Zurich Open Repository and Archive University of Zurich Main Library Strickhofstrasse 39 CH-8057 Zurich www.zora.uzh.ch

Year: 2014

Neither Peasant nor Farmer: Transformations of Agriculture in after 2000

Diković, Jovana

Posted at the Zurich Open Repository and Archive, University of Zurich ZORA URL: https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-102960 Journal Article

Originally published at: Diković, Jovana (2014). Neither Peasant nor Farmer: Transformations of Agriculture in Serbia after 2000. Martor:149-163. Neither Peasant, Nor Farmer. Transformations of Agriculture in Serbia after 2000

Neither Peasant, Nor Farmer Transformations of Agriculture in Serbia after 2000

Jovana Dikovic Ph.D. Candidate at the Department of Social and Cultural Anthropology University of Zurich

AbstrAct Keywords

'is paper tries to point to the current problems of Serbian peasantry. Even Peasant, farmer, transformations, though the title indicates that the paper deals predominantly with identity Serbia, , Gaj issues of Serbian peasants, yet it rather depicts and explains a deeper, complex and layered process that has been influencing their identity vagueness. It reveals the historical, political and social background of the process through the entire 20th century and their repercussions on peasant identity. Special attention, though, is devoted to the period a%er 2000, when Serbian agriculture was promised new paths of professional development within the new democratic governments. Questioning and re-examination of officially-proclaimed profes- sionalization of agriculture and its progress make, therefore, the main focus of this paper.

erbian villages have remained beyond . However, the village remained broader anthropological interests in neglected because of the primacy of studies Sthe second half of the 20th century. of nationalism and the investigation of the During the 1960s and at the beginning of social and political consequences of the war. the 1970s, there was partially increased in- However, as Dorondel and Şerban no- terest of foreign anthropologists in this re- tice in the introduction to this volume, the gion. A few social anthropologists - mostly general problem not only with Serbian, but from the United States of America - Joel M. also with South-Eastern European peasant- Halpern, Eugene A. Hammel and Chris- ry, is that its social and political history is topher C. Gaffney conducted a fieldwork widely neglected by peasant studies, despite research in Yugoslavia and among other the fact that it still does make a significant fellow countries in Serbia. Halpern (1963, percentage of population in these countries. 1972) mostly published articles on - Even the attempts of the communist regime’ antry and a monograph about a Serbian vil- to modernize the countryside in this area, lage in Šumadija (central Serbia). Gaffney mainly through collectivization, expropria- (1979) published an article on a former Ger- tion and forced industrialization, have not man village in the Bačka region (Vojvodina lead to the disappearance of the peasantry province). Hammel (1969 a, b, c,) wrote sev- from any of these countries’ (Dorondel and eral articles on kinship and traditional fam- Şerban, 3). Many factors might be in play: ily relationships in urban and rural areas. economic – permanent national or recent A%er this period, almost total anthropolog- global economic crises which were induced ical silence had arisen which lasted until the by unstable and corrupt governments; po- 1990s when Serbia again became the “top- litical factors – wars, civil rebellions, au- ic” due to the civil war and dissolution of thoritarian governments; institutional ones

149 Jovana Diković

– underdeveloped institutions of democra- to the historical overview of the main as- cy and the rule of the law. Yet all of them did pects of the agrarian reforms conducted have tremendous impact on current demo- in the 20th century. 'e second section graphic trends in rural areas (see Bryceson presents an introduction into local setting et al. 2000; Spoor 2012; 2009, 26-28). of Gaj village in the South-Eastern Banat In Serbia, for instance, rural dwellers region in Vojvodina province, where field- make 43,6%, while in Vojvodina province - work research has been conducted. 'e vil- which will be of special concern here - they lage of Gaj is taken as an example of a rela- make 43,33% of the overall population (RS tively prosperous Serbian village where all Ministarstvo poljoprivrede 2009, 8). 'is pa- controversy of the latest agricultural trans- per, therefore, represents an attempt to gain formation is obvious and deeply rooted in a closer insight into the current state of the society2. 'e first part of the third section Serbian countryside and its population, and is devoted to the theoretical overview of the to emphasize the main trajectories of the lat- notion of “peasantry” from the perspective est rural transformation and development. of the urban-rural continuum. 'is sheds 'e paper has two tasks. 'e first is to light on the whole complexity of the notion highlight and summarize the main aspects of peasantry and its burden. Since one of of agrarian reforms in 20th century-Serbia, the transition aims of Serbian society from since there are limited national and interna- 2000 onwards was modernization and trans- tional anthropological sources on this top- formation of peasants into farmers with the 1) I am using agricultural producer ic. 'e second task is to present the general support of the state, this section in the sec- as value-neutral term, and as a ‘third transformation of Serbian agriculture a%er ond part also discusses why the process itself way’ between the 2000. Within the second task, special atten- is highly superficial and contradictory. 'e terms “peasant” and “farmer”, which have tion will be devoted to problematizing the last section tries to demonstrate how cooper- strong symbolic connotations. imperatives of progress and modernization ation, i.e. ‘partnership’, between agricultural that have been imposed by state agricultural producers and the state functions on a daily 2) This paper partly reflects the topic of politics and strategy a%er 2000. basis. A few clustered examples of everyday my ongoing Ph.D. re- search that analyses 'e main argument of this paper is fairly strategies of people from Gaj aim to give the impact of official simple. Due to the lack of political and eco- more insight into the nature of this coopera- agricultural policy on everyday life, as nomic continuity since the first agrarian tion, i.e. ‘partnership’, which is based - as I well as discrepan- cies between the reform in 1919, Serbian agricultural devel- will argue further - on manipulative strate- official policy of rural opment has been first and foremost a po- gies from both sides. 'ese examples are also development and its actual accomplish- litical (ideological) project than the aim in chosen to bring closer the complex relation- ments since 2001. and of itself. Due to this fact, agricultural ship between the ‘patronising’ state and the The fieldwork in Gaj lasted from February producers1 mostly suffer from professional ‘demanding’ agricultural producers, and the until September 2013 and was based and identity disorientation, which has been ‘neglectful’ state and the ‘uncontrolled’ agri- on extensive par- blatantly obvious since 2000. I argue that cultural producers. Finally, the paper tries to ticipant observation and semi-structured this has had an effect on the perception of contribute to a better understanding of very interviews. semi-independency among village popu- vague professional and identity designation lations. More importantly, this has influ- of agricultural producers, bearing in mind enced the emergence of paired paradoxical their constant juggling with the state on one and very complex relationships between the side, and their identity on the other. state and agricultural producers. 'e first represents the relationship between the ‘pa- tronising’ state and the ‘demanding’ agri- A look back: Agrarian reforms cultural producers. 'e second presents the and Politics in 20th century-serbia relationship of the ‘neglectful’ state and the ‘uncontrolled’ agricultural producers. 'e agrarian question in the Kingdom of 'e first section of the paper is devoted the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (1918-1941)

150 Neither Peasant, Nor Farmer. Transformations of Agriculture in Serbia after 2000 and, later on, in Socialist Yugoslavia (1945- ers. As for the beneficiaries of the agrarian 1991), was one of the most important issues reform, the following categories had prior- that was sometimes acquiring even ‘sacred’ ity: war veterans and army volunteers, colo- character (Milošević 2008). As every re- nists, landless people and poor domiciles. form, these were also ideologically-inspired According to Gaćeša (1995), this reform and driven within two completely different undoubtedly had a civil character, particu- political contexts. 'e First Agrarian Re- larly because it eliminated remains of feu- form was conducted in the interwar period dal ownership structure on the one side, from 1919 to 1941. 'e Second Agrarian Re- and, on the other side, it enabled continu- form was conducted from 1945 to 1953, but ing capitalist production relationships in it was officially in force until the adoption agriculture (238)4. 'is process changed the of the 1991 Republic Law that marked the ownership structure in Vojvodina province, 3) At the beginning end of existing regulation in agriculture im- as well as in other parts of the Kingdom, of the agrar- posed by the state, and enforced restitution except in Serbia and Montenegro, where ian reform, the law from 1922 had of agricultural land. free, private small and middle estates were anticipated that 'e First Agrarian Reform aimed to dominant even before the reform. Due to land would not be redeemed from the solve the problem of landless people who the elimination of backward property rela- Habsburg dynasty, or from those who made 38,8% of the overall population in Vo- tions, a significant number of peasants had had gotten the jvodina province in 1910, as well as to ter- become landowners by 1941 (while many estates as a reward from the Habsburg minate outdated and backward ownership of them were only leaseholders at the be- dynasty, or from the Turks and all others and property relations in Bosnia and Her- ginning of agrarian reform). Nevertheless, who had enlarged zegovina, Dalmatia and in Southern Serbia there were unsatisfied parties, especially their estates due to the plunder or (Kosovo and part of Macedonia) that be- among ethnic minorities, war veterans and illegal conversion of the peasants’ longed to the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats army volunteers, who did not receive any land. But due to and Slovenes (Erić 1958). Since the majority land, or compensation, even though they different political influences that came of big landholders not only in Vojvodina, had priority over other parties. 'at was the particularly from the biggest Radical but also in Bosnia and Hercegovina and result of unfinished and inconsequent con- Party, which was South Serbia were of non-Slav origin, one duction of agrarian reform and tremendous almost continuously in power between of the reform goals was ‘Slav-ization’ of the political influence on the process itself. 1919 and 1941, territories by internal colonisation of people Despite the fact that the rural popula- a large number of these big estates from the Kingdom (Gaćeša 1995). tion made 84% of the Kingdom at that time, were redeemed by the state. That is how Within the First Agrarian Reform, the politicians from the biggest Radical and numerous previous state determined the agrarian maximum Democratic Parties, the latter being less owners became incredibly rich in a for the big estates depending on the type influential than former one, did not see in very short time (Lekic of land, region and average big estate in the it reform, but partisan capacity (Isić 1995, 2002, 117-139). respective region. 'e agrarian maximum 229-247). 'ey had dealt only nominally 4) Many contro- versies surrounded ranged from 87 to 521 cadastral acres (Lekić with the problems of the peasantry, until the reform itself. To mention only a few: a 2002, 104-117). All the land exceeding this they won the elections. 'e Radical Party, selective conduction particular maximum was allotted to the for instance, did not have any integral party and interpretation of the law on Agrarian land fund, and the state had redeemed all program on the social and political aspects Reform by state bu- reaucrats (Miloševic land from its previous owners at market of the peasantry and its development. On 2008), and often prices3. Peasants-beneficiaries were paying the other hand, Democrats were using the political misuses and bribery which, as a temporary lease for the land they got until peasants’ voting capacity primarily to over- goal, had to increase ć the maximum for the final liquidation of the reform that last- throw the Radical Party (Isi 1995, 232). certain big estates ed from 1931 to 1941 when it stopped due to Overall, both the Radicals and Democrats (Lekic 2002). the Second World War. In this second phase supported the interests of the bourgeoisie in of the reform, known as liquidation, peas- rural and urban areas rather than those of ant-beneficiaries were supposed to redeem the mainstream peasantry. the land from the state and become its own- 'e mainstream peasantry were faced

151 Jovana Diković

with extremely low productivity due to that further encouraged indirect subsidies outdated tools used in land cultivation, the to state , limitation of peasant hold- lack of modern machinery and technology ings and imposing high taxes on private competences, education, health and other farming (Halpern 1963, 162). 'is kind of services, the lack of infrastructure and so agricultural regulation lasted until the 1991 on. Because of this, a large number of peas- restitution of agricultural land. ants were deep in bank debts and could not 'e law introduced the agrarian maxi- redeem the land they had obtained thanks mum for private land up to 10 ha for agri- to the agrarian reform. 'e interest of the cultural workers, and up to 5 ha for workers. peasants was advocated mostly by parties All expropriated land was allotted to col- which were less influential. Interestingly, lective cooperatives without any compen- parties such as the Coalition of Agricultur- sation, while membership in cooperatives al Workers, the Yugoslav Republican Party became voluntary. Alongside this change, or the Peasant Party which were trying to the emergence and strengthening of ‘mixed’ penetrate the dominant political scene, worker-agricultural households (that were were closer to the real needs of peasants and active partly in agriculture and partly in in- 5) The 1991 were more aware of what their reality really dustry) had become prevalent. Republic Law looked like (Isić 1995, 238). However, a%er !e peasant-worker living on his holding acknowledged rights and restituted land the Second World War, peasants entered and commuting to a job outside his village to private claimants whose land passed into new stage of their professional trans- is an important component of the Yugoslav into collective formation inspired by the communist vi- labour force. According to a special agri- ownership according to the Law on the sions of agriculture. cultural census in 1960, it is estimated that agricultural fund (1953), or by means 'e Second Agrarian Reform began un- there were some 1,306,000 peasant-workers of confiscation due der the slogan ‘'e land belongs to its cul- in a total labour force of 2,985,000 (Halpern to unfulfilled duties towards obliga- tivators’. 'e targets of land expropriation 1972, 80). tory redemption of agricultural goods became the large estates of banks, churches Until the restitution of agricultural land from 1947 to 1953 and monasteries, companies, as well as the in 1991 – that has not yet been completed5, („Sl. glasnik RS“ br.18/91). This big landlords’ estates that were spared, or three forms of agricultural production or- meant taking away from collective partially embraced, by the First Agrarian ganisation and ownership had dominated ownership and Reform. 'e expropriated estates of previ- in Serbian villages: individual / private, giving land back to its former private ous owners were not compensated. One of state and collective. owners regardless the priorities of the new communist gov- % of their occupation A er 1991, state strategies in agriculture (Curovic 1998, 3-8). ernment was to establish state and collec- were oriented primarily towards privatiza- The state had started to restitute only tive agricultural cooperatives with compul- tion of state-owned enterprises and collec- agricultural land, sory membership by 1953 (Gaćeša 1984). tive cooperatives, which would become an but the process was suspended in 1992 Since cooperatives had very bad economic imperative of the new democratic govern- due to financial sanctions against performance, poor work organisation, ments in later years, i.e. a%er 2000. One of Serbia and Monte- faced great resistance from the peasants the goals of the Ministry of Agriculture since negro imposed by the United Nations. and other side-problems such as massive 2001 has been the abolishment of ‘mixed’ During this short pe- riod, approximately the%s of cooperative goods and livestock, worker-agricultural households, profession- 150,000 ha were and misuse of position within the coopera- alization, privatization and modernization given back to the real owners, but the tive hierarchy (Tošić 1959; Halpern 1963), of agricultural sector. Such policies resulted process has not yet been completed. the conclusion was that such state of affairs in the increased number of registered agri- was no longer sustainable. 'e Law on the cultural producers and changed ownership Agrarian Land Fund of Common People’s structure to some degree. According to the Property (Zakon o poljoprivrednom fondu statistical data gathered in 2009, 67% of land opštenarodne imovine) was passed in 1953. was in private ownership, 30% in state own- 'e law represented a new stage of the col- ership, 2% in collective, and other types of lectivization of property and the politics ownership made only 1% (RS Ministarstvo

152 Neither Peasant, Nor Farmer. Transformations of Agriculture in Serbia after 2000 poljoprivrede 2009, 13). Nevertheless, the Party were the most influential and domi- current state in agriculture is far from being nant political factor on the local level, and, an example of order and law. Nowadays, the occasionally, these were representatives of agricultural sector binds different political, the Democratic Party. Others, such as the private and state interests in common ma- representatives of the Social Democrats and chinery to exploit resources, with informal Communist Party of Yugoslavia were signifi- practices and non-transparent contracts as cantly less influential (Pavkovic 2009, 259). an inevitable way of doing business, which, 'e socialist period brought about, up overall, represents a serious obstacle in fur- to some extent, the diversified professional thering agricultural progress. orientation of the villagers. Apart from those who were mere agricultural produc- ers, a part of the village population was em- Local setting ployed in state companies and industries or the public sector, predominantly in Kovin 'e village of Gaj belongs to the Kovin mu- and Smederevo, while Pancevo was a medi- nicipality and is located in the South Banat cal and educational centre. State vineyards district, within the Vojvodina province. Gaj nearby Bela Crkva were attractive for sea- lies on flat and fertile soil with the sonal workers and wage labourers. River flowing along the south edge of the A%er the collapse of state agricultural village (about 7 km). Gaj is strategically very cooperatives and forced collectivisation, the well located between four cities: Kovin, Bela state began to found agricultural holdings in Crkva, Smederevo and Pancevo. It is a highly so-called collective ownership. 'is is how multicultural community with Serbs form- the Collective Agricultural Good 7th July ing the majority, and Czechs, Romanians, was founded in 1955. 'is company pos- Hungarians and Roma as minorities. With sessed 1200 ha in collective ownership, out a population of almost 3.000, this village is of which 2 / 3 of the land was expropriated among the most populated ones in the area. land in the name of the agrarian maximum 'e village of Gaj experienced the same of 10 ha within the Second agrarian reform, transformations as every other village in and 1 / 3 consisted of village pastures con- Serbia through the whole 20th century. In verted into ploughs (Pavkovic 2009, 293). the eve of the first agrarian reform, the ca- 'e company peaked at the beginning of dastre area of Gaj had approximately 1230 the 1990s when around 150 people were em- ha. Ploughs made approximately 454 ha, ployed – predominantly from Gaj. i.e. 36,6% of total surface (Pavković 2009, 7th July became private in 1993 due to 260). Even though there is no exact data on ownership transformation. Privatisation in how much land was distributed to peasants, Serbia from the beginning of the 1990s and Pavković (2009) provides very insightful so- particularly from 2000 onwards, resulted in cial background of the period from 1919 to massive shut downs of mentioned compa- 1941 in Gaj. Apart from the lack of agricul- nies or their resale through auctions. Many tural machinery and advanced knowledge people from Gaj lost their jobs during this in cultivating the land, many people coped time. 7th July, for instance, was bought by with very high state taxes and credit debts a local businessman, but, since 2010, it has since they could not redeem the land they been going through the insolvency process. got. 'ere were cases when peasants were us- Many believe the owner`s reason behind the ing bank credits aimed for land ransom for purchase of the company was not its im- celebrations, weddings or building houses provement, but rather a significant amount instead (Pavković 2009, 261-262). 'e vil- of land which is in the company`s posses- lage also mirrored the micro-political scene sion until the end of the restitution process. of the state where representatives of Radical On the other hand, the 1990s brought

153 Jovana Diković

about Kovin Mine, a new company, to Gaj. For professional agricultural produc- 'e company was founded in 1995, only 7 km ers, meeting modern demands such as up- away from Gaj. 'e mine exploits lignite be- to-date mechanisation and technological neath the water surface, which is a rare min- competences is inevitable. Competition rep- ing technique, as well as a distinctive feature resents one of their driving forces, but also of the village of Gaj. 'e mine has been oper- one of their biggest worries. Strong compe- ating profitably ever since and, even though it tition over potential free land is increasing has undergone several changes in ownership, sale prices, but also the amount of annual they have not affected its positive balance and land rent. According to many informants, success. Today, the mine, as well as very few at present, some 20 people from the village successful companies in nearby cities, has cre- stand out from the others in the sense that ated a strong competitive atmosphere for ev- they cultivate more than 100 ha. 'ey dictate ery potential job, but also the terrain for politi- the prices, but they o%en represent political cal corruption and clientele relationships. factors in local council, or they are either A great part of the local population, leaders or members of local agricultural as- whether unemployed, or employed in state sociations. 'e strongest agricultural pro- or private companies, cultivates their pri- ducers o%en support the ruling political par- vate or rented land. According to many in- ty, whether on municipality or republic level. formants, even small pieces of land cannot Isić (1995) emphasized one characteristic of be le% uncultivated. In the socialist period, Serbian peasantry from 1918 to 1925 which those who belonged to mixed worker-agri- seems to be applicable to current agricultural cultural households would focus primarily producers. According to him, conservative in on land and agriculture during the harvest nature, the peasantry rather opted for parties season, and later on their second occupa- in power, believing that this way they would tion (Pavkovic 2009, 340-377). One can be spared the arbitrariness and abuses of lo- suppose that the reason for this was the ad- cal bureaucrats. Peasantry never opted for 6) Only one of my informants resigned ditional income from the land, but also the the party program, but rather for the author- in the second half of the 1990s from strong social stigma in the local community ity, personal connections and influences, as a state company related to uncultivated land6. well for the economic power of the local and because he could not commit to 'e average amount of cultivated land, republic candidate, hoping to benefit from it agriculture, while when the time came (Isić 1995, 240). Much many others have whether private or rented, per household never considered ranges between 5 ha and up to 20 ha, which of this presents the common way of under- leaving the job. Even today, many work usually depends on the number of people standing politics and the way things func- additional jobs to living in one household, age structure, and tion towards the state and vice versa. 'e po- agriculture, such as painting, repairing additional professional occupations of the litical clientele, therefore, seems an inevitable of car, agricultural machinery, electron- family members. Among those who do not ingredient of success on the local level. ics etc. possess any land (or possess very little) are 'e close proximity of Gaj to several ur- mainly professionals such as doctors, vets, ban centres made the outflow of people to be lawyers, professors, teachers, and Roma in much less than in other parts of Serbia. Ex- a large percentage. For 30% of inhabitants, istence of private land plots, which enabled agriculture is the only occupation, 10% are people to cultivate the land or to rent it out employed in construction and other indus- during socialism, was probably the deter- tries, 6% are employed in the trade sector minant factor in keeping people attached to (predominantly private one), while 4.5% the village despite their other professional 7) For more 7 information on local are employed in the public and state sector . occupations. Today, due to the generally un- population, see: http://www.selogaj. Besides these categories, pensioners and so- favourable economic conditions and high rs/?page_id=103 called ‘gastarbeiter’ (people temporarily or unemployment in the country (20,8%), agri- permanently employed abroad) have an im- culture and land might, at least, be additional portant impact on the local economy. sources of income, if not the main means of

154 Neither Peasant, Nor Farmer. Transformations of Agriculture in Serbia after 2000 work. Apart from this, Gaj faces typical prob- of progress’ (Leonard and Kaneff 2002, 7). lems of Serbian villages such as high mor- In their study on rural sociology of ad- tality rate, aging, outflow of youth, negative vanced societies, Buttel and Newby (1980) population growth and increasing number of summarize the theoretical problems the 8) For more single persons (man=402, women=253)8. discipline has had since its beginnings. One information on local population, see: 'e locals’ everyday life is very much theory from the 1930s that had dominated http://www.selogaj. centred on 12 different agricultural, cul- the discipline for many generations was on rs/?page_id=103 tural, sport and artistic associations, which the rural-urban continuum and originally demonstrates their very developed sense of came from Sorokin and Zimmerman (1929). belonging, and awareness of political and 'is theory influenced the anthropological social participation. 'e infrastructure is approach to peasantry (Redfieled 1947, Kroe- relatively solid due to the fact that it is one ber 1948). 'e idea of the rural-urban con- of the principal commitments of almost tinuum is based rather on generalizations on all representatives within the local council urban and rural societies that were inherited of Gaj. Very o%en it may be heard that Gaj from classical political economic theories. It represents an avant-garde village in com- emphasizes specific characteristics of both parison to other nearby villages due to its societies such as occupational, cultural and very developed political, social, cultural, social, which, overall, were not obstacles for economic activities and infrastructure. their parallel survival and development. Such With all its facets, the village of Gaj is perceptions of peasantry were o%en benevo- representative of the topic of this paper, that lent and sentimental and had nurtured an is, the transformation of agriculture a%er image of life which was lost in urban areas 2000. Later in the text, special attention long time ago. 'e main problem with this will be devoted to everyday strategies used approach was the recognition of the “specif- by the people from Gaj who predominately ic” culture of peasant societies, that ‘they are a work in agriculture. 'eir strategies point law unto themselves and cannot be account- to their understanding and adaptation to ed for, as are other social groups’, demanding, transformations in agriculture and, partic- therefore, special sociology for rural people ularly, to different state politics. (Buttel and Newby 1980, 7). Nevertheless, the step forward was made when the limitations of the rural-urban continuum approach were Lost in Modernization revealed and when it was subjected to ques- tioning (Lewis 1953). Many studies on peasantry have o%en In the 1960s, the rural-urban continuum emphasized general ideological or politi- approach slowly lost its impact. More and cal perceptions of peasants as backward, more scholars began to problematize the conservative, traditional, incapable of self- conditioning of space with specific types organization and of focused political activ- of social, economic and cultural behav- ity. 'e rural-urban dichotomies based on iour (Buttel and Newby 1980, 7-10). 'ey differences in quality and lifestyle between believed that ‘distinctive’ features of rural urban and rural areas, provisions of state, and urban society actually exist in both so- market and health services, infrastructure cieties equally, meaning that space does not problems etc., made rural areas become sub- necessarily determine social, cultural and ordinated to the urban centres (see Leonard economic behaviour. ‘Any attempt to tie and Kaneff 2002; Ellis 1988). However, the patterns of social relationships to specific notions of subordination and rural-urban geographical milieux is a singularly fruit- dichotomy are the common tread in all less exercise’ (Buttel and Newby 1980, 8). classical theories of the peasantry, while Despite different attempts in the aca- ‘peasantry itself is presented as the antonym demia to deconstruct the image of the peas-

155 Jovana Diković

antry, the perception that there is an essen- *** tial peasant nature, most likely because of Transition in many East European coun- the still very strong influence of socialist tries brought on new discourses on moder- and classical economic political theories nity and progress based mainly on liberal that have created such image (Leonard and democratic values and free market (see Hann Kaneff 2002, 26), is generally still present. 1997; Leonard and Kaneff 2002). 'e same Peasants became part of communist ide- occurred in Serbia. As mentioned before, ology in a very particular way. Since Marx- some of the goals of the new democratic gov- ism was the first total ideology with definite ernments and the Ministry of Agriculture vision of the world, the place of peasants were modernization of outdated concepts was determined by their backwardness. of ‘mixed’ worker-agriculture households, Marxism and, later on communism, ad- privatization of state enterprises and collec- vocated the transition of peasants into in- tive cooperatives, large investments into irri- dustrial workers. 'e final result was sup- gation systems, rural infrastructure, updat- posed to be the abolishment of their private ing agricultural mechanization by providing property, intensified state industrialization state-subsidized loans, and subsidizing ag- and collectivization of agricultural produc- ricultural production10. Even a slight look at tion. One of the aims was also to liberate different development policies and Strategy peasants from their ‘chains’, i.e. land, sub- for Agriculture Development (2014 - 2024) of sistence production and strong family and the Ministry that have been published since kinship relationships. Liberation also im- 2001, reveals they are very suggestive of the 9) The image of plied increasing awareness of political ac- Ministry and the state as important actors peasants in Serbia is strongly embedded tivism, participation and organization of who are going to ‘fund’, ‘help’, ‘stimulate’ in both national history and politics. peasants. On the other hand, classical eco- or ‘subsidize’ different agricultural sectors. They had often been nomics was very critical towards traditional Within these policies, the state is presented used in different political campaigns reliance of peasants on subsistence produc- as a benevolent partner of the agricultural throughout the en- tion and small and middle-sized land plots, producers rather than as a tax collector, tire 20th century (see Naumovic 1995). believing that, under such conditions, profit thus aiming to humanize the perception of Nevertheless, on the global level, peas- maximization and achieving economy of the state. One of the obvious purposes was ants represented scale is almost impossible. building the new image of the relationship revolutionary and army forces, and, Even though there is causality up to some between the state and agricultural producers contrary to their sub- ordination to urban extent between space and social, cultural that are no longer on opposite sides, as it was centers, i.e. to the and economic behaviour, the main problem o%en the case in different stages of socialism. state, they were its main driving force. with the notion of peasantry today does not 'e term that describes the new level of It is understand- able, therefore, why rely in its particularities based on the urban cooperation is “partnership” between the different ideologies – rural dichotomy, but rather in the politici- state and agricultural producers. In the spirit wanted to tie up the desirable image of zation and instrumentalization of the notion of the new democratic politics, rhetoric and the peasant to their vertical value. of peasantry that is limited to several typi- growing political correctness, the term peas- fied or desirable images9. Bearing in mind ant was slowly replaced in public speeches 10) For more information, see: the predominately negative association that and addressing by the new term farmer. http://www.mpt. 'ere are several reasons for this. First, the gov.rs/articles/ comes along with the notion of peasantry, in list_titles/14/1/ the changed post-2000 political context, one term peasant has very strong negative con- agrarna-politika- i-ruralni-razvoj. of the aims of the official Serbian agricultural notations, as we have seen in the previous html?menu_id=55 agenda is to get rid of the category of peas- pages. Bearing in mind that “partnership” ants in favour of rural modernisation and implies mutual equal respect and coopera- progress, embodied in the new term – - tion between two parties, the term does not ers. We will now see why this process was apply anymore, since it usually refers to the highly problematic for parties, the state and social and economic inferiority and subor- agricultural producers. dination. Secondly, the term peasant with

156 Neither Peasant, Nor Farmer. Transformations of Agriculture in Serbia after 2000 all its connotations can hardly be associated be defined as “privatization of the state” or with the modernisation discourse. 'e term “emergence of the private state” (Hibou 11) The term 11 “farmer” in the farmer had become more suitable instead . 2004). Ruling elites, either state bureaucrats 'e state, i.e. the Ministry of Agriculture, has or political representatives, private actors, has strong semantic connotations and is taken over the role to intensify education and tycoons, foreign middlemen and other parts associated with big to organize courses, workshops, conferences of the hierarchy of ‘private state’, actually use professionalized, private independent and seminars aimed at improving knowl- the space that used to belong to the state, (it is agricultural holdings like those that exist edge, skills and economic performance, and not anymore or it is a semi-state due to inef- in the U.S.A. to assist the smooth transition of peasants ficient law regulations or non-existing laws). towards professional farmers. 'at is the space where the whole machinery On the other hand, agricultural produc- of different actors, based on non-transpar- ers have had representatives in the National ent, semi-private or private contracts and fa- Peasant Party in the parliament since 2012. vours, emerges. In one word, that is the space 'e party was founded in 1990 and, until that is being privatized. 2012, has had significant ideological and 'e agricultural producers feel their in- 12) In 2012 this inner-party transformations, from social terests are being neglected and subordinated party was in coalition democracy to far-right12. Agricultural pro- to those of the ruling elites. A large number with the Serbian Progressive Party ducers have been organizing themselves of informants and representatives of local that won elections ff agricultural associations from the village of and formed the mainly since 2005 / 2006 within di erent government. sorts of agricultural associations, and have Gaj usually complain about the low protec- participated to some degree in deliberating tion state provisions, the lawless state in the and dra%ing of agricultural laws. agricultural sector, the uncontrolled opera- Looking from the outside, everything tion of tycoons regarding privatisation and seems to be ideal. However, the main prob- lease of state land and so on. Interestingly, lem lies in the fact that the whole new agri- among agricultural producers themselves, cultural ambient seems transformed only on there is one predominant belief that those the surface. 'e real causes of such state are who run agricultural associations want to deeper and go back to the 1990s when the become the part of the “system” and to profit process of privatization started. 'e party from different acquaintances by supporting in power (the Socialist Party of Serbia – SPS) the party in power. 'at is indicative of local 13) Many informants at the time was building its own structure of or republic elections, particularly in the pe- said that campaign- interests, based on the “economy of favours”, riod of campaigns. 'e last local elections in ers were bribing people in accordance both financial and logistical. Many of the 2013 in Kovin municipality were particularly with their social status. Roma and former managers of successful socialist en- important for agricultural associations, sim- pensioners, for in- terprises, politicians, parts of intelligence ply because they should have indicated and stance, were getting packages containing and criminal clans, joined in one common anticipated the results of republic elections. meat, sugar, oil and Judging according to campaigns, the local other food supplies, goal: to support the regime in power, i.e. the or they got free regime of Slobodan Milosevic. Ever since, elections were taken very seriously. Many ophthalmological and cardio check- cartelized economy has started to develop, campaigns were not o%en in accordance with ups. Indoctrination while former socialist agricultural enterpris- democratic standards. Bribing and electoral of agricultural producers was more es, state and collective land, were among the indoctrination of potential voters seemed subtle. It was often accompanied with first interest spheres where new business class to be most successful among Roma and ag- gifts in shape of a of so-called tycoons started to dominate. ricultural producers13. 'eir voting capacity small bag consisting of a cup with the 'is state of affairs has continued a%er dem- was very important, if not decisive, on the lo- candidate`s face on it, his program and a ocratic changes in 2000, while these struc- cal level because it might have contributed to pencil. Campaigners tures have become stronger, more complex the perpetuation of the “system” in the sense were secretly leaving those bags in front of and sometimes even absolute (cf. Ledeneva Ledeneva is using it (1999). the doors of agricul- 1999). Instead of the post-socialist “retreat” Such a situation creates actual political tural producers. of the state, the process that emerged could isolation of one part of agricultural popula-

157 Jovana Diković

tion that does not have proper representa- identity shi% in peasants in the sense that tives, neither within agricultural associa- they have become ‘highly skilled in manip- tions, nor within political parties. 'erefore, ulating the peasant label for their own pur- agricultural producers o%en feel they are le% poses. Rural inhabitants apply the term to on their own which, actually, fosters their themselves when it suits them and distance perception of semi-independency on one themselves from it when they feel it is not side, and encourages them to rationalize appropriate’ (Leonard and Kaneff 2002, 34). some of their manipulative acts on the other, Specific political, economic and identity which will be later analysed in more detail. adaptations to the current state are particu- Further on, ambitiously-conceived agri- larly obvious in the agricultural producers’ cultural policies since 2001 were supposed daily routine and business. 'erefore, in the to imply a high level of responsibility and following pages, everyday strategies which professionalism on both sides, institutions reflect the essence of above-described ten- and their representatives, and agricultural sions between agricultural producers and producers. But the current situation in the the state will be presented and analysed. agricultural sector is very contradictory. 'e most common example is the imposi- tion of standards and new rules of doing the “Partnership”:

14) The most business in agriculture without actual laws the Upper Level of cooperation recent case is very that would support and protect parties, in- illustrative. The state 14 advocates different stitutions and agricultural producers. In Taking the risk of expressing very strong sorts of economic statements, it seems that the “partnership” associations (and an institutional sense, there is no predict- among others, ability which is conditio sine qua non for between the state and agricultural produc- agricultural), but the law on associations their successful functioning. 'at is how ers is very much based on manipulative and cooperatives a paradox of empty modernization and strategies from both sides. On the part of has not yet passed the parliament progress emerges, where that which needs the state, it is the matter of uncontrolled procedure because of re-drafting and to be changed remains almost intact, while machinery of the “system” which cannot editing since 2005. improvements are either individual (spon- be turned off easily, while on the side of This law would define the terms, taneous or intended) achievements, or are agricultural producers, it is the matter of rights and obliga- tions of parties that side-results of a “system”-based machinery. minimizing the risk and coping with un- want to enter the In other words, those who are part of the certainty. Here are presented a few of the association. “system” may enjoy the fruits of advocated most common examples of everyday ma- modernization and progress. nipulative strategies applied by agricultural As a consequence, agricultural produc- producers from Gaj. 'ey are also chosen ers who remain outside the process do ben- because they illustrate the weaknesses of efit from it in the sense that they do not have the state in controlling and coping with the to perceive responsibility towards the state corruption and misuses of different sorts. and its institutions as highly obligatory. 'ese examples, on the other hand, can be In such moments, the old label of peasant interpreted as agricultural producers’ ex- has its applicable value. 'e label peasant, pressions of resistance to the current state burdened with a lot of negative meaning, of agriculture, to the local and republic bu- in semantic connotation does not comprise reaucrats and, more generally, to the “sys- the idea of professionalism and business re- tem”. However, the main reason for their sponsibility as the label farmer does. 'at is manipulative strategies is access to differ- probably due to the decade-long neglect by ent resources (whether state or market), or the state, and, more importantly, their even maximization of existing resources. longer status of “special”, “autonomous”, 'e most common type of manipulative “conservative” and “traditional” parts of so- strategies among agricultural producers ciety. Leonard and Kaneff summarized the appears in the sphere of agricultural state-

158 Neither Peasant, Nor Farmer. Transformations of Agriculture in Serbia after 2000 subsidies and market access. 'e subsidies ing into the tax payment system. Instead, ag- are aimed at agricultural producers who ricultural producers find a third confidential cultivate between 0.5 ha and 99 ha. But, person who appears as the nominal seller and in reality, people who also use these sub- whose bank account is used for the respective sidies actually cultivate more than 100 ha. money transfer. 'ey usually transfer a half or more of their However, the following example, even property to their family members, who are though not connected to manipulative also registered as agricultural producers, or, strategies of agricultural producers, actual- only nominally, as a separate agricultural ly summarizes the most common problem. household at a different address, but, actu- 'at is the issue of tycoons in almost all big- ally, all family members within the same ger villages of Vojvodina and their tremen- household benefit from the subsidies. dous influence on politics. 'is was one of On the other hand, agricultural produc- the main reasons for the foundation of the ers who cultivate a far less amount of land Association of Agricultural Producers from usually employ other strategies regarding Gaj. 'e triggering event was when the own- the subsidies. At the end of a year, agri- er of the agricultural company 7th July got cultural producers o%en seek recourse for the state land on lease from Kovin (approxi- oil, fertilizers and seeds. 'e Ministry of mately 1600 ha), that belonged to the village Agriculture accepts only oil bills from one cadastral unit, without any public tenders favoured oil company that is more expen- and competition. Moreover, the monthly sive than its competition. In such a context, rent for the state land was far less than the people developed their own mechanisms for commercial price. 'e agricultural produc- acquiring oil bills from that company and ers within this Association organised them- also “the black market of oil bills”, which selves and protested against this decision in functions according to the trade rules of de- front of the city hall in Kovin in 2012. 'ey mand and supply. Moreover, they buy much informed the Ministry of Agriculture about cheaper smuggled oil for agricultural mech- this abuse, arranged media broadcasting anisation on the black market. and publicly and openly addressed the is- In the context of access to the market, sue. Likewise, apart from combating mo- for ordinary agricultural producers, buying nopoly, the reason of the Association was to cheaper seeds and fertilizers, as well as sell- create more transparent access to state land ing their products directly on the market, i.e. in accordance with commercial conditions, beyond private agricultural cooperatives that as well as to enable dispersion of the market are mediators between the producers and the and political participation on the local level. market, is not possible. 'eoretically, they can Even though the epilogue of this action re- sell their products directly to the stock mar- mains to be seen, this Association tried to ket, but they need to meet many demanding engage and to bring everyday problems in criteria such as large quantities, special con- agriculture to a higher level. ditions for storing and keeping crops which 'is example and other examples of almost no one can fulfil. Under such circum- manipulative strategies of the agricultur- stances, many producers do not have any oth- al producers of Gaj, as it has already been er option than to sell their products to a local indicated, rather depict coping with mar- cooperative for a lesser price than elsewhere. ket uncertainties and minimizing busi- Because of this, many producers develop ness risks, than tendentious frauds. 'eir their own illegal channels of buyers to whom acts are based on the rational and dynamic they sell their crops for a higher price. When planning of their lives in the long and short they sell a significant amount of crops, they term, by using the means at hand in a so- do not make legal money transfers through ciety which is unpredictable and burdened their bank account in order to avoid enroll- with serious economic and social problems.

159 Jovana Diković

According to Milles and Blossfeld, people *** living under conditions of uncertainty of- It seems that the “partnership” between ten use a dynamic, rational choice model in agricultural producers and the state is cur- order to ‘find the best action that fits their rently coloured by the latter’s distrust. 'is given beliefs and desires, to develop the is particularly evident in the situation of the most appropriate belief given the evidence so-called ‘neglectful’ state”15 when the state 15) Conditionally at hand, and to collect the correct amount does not have the institutional capacities to speaking, distinc- tions between the of evidence’ (Milles and Blossfeld 2005, 16). monitor, or to provide certain institutional “neglectful” state Applied to agricultural producers who and business ambient to agricultural pro- and the “uncon- trolled” agricultural use manipulative strategies, one common ducers, while, on the other hand, this situa- producers, and the “patronising” state argument might explain their actions. Al- tion favours the ruling elites of the “system”. and the “demand- most every day, they face unstable market Consequently, such state of affairs creates an ing” agricultural producers, appeared conditions, high inflation, strict regulations environment for uncontrolled operations of as my personal conclusion from the for access to the market, monopolization of agricultural producers who, by disobeying fieldwork experience prices and the market itself, frequent changes existing regulations, express their protest, and as the gen- eral impression from in agricultural policies, raising standards for resistance and professional dissatisfaction. over 70 in-depth % ' interviews. doing business in agriculture o en without e other side of the “partnership” be- proper laws, politicization of export-import tween the state and agricultural producers products, favouritism of different sorts and is also very contradictory in itself. Namely, so on. In fact, agricultural producers com- they understand what the market is and pensate for their professional dissatisfaction how it functions, particularly on the basis of by manipulating subsidies, by operating in demand and supply. Since 2001, the state’s the black market; by keeping open all formal role in agriculture has been, apart from pro- and informal means of access to different viding services (financial, infrastructure, resources and, finally, by protesting. Inter- institutional, educational), that of building estingly, many of the interviewed produc- the image of the trustworthy party agricul- ers agreed that they do not need subsidies to tural producers can rely on. In other words, improve their agricultural production, but to patronize agriculture. Even though one only predictable market conditions, rules of adopted principles in official agricultural and prices. Nevertheless, subsidies actually agendas was, nominally, free market ex- substitute losses and uncertainties in their change, the reality has proven the contrary. business, so all those who do not have the Very soon it was clear that there was a mo- official right to apply for subsidies by these nopolized market, with the high influence means want to protect themselves and their of politics on the exchange of goods, with investments in agriculture. On the other favoured export and import companies. hand, agricultural producers who manipu- Realizing that there is no free competition, late subsidies, or who, at the same time, deal agricultural producers have demanded pro- with formal and informal markets, rational- tection and guarantees in the sense that the ize their strategies with believes that entire state should provide fixed prices and regu- Serbian agriculture is “on their backs”, so lar purchase of their agricultural products. the pressure is huge, in addition to the con- 'is has created a paradox, because agricul- siderable harvesting risks. Unlike other pro- tural producers act according to free market fessions, in a number of cases, they do not rules in informal spheres (illegal markets), have any alternatives to agriculture, because while they demand more regulations in for- they were educated and trained only for ag- mal economic sphere. riculture. 'eir success or failure is directly 'e “partnership” between the state linked to their means of production, i.e. the and agricultural producers is, actually, the land, which, therefore, requires the calcula- litmus paper of a dysfunctional system tion of risks much in advance. where agricultural policies serve only to

160 Neither Peasant, Nor Farmer. Transformations of Agriculture in Serbia after 2000 meet the standards on the surface, while, In the later phase of agricultural transfor- in fact, promises of transformations and mation, one of the aims of development modernization have remained mostly in the policies was creating an environment where sphere of political marketing. And, instead the partnership between agricultural pro- of integrating agricultural producers in the ducers and the state would be recognised process, paradoxically, the process itself is as the common interest of both parties. moving away from them, as they do not Such cooperation was supposed to result in have enough political power to influence placing Serbia on the regional or even Eu- the change. ropean map of most competitive exporters of agricultural goods. 'e actual outcomes of this partnership turned out to be failed conclusion promises and hopes of the progress of Ser- bian agriculture. Whether because of the 'roughout the entire 20th century, the weaknesses of the state in controlling power agricultural sector in Serbia represented a and dominance of the ruling elites and their political issue and an ideological project. In interests, or the lack of institutional capaci- the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slo- ties, willingness and know-how blueprints, venes the first agrarian reform was aimed agricultural producers have not benefited at enabling ownership of land for landless significantly from having the state as their people and at strengthening capitalist pro- partner, or from supposedly liberated eco- duction relationships in agriculture. 'e nomic conditions. second agrarian reform in socialist Yugo- Serbian agriculture, under the domina- slavia was aimed at limiting private owner- tion of monopoles and cartelised economy, ship of land and at strengthening collective has not achieved its goal. It did not become and state-controlled production relation- one of the largest agricultural exporters in ships in agriculture. Post-socialist agricul- the region, or in the European Union. But tural transformation a%er 2001 has brought more importantly, as an everlasting ideo- ideas of professionalization of agricultural logical project, even in the 21st century, ag- producers, elimination of state agricultural ricultural producers still search for their own enterprises and collective cooperatives, free professional and social identity expression. market economy based on free competition So, for the time being, they are neither here, and, predominantly, on private ownership. nor there, neither peasants, nor farmers. bIbLIoGrAPHy

Bryceson D, C. Kay and J. Mooij (eds). 2000. Disappearing Gaćeša, N. 1984. Agrarna reforma i kolonizacija u Jugoslaviji Peasantries? Rural Labour in Africa, Asia and Latin America. 1945-1948. Novi Sad: Matica srpska. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Gaćeša, N. 1972. Agrarna reforma i kolonizacija u Banatu Buttel F. and H. Newby. 1980. !e Rural Sociology of the Ad- 1919 - 1941. Novi Sad: Prosveta. vanced Societies: Critical Perspectives. Allanheld, Osmun & Halpern, J. M. 1963. Yugoslav Peasant Society in Transition Co. Publishers. – Stability in Change. Anthropological Quarterly, Vol.36 (3), Ellis, F. 1988. Peasant Economies. Farm Households and pp.156-182 Agrarian Development. Cambridge University Press. Halpern, J. and Kerewsky-Halpern, B. 1972. A Serbian Vil- Erić, M. 1958. Agrarna reforma u Jugoslaviji 1918-1941. Sara- lage in Historical Perspective. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. jevo: Veselin Masleša. Hammel, E. A. 1969 a. Economic Change, Social Mobility, Gaffney, C. 1979. Kisker: 'e Economic Success of a Peasant and Kinship in Serbia. Southwestern Journal of Anthropol- Village in Yugoslavia. Ethnology, 18 (2):135-151 ogy, 25 (2):188-197 Gaćeša, N. 1995. Radovi iz agrarne istorije i demografije. Novi Hammel, E. A. 1969 b. Structure and Sentiment in Serbian Sad: Matica srpska. Cousinship. American Anthropologist, 71 (2): 285-293

161 Hammel, E. A. 1969 c. 'e Balkan Peasant: a View from Ser- Milošević, S. 2008. Agrarno pitanje – ‘sveto pitanje’: bia. In Peasant in the Modern World, ed. Philip K. Bock. Al- Ideološki okvir međuratne agrarne reforme u Jugoslaviji. To- buquerque: University of New Mexico Press. kovi istorije, 1-2: 149-171. Hann, C. (ed.) 1997. !e Postsocialist Agrarian Question. Naumović, S. 1995. Srpsko selo i seljak: Između nacionalnog Property Relations and the Rural Condition. LIT i stranačkog simbola. Glasnik Etnografskog instituta,SANU, 44:114-128. Hibou, B. (ed.) 2004. Privatizing the State. New York: Colum- bia University Press. Pavković, N. 2009. Banatsko selo: Društvene i kulturne promene Gaj i Dubovac. Novi Sad: Matica Srpska. Isić, M. 1995. Seljaštvo u Srbiji 1918-1925. Beograd: INIS. Redfieled, R. 1947. !e Folk Society. Chicago: Chicago Uni- Kroeber, A. L. 1948. Anthropology. New York: Harcourt versity Press. Brace. Republika Srbija Ministarstvo poljoprivrede, šumarstva i Ledeneva, A. 1999. Russia’s economy of favours: blat, net- vodoprivrede. 2009. „Nacrt strategije ruralnog razvoja 2010– working and informal exchange. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- 2013“. 1-73 versity Press. Sorokin, P. and C. C. Zimmerman. 1929. Principles of Rural- Lekić, B. 2002. Agrarna reforma i kolonizacija u Jugoslaviji Urban Sociology. New York: Henry Holt & Co. 1918-1941. Beograd. Spoor, M. 2012. Agrarian reform and transition: what can we Leonard, P. and D. Kaneff. 2002. Post-Socialist Peasant? Ru- learn from ‘the east’?. !e Journal of Peasant Studies, 39 (1): ral and Urban Constructions of Identity in Eastern Europe, 175–194 East Asia and the former Soviet Union. Palgrave Publishers. Spoor, M. (ed.) 2009. !e Political Economy of Rural Liveli- Lewis, O. 1953. Tepoztlan restudied: a critique of the folk- hoods in Transition Economies. Land, peasants and rural pov- urban conceptualization of social change. Rural Sociology, erty in transition. New York: Routledge 8:121-134. Tošić, D. 1959. Collectivization in Yugoslavia. Journal of Farm Economics, 41(1): 26-42. Milles, M. and H. P. Blossfeld. 2005. “Globalisation, Uncer- tainty and the Early Life Course: A theoretical Framework”. Čurović, O. 1998. „Agrar i svojinska transformacija“. In In Globalisation, Uncertainty and Youth in Society, ed. Bloss- Agroekonomika, 3-8. Novi Sad: Institut za ekonomiku poljo- feld H. P. et al., 24-46. New York: Routledge. privrede i sociologiju sela, Poljoprivredni fakultet.

162