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