How Exactly Are Peasants Exploited?

Transcription

1 How Exactly Are Peasants Exploited? GEORGE DALTON Northwestern University We are very frequently told that peasants are exploited without being told what exactly this means, whether peasant exploitation is confined to peasants, or whether the word exploitation is meant to convey different meanings for different societies. This paper discusses two meanings of exploitation, neither of which relates uniquely to peasantry, and poses specific questions about exploitation and surplus, the answers to which would tell us a good deal about what is meant by the exploitation of peasantry. The masses have not always felt themselves to be frustrated and exploited. But the intellectuals who formulated their views for them have always told them that they were, without necessarily meaning by it anything precise. -Schumpeter 1942:26 Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it is the other way round. -Anonymous Pole ANTHROPOLOGISTS AND OTHERS who analyze peasant communities frequently say that peasants are exploited. Indeed, every article in the first number of The Journal of Peasant Studies asserts that peasants are exploited. One could easily conclude, therefore, that exploitation is as constant a feature of peasantry as agriculture is. But we all know what agriculture means. We are rarely told by those who assert that peasants are exploited what exactly they mean by exploitation. And when occasionally we are told, we are not then told whether such exploitation is confined to peasantry, or is something which also happens to (i) non-peasants in the larger societies containing peasants, or to (ii) farmers (and others) in modern capitalist or (iii) communist economies; or, indeed, whether whatever it is that is meant by exploitation also occurs in (iv) aboriginal, pre-colonial tribal economies such as those in Melanesia (Malinowski 1935) and Africa (Oberg 1940), which are neither peasant, capitalist, nor communist economies; or (v) tribal economies during the colonial period (e.g., Jaspan 1953); or (vi) former tribal economies, as they are undergoing change today, that is, in their post-colonial periods of national independence-ghana, Nigeria-at the beginnings of national economic development and cultural modernization under capitalist or socialist institutions. Here, President Nyerere of socialist Tanzania is refreshingly candid about the awkward fact that the foreign exchange earned by exporting Tanzanian agricultural produce benefits urban dwellers in his country more than the rural African farmers who produce the export crops: It is therefore obvious that the foreign currency we shall use to pay back the loans used in the development of the urban areas will not come from the towns or the industries. Submitted for publication March 14,1974 Accepted for publication April 9,

2 554 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [76,1974 Where, then, shall we get it from? We shall get it from the villages and from agriculture. What does this mean? It means that the people who benefit directly from development which is brought about by borrowed money are not the ones who will repay the loans. The largest proportion of the loans will be spent in, or for, the urban areas, but the largest proportion of the repayment will be made through the efforts of the farmers. This fact should always be borne in mind, for there are various forms of exploitation. We must not forget that people who live in towns can possibly become the exploiters of those who live in rural areas. All our big hospitals are in towns and they benefit only a small section of the people of Tanzania. Yet if we have built them with loans from outside Tanzania, it is the overseas sale of the peasants produce which provides the foreign exchange for repayment. Those who do not get the benefit of the hospitals thus carry the major responsibility for paying for them. Tarmac roads, too, are mostly found in towns and are of especial value to the motor-car owners. Yet if we have built those roads with loans, it is again the farmer who pays for them. What is more, the foreign exchange with which the car was bought also came from the sale of the farmers produce. Again, electric lights, water pipes, hotels and other aspects of modern development are mostly found in towns. Most of them have been built with loans and most of them do not benefit the farmer directly, although they will be paid for by the foreign exchange earned by the sale of his produce. We should always bear this in mind. Although when we talk of exploitation we usually think of capitalists, we should not forget that there are many fish in the sea. They eat each other. The large ones eat the small ones, and the small ones eat those who are even smaller.... If we are not careful we might get to the position where the real exploitation in Tanzania is that of the town dwellers exploiting the peasants. [ Nyerere 1971 : In questioning the meaning and usage of a concept like exploitation, which is loaded with emotion and ideology, one must be careful not to load the dice by attributing positions to those who use the term exploitation that they do not hold. There is only one way to avoid such misattribution, to quote the exact phrases they use. Indeed, one must also make sure that the quotations cited are representative usages of exploitation and not eccentric usages unshared by most of those who assert that peasants are exploited. I draw my quotations from what I regard as representative writers: those in T. Shanin s recent book of readings on peasantry, and contributors to the first number of The Journal of Peasant Studies. I am thereby able also to quote a number of sociologists, economic historians, anthropologists, and political scientists, all of whom assert that peasants are exploited. From T. Shanin (editor), Peasants and Peasant Societies: The Marxist tradition of class analysis has approached peasantry in terms of power relationships i.e., as the suppressed and exploited producers of pre-capitalist society.... Contemporary peasantry appears as a left-over of an earlier social formation, its characteristics reinforced by remaining at the bottom of the social power structure [ 1971 : 131. The underdog position-the domination of peasantry by outsiders. Peasants, as a rule, have been kept at arm s length from the social sources of power. Their political subjugation interlinks with cultural subordination and with their economic exploitation through tax, corvke, rent, interest and terms of trade unfavorable to the peasant [1971:15]. In practice or belief, or both, the peasants are held to be a lesser or subject order, existing to be exploited by all concerned.... We have already indicated that in peasant economies the peasantry as a group is subject and exists to be exploited by others. The peasant may very well have to work one or more days of the week for the baron or the lord of the manor. He may also be obliged to make payments or presents to landlords, functionaries, aristocrats or other important persons.... By definition, they [peasants] live in a State and are linked with urban areas. They must willy-nilly sustain the State, the towns, the local lords. Hence, in one way or another, they must hand over, surrender or sell to others part of their food crops. Although the conditions of exchange are such that the peasants usually give more than they get, they may obtain in return a bit of iron, some salt, spices, perhaps fancy cloth for a marriage [1971:

3 Dalton] HOW EXACTLY ARE PEASANTS EXPLOITED? 555 From The Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, October The politics with which we are concerned in this paper are those in which peasants are involved with the larger societies of which they form part. That is to say the relations of peasants with other social groups, both those which are their economic, social and political superiors or exploiters and those which are not, workers, for instance, or for that matter other sections of the peasantry, and with more comprehensive institutions or social unitsthe government, the national state [1973:3]. the peasant is chained to the social order of which his exploiters are part... [ 1973:6]. The little world may indeed vary considerably in size, population and complexity. The basic unit of traditional peasant life, the community, forms only one part of it. Within this area-large or small, more or less complex-people know of one another and the social division of labor, the system of exploitation and stratification are visible [1973:7]. What is common to both the sharecroppers and the [agricultural wage] labourers, [in Pakistan] however, is their exploitation by and economic dependence on the landlord for access to their means of livelihood... [1973:54]. In the case of sharecroppers, however, horizontal ties of kinship do not constitute them into political groups because they are subject to the authority of landlords who exploit and dominate them; they are bound by vertical ties of economic dependence [1973: A large part of the peasants produce is on the whole taken away by rent and various types of sharecropping arrangements. However the exploitation of the peasantry is not limited to landlords; various social groups share in peasant production through rent, interest on loans, tax, etc. Terms of trade unfavorable to peasant producers turn market exchange into yet another channel of exploitation of the peasantry by urban society zt large [1973:76]. It is clear from these quotations that exploitation is intended to convey two very different meanings. First, the non-technical, general, unspecific, commonsense meaning: to be exploited is to be ill-used, badly treated, gouged, oppressed, treated harshly. Here, to exploit is to make someone worse off for the exploiter s advantage; self-aggrandizement or self-gain at another s expense. This is what we mean by exploitation in ordinary speech, where we do not confine the word to peasants and we do not speak only of economic exploitation. In this unspecific sense, peasants are thought to be ill-used by non-peasants because of one or more features of the total peasant situation-economic, political, social, and cultural: because peasants are politically powerless, materially impoverished, or in debt; because they are either illiterate, or, if literate, uneducated; or because they are the lowest human segment in a socially stratified society. But it immediately becomes apparent when this commonsense meaning of exploitation is defined and illustrated that the situation which allows peasants to be ill-used is by no means confined to peasants. There are also non-peasant groups in non-peasant societies who are either politically powerless, materially impoverished, or in debt; either illiterate, or if literate, uneducated; or the lowest human segment in a socially stratified society. These underdog characteristics are not confined to societies containing peasants because they are not the unique outcome of just one set of institutions. Just as, say, alcoholism or divorce occurs in a wide range of societies, so too are there groups who are materially impoverished, politically powerless, etc., in tribal, capitalist, and communist societies, as well as in peasantries: low-ranking, materially poor lineages in Malinowski s socially stratified Trobriands (Malinowski 1922, 1935; Uberoi 1962); the African Hutu in what used to be Ruanda (Maquet 1961); the urban poor in mid-nineteenth century London (Mayhew 1851); the Blacks in South Africa today; urban and rural Blacks in the U.S. since the end of slavery; Soviet farmers (and lots of others) under Stalin; Catholics in Northern Ireland; Algerians working anywhere in France today.

4 5.56 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [76,1974 To say that peasants are politically powerless or politically subjugated without then explaining for specific peasantries of actual time and place what are the political and legal institutions under which they live that make them powerless or subjugated, is very ambiguous. It is to equate medieval feudalism with any sort of twentieth century dictatorship, Left or Right, in all of which peasants are politically powerless. Can collective farmers in the Soviet Union today exercise any sort of political power to increase their own incomes or influence any of the national policies determined by their central government? Does political powerlessness mean anything more than an absence of parliamentary democracy? Where exactly can one find examples of farmers who are politically powerful-outside the capitalist U.S., where, ironically, farmers, who are not peasants, and who comprise less than ten percent of the labor force, are disproportionately powerful politically, particularly in their ability to influence their own incomes through agricultural price support programs? And so too it seems, for the post-peasant French farmers increased political power since the Second World War (see Wright 1964). Note that an institutionally unspecific phrase like political powerlessness -a phrase which does not specify the nature of existing political institutions-can apply to two different political situations: one where peasants are politically powerless compared to all other groups in their larger society (e.g., medieval European peasant-serfs under feudalism); and one where peasants are politically powerless along with some or most other groups in their larger society who are also politically powerless (e.g., in Hitler s Germany and Stalin s Russia). The second meaning exploitation is intended to convey I shall call the technical or specific meaning: coerced payments. Peasants, we are told repeatedly, are forced to pay over their surplus to non-peasants (see, e.g., Wolf 1966, where the production of a surplus is regarded as a distinguishing feature of peasantry). If one then asks, what specific forms these obligatory, coerced, non-volitional payments of surplus by peasants to non-peasants take-and further, who are the non-peasants who receive the peasants surplus, and what, if anything, do the peasants get back for their coerced payments-the answers vary because there are several kinds of peasantry making several kinds of payments to several kinds of non-peasants and receiving back several sorts of goods and services. Peasants were peasants before and after the French, Mexican, Turkish, and Egyptian Revolutions; before and after feudalism ended; before and after industrialization began in their countries; before and after German and Italian national unification; before and after the emancipation of Russian serfs in 1861 and the Stolypin reforms of In short, peasants live under markedly different land tenures, national political systems, civil rights, and extent of national economic development. As long as the surplus the peasant pays over remains undefined and unillustrated, and as long as whatever it is the peasant receives back from those to whom he pays his surplus remains unspecified, we cannot know how peasants are similar to and different from farmers and others who are not peasants. If the surplus the peasant pays over takes the form of cash rent for the use of land, then why is peasant surplus different from cash rents non-peasant farmers in capitalist economies pay? Or, indeed, the cash rents urban dwellers pay for housing in capitalist or communist economies? If the surplus the peasant sharecropper pays over to his landlord takes the form of a portion of his harvest, then why is this surplus different from the portion of the harvest in a Soviet collective farm that is paid over to the Russian Government, or yams paid over to brothers-in-law in Malinowski s Trobriands? If surplus means taxes the peasant is forced to pay to political authority, then why is peasant surplus different from taxes paid by aboriginal Africans to their kings (see Oberg 1940), or taxes paid by present-day Americans, Russians, and Tanzanians to their central governments?

5 Dalton J HOW EXACTLY ARE PEASANTS EXPLOITED? 557 Wherever there is central government-tribal kingdoms, peasant states, capitalist states, communist states-there are obligatory payments of taxes by ordinary persons (whoever they may be) to central political authority, whatever form the central political authority takes. The central political authority then uses these obligatory tax receipts paid in cash, kind, labor, or whatever, in three ways: (1) as direct remuneration, that is, material support in cash or kind, paid to the personnel of the governmental establishment of kings, prime ministers, presidents, tsars, politburos, parliaments, soldiers, policemen, civil servants, judges, etc., who perform traditional governmental services of governing, military defense, police protection, and dispute settlement. (2) Taxes are also spent on some range of economically unproductive public monuments, e.g., pyramids, presidential mansions; and (3) some range of economic development and social welfare services: education, health, emergency provision for the destitute, public utilities, economic development projects-roads, railroads, electricity generation, agricultural extension services, and such. Because most peasants lived and live in underdeveloped countries, it may very well be true that they received and still receive back from their central governments only traditional services of defense, police protection, and dispute settlement, and economically unproductive public monuments-or perhaps, not even these. But we shall never know until we are told by those who analyze peasantries what exactly peasants get back from those to whom they pay over surplus. (Some time ago, Pearson [1957] and I [Dalton 1960, pointed out how very many different things are meant by surplus. And recently, Pryor [ has compared components of governmental expenditure in capitalist and communist economies. ) There are three further difficulties in the literature of peasantries that bear on the meaning(s) of exploitation. First, peasants are contrasted with commercial farmers in developed capitalist economies much more frequently than they are with farmers in communist economies: does peasant exploitation cease with the collectivization of agriculture, as in Russia in the 1930s or China in the 1950s? We cannot answer this question until the meaning(s) of exploitation is specified. For example, if peasant exploitation is simply equated with coerced payment of taxes, then clearly exploitation continues with collectivization, because, obviously, collective farmers pay rather large amounts of taxes to their central governments (as, indeed, factory workers do as well). If, however, exploitation is made to depend on what peasants receive back for their coerced payments (as President Nyerere suggests in the quotation cited earlier), then we have to be told what peasants receive back in various communist economies before we can judge whether or not they are being exploited; so too for those who are coerced to pay upwards in tribal and capitalist economies. Secondly, the very large anthropological literature on aboriginal tribal economies is also infrequently used to contrast with peasant economy (see Dalton 1972). Here is one attempt to contrast peasant and primitive (presumably, tribal is meant) which I emphatically believe to be incorrect: In distinguishing peasant from primitive societies, the aspects of the former which are generally emphasized are their economic and political encapsulation and penetration by larger societal wholes, the emergence of economic and political hierarchies and the extraction of an economic surplus from the peasant cultivator: these features being absent from stereotypes of primitive societies [ Alavi 1973:25]. But no actual primitive societies of time and place are examined, despite the abundant literature. If what is meant by a larger societal whole is a kingdom or a state system, they existed in tribal Africa (Oberg 1940; Gluckman 1940), and they contained economic and political hierarchies (that is, social and political superiors) who extracted an economic surplus (obligatory payments-prestations, taxes, tributes) from the tribal cultivators. Mair

6 558 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [76,1974 (1936), Schapera (1937), and Richards (1940, 1973) also give accounts of what African chiefs and kings received from and gave to their subjects. But even in those tribal societies that were stateless, for example, in New Guinea (Strathern 1971) and Africa (Middleton and Tait, 1958) there were also big men and lineage heads who extracted economic surplus from their kinsmen, affines, clansmen, and rank-and-file entourages. In short, state systems, social stratification, and obligatory payments existed in tribal kingdoms, and the latter two in stateless tribes41 this before European colonization took place. Finally, in none of the quotations cited earlier do the writers who assert that peasants are exploited take into account the subjective feelings of the peasants, that is, whether or not various sorts of peasants feel themselves to be exploited. I believe this is an important matter because it points up the need to assess what peasants receive back from those to whom they make obligatory payments. I quote from a recent publication which makes this point. It describes how entrepreneurial big-men in New Guinea use their traditional entourages of kinsmen, followers, and allies in present-day commercial enterprises. And once they [big-men entrepreneurs] became interested in investing their coffee revenue in other projects, they have usually been able to solicit considerable additional amounts of cash from their agnates for investment purposes, just like the big-men of earlier days were able to solicit pigs, shells, and other valuables for an important exchange. The relationship between the modern big-men and their clansmen, and other followers, should not, however, be seen as exploitation of the unsophisticated. Rather, it should be judged in terms of the standards of Gorokan society. These big-men may appear to be rugged individualists, but they themselves and their sometimes considerable assets remain in a very real sense, clan or tribal property. The Gorokan entrepreneurs fully realise that they are beholden to their supporters for their commercial success, and they take pains to grant reciprocal favors to those who have helped them as well as to emphasize that their enterprises are also the enterprises of the group. Their supporters, in turn, are generally proud to have helped their big-man to achieve his status, and enjoy the prestige of being associated with a successful entrepreneur [Finney 1974:122]. CONCLUSION Peasants are written about by academics who specialize in various social sciences and several branches of history. Presumably all of us are seeking to understand an important segment of social reality and not seeking to propagandize readers. I am aware that many of us who write about peasantries are socialists of one sort or another who unthinkingly equate peasantry with flagrant social injustice and to whom concepts like exploitation and surplus therefore come easily. But we are also economists, sociologists, anthropologists, and historians; and clear social analysis requires explanation, illustration, and comparison of what is meant by exploitation and surplus for particular peasantries of time and place, which, in turn, requires that the institutions of land tenure, government, and the larger economic and social systems of which peasantries are part, be specified in detaii. We also need to be told the economic and political transactions between peasants and non-peasantswhat peasants receive as well as what they give-and, for each sort of peasant situation, who the non-peasants are in the village and in the larger society. Those who assert that peasants are exploited should tell us the following: what exactly do they mean by exploitation? After defining peasant exploitation, can they then point to actual farming groups in actual economies of time and place-tribal, capitalist, or communist-who, by their definition, are not exploited, in contrast with the exploited peasantry? That is, once defined, is exploitation confined to peasantry? What, if anything, do different peasantries get in return for their obligatory payments? Nor will it do,

7 Dalton] HOW EXACTLY ARE PEASANTS EXPLOITED? 559 incidentally, to gloss over peasantries under communism-russia, China, Cuba-if it turns out that the definition of exploitation, invented with other peasantries in mind, fits peasantries under communist institutions as well: I omit the role of peasants in socialist countries, for in these (with the possible exception of China) peasants once again become a recessive and relatively passive force... (Hobsbawm 1973:18). If peasantries in general are exploited, does this mean Cuban, Russian, and Chinese peasants are also exploited? Let me be specific: according to whichever definition of exploitation is preferred by writers who say peasants are exploited, when did the exploitation of the peasantry end in Russia? In 1861, or 1906, or 1917, or 1928 (with the collectivization of agriculture), or 1953 (with Stalin s death)? Or is it still the case that collective farmers in Russia are being exploited? Or does the meaning of exploitation change as the system of land tenure, the national economic system and the national political system under which peasants live, change? Is exploitation being equated with the presence of any sort of political state (taxes), or being equated with the private ownership of land (rent), or being equated with social stratification (superiors/inferiors), or being equated with material poverty (underdevelopement), or being equated with sharp inequality of income distribution? Political states, private ownership of land, social stratification, material poverty, and sharp income inequality are by no means confined to societies whose farmers are peasants. To spell out the meaning(s) of exploitation and surplus is not simply a matter of semantic nicety-the schoolmaster s injunction to the pupil to write clearly. Those academics who analyze peasantry are concerned with comparative analysis, to explain how peasantries as a set of social and economic systems differ from and are similar to other systems (tribal, capitalist, communist), how peasantries vary among themselves, and vary over time. As long as exploitation and surplus are not clearly defined and illustrated, we shall not know the answers to these questions. Upon close examination it seems to me that none of the general or specific things meant by peasant exploitation-neither ill-use nor coerced payments are unique to peasantries or present in all peasantries, which is not surprising, given the enormous range of variation among peasantries in anthropology and history. No one calls exploitation that which he likes or approves of. I think that exploitation and surplus are prejudicial words used by some social scientists (perhaps unintentionally) to condemn only those systems of social stratification they dislike and disapprove of; so that exploitation is said to occur in peasant societies, but no such statements are made about tribal societies, even tribal kingdoms and chiefdoms, or those stateless tribal societies in which lineage heads and big-men also have superior power positions and superior access to food, valuables, and women. When tribal economies are analyzed, it is frequently pointed out that chiefs, kings, and big-men are materially generous to their subjects or entourages, and act as their emergency providers. But the equivalent payments to and obligations toward peasants by their political and social superiors seem not to be mentioned. Rather, only the coerced payments of surplus are stressed, as though obligatory payments to superior political and social authority were a distinguishing feature of peasantry, and as though peasantries everywhere received nothing in return. Neither is true. I think it is useful for those who analyze tribal and peasant economies to try to assess the extent of income inequality, and, where there is political centralization and sharp social stratification, to describe what exactly political and social inferiors pay to and receive from their superiors. Elsewhere (Dalton 1972, notes 12, 13, 33, 35) I have cited examples of peasants receiving return services and emergency support from their political and social superiors. But I do not think there is a general case because peasantries vary so markedly from place to place and from century to century, as I tried to show in my two earlier articles on peasantry. There is also, of course, income, wealth, and social inequality within peasant villages, that is, among peasants themselves, not only in village India with its caste system

8 560 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [ 76,1974 (Epstein 1962, 1973), but quite commonly elsewhere as well, for example, in traditional Japan (Smith 1959). Clarity in the use of important conceptual terms is particularly important because peasantry as a subject of study is very complicated, and the peasantries of the real world vary enormously: (1) Peasantries have existed in Europe, Asia, the Middle-East, Latin America, the Caribbean, and parts of Africa over many hundreds of years. (2) They may be found before and after deep political, economic, and demographic changes, such as the French Revolution, colonization, mass emigration, and the like. (3) Like feudalism and slavery, peasantry is a complicated economic-political-social-cultural category (and so peasantries are of professional interest to historians and to several sorts of social scientists). (4) Peasant life is studied on three interconnected levels: (i) household/farm/domestic life cycle of the peasant family-birth, marriage, death, inheritance; (ii) village-level organization : economic, political, and social transactions, relationships, and institutions within the village community (which may contain some nonpeasants); (iii) peasant-household and peasant-village transactions with and relationships to non-peasants and to institutions in the larger society-the state, the church, the city, the market. Finally, (5) static and dynamic aspects of peasantry are studied, that is, how a given peasantry of specific time and place is organized and how it changes over time. How do tribal societies become peasant societies? How do peasants become non-peasants and post-peasants? NOTE In this paper, I do not want to get into questions of the extent of income inequality and differences in the provision of welfare services within and between capitalist and communist economies. On such matters, see Pryor (1968), Budd (1967), Myrdal (1960), Shonfield (1965), Lindbeck (1971). Wilcynski (1972), and Dalton (1974a, Ch. 5, 6). REFERENCES CITED Alavai, Hamza 1973 Peasant Classes and Primordial Lovalties. The Journal of Peasant Studies 1 : Budd, E. C Inequality and Poverty. New York: Norton. Dalton, George 1960 A Note of Clarification on Economic Surplus. American Anthropologist 62: Economic Surplus, Once Again. American Anthropologist 65: Peasantries in Anthropology and History. Current Anthropology 13: a Economic Systems and Society. Harmondsworth : Penguin Books. 1974b Peasant Markets. The Journal of Peasant Studies (forthcoming). Epstein, T. Scarlett 1962 Economic Development and Social Change in South India. Manchester: Man- Chester University Press South India, Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. London: Macmillan. Finney, B. R Big-Men, Half-Men and Trader Chiefs: Entrepreneurial Styles in New Guinea and Polynesia. In Opportunity and Response. T. Scarlett Epstein and D. H. Penny, Eds. London: C. Hurst. Gluckman, Max 1940 The Kingdom of the Zulu of South Africa. In African Political Systems. M. Fortes and E. E. Evans-Pritchard, Eds. London: Oxford University Press.

9 Dalton ] HOW EXACTLY ARE PEASANTS EXPLOITED? 561 Hobsbawm, Eric 1973 Peasants and Politics. The Journal of Peasant Studies 1 :3-22. Jaspan, M. A A Sociological Case Study: Communal Hostility to Imposed Social Change in South Africa. In Approaches to Community Development. P. Ruopp, Ed. The Hague: W. Van Hoeve. Lindbeck, A The Political Economy of the New Left. New York: Harper and Row. Malinowski, Bronislaw 1922 Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Coral Gardens and Their Magic, Vol. 1. New York: American Book Co. Mair, Lucy 1936 Chieftainship in Modern Africa. Africa 9: Maquet, Jacques 1961 The Premise of Inequality in Ruanda. London: Oxford University Press. Mayhew, Henry 1851 London Labour and the London Poor. (4 vols.) London: Griffin, khn. (Reprinted in New York: Dover.) Middleton, John, and David Tait 1958 Tribes without Rulers. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Myrdal, Gunnar 1960 Beyond the Welfare State. New Haven: Yale University Press. Nyerere, Julius 1971 Those Who Pay the Bill. In Peasants and Peasant Societies. T. Shanin, Ed. Harmondsworth : Penguin Books. Oberg, K The Kingdom of Ankole in Uganda. In African Political Systems. M. Fortes and E. E. Evans-Pritchard, Eds. London: Oxford University Press. Pearson, Harry 1957 The Economy Has No Surplus: Critique of a Theory of Development. In Trade and Market in the Early Empires. K. Polanyi, C. M. Arensberg, and H. W. Pearson, Eds. Glencoe: The Free Press. Pryor, Frederick 1968 Public Expenditures in Communist and Capitalist Nations. Homewood : Irwin. Richards, A. I The Political Svstem of the Bemba Tribe. In African Political Systems. M. Fortes and E. E. Evans-Priichard, Eds. London: Oxford University Press The Traditional Administrative Structure and the Agricultural Development of Buganda. In Subsistence to Commercial Farming in Present-Day Buganda. A. I. Richards, F. Sturrock, and J. M. Fortt, Eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schapera, I The Bantu-Speaking Tribes of South Africa. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Schumpeter, Joseph 1942 CaDitalism. Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper s. Shanin, T Peasants and Peasant Societies. Harmondsworth : Penguin Books. Shonfield, A Modern Capitalism. New York: Oxford University Press. Smith, T. C The Agrarian Origins of Modern Japan. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Strathern, Andrew 1971 The Rope of Moka. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Uberoi, J. P. Singh 1962 Politics of the Kula Ring. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Wilcyznski, J Socialist Economic Development and Reforms. London : Macmillan. Wolf, Eric 1966 Peasants. New York: Prentice-Hall. Wright, Gordon 1964 Rural Revolution in France. Stanford : Stanford University Press.