The Changing World of Rural

Melvyn C. Goldstein, Ph.D. J.R.Harkness Professor, Anthropology Co-Director, Center for Research on Tibet Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA First, a caveat. It is hard to generalize about the Tibet Plateau

The Tibetan plateau is vast -– about 1000 km by 2500 km, 2.5 million square kms. This is about 8 times the size of Norway.

Political Tibet-- The Tibetan government has ruled continuously from the earliest times down to 1951. (Now the )

Ethnographic Tibet– Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan, Yunnan--“Areas where the Tibetan race once inhabited exclusively and where they are still in the majority‘ … [and where] political' Tibet exercised jurisdiction only in certain places...” (Richardson, 1984: 1-2) My Research Sites are in the Tibet Autonomous Region

NOMAD: Pala In 2005- a total of 30 households and 154 individuals [fieldwork 1986-2009]

FARMING: Shigatse-Panam area 3 farming villages in a study reexamining the “Aging and Modernization” theory: relatively rich (more developed) relatively middle (mid developed) relatively poor (less developed)

In 2005-a total of 335 households and 2325 individuals [fieldwork 1997-2009] The farming area: Much of traditional culture and values are intact But technological change is increasing The Farming Dilemma: after decollectivization, gradually not enough profit from farming

• 1. farmland is owned by state; land was divided equally at end of commune and households can not buy and sell land.

• 2. decrease in farmland/per capita and per household due to floods, population growth, family fission, use of farmland for housing sites, eminent domain.

• 3. value of grain is low: overall prices have increased 323% since 1985, but the farmers’ main crop, barley, has declined when controlled for inflation.

• 4. reduction of government subsidies, e.g., health care, foods.

• 5. difficult to increase crop yields further since farmers already apply large amounts of fertilizers , insecticides, etc.

• 6. demand for manufactured goods and other non-traditional items has increased dramatically. Adaptation: A New Paradigm: “Going for Income”

Length of time away: 1-2 months to 11 months

Location: All over Tibet including Western Tibet, Kongpo, Nagchuka, Shigatse and

Types of Work: Manual labor, skilled labor, various entrepreneurial activities (construction teams, truckers) Going for (Non-Farm) Income

2009- outside Shigatse city

2009- remote nomad county

The proportion of males and females going for income 1997-2005.

Males Females

1997 2005 1997 2005 Poor 20-29 18% 69% 7% 32% village (+284%) (+357%) 30-39 25% 72% 2% 17% (+188%) (+750%) Mid 20-29 28% 64% 3% 28% village (+129%) (+833%) 30-39 29% 64% 7% 28% (+121%) (+300%) Rich 20-29 na 63% na 14% village 30-39 na 71% na 22% Non-farm income dominates the hh economy: Mean Income per household, 2005 Village Farm Non-farm Site income income

Rich 5,323 ¥ 19,161 ¥ (79% of total) Middle 1,954 14,113 (86% of total) Poor 778 5,861 (86% of total) Incipient “Entrepreneurial Transition”: % workers by job category

Job category Rich Middle Poor village village village Manual labor 27.3% 41.2% 66.1% Skilled labor, 62 52 23 vehicle driver/ owner, businessman Government 3.7 4.2 4.7 Other 7.5 2.3 5.8 Nomadic Pastoralists of Pala: A Different Adaptation TRADITIONAL NOMADIC WAY OF LIFE CONTINUES But also major changes

1st houses, 1986 1st motorcycles 2003-5 1st cell phones, 2008 Substantial increase in the quality of life

1st houses, 1986-87

Rich nomad’s house, 2005 1987

2005 Despite houses, the nomads have not become sedentary. In summer, e.g., some nomads prefer to live in tents which they pitch in front of their houses, and in fall, all lock up their houses and move for 3 months Source of this nomad prosperity is not “going for income,” but increases in the price of nomad products, e.g., 1986-2005 Percent Change Sheep +650% Yak +655% Goat +669% Cashmere Yak Skin +1200% Sheep Skin +208% Goat Skin +246% Sheep Wool +131% Yak Wool +91%

Barley in farm +100% areas RECENT CHANGE for RURAL TIBET: The “People-First” development approach of the 11th Five Year Plan (2006-2010) in the TAR—about 100 billion RMB allocated

— An emphasis on social development and quality of life versus primarily GDP

— An emphasis on development projects and programs aimed at reaching village households directly

— Target of raising rural per-capita income to national average

GOAL: internal strategy to win rural Tibetans’ loyalty to the nation without making an agreement with the and without meeting other grievances, e.g., monasteries “Comfortable Housing Program”— 3.2 billion RMB allocated in TAR Target = 80% of all rural hhs → construction boom

Houses Built-Renovated since 2006 in study sites

Farming 2006-09 % Farming: Total government cost Sites # new for the 145 houses in the 3 farm houses villages = ~1.6 million yuan poor 42 46 (~$238,000) [47% of hhs] middle 52 42 Nomad: Total cost for 225 new Houses in the nomad xiang = rich 51 55 5.5 million yuan (~$820,000) [50% of hhs] total 145 47 Almost of this money throughout the TAR is going to villagers who are building the houses Increasing non-farm income: “The Chicken Fattening” Program

Our own data show the total government cost: 1 village – 1.8 million yuan ($240,000); 5 villages = 9 million yuan ($1.2 million) In Conclusion, we find: rapid change and adaptation rural folk are not marginalized and passive-- There is increasing integration into the economic marketplace and marked material improvement; shift in attitude to education culture and religion in tact– Rural Tibet is not being assimilated; it is gradual acculturating at its own pace to modern society

Will ’s “People First” strategy win over Tibetans? Too early to say! All photos taken in 2005 The End. Questions? All pictures © Melvyn Goldstein. Please contact for permissions before use.