The Political Economy of Collectivized Agriculture. A Comparative Study of Communist and Non-Communist Systems

249 Pages·1979·5.34 MB·English

by  Ronald A. Francisco

Pergamon Titles of Related Interest
Barney The Global 2000 Report to the President of the U.S.:
Entering the 21st Century; Volume I—Summary Report; Volume
11—Technical Supplement
Carman Obstacles to Mineral Development: A Pragmatic View
Chou/Harmon Critical Food Issues of the 80s
Diwan/Livingston Alternative Development Strategies and
Appropriate Technology: Science Policy for an Equitable World
Order
Franko/Selber Developing Country Debt
Fritz Combating Nutritional Blindness In Children: A Case
Study of Technical Assistance In Indonesia
Golany Arid Zone Settlement Planning: The Israeli
Experience
Goodman/Love Management of Development Projects: An
International Case Study Approach
Meagher An International Redistribution of Wealth and Power:
A Study of the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States
Menon Bridges Across the South
Morris Measuring the Condition of the World's Poor: The
Physical Quality of Life Index
Stepanek Bangladesh—Equitable Growth?
Thomas/Wlonczek Integration of Science and Technology
with Development: Caribbean and Latin American Problems in
the Context of the United Nations Conference on Science and
Technology for Development
PERGAMON |
POLICY
STUDIES
The Political Economy
of Collectivized
Agriculture/A
Comparative
study of Communist a nd
Non-Communist Systems
Edited by
Ronald A. Francisco
Betty A. Laird
Roy D. Laird
Pergamon Press
NEWYORK · OXFORD · TORONTO · SYDNEY · FRANKFURT · PARB
Pergamon Press Offices:
U.S.A. Pergamon Press Inc., Maxwell House, Fairview Park,
Elmsford, New York 10523, U.S.A.
U.K. Pergamon Press Ltd., Headington Hill Hall,
Oxford 0X3 OBW, England
CANADA Pergamon of Canada, Ltd., 150 Consumers Road,
Willowdale, Ontario M2J, 1P9, Canada
AUSTRALIA Pergamon Press (Aust) Pty. Ltd., Ρ Ο Box 544,
Potts Point, NSW 2011, Australia
FRANCE Pergamon Press SARL, 24 rue des Ecoles,
75240 Paris, Cedex 05, France
FEDERAL REPUBLIC Pergamon Press GmbH, 6242 Kronberg/Taunus,
OF GERMANY Pferdstrasse 1, Federal Republic of Germany
Copyright © 1979 Pergamon Press Inc.
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Main entry under title:
The Political economy of collectivized agriculture.
Revisions of papers Originally presented at the
Sept. 1977 American Political Science Association meeting
in Washington, D. C. and subsequently at a conference
held at the University of Nebraska in April 1978.
Includes index.
1. Collective farms-Europe, Eastern-Congresses.
I. Francisco, Ronald A. II. Laird, Betty A.
III. Laird, Roy D.
HD1492.E8P64 1979 334'.683Ό947 78-26515
ISBN 0-08-023880-7
All Rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means:
electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying,
recording or otherwise, without permission in writing from the
publishers.
Printed in the United States of America
Preface
However controversial, agricultural collectivization based upon
Marxist-Leninist tenets is no longer an experiment. According to the
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAD) data, some 30
percent of the world*s arable land is in the centrally planned economies,
where the vast bulk of it is cultivated in collective or state farms. Clearly,
therefore, a knowledge of the successes and failures of collectivization is
of crucial import to any understanding of the possible future course of a
hungry world.
Each of the contributors to this volume is a specialist on the centrally
planned economy about which he has written. Each presented a paper on
the topic at the September 1977 American Political Science Association
(APSA) meeting in Washington, D. C. Subsequently, revised and updated
versions were presented at a conference held at the University of Nebraska
in April 1978, with the thought that they should be published in the present
volume.
Ronald A. Francisco, Assistant Professor of Political Science and
Soviet and East European Affairs at the University of Kansas specializes
in East German agriculture. Roy D. Laird, Professor of Political Science
and Soviet and East European Affairs at the University of Kansas is found­
er of the informal, but long-standing, Conference on Soviet and East
European Agricultural and Peasant Affairs. Betty A. Laird is an indepen­
dent research analyst specializing in rural affairs and Soviet agriculture.
Among the many who deserve credit for making this volume possible,
two people should receive special thanks: Darlene Heacock, Secretary
extraordinaire of the University of Kansas Soviet and East European Area
Center, and Deborah Francisco, who has proved to be an enthusiastic and
invaluable initiate into the delights and drudgeries of making a book.
vu
viii PREFACE
Finally, the University of Kansas, the Hesston Foundation, and the
Institute for the Study of World Politics must be thanked for their crucial
support of the project.
The Editors
Introduction
Approximately one-third of the world's agricultural land is collective­
ly owned and/or farmed. This proportion was reached during the post-
World War Π era when many states implemented variations on the Soviet
Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist model of agricultural organization. Although
some collectivizing nations hoped for improved productivity as a by-pro­
duct, the move to collectivization was based largely upon a perceived need
for political and economic controls, plus ideological prescription, since
the Soviet experience offered no promise that productivity would increase.
The same kind of doctrinaire loyalty to Marxist-Leninist thought prompted
many Third World nations to adopt collectivization policies. While some
nations, notably in North Africa, have retreated from this commitment,
others continue to pursue the policy or to weigh its feasibility. Yet be­
cause there has been little systematic knowledge about the impact of col­
lectivization on food production and political stability, these critical deci­
sions are based largely on the canons of ideology and very informal per­
ceptions of other nations' experiences.
Clearly, we need better information about the effects of collectiviza­
tion. The prospects for domestic shortfall in basic food production are
well documented and grim. The World Food Council has identified forty-
three countries which may have basic grain deficits exceeding 100 million
metric tons by 1985 unless they are helped to self-sufficiency. Recent
history has shown that population increases and shortages of hard currency
disrupt many nations' reliance upon the international trade and aid mechan­
ism. Since the situation is unlikely to improve, especially if weather
problems plague exporting nations, few countries will be able to afford
the dubious luxury of an ideologically pure collectivization policy unless
there is a concomitant prospect for political stability and rapid increases
in food production.
ix
INTRODUCTION
COLLECTIVIZATION POLICIES AND OUTCOMES
This volume attempts to assess the political and economic impact of
collectivization by surveying the experience of several nations with differ­
ent forms of collective or state farming. Although agricultural economists
have trod much of this ground before us, their interests are concentrated
in the economic realm. They seek empirical theories of production and
study the integration of agriculture with other sectors of the economy. The
issue is approached here on a different plane; we recognize that any tam­
pering with agricultural production often has far-reaching political implica­
tions. Agriculture is the primordial sector in most nations^ economies.
Further, the farming population is likely to be entrenched in a way of life
with strong traditional roots - e.g., the peasantry in Eastern Europe and
Asia, or the tribal systems in Africa. Collectivization, even when imple­
mented with great care and circumspection, often represents a cataclysmic
break with traditional norms. We are interested, then, in the sociopoliti­
cal as well as the economic impact of collectivization.
With this in mind, we focus on a series of questions which any govern­
ment contemplating collectivization must confront:
1. Is collectivized agriculture more or less efficient than private
agriculture?
The answer to this question may depend upon how efficiency is mea­
sured and what kind of private agriculture is at issue. Does collectiviza­
tion represent a desirable way to consolidate peasant operations of subop-
timum unit size into a more economically efficient mode of production?
What happens if modern, efficient agricultural enterprises are collecti­
vized?
2. Does the manner in which collectivization is implemented affect
its success?
Is there an observable difference in the outcomes of forced and vol­
untary plans of collectivization? Does the amount of financial support and
technical assistance from the regime have a significant impact on the pol­
icy's legitimacy and effectiveness? How successful are financial and pol­
itical incentives in convincing farmers and peasants to collectivize volun­
tarily? In a feudal or even pre-feudal economy, is full and immediate col­
lectivization feasible? Must it be preceded by a land reform and a period
of transition? And then what happens when the land distributed during the
reform is repossessed and collectivized?
3. Why are some collectivized systems much more economically
successful than others?
The range of efficiency and productivity among collective farming
systems is surprisingly large. The Israeli kibbutz stands at the pinnacle
INTRODUCTION xi
of all such systems, as it has for decades. While these farms are argu­
ably a product of unique circumstances, some Soviet-type collective sys­
tems, such as the German Democratic Republic do not lag too far behind.
Yet other Soviet-style systems, including the USSR itself, simply have not
met expected standards of production. Since the gross organizational
structures of all these systems are roughly equivalent, what accounts for
this disparity? How different is the Chinese commune system, and why
have Third World nations had difficulty establishing successful collective
and cooperative farming?
4. Are there sometimes social and political motivations that over­
ride economic considerations?
Few political leaders seek to collectivize agriculture for economic
reasons alone. In fact, many doubtless know that there will be at least
short-term costs in productivity when collectivization causes a fundamental
upheaval in the rural social order. Important concerns beyond ideology
may justify the change. Collectivization mi^t, for example, be an impor­
tant tool in the nation-building process. It might be the most practical
means of achieving interest articulation and aggregation in rural areas.
Conversely, it might provide a regime with an easily-controlled hierarchy
of economic, political, and administrative centers in the countryside.
Whether or not political uses of collectivization succeed depends in
large measure on peasant reaction. Peasants traditionally have been
skeptical about sudden and drastic changes in their way of life. Few are
susceptible to promises of higher potential incomes or easier, more ra­
tionalized work schedules. Typically, they have a strong legal, political,
economic, and emotional attachment to their habitat. What then, is the im­
pact of a collectivization drive on peasant perceptions of the government?
How does it affect the legitimacy of the regime in the countryside? How
have some regimes been able to gain peasant support for collectivization,
or at least to mitigate negative reaction? And what is the impact of peas­
ant reaction - both positive and negative - upon agricultural output and the
food supply?
5. Who rules on the collective?
Is there generally a pattern of mass participation or does the old rural
elite continue to rule the community? Are new managers imposed on the
collective by the state? How much do cooperative, collective, and state
farms vary in the breadth of political and managerial control?
6. How does collectivization affect motivation and innovation?
Can entrepreneurship, motivation, and innovation be sustained in the
relative absence of a personal reward motive ? How widespread are spe­
cial bonuses and other financial incentives in collective systems? In the
absence of financial motivation, are appeals to altruism, patriotism, com­
munal spirit, and pride sufficient incentives?
xii INTRODUCTION
SCOPE
Although all of the answers are not forthcoming, these questions are
investigated here by recounting and analyzing the experiences of a diverse
set of nations which have adopted collective farm systems. The Council
for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) nations dominate our sample,
just as they do the world^s collective agricultural systems. Within CMEA,
however, there are vast differences in national history, demographic pat­
terns, and even in the extent of collective agriculture. We present also
the experiences of very different collective arrangements: the commune
system in the People*s Republic of China, the Israeli kibbutz, and the now-
abandoned Tunisian experiment with cooperative farming.
Our aim is to learn from these national experiences where collectivi­
zation has been most successful and where least, what factors have affect­
ed its performance in relation to food production, what techniques have
been most successful in maintaining political stability and legitimacy in
the countryside, and, finally, what prices have been paid for achieving
collectivization.
1
The Flusses and
Minuses of State
Agriculture In the USSR
Roy D. Laird
The collectivization of Russian peasant agriculture began with the
horrors of mass deportation and ended with the ordeal of mass
famine. Lazar Volin (1)
INTRODUCTION
A State System
The rhetoric of Marxism-Leninism has been one of the most success­
ful in all history in persuading even its opponents to employ its own terms
in evaluating its successes and failures, however misleading such an ac­
quiescence may be. Therefore, to begin with, it should be acknowledged
that for many years there has not been collectivized agriculture in the
USSR. Although the term will be used here for the sake of convenience,
that which is labeled as "collective" is thoroughly controlled by the state.
Even in the Soviet lexicon, no nonsense is made about the sovkhozy.
The peasant workers on the state farms are wage earners employed by the
state. However, the pretense that the kolkhozy are still somehow collec­
tive enterprises is rigorously maintained, even though such a distinction
has been virtually meaningless since Khrushchev's amalgamations fully
implanted the party on the farms in the 1950s.
Visit any Soviet kolkhoz and you will be told that the farm, in compli­
ance with the national Model Charter, is controlled by a democratic vote
cast in periodic general meetings by all the working members. The fiction