Rural Cooperation

Home , Community settlement, Local committee (Israel), Moshav, Moshav shitufi

JOURNAL

OF RURAL COOPERATION

Centre international de recherches sur les communautes cooperatives rurales International Research Centre on Rural Cooperative Communities ""~''''YJ ""'1~!) "')'TlP '1pn) 'tlU-C)-"3T1 t!)'1tlTl

CIRCOM

VOLUME 24 No.2 1996 CIRCOM, International Research Centre on Rural Cooperative Communities was established in September 1965 in Paris. The purpose of the Centre is to provide a framework for investigations and research on problems concerning rural cooperative communities and publication of the results, to coordinate the exchange of information on current research projects and published works, and to encourage the organization of symposia on the problems of cooperative rural communities, as well as the exchange of experts between different countries. Editorial Advisory Board

BARRACLOUGH, Prof. Solon, UNRISD, PLANCK, Prof. Ulrich, Universitat Geneva, Switzerland. Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany. CERNEA, Prof. Michael, The World POCHET, Dr. Carlos A., Universidad Bank, Washington, DC, USA. Nacional, Heredia, Costa Rica. CRAIG, Prof. Jack, York University, POHORYLES, Prof. Samuel, Tel Aviv Ontario, Canada. University, Israel. DON, Prof. Yehuda, Bar Ban University, SAXENA, Dr. S.K., Markham, Ontario, Ramat Gan, Israel. Canada. FALS BORDA, Prof. Orlando, Punta de SCHIMMERLING, Prof. Hanus, Lanza Foundation, Bogota, Colombia. Agricultural University, Prague, Czech KLATZMANN, Prof. Joseph, Institut Republic. National Agronomique, Paris, France. SCHVARTZER, Prof. Louis, Universidad MARON, Stanley, Kibbutz Maayan Zvi de Buenos Aires, Argentina. and Yad Tabenkin, Ramat Efal, Israel. SMITH, Prof. Louis, University College, NINOMIY A, Prof. Tetsuo, Kanazawa Dublin, Ireland. University, Japan. STAVENHAGEN, Dr. Rodolfo, EI PARIKH, Prof. Gokul 0., Sardar Patel Colegio de Mexico, Mexico. Institute of Economic and Social Research, STROPPA, Prof. Claudio, Universita di Ahmedabad, India. Pavia, Italy. Editor: Dr. Yair Levi Editorial Assistant: Daphna Bar-Nes

CIRCOM Information for Subscribers: The Journal of Rural Cooperation is a semi-annual periodical, aimed at the pursuit of research in the field of rural cooperation. Editorial enquiries and other correspondence should be addressed to CIRCOM, Yad Tabenkin, Ramat Efal 52960, Israel (Fax: +972-3-5346376). Subscription rate: $23 per annum (plus $2.00 sea mail; $6.00 airmail).

Vol. 24 No.2 1996

CONTENTS

1. ARTICLES Clegg, J. China's Rural Shareholding Cooperatives as a Form of Multi-Stakeholder Cooperation ...... 119 Giagou, D.l. and Rural Women and the Development of the Agritouristic Apostolopoulos, C. Cooperatives in Greece: The Case of Petra, Lesvos ...... 143 Levinger, P. The Cooperative Village in Israel: A Study of Flexibility in Settlement Administration ...... 157

2. BOOK REVIEWS Bangura, Y. Economic Restructuring, Coping Strategies and Social Change M. Sofer ...... 169 Colchester, M. Salvaging Nature: Indigenous Peoples, Protected Areas and Biodiversity Conservation M. Sofer ...... " ...... 171 G.E.S.A. (eds.) Peasantry, Cattle Breeding and Raising in Neuquen S. Gesser Schammah ...... 172 Manger, L.O. From the Mountains to the Plains: The Integration of the Lafofa Nuba into Sudanese Society G.M. Kressel ...... 177 Shah, T. Making Farmers' Co-operatives Work: Design, Governance and Management A. Arya...... 179 3. CURRENT INFORMATION Dissertation Abstracts...... 181 UNRISD Post-Conference Summary...... 185 The Cooperative Village in Israel: A Study of Flexibility in Settlement Administration

by Perez Levinger Yokneam, Israel

Abstract

Besides the widely known types of cooperative rural communities of Israel, the kibbutz, the moshav ovdim, and the moshav shitufi, there exists another one: the cooperative village (kfar shitufi, in Hebrew).1 Its farmers, lessees of state-owned land, are bound to be members of the local village cooperative. This supplies the services required for farming, at least provision of inputs and marketing of outputs, and members are obliged to use them. Social or municipal services may be provided by the cooperative or by a separate body. Residence in the community is not restricted to members of the cooperative. Neither members nor other residents are expected to hold identical socio political beliefs. Cooperation is a central tenet only in the area of farming. All other aspects of communal life are adaptable to changing conditions of place and time. Flexibility is the prominent aspect of the cooperative village compared to the other types of rural cooperative communities in Israel.

Introduction Cooperative villages constitute approximately five percent of all agricultural cooperatives (75 out of a total of 1530, Registrar, 1994) in Israel. Compared with the kibbutz and the moshav ovdim, the collective and the cooperative settlement, respectively, their quantitative contribution to cooperative farming is minor. From a qualitative point of view the picture is different. Some of the socially and economically most successful communities belong to their ranks. Their flexible structure makes adaptation to changing circumstances relatively easy. In the present crisis of rural cooperation this feature might well be worth studying. A liberal attitude is at the core of the principles underlying the structure and functioning of the cooperative village. Its central body, HaIchud HaChaklai or

1 An additional type, the community settlement (yishuv kehilati, in Hebrew), is a creation of the 1970s. Though registered as a cooperative, it is essentially a residential community and can be seen as an "rurban" phenomenon, i.e., a settlement combining rural and urban elements (see Newman and Applebaum, 1985).

Journal of Rural Cooperation, 24(2),1996:157-168 ISSN 0377-7480 © 158 P. Levinger

Farmers' Union2 leaves the individual member-cooperatives ample freedom, and the same is true of the relation between the local cooperative and its members. For this reason the Farmers' Union - henceforth FU - limits itself to the formulation and representation of interests common to its members and has remained restricted in scope and bureaucracy. This self-imposed limitation is the reason for the scarcity of analytical and statistical material on which to base a description. In the face of this dearth of documentation the example of one village, Yokneam (Levinger, 1993), will serve to show the scope, structure and function of cooperative villages and the role played by their central organization. The various models of Israeli rural communities have come into existence over time, beginning in 1882. Each was related to a preceding form, either by adopting or by rejecting its ideologies and practice, wholly or in part. As the cooperative village has come last, a short description of the salient points of the earlier constituted communities will serve to put into relief their relevant features. For this purpose the original mode of each type will be used as it has been formulated and practiced in its formative historical stage. Over the years a slow, even extremely slow, process of change has set in and eroded the early ideological principles. In the second half of the 1980s it gained momentum to finally take on the shape of a deep crisis. The evolving new model, especially of the moshav ovdim, may perhaps imitate that of the cooperative village. Chronology and typology of rural communities The various types of rural communities, however different in essential aspects, were united in one central issue: the return of the Jewish people to its ancient homeland. Without this motivation none of the various rural communities would have been created. But because this is common to all of them, its role can be excluded from a comparative description. First to be set up was the moshava, best to be translated by village, without adjective (Weintraub et ai., 1969; Ben-Arzi, 1988). Its founders were as a rule united by common origin and beliefs and had organized with the intention to found a village. The land they acquired was to be private property, though originally it may have belonged to some public company and be leased to the farmers. Residence in the village and ownership of land were open to everybody with no strings attached. No social or economic norms beyond those of the law of the land and central Jewish institutions were applied. Membership in local cooperatives was voluntary. Each served a specific purpose, like water-supply or saving and loan. A cooperative for municipal services was a practical necessity until, under the British mandate, local councils could be established according to Public Law.

2The English translation of the Hebrew "HaIchud HaChaklai", used by the organization itself, is a misnomer. It is not a union of farmers, but a central cooperative, whose members are the local cooperatives. Cooperative Village in Israel 159

The moshava served as a negative model for all the cooperative forms to be presented below - the kibbutz, the moshav shitufi, the moshav ovdim and the cooperative village - because it gave preference to the private over the communal sphere. There were additional reasons, which do not touch on our subject. The founders of the kibbutz and the moshav ovdim were utopian socialists, who perceived the founders of the moshava as capitalist employers, very often of cheap Arab labor, financially supported by the Rothschild family and dependent on the directives of its officers. Contrary to this, their settlements were to be free from exploitation, and independent. The kibbutz was born thirty years later, shortly before the first World War, but was institutionalized in the early twenties. In its quest for equality it subjected the individual to the collective. Legally it is constituted as a cooperative, the owner of the means of production and all other capital goods. Employment of wage-labor is ruled out. Members contribute according to their ability to the common good and receive according to their needs. Their freedom of choice and action is limited by the will of the collective. The moshav ovdim or cooperative settlement has its origin in the early twenties, shortly after the kibbutz and in reaction to it. Some of its founding fathers were former members of a kibbutz. Like the kibbutz, its cooperative is an all-village one, encompassing a locality and all its permanent residents. The cooperative has an organizational monopoly and its activity included all services needed by its members, as far as they can possibly be rendered in a rural community. Farmer-members lease their land from the Jewish National Fund, and since its foundation in the 1950s, from the Land Authority, the cooperative acting as intermediary. Here ends the similarity with the kibbutz. Production and consumption are the affair of the individual household, which, though advised and supported by the cooperative, is responsible for the management of its economic and financial affairs. In contrast to the kibbutz, the moshav has preferred liberty to equality. In contrast to the moshava, land is only leased and not privately owned, the employment of wage-labor is not admitted and membership in the cooperative of the smallholder is inseparable from residence and obligatory. The moshav shitufi originated as an attempt at combining the kibbutz and the moshav ovdim. From the first it took collective production and from the latter, individual consumption. In addition to sharing in the community services in proportion to aggregate collective income, members are remunerated in cash for their consumption in proportion to family size. The first moshav shitufi was established in 1936 and by 1993 there were 49 such cooperatives in Israel. Though originally intended to combine the advantages of large-scale production of the kibbutz and those of family privacy of the moshav ovdim, the growth of the moshav shitufi remained relatively limited (Kraus, 1982). 160 P. Levinger

The kibbutz, the moshav ovdim and the moshav shitufi make up the "cooperative settlement" characterized by the dual role of the cooperative committee whose members perform at the same time also as members of the local municipal committee (Levi, 1975; Ottolenghi and Levi, 1990). According to the original model, all three patterns ("the workers' settlements") belonged to country-wide organizations, in tum affiliated with the Histadrut, the General Federation of Labor. All their members were automatically members of the same. Moreover, most kibbutzim and moshavim identified themselves with one of the socialist political parties, each according to his particular ideology. The cooperative village stood aloof from these organizational and ideological features. The cooperative village originated in reaction to the rigidity of the above pattern, especially with regard to the moshav ovdim, henceforth called simply moshav. Although registered as a cooperative society, the dual role of the committee is not a statutory requirement and the settlers may be organized, if they decide accordingly, under a cooperative committee and a local municipal committee as separate bodies. The first cooperative village, established in the mid-1930s, found the field dominated by the above four models, mainly the last three. Like its predecessors it took some features from those which had come before it, from the moshava and the moshav, but not from the kibbutz. As already mentioned, the story of one village belonging to this type may serve to illustrate its characteristics. The story of Yokneam The first stage. The village is situated in the northwest comer of the Jezreel Valley and was founded in December 1935. A public company, the Palestine Land Development Company - henceforth PLDC - had bought the land from an absentee landlord, a resident of Beirut, and sold it in parcels of fifty dunam (about twelve acres) each consisting of five plots. The moving force behind the purchase and later the sale of parcels was Yehoshua Hankin, one of the directors of the company, venerated as the "redeemer" of land in Palestine for Jewish settlement. The new village was to be constituted as a moshava with land to be the private property of the planned two hundred and fifty settlers. In addition to the farmers there would be workers with small plots of land to supplement their wages with homegrown food, and suburban residents who would constitute a ready market for the farmers' products. No provision had been made for the administration and organization of the future community. Neither was there a core-group of settlers with a common background, which might take charge of the moshava. The plots were relatively cheap and terms of payment easy. The buyers belonged to the lower middle-class. Most of them had just enough money to pay the first installments and to start the future farm. They wanted to realize their dream of being farmers in the old-new country without being subjected to the strict rules of a socialist settlement. The new moshava would neither Cooperative Village in Israel 161 be tied to the strings of any organization or political party nor enjoy assistance and support by them or by Zionist institutions. It was to be less organized and more independent than the average moshava. Nevertheless, the first step of the first settlers, on the eve of taking possession of their land, was the constitution of a cooperative. At the time it was the only way to provide vital services like education and security, and to represent the village vis a vis authorities and national institutions. Membership in the cooperative was voluntary, but even non-members acknowledged its authority and paid the fees it levied. This was the spirit of self-discipline and voluntary action in a cooperative framework, which extended even to the moshavot (plural of moshava). In the coming years three more cooperatives were to be founded. One for savings and loans, soon wound up, as there was not enough income in the village to be deposited into it. Another cooperative, a consumer one, linked to the Histadrut, functioned for thirty years. The most important was "Agra Yokneam", an agricultural cooperative, founded in 1940 and destined to be the means of the future transformation of Yokneam from a moshava into a cooperative village. Seven years after foundation, Yokneam found itself on the verge of ruin. The original plan of a large village had never been realized. In the beginning seventy families had settled, but their number diminished from year to year. There were four main causes to be accounted for. First, the irrigatable land, which should have formed the base of the farm, had been retained by the sharecropper-tenants of the original absentee Arab landlord and was handed over to the settlers only piecemeal. This thwarted any attempt at economic farming. Second, the outlay of the village and the farms with the great distances between their five plots, proved a serious obstacle to the cultivation of a family-farm. Third, the dangerous security situation, especially in the first years, discouraged potential settlers from joining the village and caused some to leave. Last but not least was the lack of institutional and financial support, so essential to the success of a rural settlement.

The second stage. In the face of the deepening crisis of the village, a group of members of the agricultural cooperative "Agra Yokneam" - hence "Agra" - resolved to change course. Their first step was to find out if the moshav ovdim movement would accept Yokneam into its ranks. They were briskly rebuffed. There was no room for a village which could not exactly conform to their model. The group now turned to the head of the Department of Settlements of the Middle Class of the Jewish Agency, Dr. Ludwig Pinner, under whose auspices the first cooperative village had been formed. After three years of painful negotiations an agreement was reached in 1945. Agra joined the ranks of the cooperative villages and their central organization FD. One condition, and one only, had to be fulfilled: settlers who joined, had to transfer their private land to the Jewish National Fund and become its lessees. All 162 P Levinger new farmers were to join the cooperative and settle on land belonging to the Fund. There were to be changes in the outlay and the composition of the parcels. The Fund took upon itself to compensate the Arab tenants and free the land for the Jewish settlers. Settlers would receive financing and support according to the norms and practice of the Department. The pertinent fact, from the point of view of the present article, is the measure of flexibility shown by the FU, whose ranks Agra had joined, and by its apex organization, the Department for Settlement of the Middle Class. Only part of the residents of Yokneam were members of Agra. Even after more then fifty new settlers had joined, there remained a significant minority of non-members. In the same year 1945, when negotiations for reorganization had been concluded, the original cooperative for municipal services was replaced by a local council established by the government. The cooperative had no organizational monopoly. The question of political or ideological affiliation of members was never raised. For practical reasons the cooperative continued to market the products of its members through the marketing organization of the workers settlements and not through the one affiliated with the FD. The original settlers, who had opted for Yokneam because the moshava would leave them a maximum of freedom, had no difficulty to adapt to the liberal rules of the cooperative village. In certain cases cooperation was even extended to farming itself, which usually belonged to the realm of the individual farmer. This cooperative farming had purely practical reasons. Its adoption proves that the cooperative and its members adapted to circumstances, without ideological commitments or restrictions.

The third stage. The fact that Agra Yokneam was allowed to join the FU, proves that this organization was all but dogmatic, and served as an umbrella under which communities with a similar outlook could find a place. By the beginning of the 1950s, the process of reorganization and admission of new members had been completed and the cooperative functioned as a full-fledged cooperative village. The Registrar of Cooperatives acknowledged this fact by approving a change of name from "agricultural cooperative" to "cooperative village". However, along with Agra, there remained still those veteran settlers who had never joined it. For this reason the local council remained in force as a separate body in charge of municipal functions. Yet, because the cooperative included the majority of the residents and constituted the dominant economic force in the village, any far reaching action of the council needed the consent of the cooperative. In this way, the third stage, the coexistence of the cooperative village with a fledgling town in the framework of the local council, came about. The central planning authority of the government had decided that a town should be built on the hills adjoining the village, to serve as a center for the whole district. As a first Cooperative Village in Israel 163 step a temporary tent-camp was erected next to the village, whose inhabitants, new immigrants, were to build the town and inhabit it. This happened in· 1950, before most of the settlers had the time to overcome the difficulties of the first years of farming. The camp housed nearly ten times the population of the village. The cooperative village Yokneam shouldered together with the local council the difficult task of absorption of the new population and the development of the future town. It consented, in practice, to risk co-habitation of their farming village with an urban developing township. Most moshavot were glad to undergo urbanization as a consequence of the influx of a large non-farming population. The cooperative village of Yokneam, on the other hand, believed that it could coexist with the town, without losing its cooperative and rural character. Twelve years of coexistence of the village and the town under the joined local council proved this belief right. This rural-urban coexistence was unique in that the urban element constituted the overwhelming majority, making the members of the cooperative village a small minority. But nobody in the FU thought of expelling Yokneam from its ranks. Eyebrows were raised, strong doubts were expressed over the outcome of the experiment. Yet, due to the liberal spirit prevailing there was no interference.

The fourth stage. In 1962 the elected committee of Agra came to the conclusion that in the face of a new agricultural policy of the government, the economic future of the farms and the rural character of the village were endangered by the above coexistence. The committee convinced the members that a separation was vital. After prolonged negotiation the Ministry of the Interior agreed to incorporate the village into the adjoining Regional Council of Meggido, which comprised kibbutzim and moshavim. Yokneam was to be its only cooperative village. In this stage, which lasted from 1967 until the mid-1980s, Yokneam came nearest to the "ideal type" of cooperative village. Members constituted the vast majority, but there were still enough non-members to make the election of a separate "local committee" necessary. This fulfilled the municipal functions, formerly exercised by the local council. As before, there was a separation of functions, but now the cooperative was the real power in the village. It managed all the economic and financial services needed by its members. It built reservoirs for the storage of rain water and purified sewage from Yokneam township and a neighboring town. It grew cotton and maize for silage, irrigated with stored water. It systematically drained the heavy soil and every autumn allocated land according to the changing requirements of members' farm. In short, it achieved a high degree of cooperation according to the best interests of its members. All the time, however, there was a trickle of newcomers settling in the village. Homesteads originally bought in the 1930s and left vacant were acquired by second 164 P Levinger sons of farmers and by urbanites, none of them joining the cooperative. Over the years the number of these non-members first equalled and then exceeded that of members. The process strengthened the position of the local committee. The addition of new residents had in the beginning been actively promoted by the cooperative in order to strengthen the community; but it contained a potential threat to the predominance of the cooperative in the village.

The fifth stage. In this stage, which began in the mid-1980s, the crisis affecting the whole cooperative agricultural sector of Israel, caused a retrenchment in the activities of the cooperative village. The crisis has its deeper roots in changes in the Israeli society, which shifted from idealization of cooperation to models of privatization prevalent in the Western world. The accelerated mechanization and capitalization of farming, concomitant with the crisis, caused a steady shrinkage in the number of active farmers. But Agra managed to avoid the quarrels which threatened a good many moshavim with disruption and even led to the liquidation of some. The flexibility, which had made it possible to adapt to different situations in the past, proved itself again at this divisive stage. Concurrently with this reduction in the scope of cooperative activities and in the number of active farmers, an acceleration occurred in the growth of the local population. None of the newcomers joined the cooperative. This continues to function as the only organized part of the community. As lessee of the agricultural land and as owner of the local water-net it has an important position. Because non-agricultural services have always been separated from the cooperative, the newcomers are easily absorbed into the community. Up to the present there has been no attempt to change its character, of which the restriction on housing policy is an essential component of the cooperative village. But it is evident that the change in the composition of the local population, in conjunction with the increasing demand for new houses emanating from the urban environment, threaten the existing balance of power in the community. Many moshavim are in the process of doubling the number of their residents. The newcomers will be householders, not members of the original cooperative settlement. This will have to disinvest itself from communal institutions and services and transfer them to a new public body. Its monopoly of local organization will come to an end. Only the future will show how the new division of power will work. The cooperative village has the advantage that it can absorb newcomers into an existing framework of divided competences (Applebaum and Shoresh, 1981). The cooperative village - A characterization The guiding principles of the cooperative village can now be deduced from the foregoing description of Yokneam. Comparison with the moshav model will serve Cooperative Village in Israel 165 to underline the special features of the cooperative village (Yearbook, 1990; Levi, 1978). Flexibility and a liberal attitude underlie the concept of the cooperative village, as compared with the rigidity of the moshav blueprint. A belief in the value of cooperation is common to both. Beyond this there are only two conditions for a rural community to be considered as a cooperative village and accepted as a member of the FU. Land has to be leased from the Land Authority - formerly from the Jewish National Fund - and the farmer-tenant must be a member of the local cooperative. The latter provides production inputs and markets outputs, and members are due to use these common channels. Beyond these minimal services the cooperative village adapts itself to any services, as requested by members or thought advantageous by union officers, even in the realm of production. Based on the strength of a cooperative village fulfilling these conditions, the Registrar of Cooperatives has classified it as a moshav. This classification is misleading, for the cooperative village in reality is different from the moshav model. This has, however, important practical consequences. Cooperative villages enjoy the same tax-exemptions granted to cooperative settlements, and on the other hand are bound by the same norms and laws, which restrict the freedom of disposition over their rights of tenancy. These stipulate that the farm is indivisible and that in the case of transfer of tenancy the new tenant must be accepted as a member by the cooperative instead of the former tenant, who leaves it. The cooperative village differs from the moshav in the way it interprets and applies these legal restrictions. In general, the moshav will give preference to the interests of the cooperative. The cooperative village, on the other hand, safeguards the interests of the individual member, who sells his farm. This different attitude is conspicuous in the present discussion over the question, whom the land should be leased to, the farmer member or the cooperative. The federations of cooperative settlements prescribe to their member-cooperatives a uniform answer: land should be leased to the cooperative, with the exception of the homestead, which should be leased to the member himself directly. In this way the member will be sub-Ieasee of the cooperative in his farmland, and the cooperative keeps its dominance. The FU, on the other hand, recommends - not prescribes - that the farmer member should be the leasee of all his land and not a subleasee of the cooperative (Report, 1985). Residence in the village is not limited to members of the cooperative and public servants, as has been the case in the moshav settlements till the very last years. In practice the number of non-members is usually small. But as has been shown in the case of Yokneam, it may also be greatly superior to that of members. Neither has agriculture ever been the only allowed occupation as in the moshav. This relative openness has enabled the setting-up of a separate municipal authority, alongside with the cooperative. Here is one of the main differences between the cooperative 166 P. Levinf{er village and the classic moshav settlement, where the monistic system of management confers to the all-village cooperative a an almost organizational monopoly, and where non-members are excluded from participation in the direction of the local administration, including taxation (see Ottolenghi and Levi, 1990). Since the 1980s non-members in the moshav settlements have had recourse to the court in order to gain due representation in the direction of municipal affairs, and achieved a favorable ruling.3 The cooperative village has been more democratic from the start. A belief in the intrinsic value of cooperation united the members of the first community to found a cooperative village in the year 1933. As the story of the first stage of Yokneam has shown, the cooperative was the preferred mode of association even in the moshava, but only as a means of attaining specific tasks. In the cooperative village the cooperative is an all-purpose means to be used according to the will of its members. Members are not expected to have identical beliefs in social or political matters. Herein lies another essential difference from the classical moshav which expected its members to hold and practice identical beliefs in harmony with those prevalent in the respective political party. The resulting independence from political parties deprived the FU and the villages of the patronage, so important in the Israeli society, as a means of access to resources distributed by a powerful center. On the other hand, such an independence enabled the growth of community-life based on the tolerance for differing opinions and lifestyles, and the solution of crisis situations through compromise. The FU, with the support of the Department for Middle Class Settlements followed the example of the Histadrut - affiliated Labor settlements by founding its own central economic institutions. The villages were supposed to use them, but in practice felt free to act in accordance with their own best interest. Yokneam, as we have seen, used the competing marketing organization of the Histadrut Labor-sector. Some of the biggest villages set up their own outlets. None was in any way punished by the center. In the same way, the obligation of members to buy and market by means of the cooperative was not strictly enforced, in cases it could be detrimental to the member. The ongoing process of privatization in the last years has undermined this whole monopolistic system in the moshav sector. The farms of cooperative villages had been planned to be worked by the family, but it was not forbidden to use hired labor, as was the case in the moshav. The process of differentiation in the composition of families and in the scope and set up of the farms opened the door to the employment of labor in both the moshav and the cooperative village. In the latter no ideological or statutorial hurdle had to be overcome. The moshav hurt itself, against a central tenet of its original socialist ideology.

3The recent crisis of the moshav and the actual trends towards the expansion of settlements to benefit a nonfarming and non-member population, is likely to strengthen the regional council at the detriment of local municipal committees and to change the classical organizational set up of the rural cooperative sector in the country. Cooperative Village in Israel 167

Conclusion For a village to be counted among the cooperative villages and accepted as a member of their central organization, its farmers have to be members of a local cooperative, providing all kinds of services needed for their farms. Members are expected to fulfill the obligations inherent in membership, especially to act in accordance with rules democratically determined by the cooperative. The acceptance of the principles of cooperation is the sole ideology common to all members. Each individual is free to act in all other matters according to his convictions. The community is united by a spirit of liberalism, which gives it flexibility in crisis solution. Residence in cooperative villages is not restricted to members of the cooperative. Where the percentage of non-members in the community is considerable, a separate organization is in charge of social and municipal services. The following scheme illustrates the flexibility in the structure and functions of the cooperative village.

Table 1. Flexibility in the cooperative village The Farmers' Union "- Cooperative Villages /~ Type one Type two • The cooperative has organizational • The cooperative shares power with a monopoly. municipal body. • All residents are farmer members or • Residents are farmer members and employees of the cooperative. non-members in various occupations. • Services supplied by the cooperative • The cooperative supplies agricultural comprise all kinds required for and by services as under type one. members plus social and municipal • A separate municipal body supplies ones. The latter are supplied by a social and administrative services. sub-committee ofthe cooperative.

At the time of writing, there were twelve type-two villages out of a total of 75 (16%) (information from the FU).

References Applebaum, L. and Shoresh, D. "Trends of change in the cooperative organization of rural communities in Israel". Journal of Rural Cooperation, 1981,9:97-108. Ben-Arzi, Y. The Jewish Moshava in Erez Israel 1882-1914. Jerusalem, Yad Yizchak 168 P Levinger

Ben-Zwi. 1988 (Hebrew). Kraus, M., Applebaum, L. and Degani-Zemel, J. "Marginality as a Reason for Limited Development of a Particular Pattern of Settlement: The Case of the Moshav Shitufi in Israel". Journal of Rural Cooperation, 1982, 1O:97-11l. Levi, Y. "A Methodological Framework for the Classification of Rural Cooperatives in Israel". Journal of Rural Cooperation, 1975,3:119-129. ___. "The Uniqueness of the Kfar Shitufi". Hameshek Hachaklai. Tel Aviv. February 1978, p. 37 (Hebrew). Levinger, P. Yokneam: An Unconventional Village, 1935-1985. Yokneam: The Local Committee, 1993 (Hebrew). Newman, I. and Applebaum, L. "The Role of the Cooperative in the Development of Rurban Settlements in Israel: Some Organizational Problems". Journal of Rural Cooperation, 1985, 13:27-39. Ottolenghi, S. and Levi, Y. "The Dual Role of the Moshav Committee: Its Essence, Limitations and Legal Aspects." Journal of Rural Cooperation, 1990, 18:151- 165. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs. Cooperation in Israel 1993. Jerusalem, 1994. Report of the conference of delegates of the Farmers Union, 6.11.85 (Hebrew). Weintraub, D., Lissak, M. and Atzmon, Y. Moshava, Kibbutz and Moshav. Ithaca: NY, Cornell University Press, 1969. Yearbook of the Farmers Union. Tel Aviv. May 1990 (Hebrew).