ABSTRACT
This chapter shows the divergence between the de jure and de facto situations within the collectives, as regards leadership, rights of ownership and participation. Collectivization in Pecsely finally took shape according to the officially redundant tripartite division into Nagy, Names and Kis Pecsely. The difficulty the former landowner gazdas experienced in adapting to the collectives' work brigades did not however arise exclusively from the unease which most experienced at the loss of their lands. The assembly's voice in management was curtailed in practice by the subordinate and dependent status of the collectives themselves in relation to the district and country authorities and, ultimately, to central government. The position of chairman was to be strengthened only in later years at the expense of the members' assembly, after greater independence was allowed to the collectives. Economically, collectives held little attraction as they were short of cash and the quarterly advances for members were uncertain and insufficient.
