ABSTRACT
Much has been said about the backwardness of part-subsistence farmers and how they affect the economic growth of underdeveloped countries. They contribute little to the gross national income (Agarwala & Singh, 1963, p. 384) and fail to release labour for activities that will bring a higher marginal return and a greater margin of saving. No social scientist will argue with this point. But the low gross agricultural output of peasant economies cannot be attributed simply to lack of ability or of thrift, or to the higher value assigned to leisure than to labour. A considerable number of studies carried out by social scientists will discredit such simple explanations. 2 My own fieldwork amongst Paez-speaking peasants in Colombia has convinced me that careful and rational allocation of resources has given a great deal of adaptability to an economy which has to compete with a better-informed and more highly capitalized peasant economy. In terms of technology, there is no question that part-subsistence peasant farming leaves much to be desired and that yields could easily be increased by improving agricultural practices. D. Edwards, in a study of small farming in Jamaica, remarks: The small farming studied was technically bad, but economically it appears to represent a reasonable response to the conditions under which farming is practised’ (Edwards, 1961, p. 282). Schultz suggests that new technical factors of production made available to farmers and backed by proper incentives and rewards will make the transformation of traditional agriculture possible (Schultz, 1964, pp. 205–206). Technological innovation, even with the qualifications made by Schultz, has to be treated with a certain amount of caution. Anthropologists have pointed out that some of these improved techniques may affect social relations upon which rational farming depends and that, therefore, economic action cannot be treated separately from the social context in which it operates. 3
