crops).
Michelsén, Thomas 1985: Storbönder gynnas mest. Dagens Nyheter, 10 March. (Big farmers
favored most).
Michelsén, Thomas 1987a: Produktionen måste minska, Dagens Nyheter, 9 March.
(Production must decline).
Michelsén, Thomas 1987b: Planter* granskog på åkern. Dagens Nyheter, n.d.. (Plant spruce
on arable land).
Michelsén, Thomas 1987c: Gräsvaller bot mot kväveläckage. Dagens Nyheter, 6 June. (Grass
land a cure for nitrogen leaching).
Michelsén, Thomas 1987d: Billigare på lång sikt. Dagens Nyheter, 27 June. (Cheaper in the
long view).
Nilsson, Per-Olof (ed.) 1985: Biomassa & Energi. Garpenberg: Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences. Institute for Forestry Technique.
O.E.C.D. 1983: The Implications of Different Means of Agricultural Income Support.
O.E.C.D. 1987: National Policies and Agricultural Trade.
Odenstad, Göran 1987: Endast svag ökning av PM-prisema. Land, 28/29, 10 July. (Only a
minor increase of farm input prices).
Project Agrobioenergi 1984: Bräanslen från Jordbruket. Uppsala: Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences. (Fuel from Agriculture) Report for stage 4 (1981-83).
Rabinowicz, Ewa and Olof Bolin 1986: Pris- eller produktionskontroll i jordbruket Economisk
Debatt , August 605-613. (Price or production control in agriculture).
Rabinowicz, Ewa , Ingemar Haraldsson , and Olof Bolin 1986: The Evolution of a Regulation
Systran in Agriculture. Food Policy, November: 323-333.
Söderbaum, Peter 1987: Vägval i jordbrukspolitiken. Lantmästaren, 2, 2. (Choice of path in
agricultural policy).
Spanmålsgruppen [SMG] 1986: Åtgärder för att minska spannmålsöverskottet. Stockholm:
Jordbruks Departments. (Means for reducing the grain oversupply).
Statistiska Centralbyrån 1985: Jordbruksstaiistisk årsbok 1985. (Agricultural statistics
yearbook).
Thullberg, Per 1983: Swedish Agricultural Policy During the Post-War Period: A Study in
Rationality. Stockhom University. Historical Institute.
Vail, David 1986: Crisis in Sweden's Farmland Preservation Strategy. Agriculture and Human
Values, 3, 4: 24-31.
Wohlfart, Anita 1987: Så ska trädä. Land, 37, 37. (So goes idle land).

Farm Policies and Farmer Strategies: The Case of Norway

Aanesland, N. 1971: Optimal utnyttelse av ressursene og innteks-overforing til utkantbygder.
In O. Brox , Norsk landbruks-utvikling eller avvikling. Oslo: Pax.
Almaas, R. 1984: Norwegian Agricultural Policy and She Family Farm. Sociology Ruralis,
XXIV, XXIV.
Almaas, R. and M. Ronningen 1986: Landbrukspolitikk og hushaldsstrategiar. Centre for Rural
Research, University of Trondheim. Notat no. 1.
Borgan, S. 1974: Noen emner fra landbrukspolitikken. Aas: The Agricultural University.
Brox, O. 1966: Hva skjer i Nord-Norge? Oslo: Pax.
Haga, G. 1978: Avviklingsbonden og hans representantar. Oslo: Culture.
NOU 1974: Stotteordninger i landbruket. Oslo: NOU. The report from the Oksnes committee.
NOU 1984: Statlig naringsstotte i distriktene. Oslo: NOU. The report from Bygdeutvalget.
Teigen, H. 1984: Vil Bygde-Norge overleve? Med storbukkar paa bygdebeite. Lillehammer:
Fagbokforlaget Ringsaker.
Vatn, A. 1984: Teknologi og polilikk. Oslo: Landbruks-forlaget. Om framveksten av viktige
styringstiltal i norsk jordbruk 1920-80.

Portuguese Agriculture and the State: An Outline of the Past 25 Years

Avillez, P. , T. Finan , and T. Joslin 1985: A Comparative Study of the Political Economy of
Agricultural Pricing Policies. Washington D.C.: World Bank. County study: Portugal (First
Report), World Bank Project Number RPO 673-64.
Banco de Portugal 1979-88: Relatórios do Conselho de Administração. Lisboa: Annual
Reports of the Board of Directors.
Baptista, F. O. 1984: Politico Agrária (anos tr'mta - 1974) . Lisboa: Institute Superior de
Agronomia.
Baptista, F. O. 1986: Le Blé dans l'Agriculture du Portugal Mediterraneen. Options
Mediterraneeńes, Décembre.
Baptista, F. O. 1988: L'Agriculture Portugaise. Annales de Géographie, Décembre; 269-274.
Caldas, E. C. 1978: A Agricultura Portuguese No Limiar da Reforma Agraria. Oeiras: Centra
de Estudos de Ecooomia Agrária-Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência.
Caldas, J. C. 1981: Caseiros do Alto Minho: Adaptação e Declínio. Revista Critica de Ciências
Sociais, 7/8.
Carvalho, A. 1984: Os Pequenos e Medios Agricultores e a Politico Agraria no Periodo 1960 -
1975. Perspectives de Desenvolvimento da Agricultura . Oeiras: Centre de Estudos de
Economic Agrária-Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência.
Carvalho, A. 1985: Estratégia de Desenvolvimento da Pequena Agricultura, a Região de Entre
Douro e Minho. Mimeo.
Cavaco, C. 1985a: Pluriactividade e Plurirrendimento Entre as Famílias Agrícolas do Algarve.
Biblos, LXI: 19-47.
Cavaco, C. 1985b: A Agricultura a Tempo Parcial: Contribuição para o Seu Estudo na Região
de Lisboa. Oeiras: Centra de Estudos de Economia Agrária-Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian.
Cordovil, F. , J. Antunes , J. Campos , and J. Santandren .d.: Contas de Rendimento das
Familias No Continente, Distritos, Sub-regiőes e Regiőes. Lisboa: Institute de Análise da
Conjuntura e Estudos de Planeamento/Grupo de Estudos Básicos de Economia Industrial.
Cordovil, F. , J. Rolo , and F. Cardoso 1986: Valor Bruto da Produção Agrícola (média
1979/80/81) do Continente e Distritos por Classes de Area . Lisboa: Centre Interdisciplinar de
Estudos Económicos do Instituto Superior de Cifências do Trabalho de da
Empresa/Departamento de Estudos de Ecomonia a Sociologia Agrária do Instituto Nacional
de Investigação Agrária.
Estácio, F. , A. M. Alves , and F. Avillez 1984: Evolução da Agricultura Portuguesa Nas
Ultimas Décadas. Uma Perspectiva Económica. Lisboa: Institute Superior de Agronomia.
Comunicação Apresentada no Seminario a Agricultura Portuguesa.
Girão, J. A. 1980: Natureza do Problema Agrícola em Portugal (1950-73): Uma Perspectiva.
Oeiras: Centre de Estudos de Economia Agrária-Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciẽncia.
Lino, M. 1976: Consume e Produção Alimeniares em Portugal. Lisboa: Banco de Fomento
National. Estudos 11.
Loureiro, M. C, 1987: Estrutura da Propriedade e Mercado Fundiário. A Freguesia de Vila
Chã, Concelho de Esposende. Lisboa: Institute Superior de Agronomia.
Lourenço, F. and I. Rodrigo 1985: Politico Agrária e Reconversão da Agricuitura. A
Fruticultura do Distrito da Guarda. Lisboa: INIC, CEASR. Separata das Jornadas da Beira
Interior.
Lucena, M. 1976: A Evolução do Sistema Corporativo Português-(I) O Salazarismo.
Perspectivas & Realidades : 416.
Lucena, M. 1978: Sobre a Evolução dos Organismos de Coordenação Económica Ligados à
Lavoura (I). Análise Social, 14, 56: 817-862.
Moreira, M. B. 1984: L'Economie et la Politique Laitiére au Portugal (1926-1981). La
Production Laitiere Dans le Minifundio. Grenoble: Université des Sciences Sociaies, IREP.
Thése de doctoral de troisiéme cycle.
Moreira, M. B. 1986: An Outline on Portuguese Agriculture. Facts and Figures about Rural
Portugal. Braga: SPER-13th European Congress for Rural Sociology.
Moreira, M. B. 1989: The Crisis of Portuguese Agriculture in Relation to the EEC Challenge.
Agriculture and Human Values, 6, 4, Fall.
Mottura, G. and E. Pugliese 1980: Capitalism in Agriculture and Capitalistic Agriculture: the
Italian Case. Pp. 171-199 in Frederick H. Buttel and Howard Newby (eds.), The Rural
Sociology of Advanced Societies: Critical Perspectives. Montclair, NJ: Allanheld, Osmun.
Moura, F. P. 1969: Por Onde Vai a Economia Portuguesa? Lisboa: D. Quixote.
Pinto, A. , F. Avillez , L. Albuquerque , and F. Gomes 1984: A Agricultura Portuguesa no
Periódo 1950-1980. Lisboa: Imprensa Nacional Casa da Moeda/Institute de Estudos para o
Desenvolvimento.
Reis, J. 1984: A Pequena Agricuitura e o Desenvolvimento Economico. In Modernizaçãdo da
Economia Portuguesa. Lisboa: Associação Portuguesa de Economistas. Segundo
Conferência Nacional de Economists.
Santos, B. S. 1985: Estado e Sociedade na Semiperiferia do Sistema Muadial: o Caso
Português. Análise Social, 21, 87-88-89: 869-901.
Sousa, A. 1932: Portugal Industrial. In Industrial Portuguesas. Lisboa: Direção da Feira das
Amostras nas Colonias Portuguesas.
Sousa, J. F. 1981: De l'Espace Portugais a l'Europe - Nationalisme et Integration Européenne
au Portugal (1957-78) . Grenoble: Universite des Sciences Sociaies. These de doctorat de
troisieme cycle.
Women and Agriculture in the United States: A State of the Art
Assessment
Banaji, Jarius 1980: Summary of Selected Parts of Kautsky's The Agrarian Question. Pp. 39-
82 in Frederick H. Buttel and Howard Newby (eds.), The Rural Sociology of Advanced
Societies: Critical Perspectives. Montclair, New Jersey: Allanheld, Osmun.
Banks, Vera J. 1986: Black Farmers and Their Wives. Washington, D.C.: U.S.. Department of
Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Rural Development Research Report No. 59.
Barlett, Peggy F. 1986: Part-Time Farming: Saving the Farm or Saving the Life-Style? Rural
Sociology, 51, 3, Fall: 289-313.
Barton, Amy E. 1978: Campesinas: Women Farmworkers in the California Agricultural Labor
Force. Sacramento: California Commission on the Status of Women.
Berlan, Martine 1986: Farmers' Wives in Protest: A Theatre of Contradictions. Sociologia
Ruralis, 26, 3-4: 285-303.
Bokemeier, Janet sad Lorraine Garkovich 1987: Assessing the Influence of Farm Women's
Self-Identity on Task Allocation and Decision Making. Rural Sociology, 52, 1, Spring: 13-36.
Bokemeier, Janet and John L. Tait 1980: Women as Power Actors: A New Trend in Rural
Communities. Rural Sociology, 45 : 238-255.
Boulding, Elsie 1980: The Labor of U. S. Farm Women: A Kinship Gap. Sociology of Work and
Occupations, 7: 261-290.
Boyd, Gerald D. 1985: Women in Wine: Industry's Old Sex Barriers Yield to New Talent. San
Jose Mercury News, July 24: 13E.
Bush, Corlann Gee 1982: The Barn is His, The House is Mine: Agricultural Technology and
Sex Roles. Pp. 235-259 in George H. Daniels and Mark H. Rose (eds.), Energy and Transport:
Historical Perspectives on Policy Issues. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Bush, Corlann Gee 1987: He Isn't Half So Cranky as He Used to be: Agricultural
Mechanization, Comparable Worth, and the Changing Farm Family. Pp. 213-229 in Carol
Groneman and Mary Beth Norton (eds.), To Toil The Livelong Day: America's Women at
Work, 1780-1980. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Buttel, Frederick H. and Gilbert W. Gillespie 1984: The Sexual Division of Farm Household
Labor: An Exploratory Study of the Structure of On Farm and Off Farm, Farm Labor Allocation
Among Farm Men and Women. Rural Sociology, 49, 2, Summer: 183-209.
Clark, Ava Milam and J. Kenneth Munford 1969: Adventures of a Home Economist. Corvallis:
Oregon State University Press.
Colman, Gould P. 1981: Notes on Methods for Studying Farm Women. The Rural Sociologist,
1, 6: 394-395.
Colman, Gould P. and Sarah Elbert 1984: Farming Families: The Farm Needs Everyone. Pp.
61-78 in Harry K. Schwarzweller (ed.), Research in Rural Sociology and Development.
Greenwich: JAI Press. Vol. 1, Focus on Agriculture.
Colman, Gould P. Laurie Konigsburg , and Leslie Puryear 1978: How Farm Families Make
Decisions: The Nordahls. Ithaca: Cornell University, Departments of Rural Sociology and
Agricultural Economics.
Colman, Gould P. and Jean Lowe 1975: How Farm Families Make Decisions: The Brauns.
Ithaca: Cornell University, Departments of Rural Sociology and Agricultural Economics.
Colman, Gould P. Sarah Elbert Laurie Koningsburg Leslie Puryesr Jean Lowe and Leslie
Puryear 1978: How Farm Families Make Decisions: The Sawyers. Ithaca: Cornell University,
Departments of Rural Sociology and Agricultural Economics.
Crawford, Ann Fears and Crystal Sasse Ragsdale 1982: Women in Texas: Their Lives, Their
Experiences, Their Accomplishments. Burnet, Texas: Eakin Press.
East, Marjorie 1980: Home Economics: Past, Present, and Future. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
East, Marjorie and Joan Thomson (cds.) 1984: Definitive Themes in Home Economics and
Their Impact on Families 1909-1984. Washington, D.C.: American Home Economics
Association.
Ehlers, Tracy Bachrach 1987: The Matrifocal Farm. Pp. 145-163 in Michael Chibnik (ed.),
Farm Work and Field Work: American Agricultural in Anthropological Perspective. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
Elbert, Sarah 1981: The Challenge of Research on Farm Women. The Rural Sociologist, 1, 6:
387-390.
Elbert, Sarah 1985: The Farmer Takes a Wife: Women in America's Farming Families.
Unpublished paper.
Elbert, Sarah 1987: Amber Waves of Gain: Women's Work in New York Families. Pp. 250-268
in Carol Groneman and Mary Beth Norton (eds.), To Toil the Livelong Day: America's Women
at Work, 1780-1980. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Elbert, Sarah 1988: Women and Farming: Changing Structures, Changing Roles. Pp. 245-264
in Wava G. Haney and Jane B. Knowles (eds.), Women and Farming: Changing Roles,
Changing Structures. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
Elbert, Sarah and Gould P. Colman 1975: How Farm Families Make Decisions: The Roots.
Ithaca: Cornell University Departments of Rural Sociology and Agricultural Economics.
Elbert, Sarah Joyce H. Finch , and Gould P. Colman 1976: How Farm Families Make
Decisions: The Neirkers. Ithaca: Cornell University Departments of Rural Sociology and
Agricultural Economics.
Ericksen, Julia and Gary Klein 1981: Women's Roles and Family Production Among the Old
Order Amish. Rural Sociology, 46, 2, Summer: 282-296.
Fairbanks, Carol and Sara Brooks Sundberg 1983: Farm Women on the Prairie Frontier: A
Sourcebook for Canada and the United States. Metuchen, New Jersey: Scarecrow Press.
Fassinger, Polly A. and Harry K. Schwarzweller 1984: The Work of Farm Women: A
Midwestern Study. Pp. 37-60 in Harry K. Schwarzweller (ed.), Research in Rural Sociology
and Development. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Faulkner, Karin 1984: It Grows Here: Interview with Four Growers. Ridge Review, 4, 1, Spring.
Mendocino, California.
Fink, Deborah 1986: Open Country, Iowa: Rural Women, Tradition and Change. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Fink, Deborah 1987: Farming in Open Country, Iowa: Women sad the Changing Farm
Economy. Pp. 119-144 in Michael Chibnik (ed.), Farm Work and Field Work: American
Agriculture in Anthropological Perspective. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Flora, Cornelia B. 1981: Farm Women, Farming Systems and Agricultural Structure:
Suggestions for Scholarship. The Rural Sociologist, 1, 6: 383-386.
Flora, Cornelia B. 1985a Women and Agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values, 2, 1, Winter:
5-12.
Flora, Cornelia B. 1985b: Strong Farm Women: Movie Review of Places in the Heart, Country
and The River . Agriculture and Human Values, 2, 1, Winter: 71-73.
Flora, Cornelia B. and Sue Johnson 1978: Discarding the Distaff: New Roles for Rural
Women. Pp. 168-181 in Thomas Ford (ed.), Rural U.S.A.: Persistence and Change. Ames:
Iowa State University Press.
Fredricks, Anne 1984: in Agriculture: The Women's Land Army During World War II"" The
Creation of "Women's Work" in Agriculture: The Women's Land Army During World War II.
The Insurgent Sociologist, 12, 3, Summer: 33-40.
Friedland, William H. 1982: The End of Rural Society and the Future of Rural Sociology. Rural
Sociology, 47, 4: 598-608.
Friedland, William H. and Amy Barton 1975: Destalking the Wily Tomato: A Case Study in
Social Consequences in California Agricultural Research. Davis: University of California,
Department of Applied Behavioral Sciences. Research Monograph No. 15.
Friedland, William H. Amy Barton 1976: Tomato Technology. Society, 13, 6,
September/October.
Friedland, William H. Amy E. Barton , and Robert J. Thomas 1981: Manufacturing Green Gold:
Capital, Labor, and Technology in the Lettuce Industry. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Friedland, William H. Mesa Fumari , and Enrico Pugliese 1980: Agriculture: Agribusiness and
the Labor Process. Paper prepared for the Working Conference on the Labor Process,
University of California, Santa Cruz, March 14-16.
Friedland, William H. Amy Barton Amy E. Barton Robert J. Thomas Mesa Furnari Enrico
Pugliese 1981: I1 processo lavorativo in agricoltura e nell'agribusiness. La Questione Agraria,
2: 153-176.
Friedmann, Harriet 1980: Household Production and the National Economy: Concepts for the
Analysis of Agrarian Formations. Journal of Peasant Studies, 7, 2: 158-184.
Garkovich, Lorraine and Janet Bokemeier 1988: Agricultural Mechanization and American
Form Women's Roles. Pp. 211-228 in Wava G. Haney and Jane B. Knowles (eds.), Women
and Farming: Changing Roles, Changing Structures. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
Geisler, Charles C. , William F. Waters , and Katrina Eadie 1985: The Changing Structure of
Female Agricultural Land Ownership. Rural Sociology, 50, 1, Spring: 74-87.
Gladwin, Christina H. 1985: Values and Goals of Florida Farm Women: Do They Help the
Family Farm Survive. Agriculture and Human Values, 2,1, Winter: 40-47.
Gonzales, Jr., Juan L. 1985: Mexican and Mexican American Farm Workers. New York:
Praeger.
Gould, John 1946: Farmer Takes A Wife, New York: William Morrow.
Graff, Linda L. 1982: Industrialization of Agriculture: Implications for the Position of Farm
Women. Resources for Feminist Research, 11, 1: 10-11.
Hacker, Sally 1978: Farming Out the Home: Women and Agribusiness. Science for the
People, 10, 2, March/April: 15-28.
Haney, Wava G. 1983: Farm Family tnd the Role of Women. Pp. 179-193 in Gene F.
Summers (ed.), Technology and Social Class in Rural Areas. Boulder: Westview.
Haney, Wava G. 1982: Women. Pp. 124-135 in Don A. Dillman and Daryl J. Hobbs (eds.),
Rural Society in the U.S.: Issues for the 1980's. Boulder Westview.
Haney, Wava G. and Jane B. Knowles (eds.) 1988: Women and Farming: Changing Roles,
Changing Structures. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
Hawkes, Glenn R. and Minna Taylor 1975: Power Structure in Mexican and Mexican-
American Farm Labor Families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 37, 4, December 807-
811.
Hawthorne, Betty 1984: The Heritage. Pp. 1-10 in Joan Thomson (ed.), Definitive Themes in
Home Economics and Their Impact on Families 1909-1984. Washington, D.C.: American
Home Economics Association.
Hill, Frances 1981: Farm Women: Challenge to Scholarship. The Rural Sociologist, 1, 6: 370-
382.
Huffman, Wallace E. 1976: The Value of Productive Time of Farm Wives: Iowa, North
Carolina, and Oklahoma. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 58, 5, December: 836-
841.
Jasso, Sonia and Maria Mazorra 1984: Following the Harvest: The Health Hazards of Migrant
and Seasonal Farmworkingwomen. In Wendy Chapkis (ed.), Double Exposure: Women's
Health Hazards on the Job and at Home. New York: Monthly.
Jensen, Joan M. 1981: With These Hands: Women Working on the Land. Old Westbury, New
York: Feminist Press.
Jensen, Joan M. and Darlis A. Miller 1986: New Mexico Women: Intercultural Perspectives.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Jones, Calvin and Rachel A. Rosenfeld 1981: American Farm Women: Findings from a
National Survey. Chicago: National Opinion Reseach Center.
Kalbacher, Judith Z. 1983: Women Farm Operators. Family Economics Review, 4: 17-21.
Kalbacher, Judith Z. 1985a: A Profile of Female Farmers in America. Washington, D.C.:
United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Rural Development
Research Report No. 45.
Kalbacher, Judith Z. 1985b: Farm Women as Farm Operators. Rural Development
Perspectives, 1, 2, February: 24-25.
Kohl, Seena B. 1977: Women's Participation in fee North American Family Farm. Women's
Studies International Quarterly, 1 : 47-54.
Lindig, Carmen 1986: The Path from the Parlor: Louisiana Women 1879-1920. Lafayette,
Louisiana: University of Southwestern Louisiana.
Lyson, Thomas A. 1985: Husband and Wife Roles and the Organization and Operation of
Family Farms. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 3, August: 759-764.
Magrabi, Frances 1984: Establishment of Family Economics as a Conceptual Field. Pp. 45-50
in Marjorie East and Joan Thomson (eds.), Definitive Themes in Home Economics and Their
Impact on Families 1909-1984. Washington, D.C.: American Home Economics Association.
McBane, Margo 1976: The Role of Women in Determing the California Farm Labor Structure:
A Case Study of the Women's Land Army During World War I. Davis: University of California,
Davis. M.A. Thesis.
Murray, M. Eloise 1981: Factors Guiding Research on Farm Women. The Rural Sociologist, 1,
6: 391-393.
Neth, Mary 1988: Building the Base: Farm Women, the Rural Community, and Farm
Organizations in the Midwest, 1900-1940. Pp. 339-355 in Wava G. Haney and Jane B.
Knowles (eds.), Women and Farming: Changing Roles, Changing Structures. Boulder,
Colorado: Westview.
Norman, Gale 1985: Raisin Wives of California. California Grape Grower, 16, 11, November:
22-23.
Osterud, Nancy Grey 1987: She Help Me Hay it as Good as a Man: Relations among Women
and Men in a Agricultural Community. In Carol Groneman and Mary Beth Norton (eds.), To
Toil the Livelong Day: America's Women at Work, 1790-1980. Ithaca: Cornell University
Press.
Pearson, Jessica 1979: Note on Female Farmers. Rural Sociology, 44, 1, Spring: 189-200.
Reimer, Bill 1986: Women as Farm Labor. Rural Sociology, 51, 2: 145-155.
Riley, Glenda 1981: Frontierswomen: The Iowa Experience. Ames: Iowa State University
Press.
Rosenfeld, Rachel Ann 1985: Farm Women: Work, Farm, and Family in the United States.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Ross, Peggy J. 1985: A Commentary on Research on American Farm Women. Agriculture
and Human Values, 2, 1, Winter 19-30.
Rossiter, Margaret W. 1982: Women Scientists in America: Struggles and Strategies to 1940.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Russell, Candyce S. , Charles L. Griffin , Flinch Baugh , Catherine Scott , Michael J. Marin ,
and Raymond B. Atilaao 1985: Coping Strategies Associated with Intergenerational Transfer
of the Family Farm. Rural Sociology, 50, 3, Fall: 361-376.
Sachs, Carolyn 1983: The Invisible Farmers: Women in Agricultural Production. Totowa, N.J.:
Rowman and Allanheld.
Sachs, Carolyn 1985a: Short History of U.S. Farm Women. Rural Development Perspectives,
1, 2, February: 20-22.
Sachs, Carolyn 1985b: Women's Work in the U.S.: Variation by Regions. Agriculture and
Human Values, 2, 1, Winter: 31-39.
Salamon, Sonya and Ann Mackey Keim 1979: Land Ownership and Women's Power in a
Midwestern Farming Community. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, February: 109-119.
Salamon, Sonya and Kathleen Markan 1984: Incorporation and the Farm Family. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 46, 1: 167-178.
Salant, Priscilla 1983: Farm Women: Contribution to Farm and Family. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic Development Department, Economic Research Service,
in cooperation with Mississippi State Agricultural Experiment Station. Agricultural Economics
Report 140.
Scheuring, Ann Foley 1983: Tillers: An Oral History of Family Farms in California. New York:
Praeger.
Scholl, Kathleen 1983: Classification of Women as Farmers: Economic Implications. Family
Economics Review, 4, October: 8-17.
Scholl, Kathleen 1985: Accessibility and Ownership of Financial Accounts by Married U.S.
Farm Women. Home Economics Research Journal, 14, 2, December: 208-217.
Sharp, Charlotte , Douglas Gwynn , and Orville E. Thompson 1986: Farm Size and the Role of
Farm Women. The Rural Sociologist, 6, 4, July: 259-264.
Shaver, Frances M. 1982: Social Science Research on Farm Women: The State of the Art.
Resources for Feminist Research, 2, 1: 3-4. Special Issue on Women and Agricultural
Production.
Strasser, Susan 1982: Never Done: A History of American Housework. New York: Pantheon.
Stratton, Joanna L. 1981: Pioneer Women: Voices from the Kansas Frontier. New York:
Touchstone, Simon and Schuster.
Thomas, Robert J. 1985: Citizenship, Gender, and Work: Social Organization of Industrial
Agriculture . Berkeley: University of California Press.
Wagner, MaryJo 1988: Helping Papa and Mama Sing the People's Songs: Children in the
Populist Party. Pp. 319-337 in Wava G. Haney and Jane B. Knowles (eds.), Women and
Farming: Changing Roles, Changing Structures. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
Ward, Florence E. 1920: The Farm Woman's Problems. The Journal of Home Economics, 12,
10, October: 437-457.
Wells, Miriam J. 1984: The Resurgence of Sharecropping: Historical Anomaly or Political
Strategy? American Journal of Sociology, 90, 1: 1-29.
Whitener, Leslie (ed.) 1985: Farmwomen's Contributions to Agriculture and the Rural
Economy. Rural Development Perspectives, 1, 2, February: 20-26. With contributions by
Carolyn Sachs , Peggy J. Ross , Judith Z. Kalbacher , and Priscilla Salant.
Wilkening, Eugene A. 1981: Farm Families and Family Farming. Pp. 27-37 in Raymond T.
Coward and William M. Smith, Jr. (eds.), The Family in Rural Society. Boulder: Westview.
Wilkening, Eugene A. and Denton E. Morrison 1963: A Comparison of Husband and Wife
Responses Concerning Who Makes Farm and Home Decisions. Marriage and Family Living,
25, August 349-351.
Wilkening, Eugene A. and Lakshmi Bharadwaj 1967: Dimension of Aspiration, Work roles and
Decision-Making of Farm Households and Wives in Wisconsin. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 29, 4, November: 703-711.
Wilkening, Eugene A. Denton E. Morrison Lakshmi Bharadwaj 1968: Aspirations and Task
Involvement as Related to Decision-Making among Farm Husbands and Wives. Rural
Sociology, 33, 1, March: 30-45.

Women and Agriculture in the Third World: A Review and Critique

Acharya, Meena and Lynn Bennett 1982: Women and the Subsistence Sector Economic
Participation and Household Decision Making in Nepal. Washington D.C.: World Bank. Staff
Working Paper 526.
Acharya, Meena Lynn Bennett 1985: Women and Technological Change in Agriculture: the
Asian and African Experience. Pp. 67-114 in I. Ahmed (ed.), Technology and Rural Women:
Conceptual and Empirical Issues. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Acharya, Meena Lynn Bennett 1986: Women, Poverty and Agricultural Growth in India.
Journal of Peasant Studies, 13, 4: 165-220.
Acharya, Meena Lynn Bennett 1988: Who Sows? Who Reaps? Women and Land Rights in
India. Journal of Peasant Studies, 15, 4: 531-581.
Aguiar, Neuma 1986: Research Guidelines: How to Study Women's Work in Latin America.
Pp. 22-33 in J. Nash and H. Safa (eds.), Women and Change in Latin America. South Hadley,
Massachusetts: Begin and Garvey Publishers.
Ahmad, Zubeida 1980: The Plight of Rural Women: Alternatives for Action. International
Labour Review, 119, 4: 425-438.
Ahmed, Iftikhar (ed.) 1985: Technology and Rural Women: Conceptual and Empirical Issues.
London: George Allen and Unwin.
Arizpe, Lourdes 1982: Relay Migration and the Survival of the Peasant Household. Pp. 19-46
in H. Safa (ed.), Towards a Political Economy of Urbanization in Third World Countries. Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
Arizpe, Lourdes and Josefina Aranda 1981: The 'Comparative Advantages' of Women's
Disadvantages: Women Workers in the Strawberry Export Agribusiness in Mexico. Signs, 7, 2:
453-473.
Arizpe, Lourdes and Carlota Botey 1987: Mexican Agricultural Development Policy and Its
Impact on Rural Women. Pp. 67-83 in C. D. Deere (ed.), Rural Women and State Policy.
Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
Arizpe, Lourdes Josefina Aranda Carlota Botey , Fanny Salinas , and Margarita Velasquez
1987: Effects of the Economic Crisis on the Living Conditions of Peasant Women in Mexico.
Pp. 111-130 in UNICEF, The Americas and The Caribbean Regional Office, The Invisible
Adjustment: Poor Women and the Economic Crisis. Santiago: UNICEF.
Ashby, Jacqueline 1981: New Models for Agricultural Research and Extension: The Need to
Integrate Women. Pp. 145-194 in B. Lewis (ed.), Invisible Farmers: Women and the Crisis in
Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: Agency for International Development.
Babalola, S. O. and Carolyne Dennis 1988: Returns to Women's Labour in Cash Crop
Production: Tobacco in Igboho, Oyo State, Nigeria. Pp. 79-89 in J. Davison (ed.), Agriculture,
Women, and Land: The African Experience. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
Bagchi, Deipica 1982: Female Roles in Agricultural Modernization: An Indian Case Study.
East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University. Women in Development Working Paper
10.
Beneria, Lourdes 1982: Accounting for Women's Work. Pp. 116-147 in L. Beneria (ed.),
Women and Developent: The Sexual Division of Labor in Rural Societies. New York: Praeger.
Beneria, Lourdes and Gita Sen 1981: Accumulation, Reproduction, and Women's Role in
Economic Development: Boserup Revisited. Signs, 17, 2: 279-298.
Bennholdt-Thomsen, Veronika 1984: Subsistence Production sad Extended Reproduction. Pp.
41-54 in K. Young , C. Wolkowitz and R. McCullagh (eds.), Of Marriage and the Market:
Women's Subordination in International Perspective. London: Routledge and Regan Paul.
Berry, Sara 1986: Macro-Policy Implications of Research on Rural Households and Farming
Systems. Pp. 199-215 in J. Moock (ed.), Understanding Africa's Rural Households and
Farming Systems. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
Boserup, Ester 1970: Woman's Role in Economic Development. London: George Allen and
Unwin.
Bourque, Susan and Kay Warren 1981: Women of the Andes: Patriarchy and Social Change
in Two Peruvian Towns. Ann Arbor University of Michigan Press.
Bryceson, Deborah 1985: Women's Proletarianisation asd the Family Wage in Tanzania. Pp.
128-152 in H. Afshar (ed.), Women, Work and Ideology in the Third World. London: Tavistock.
Burfisher, Mary and Nadine Horenstein 1983: Sex Roles in the Nigerian Tiv: Farm Household
and the Differential Impacts of Development Projects. New York: Population Council.
Cain, Melinda 1981: Java, Indonesia: The Introduction of Rice Processing Technology. Pp.
127-138 in R. Dauber «nd M. Cain (eds.), Women in Technological Change in Developing
Countries. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
Caldwell, John 1981: The Theory of Fertility Decline. New York: Academic Press.
Cecelski, E. 1987: Energy and Rural Women's Work: Crisis, Response and Policy
Alternatives. International Labour Review, 126 : 41-64.
Chaney, Elsa 1983: Scenarios of Hunger in the Caribbean: Migration, Decline of Smallholder
Agriculture, aad the Feminization of Farming. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State
University, Women in Development Working Papa 18.
Chaney, Elsa 1987: Women's Components in Integrated Rural Development Projects. Pp.
191-211 in C. D. Deere and M. Leon (eds.), Rural Women and State Policy. Boulder,
Colorado: Westview.
Chaney, Elsa and Marianne Schmink 1980: Women and Modernization: Access to Tools. Pp.
160-182 in J. Nash and H. Safa (eds.), Sex and Class in Latin America. New York: Bergin
Publishers.
Cheater, Angela 1981: Women and Their Participation in Commercial Agricultural Production:
the Case of Medium-Scale Freehold in Zimbabwe. Development and Change, 12 : 349-377.
Cloud, Kathleen 1986: Sex Roles in Food Production and Distribution Systems in the Sahel.
Pp. 19-49 in L. Creevey (ed.), Women Farmers in Africa. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse
University Press.
Cornia, Giovanni 1987: Adjustment at the Household Level: Potentials and Limitations of
Survival Strategies, Pp. 90-104 in G. Cornia , R. Jolly , F. Stewart (eds.), Adjustment with a
Human Face: Protecting the Vulnerable and Promoting Growth. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Creevey, Lucy 1986: The Role of Women in Malian Agriculture. Pp. 51-65 in L. Creevey (ed.),
Women Farmers in Africa. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press.
Crummett, Maria 1987a: Rural Women and Migration in Latin America. Pp. 239-260 in C. D.
Deere and M. Leon (eds.), Rural Women and State Policy. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
Crummett, Maria 1987b: Class, Household Structure, and the Peasantry: An Empirical
Approach. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 14, 4: 363-379.
Cuales, S. 1982: Accumulation and Gender Relations in the Flower Industry in Colombia.
Reasearch in Political Economy, 5 : 109-137.
D'Onofrio-Floras, Pamela and Sheila Pfafflin (eds.). 1981: Scientific-Technological Change
and the Role of Women in Development. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
Dauber, R. and M. Cain (eds.) 1981: Women and Technological Change in Developing
Countries. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
Davison, Jean (ed.) 1988: Agriculture, Women, and Land: The African Experience. Boulder,
Colorado: Westview..
de Janvry, Alain 1981: The Agrarian Question and the Reformism in Latin America. Baltimore:
John Hopkins University Press.
Deere, Carmen Diana 1985: Rural Women and State Policy: The Latin American Agrarian
Reform Experience. World Development, 13, 9: 1037-1053.
Deere, Carmen Diana 1987: The Peasantry in Political Economy: Trends of the 1980s.
University of Massachusetts, Latin American Studies Program: Amherst, Massachusetts.
Occasional Paper 19.
Deere, Carmen Diana , and Magdalena Leon 1982: Class and Historical Analysis for the Study
of Women and Economic Change. Pp. 87-115 in R. Anker , M. Buvinic and N. Youssef (eds.),
Women's Roles and Population Trends in the Third World. London: Croom Helm.
Deere, Carmen Diana and Magdalena Leon 1981: Peasant Production, Proletarianization, and
the Sexual Division of Labor in the Andes. Signs, 7, 2: 338-360.
Deere, Carmen Diana and Magdalena Leon 1982: Women in Andean Agriculture. Geneva:
International Labour Office. Women, Work, and Development Paper 4.
Deere, Carmen Diana Jane Humphries Magdalena Leon Magdalena Leon Magdalena Leon
and Magdalena Leon (eds.) 1987: Rural Women and State Policy: Feminist Perspectives on
Latin American Agricultural Development. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
Dey, Jennie 1985: Women in African Rice Farming Systems. Pp. 419-444 in International Rice
Research Institute, Women in Rice Farming . Brookfield, Vermont: Gower Publishing.
Dixon, Ruth 1982: Women in Agriculture: Counting the Labor Force in Developing Countries.
Population and Development Review, 8, 3: 539-S66.
Due, Jean and Timothy Mudenda 1985: Women's Contributions to Farming Systems in
Household Income in Zambia. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University. Women in
Development Working Paper 85.
Dwyer, Daisy sad Judith Bruce (eds.) 1988: A Home Divided: Women and Income in the Third
World. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Elson, Diane and Ruth Pearson 1984: The Subordination of Women and the
Internationalization of Factory Production. Pp. 18-40 in K. Young , C. Wolkowitz and R.
McCullagh (eds.), Of Marriage and the Market. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Ember, Carol 1983: The Relative Decline in Women's Contribution to Agriculture with
Intensification. American Anthropologist, 85 : 285-304.
Epstein, T.S. and Rosemary Watts (eds.) 1981: The Endless Day: Some Case Material on
Asian Rural Women. New York: Pergmnon.
Evers, Hans-Dieter , Wolfgang Clauss , and Diana Wong 1984: Subsistence Reproduction: a
Framework for Analysis. Pp. 23-36 in J. Smith , I. Wallerstein and H. Evert (eds.), Households
and the World Economy. Beverly Hills, California: Sage.
Eviota, Elizabeth 1986: The Articulation of Gender and Class in the Philippines. Pp. 194-206 in
E Leacock et al. (eds.), Women's Work. New York: Bergin and Garvey.
Finlay, Barbara 1989; The Women of Azua: Work and Family in the Rural Dominican
Republic. Wesport, Connecticut: Prager.
Flora, Cornelia and Bias Santos 1986: Women and Change in Latin America. South Hadley,
Mass.: Bergin and Garvey.
Folbre, Nancy 1982: Exploitation Comes Home: A Critique of the Marxian Theory of Female
Labor. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 6 : 317-329.
Folbre, Nancy 1986a: Cleaning House: New Perspectives on Households and Economic
Development Journal cf Development Economics, 22 : 5-40.
Folbre, Nancy 1986b: Hearts and Spades: Paradigms of Household Economics. World
Development, 14, 2: 245-255.
Fortmann, Louise 1984: Economic Status and Women's Participation in Agriculture: A
Botswana Case Study. Rural Sociology, 49, 2: 452-464.
Friedland, William 1984: Commodity Systems Analysis; An Approach to the Sociology of
Agriculture. Pp. 221-235 in H. Schwmweller (ed.), Research in Rural Sociology and
Development. Greenwich, Connecticut' JAI.
Frobel, P. , J. Kreye , and O. Heinrichs 1980: The New International Division of Labor.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fruzzetti, Lina 1985: Farm and Hearth: Rural Women in a Farming Community. Pp. 37-65 in
H. Afshar (ed.), Women, Work, and Ideology in the Third World. London: Tavistock
Garrett, Patricia 1982: Women and Agrarian Reform: Chile, 1964-1973. Sociologia Ruralis, 22,
1: 17-29.
Gladwin, Christina and Delia McMillan 1989: Is a Turnaround in Africa Possible Without
Helping African Women to Farm? Economic Development and Cultural Change, 37, 2: 345-
369.
Goheen, Miriam 1988: Land and the Household Economy: Women Farmers in the Grassfields
Today. Pp. 90-105 in J. Davison , Agriculture, Women, and Land: The African Experience.
Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
Guyer, Jane 1980: Food, Cocoa and the Division of Labor by Sex in Two West African
Societies. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 22, 3: 355-373.
Guyer, Jane 1981: Household and Community in African Studies. African Studies Review, 24,
2/3: 87-137.
Guyer, Jane 1983: Women's Work and Production Systems: A Review of Two Reports on the
Agricultural Crisis. Review of African Political Economy, 27128: 186-192.
Guyer, Jane 1986: Intra-Household Processes and Farming Systems Research: Perspectives
from Anthropology. Pp. 92-104 in J. Moock (ed.), Understanding Africa's Rural Households
and Farming Systems. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
Hammam, Mona 1986: Capitalist Development, Family Division of Labor, and Migration in the
Middle East. Pp. 158-173 in E. Leacock et al. (eds.), Women's Work. New York: Beigin and
Garvey.
Hart, Gillian 1986: Power, Labor, and Livelihood: Processes of Change in Rural Java.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hartmann, Heidi 1981: The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism. Pp. 1-42 in L.
Sargent (ed.), Women and Revolution. Boston: South End Press.
Hecht, Susanna 1985: Women and the Latin American Livestock Sector. Pp. 51-70 in J.
McMsom and M. Kalb (eds.), Women as Food Producers in Developing Countries. Los
Angeles: University of California, African Studies Center.
Hcisn, Jeanne 1983: Feeding the Cities and Feeding the Peasants: What Role for Africa's
Women Farmerss? World Development, 11, 12: 1043-1055.
Heyzer, Noeleen 1982: From Rural Subsistence to an Industrial Peripheral Work Force: An
Examination of Female Malaysian Migrants and Capital Accumulation in Singapore. Pp. 179-
202 in L. Beneria (ed.), Woman and Development: The Sexual Division of Labor in Rural
Societies. New York: Praeger.
Hirschmann, David and Megan Vaughan 1984: Women Farmers of Malawi. Berkeley:
University of California, Institute of International Studies..
International Center for Research on Women 1980: Keeping Women Out: A Structural
Analysis of Women's Employment in Developing Countries. Washington, D.C.: International
Center for Research on Women.
International Rice Research Institute (ed.) 1985: Women in Rice Farming. Brookfield,
Vermont: Gower Publishing.
Jackson, C. 1985: Kano River Irrigation Project. West Hartford, Connecticut Kumarian Press.
Jiggens, Janice 1986: Gender-Related Impacts and the Work of the International Agricultural
Research Centers. Washington D.C.: World Bank. CGIAR Study Paper 17.
Jiggens, Janice 1989: How Poor Women Earn Income in Sub-Saharan Africa and What Works
Against Them. World Development, 17 : 953-963.
Jones, Christina 1981: Women's Legal Access to Land. Pp. 196-238 in B. Lewis (ed.),
Invisible Farmers: Women and the Crisis in Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: Agency for
Intranational Development.
Jones, Christina 1986: Infra-household Bargaining in Response to the Introduction of New
Crops: A Case Study From North Cameroon. Pp. 105-123 in J. Moock (ed.), Understanding
Africa's Rural Households and Farming Systems. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
Kandiyoti, Deniz 1984: Rural Transformation in Turkey and its Implications for Women's
Status. Pp. 17-30 in Women On the Move: Contemporary Changes in Family and Society.
Paris: UNESCO.
Kandiyoti, Deniz 1985: Women in Rural Production Systems: Problems and Policies. Pais:
UNESCO.
Kurian, Rachel 1982: Women Workers in the Sri Lanka Plantation Sector An Historical and
Contemporary Analysis. Geneva: International Labour Office. Women, Work, and
Development Paper 5..
Lago, Maria 1987: Rural Women and the Neo-Libersl Model in Chile. Pp. 21-34 in C. D. Deere
and M. Leon (eds.), Rural Women and State Policy. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
Lastarria-Cornhiel, Susaaa 1988: Female Farmerss and Agricultural production in El Salvador.
Development and Change, 19, 4: 585-615.
Lattes, Z. and C. Wainerman 1986: Unreliable Account of Women's Work, Signs, 11: 740-750.
Leon, Magdalena 1987: Colombian Agricultural Policies and the Debate on Policies Toward
Rural Women. Pp. 84-104 in C. D. Deere and M. Leon (eds.), Rural Women and State Policy.
Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
Longhurst, Richard 1982: Resource Allocation and the Sexual Division of Labor. A Case Study
of a Moslem Hausa Village in Northern Nigeria. Pp. 95-117 in L. Bencria (ed.), Women and
Development: The Sexual Division of Labor in Rural Societies. New York: Praeger.
Mackintosh, Maureen 1984: The Sexual Division of Labor and the Subordination of Women.
Pp. 3-17 in K. Young , C. Wolkowitz sad R. McCullagh (eds.), Of Marriage and the Market.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Mackintosh, Maureen 1989: Gender, Class, and Rural Transition: Agribusiness and the Food
Crisis in Senegal. London: Zed Books,
Maher, Vanessa 1984: Work, Consumption and Authority Within the Household: A Moroccan
Case. Pp. 117-135 in K. Young , C. Wolkowitz end R. McCullagh (eds.), Of Marriage and the
Market. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
McCarthy, Florence and Shelley Feldman 1983: Rural Women Discovered: New Sources of
Capital and Labor in Bangladesh. Development and Change, 14 : 211-236.
Meillassoux, Claude 1981: Maidens, Meal, and Money. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Mencher, Joan 1985: Landless Women Agricultural Laborers in India. Pp. 351-371 in
International Rice Research Institute, Women and Rice Farming. Brookfeld, Vermont: Gower
Publishing.
Mencher, Joan and K. Saradamoni 1982: Muddy Feet, Dirty Hands: Rice Production and
Female Agricultural Labour. Economic and Political Weekly, 17, 52 : A149-67.
Mies, Maria 1982: The Dynamics of the Sexual Division of Labor and Integration of Rural
Women into the World Market Pp. 1-28 in L. Beneria (ed.), Women and Development: The
Sexual Division of Labor in Rural Societies. New York: Praeger.
Mies, Maria 1986a: Indian Women in Subsistence and Agricultural Labor. Geneva:
International Labour Organization. Women, Work, and Development Paper 12.
Mies, Maria 1986b: Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale. London: Zed Books.
Minge-Klevana, Wanda 1980: Does Labor Time Decrease with Industrialization? A Survey of
Time-Allocation Studies. Current Anthropology, 21 : 279-287.
Molyneux, Maxine 1981: Women in Socialist Societies: Problems of Theory and Practice. Pp.
55-90 in K. Young , C. Wolkowitz , and R. McCullagh (eds.), Of Marriage and the Market:
Women's Subordination in International Perspective. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Momsen, Janet 1987: The Feminization of Agriculture in the Caribbean. Pp. 344-347 in J.
Momsen sad J. Townsend (eds.), Geography of Gender in the Third World. Albany, New York:
State University of New York Press.
Mueller-Dixon, Ruth 1985: Women's Work in Third World Agriculture: Concepts and
Indicators. Geneva: International Labour Organization. Women, Work, and Development
Paper 9.
Nag, M. , B. White , and R. Peet 1980: An Anthropological Approach to the Study of the
Economic Value of Children in Java and Nepal. Pp. 248-288 in H. Binswanger (ed.), Rural
Households in Asia. Singapore: Singapore University Press.
Nash, June 1983: Implications of Technological Change for Household Level and Rural
Development East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University. Women in Development
Working Paper 37.
Nash, June and Maria Fernandez-Kelly (eds.) 1984: Women, Men, and the International
Division of Labor. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.
Okali, Christine 1983: Kinship and Cocoa Fanning in Ghana. Pp. 169-178 in C. Oppong (ed.),
Female and Mate in West Africa. London: George Allen Unwin.
Palmer, Ingrid 1985a: The Impact of Agrarian Reform on Women. West Hartford, Connecticut:
Kumarian Press.
Palmer, Ingrid 1985b: The Impact of Male Out-Migration on Women in Farming. West
Hartford, Connecticut: Kumarian Press.
Pankhurst, Donna and Susie Jacobs 1988: Land Tenure, Gender Relations, and Agricultural
Production: The Case of Zimbabwe's Peasantry. Pp. 202-227 in J. Davison (ed.), Agriculture,
Women, and Land: The African Experience. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
Papanek, Hanna 1981: The Differential Impact of Programs and Policies on Women in
Development Pp. 215-228 in R. Dauber and M. Cain (eds.), The Impact of Technological
Change on Women in Developing Countries. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
Peters, Pauline 1986: Household Management in Botswana: Cattle, Crops and Wage Labor.
Pp. 133-154 in J. Moock (ed.), Understanding Africa's Rural Households and Farming
Systems. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
Phillips, Lynne 1987: Women, Development, and the State in Rural Ecuador. Pp. 105-123 in
C. D. Deere ami M. Leon (eds.), Rural Women and State Policy. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
Phongpaichit, Pasuk 1982: Rural Women in Thailand: From Peasant Girls to Bangkok
Masseuses. Geneva: International Labor Organization. Women, Work, and Development
Paper 2.
Poats, Susan , Marianne Schmink , and Anita Spring 1988: Gender Issues in Farming
Systems Research and Extension. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
Rogers, Barbara 1980: The Domestication of Women: Discrimination in Developing Societies.
London: Tavistock.
Safilios-Rothschild, Christina 1985: The Persistence of Women's Invisibility in Agriculture:
Theoretical mid Policy Lessons from Lesotho and Sierra Leone. Economic Development and
Cultural Change, 33 : 299-317.
Sanderson, Steven 1985: The 'New' Internationalization of Agriculture in the Americas. Pp. 46-
68 in S. Sanderson , The Americas in the New International Division of Labor. New York:
Holmes and Meier.
Sassen-Koob, Ssskk 1985: Notes on the Incorporation of Third World Women in Wage-Labor
Through Off-Shore Production. International Migration Review, 18, 4: 1144-1167.
Saunders, L.W. and S. Mehenna 1986: Unseen Hands: Women's Farm Work in an Egyptian
Village. Anthropological Quarterly, 59 : 105-114.
Schmink, Marianne 1984: Household Economic Strategies: Review and Research Agenda.
Latin American Research Review, 19, 3: 87-102.
Scott, Gloria and Marilyn Carr 1985: The Impact of Technological Choice on Rural Women in
Bangladesh. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Staff Working Paper 731.
Sen, Gita 1982: Women Workers and the Great Revolution. Pp. 29-64 in L Beneria (ed.),
Women and Development: The Sexual Division cf Labor in Rural Societies. New York:
Praeger.
Sen, Gita and Caren Grown 1987: Development, Crises, and Alternative Visions. New Yoric:
Monthly Review Press.
Sen, Gita and Leela Gulati 1987: Women Workers in Kerala's Electronic Industry. Geneva:
International Labor Organisation. World Employment Programme Working Paper 45.
Sharma, Miriam 1985: Caste, Class, and Gender: Production and Reproduction in North India.
The Journal Of Peasant Studies, 12, 4: 57-88.
Spindel, Cheywa 1987: The Social Invisibility of Women's Work in Brazilian Agriculture. Pp.
51-66 in C. D. Deere and M. Leon (eds.), Rural Women and State Policy. Boulder, Colorado:
Westview.
Spiro, Heather 1987: Women Farmers and Traders in Oyo State, Nigeria. Pp. 173-191 in J.
Momsen and J. Townsend (eds.), Geography of Gender in the Third World. Albany, New York:
State University of New York Press.
Spring, Anita 1986: Men and Women Smallholder Participants in a Stall-Feeder Livestock
Program in Malawi. Human Organization, 45 : 154-162.
Stanbury, Pamela 1984: Women and Water. Effects of Irrigation Development in a North
Indian Village. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University. Women in Development
Working Paper 50.
Staudt, Kathleen 1982: Women Farmers and Inequalities in Agricultural Services. Pp. 207-224
in E. Bay (ed.), Women and Work in Africa. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
Staudt, Kathleen 1987: Uncaptured or Unmotivated? Women and the Food Crisis in Africa.
Rural Sociology, 52, 1: 37-55.
Stichter, Sharon and Jane Parpart (eds.) 1988: Patriarchy and Class: African Women in the
Home and the Workforce. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
Stivens, Maila 1984: Women, Kinship, and Capitalist Development. Pp. 178-192 in K. Young ,
C. Wolkowitz and R. McCullagh (eds.), Of Marriage and the Market. London: Routledge and
Keg an Paul.
Stolcke, Verena 1984: Women's Labors: The Naturalization of Social Inequality and Women's
Subordination. Pp. 159-177 in K. Young , C. Wolkowitz and R. McCullagh (eds.), Of Marriage
and the Market. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Stolcke, Verena 1988: Coffee Planters, Workers and Wives: Class Conflict and Gender
Relations on Sao Paulo Plantations, 1850-1980. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Stoler, Ann 1985: Capitalism and Confrontation in Sumatra's Plantation Belt, 1870-1979. New
Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
Tadesse, Zenebeworke 1982: The Impact of Land Reform on Women: The Case of Ethiopia.
Pp. 203-222 in L. Beneria (ed.), Women and Development: The Sexual Division of Labor in
Rural Societies. New York: Praeger.
Tinker, Irene 1981: New Technologies for Food-Related Activities: An Equity Strategy. Pp. 51-
88 in R. Dauber and M. Cain (eds.), Women and Technological Change in Developing
Countries. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
Tinker, Irene 1982: Energy Needs of Poor Households. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan
State University. Woman in Development Working Papa 4.
Townsend, Janet and Janet Momsen 1987: Towards a Geography of Gender in Developing
Market Economies. Pp. 27-82 in J. Momsen and J. Townsend (eds.), Geography of Gender in
the Third World. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.
Trenchard, Esther 1987: Rural Women's Work in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Implications for
Nutrition. Pp. 153-172 in J. Momsen and J. Townsend (eds.), Geography of Gender in the
Third World. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.
Truelove, Cynthia 1990: Disguised Industrial Proletarians in Rural Latin America; Women's
Informal-Sector Factory Work and the Social Reproduction of Coffee Labour in Colombia. Pp.
48-63 in K. Ward (ed.), Women Workers and Global Restructuring. Ithica, New York: ILR
Press.
UNICEF, The Americas and The Caribbean Regional Office 1987: The Invisible Adjustment:
Poor Women and the Economic Crisis. Santiago: UNICEF.
Unnevehr, L. J. sad M. L. Stanford 1985: Technology sod the Demand for Women's Labor in
Asian Rice Fanning. Pp. 1-20 in International Rice Research Institute, Women and Rice
Farming . Brookfleld, Vermont: Gower Publishing.
Wallace, Ben , Rosie Ahsan , Shahnaz Hussain , and Ekramul Ahsan 1987: The Invisible
Resource: Women and Work in Bangladesh. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
Werlhof, Claudia 1983: New Agricultural Cooperatives on the Basis of Sexual Polarization
Induced by the State. Boletin de Estudios Latino-Americanos y del Caribe, 35 : 39-50.
Werlhof, Claudia Hans-Peter Neuhoff 1982: The Combination of Different Production
Relations on the Basis of Nonproletarianization. Latin American Perspectives, 9, 3: 99-103.
Whitehead, Ann 1984: I'm Hungry Mum – The Politics of Domestic Budgeting. Pp. 93-116 in
K. Young , C. Wolkowitz and R. McCullagh (eds.), Of Marriage and the Market. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Whitehead, Ann 1985: Effects of Technological Change on Rural Women: A Review of
Analysis aid Concepts. Pp. 27-50 in I. Ahmed (ed.), Technology and Rural Women. London:
George Allen and Unwin.
Whyte, Robert and Pauline Whyte 1982: The Women of Rural Asia. Boulder, Colorado:
Westview.
Wilson, Fiona 1985: Women and Agricultural Change in Latin America: Some Concepts
Guiding Research. World Development, 13, 9: 1017-1035.
Wong, Diana 1984: The Limits of Using the Household as a Unit of Analysis. Pp. 56-63 in J.
Smith , I. W&ilerstein and H. Even (eds.), Households and the World Economy. Beverly Hills,
California: Sage.
Young, Kate 1982: The Creation of a Relative Surplus Population: A Case Study from Mexico.
Pp. 149-177 in L. Beneria (ed.), Women and Development: The Sexual Division of Labor in
Rural Societies. New York: Praeger.
Youssef, Nadia 1982: The Interrelationship Between the Division of Labor in the Household,
Women's Roles and Their Impact on Fertility. Pp. 173-200 in R. Anker , M. Buvinic and N.
Youssef (eds.), Women's Roles and Population Trends in the Third World. London: Croom
Helm.