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). ISSN 0377·7480 Copyright © 1996 by Circom, Israel JOURNAL OF RURAL COOPERATION 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