Family Farming: Persistence, Decline Or Transformation ? Curtis Warren Stofferahn Iowa State University
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 1985 Family farming: persistence, decline or transformation ? Curtis Warren Stofferahn Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Part of the Social Psychology and Interaction Commons Recommended Citation Stofferahn, Curtis Warren, "Family farming: persistence, decline or transformation ? " (1985). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 12110. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/12110 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting througli an image and duphcating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duphcate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of "sectioning" the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again-beginning belov/ the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. Universi^ Micrcxilms International 300N.Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 8524700 Stofferahn, Curtis Warren FAMILY FARMING: PERSISTENCE, DECLINE OR TRANSFORMATION? Iowa State University PH.D. 1985 University Microfilms Intern stionsi 300 N. zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 Copyright 1985 by Stofferahn, Curtis Warren All Rights Reserved Family farming: Persistence, decline or transformation? by Curtis Warren Stofferahn A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department: Sociology and Anthropology Major: Rural Sociology Approved : Members of the Committee; Signature was redacted for privacy. Signature was redacted for privacy. In Charge of Major Work Signature was redacted for privacy. For the Major Department Signature was redacted for privacy. For the Graduate College Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 1985 Copyright (C) Curtis W. Stofferahn, 1985. All rights reserved. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION v MARXIST PERSPECTIVES ON FAMILY FARMING 1 Introduction 1 Three Perspectives 3 Theoretical Questions 24 Dissertation Outline 34 SECTION I. PROLETARIANIZATION, REGRESSION, AND CONCENTRATION: A REVISED PERSPECTIVE OF SIMPLE COMMODITY PRODUCTION 40 Purpose 40 Two Processes of Exploitation 42 Three Mechanisms of Appropriation 52 Combined and Uneven Development 60 Late Capitalist Evolution of Simple Commodity Production 69 Summary 77 SECTION II. COMBINED AND UNEVEN DEVELOPMENT OF SIMPLE COMMODITY PRODUCTION IN LATE CAPITALISM 85 Introduction 86 Previous Studies 87 A Revised Theoretical Perspective 89 Late Capitalist Evolution of Simple Commodity Production 91 iii Setting and Data 99 Measurement 100 Hypotheses 103 Discussion 105 Summary 117 SECTION III. THE FUTURE EVOLUTION OF SIMPLE COMMODITY PRODUCTION IN LATE CAPITALISM; AN APPLICATION OF A MARKOV CHAIN MODEL 136 Introduction 136 A Revised Perspective of Simple Commodity Production 137 Late Capitalist Evolution of Simple Commodity Production 140 Propositions 148 Setting and Data 148 Measurement 149 Markov Processes 151 Methodology 155 Analysis 157 Discussion 160 Projections of Numbers of Farms 161 Conclusions 163 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION 181 REFERENCES 185 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 194 iv APPENDIX A: MARX ON GROUND RENT 196 APPENDIX B: MARXIST METHODOLOGY 201 APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY 204 APPENDIX D: MARKOV MODEL 221 First-Order, Finite, Discrete Stationary Markov Process Model Estimated From Micro Data 221 First-Order, Finite, Discrete Stationary Markov Process Model Estimated From Aggregate Data 222 APPENDIX E; DATA 233 V DEDICATION To my great-great-grandparents and great-grandparents who left Germany and Norway to become family farmers in a new land, to my grandparents who passed on the family farming tradition, and to my parents who fought to maintain that tradition. 1 MARXIST PERSPECTIVES ON FAMILY FARMING Introduction Family farming usually has been considered a form of simple commodity production (SCP) left untouched by capitalist development. Under this perspective, the family farmer is considered an independent producer owning both the means of production and the product of his labor. However, all SCP forms are transitional according to Marx's theory of capitalist development, which sees them as organizational residues of a former stage. Eventually, the family farm will be replaced by capitalist forms of production based upon the hired employment of landless laborers, Marx's theory argues. Therefore, the persistence of family farming within advanced capitalism has presented a problem for a Marxian analysis of agricultural development. Capitalist forms of production dominate almost all sectors of the U.S. economy; however, agricultural production is still predominantly based upon the family farm.^ Consequently, American agriculture has been considered an aberration, "a production system that is capitalist society without being of it -- a productive sector that has somehow resisted the intrusion of capitalist relations" (Davis, 1980:135). The persistence of family farming is used as evidence for the lack of capitalist development and has called Marx's theory of the transitional nature of SCP and the universality of capitalism into question. It also has been offered as evidence of the inapplicability of Marx's theory of capitalist development to agriculture (Soth, 1957:24). 2 In general, Marxist theories assume that the analysis of capitalism is relevant to agricultural development. Therefore, the persistence of the family farm does not invalidate Marx's theory (Davis, 1980:136). From this, one may posit two possible outcomes; the orthodox perspective, which predicts the imminent demise of family farming; and the revisionist perspective, which predicts the persistence of family farming. The "imminent demise" perspective finds support for Marx's theory of capitalist development in the changing structure of American agriculture. Under this perspective, the survival of the family farm is only temporary; i.e., its institutional extermination by capitalism has been retarded but not prevented. 2 The "persistence" perspective finds its support in two theoretical approaches. One explains the persistence of family farming by the 3 barriers to capitalist development of agriculture; the other explains it through family farming's integration into the larger capitalist sphere of exploitation and control. Under the first perspective, one assumes a lack of capitalist development in agriculture ; this idea is common to both the orthodox Marxist and barriers to capitalist development perspectives. The second perspective assumes universal capitalist development but does not assume that family farming and capitalist development are incompatible. Instead, this perspective holds that family farming persists because it 4 has been the basis of capitalist agricultural development, serves the primary objectives of capitalist production,^ or is otherwise necessary 3 to the accumulation of urban capital. These perspectives are representative of the diversity of Marxist theory in explaining family farming. Denis (1982) suggested clarifying the issue by regrouping the literature on the basis of its theoretical approach. This classification consists of three broad categories, each reflecting a somewhat different perspective. The first (orthodox Marxism) is based on Marx's law of value and his analysis of ground rent. The second (specificity of dominated forms) corresponds to the more recent literature on the articulation of modes of production. The third (integration and exploitation) focuses on exploitation of agriculture. This introduction reviews the three perspectives and comments' upon their limitations. From