new challenges in the sociology of rural development: a rejoinder to peter vandergeest

NEW CHALLENGES IN THE SOCIOLOGY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT A Rejoinder to Peter Vandergeest

NORMAN LONG and JAN DOUWE VAN DER PLOEG+

About ten years ago, one of us (Long 1977: 186-187) argued that, despite obvious differences of theoretical and ideological position, dependency and neo-marxist theories of development exhibit some of the same conceptual weaknesses as those adopting a modernization perspective. Both approaches are tainted by determinist, linear and externalist views of social change. We have recently restated this critique in an appraisal of theoretical work on ‘commoditization’ (see Long et al. 1986). But in the latter we take the criticisms one step further by stressing (a) the need to consider how different types and degrees of commodity exchange affect the everyday lives of simple commodity producers, whether rural- or urban-based, (b) the theoretical importance of explaining structural var- iance in respect to farmer strategies and patterns of agricultural development, (c) the necessity of analysing more fully the nature of intermediate structures and networks that link the farmer to the wider economic and political environment, and (d) the need to understand the complex ways in which peasants or farmers may ‘resist’ the impact of commodity relations, or actively seek to maintain or, indeed, create non-commodity forms.

Peter Vandergeest now extends this critique to document in more detail the similarities, differences and analytical shortcomings of the 1960’s ‘commercialization’ literature and the recent ‘commoditization’ perspective on agrarian development. H e aims not only to expose the inade- quacies of these two contrasting theoretical approaches, but to stimulate a dialogue between them so that we might move beyond the current impasse in neo-marxist development sociology (Booth 1985).

Vandergeest’s paper is one of the first systematic analytical compari- sons of these two bodies of literature and offers fresh insight into both old and new theoretical and practical problems. While acknowledging his important contribution, we would like to comment further on several of the issues he raises. We will also put forward our own views on how to

* Dcpvunent of Sociology of Rural Development, Agricultural University Wageningen, The Netherlands

Sdologia Ruralis 1988. Vol. XXVIII-1

31

develop a rationale for an agenda of research aimed at integrating actor- oriented and structural types of analysis.

.

‘Both schools failed because they failed to get their history right’

At several points in his argument Vandergeest criticises both commercialization and commoditization writers for failing to ‘get their history right’ -a catchy phrase but in fact ambiguous. Is it that both schools have failed to provide an adequate historical analysis of agrarian change, or to locate themselves within the history of the intellectual debates on development, or perhaps, as Vandergeest implies in certain passages, that neither school has successfully brought together theory and practice in ways that have significantly shaped the outcomes of planned development?

Each of these opens up a distinctive set of problems for discussion. The first points to a major shortcoming of both schools, namely the tendency to resort to ideal-typical models of agrarian change based on the notion that ‘development’ signifies the movement from some kind of *tradition- al’ social order or ‘natural economy’ towards a fully market-integrated ‘modern’ type of agriculture where farmers behave according to a supposed ‘logic of markets’. This, as Vandergeest rightly stresses, reduces the working out of historical processes to a simple deductive logic, which can in no way explain the great variety of forms, directions and rhythms of agrarian change.

The second issue (which is much less explicitly discussed by Van- dergeest) poses the question of how far commercialization and commoditization writers have fed off debates within their own school and how far they have reacted to or benefitted from ideas from the other’s research tradition. According to him, ‘the commoditization literature developed out of a critique of capitalism and of history as written by commercialization writers’ (p. 8); yet, rooted in marxist ideology and therefore deeply distrustful of bourgeois thought, it was never able to incorporate the findings of ‘liberal social theory’. On the other hand, commercialization writers simply absorbed the growing evidence on the negative social effects produced by agricultural modernization programmes and adjusted their models. The net effect then has been that each theoretical perspective has remained largely a world unto itself.

While we are in broad agreement with this line of argument, Van- dergeest’s claim that commoditization theory arose as a critique of commercialization literature seems to underplay the internal discussions within marxist and neo-marxist circles. The growing focus on commoditization issues was primarily a response to the shortcomings of Chayanovian, Leninist and Althusserian conceptions of the peasantry and its transformation under capitalist development, not so much a reaction to developments in the commercialization literature. Although recent com-

32

moditization theorists may not have been entirely successful, especially with respect to the reconceptualization of peasant and simple commodity forms of production under capitalism, the contributions of writers such as Friedmann (1981), Chevalier (1982: 106-176), Gibbon and Neocosmos (1985), and Bernstein and other contributors to MacEwen Scott’s recent collection on Rethinking Petty Commodity Production (1986), form part of a long-standing marxist debate about the nature of capitalist development. Indeed, at times, some authors become so completely wrapped up in the exegesis of this debate that they lose sight of the need to make a break with orthodoxy and forge new lines of enquiry and theorization.

The third interpretation raises the issue of the relation between theory and practice. Here Vandergeest takes the view that ‘the commercialization school failed to get its history right and therefore failed to formu- late an effective program of intervention’ because it became involved in the legitimation of ‘global cold war politics’ (p. 20). One really wonders what ‘effective intervention’ could possibly mean in this context! As Vandergeest himself indicates, the World Bank, IMF, USAID, etc. have invested enormous resources and political leverage in the promotion and management of programmes essentially based upon the commercialization approach. And this holds true whatever development language or slogan prevails at the time (e.g. the ‘Green Revolution’, ‘Integrated Rural Development’, or the notions of ‘rural employment generation’ and ‘income generating projects’; see Wood, 1985). Thus theory and practice have been combined to restructure the economies and social realities of Third World countries. In this way commercialization theory has created its own history of effective intervention which continues to have a major impact on the course of development both in Third and First World countries.

O n an intellectual level modernization theory is far from dead: note the work by Hayami and Ruttan (1985) aimed at revitalizing commercialization arguments through proposing a model of ‘induced innovation’ which aims to identify the conditions for sustained growth in agricultural productivity, while allowing for considerable variation in ecology and resource endowment between regions and countries, and taking into account differences in institutional and technological developments. As Beckford (1984) - one of the few ‘radical’ political economists to comment directly on Hayami and Ruttan’s work - points out, this type of model building neatly skirts all the problems of the structural persistence and reproduction of patterns of underdevelopment. Noteworthy, how- ever, is the fact that Hayami and Ruttan’s model and other similar ‘revi- sionist’ writings of the commercialization school have as yet largely gone unchallenged by commoditization theorists.

33

O n the ‘dialogue between two schools’

A certain optimism pervades Vandergeest’s discussion. He assumes that, in spite of their ideological differences, the theoretical gap between the two schools of thought can be bridged, leading to some kind of ‘renewal of commoditization theory’ (p. 21). He proposes that the way forward for resolving the theoretical problems in the sociology of rural development is to be found in the convergence of certain aspects of the commercialization and commoditization models, although he does not identify exactly what these complementary elements are, nor does he discuss how one might integrate them conceptually.

It is not enough simply to spot the parallels and possible complementarities between these different intellectual traditions and to call for more dialogue between them, hoping that some kind of ‘renewed’ commoditization theory will emerge. Such a plea overlooks their fundamental differences of political philosophy and practice. Commercialization theory, including all its fancy new variations such as integrated rural development, induced innovation, and so on, is used by power elites and by international capitalist interests to promote and legitimize their particular interests and perspectives. It might be argued, therefore, that in so far as complementarities can be detected between commercialization and commoditization theories, then surely these point to a major shortcoming of the latter: namely it has not yet developed a powerful enough critique of the basic assumptions of commercialization theory or of orthodox development economics. This, we believe, to be one of the major theoretical and political challenges for future research in the field of rural development.

Decontaminating commoditization theory of modernization assumptions

One of the main reasons why commoditization theory has failed to develop a convincing critique of this kind is (as we suggested above) that, like commercialization theory, it often operates with an ahistorical and unilineal model of agrarian change. Basic to both is the assumption of a kind of zero starting-point for development characterized by a general lack of commoditization or integration into markets. Beyond this point ‘development’ is assumed to take place, leading progressively through distinct forms and phases of commoditization to the point where, as Bernstein (1986: 36) expresses it, ‘the extension of commodity production is historically complete’, by which he means that production units and individuals are unable to reproduce themselves outside the commodity economy and thus are linked into the dynamic of capitalism. The implication here is that as commoditization proceeds, so the non-com-

34

modity side of the economy dwindles in significance, representing as it were the progressive movement away from what Bernstein (1979: 436) calls the ‘intrinsic backwardness of simple commodity production’.

There is no need to challenge at length the validity of these assumptions. Suffice it here to point out that many years ago the famous French historian, Marc Bloch (1939) discussed the supposed contradiction between Pconomie-nature, and tconomie-argent and concluded that it was un pseudo-dilemme. In the history of European agriculture there simply never was a natural economy, and the same goes for the notion of some kind of endpoint to the process of commoditization. As recent research clearly indicates, the degree of commoditization of various factors of production and reproduction for highly ‘modernized’ agricultural systems in the Po Valley of Italy, as well as in the Netherlands, varies considerably (van der Ploeg 1986: 43; 1987: 88-94). Indeed in certain crucial respects (e.g. labour, credit or the reproduction of genetic material) involvement in the market might even be lower than we find in Third World, so-called ‘peripheral’, situations. Contemporary European farmers it seems are as interested as any other agriculturalists in maintaining a balance between commodity and non-commodity relations. They are not the ideal-typical agricultural entrepreneurs, fully committed to ‘the logic of the market’, as agricultural economists and policy-makers often assume.

It follows therefore that a ‘renewal’ of commoditization theory neces- sitates that we purge ourselves of these ‘developmentalist’ assumptions and work out ways of developing a comparative research methodology for describing and explaining the differential patterns of farm development and commoditization within and between specific agrarian pop- ulations. Differential degrees of commoditization and the changing balance between commodity and non-commodity relations (e.g. based on community, family, or other social networks) should not be interpreted simply as indicative of stages in the processes of agrarian development. Nor should they be seen simply as the response to some external ‘logic’ based on the market or on the ‘needs’ of capital accumulation. The variable patterns we find partly result from the strategies of farm management devised by specific farmers or categories of farmer and their households for resolving the problematic situations they face. One critical set of factors in resolving these livelihood problems is how best to combine commodity with non-commodity relations. It would appear therefore that any serious analysis of commoditization processes must include a consideration of the role of farmer/householder strategies in the production and reproduction of agrarian structures. This is true both at the level of explaining. particular patterns of farm/household organization and at the level of the distribution of these strategies within the popuIation as a whole.

35

‘Sparse treatment of transformations in the political dimensions’

One puzzling assertion in Vandergeest’s review of the commoditization literature is his claim that there is ‘sparse treatment of transformations in the political dimensions as represented by state formation’.lp. 22). This he links to his argument that the focus on commoditization itself ‘betrays an economistic bias’. While one may agree with him concerning the second point, it is difficult to sustain the first. Several writers have ad- dressed the question of how, for example, state intervention and policy have promoted commoditization. For instance, we have Bernstein’s (1981) and Raikes’ (1978) treatment of the development of the state in Tanzania which sees the state as a major motor of change, pushing cultivators and households into commodity markets and creating the conditions for opening up new areas of commodity production and undermining the reproductive autonomy of the peasant household; and there is a host of similar political economy studies for other parts of Africa. For Latin America we have de Janvry’s (1981) extensive analysis of how shifts in agrarian policy have contributed to the ‘destruction’ of the peasantry and to the resolution of periodic crises in the process of capital accumulation. And then, Friedmann’s (1 978) interesting discussion of the effects of state policy on farm settlement and on commodity production in the wheat zone of North America.

‘A particularly thorny problem’: the status of non-commodity forms

In attempting to resolve the theoretical dilemma of the existence of non-commodity forms within capitalist social formations, Vandergeest turns to the work of Chevalier (1982). Chevalier argues, on the basis of field data from eastern Peru, that it does not matter whether land, labour, or products actually enter markets (i.e. are sold or purchased), they may nonetheless be regarded as ‘commodities’, since it is conceiveable that they might be sold or purchased if the peasant household deemed it economically advantageous to do so. Such commodities he calls “subsistence commodities”: They ‘are exchangeable (though not necessarily exchanged) for money and contain a definite quantitv of value. The peculiarity of “subsistence commodities” is that they never enter the sphere of circulation, not because they are not exchangeable, but rather because their “abstract” value can be best realized through direct con- sumption by the producers themselves’ (Chevalier 1982: 118-9). Cheva- lier goes on to maintain that although these items do not pass through the market, their ‘calculable value’ is transferred to products that are sold on the market.

In order to sustain his argument, Chevalier has to assume that exchange calculations in fact determine economic decision-making ; or, as Van- dergeest expresses it, that ‘bourgeois categories penetrate economic strat-

36

egies’ (p. 17). Yet from the text it is not at all clear how far Vandergeest goes along with this argument, although the amount of space devoted to Chevalier suggests that he considers the contribution an important one. Our own view is that Chevalier’s argument is contorted and unacceptable: in order to explain, for example, why farmers do not sell their land (in a situation where, empirically, land is very rarely sold or purchased) is it necessary to resort to the idea of exchange calculations making it economically better to hold onto land? To do this without giving adequate weight to such factors as a family’s or group’s social attachment to land or interest in independent farming, is to reduce all other kinds of social value to zero. In a recent paper, Friedmann (1986: 188) stresses the same point when she emphasizes the necessity of taking into account the family farmer’s ‘com- mitment to a way of life’ and his fear of becoming proletarianized.

A further problem with the Chevalier-type of.solution is that it pre- vents the researcher from making any significant contribution to the solution of the practical problems faced and defined by small-scale farmers and their organizations. Why bother to help increase the autonomy o r bargaining power of farmers vzs-2-vis banks, agribusiness, and the state, if in the end everything can be reduced to the concept of commodity and exchange calculations! If many non-commoditized forms reveal themselves to be ‘subsistence commodities’ then surely there is little room for other forms of social value? Moreover, if other social values are encoun- tered, then they simply function to provide a camouflage for and make more acceptable the processes of capitalist penetration and control.

DEVELOPING A RATIONALE FOR A ‘NEW AGENDA OF RESEARCH

Vandergeest’s critical appraisal of the commercialization and commoditization literatures invites one to consider what a future agenda of research on the sociology of rural development might look like. As Van- dergeest seems to imply, such an agenda would seek to combine an interest in actor strategies and differential responses to change with an appropriate historical-structural framework of analysis within which to situate the behaviour, ideas and dilemmas of the various actors experi- encing the processes and outcomes of capitalist intervention and social change.

The final section of our comments, then, sketches out a rationale for developing such an agenda. In it we assume four main research foci: (a) the analysis of agrarian transitions, (b) the study of the impact and implementation of development policy, (c) the study of household livelihood strategies and rural enterprise, and (d) the sociology of agricultural production and knowledge systems. We cannot of course lay out fully the various concepts and analytical issues one would need to address in order to explore these topics, only give a flavour of the varying levels of analysis required.

37

Agricultural development is many-sided, complex and often contradic- tory in nature. It involves different sets of social forces originating from international, national, regional and local arenas. The interplay of these various forces generates specific forms, directions and rhythms of agricultural change. When we talk of ‘patterns of agricultural development’ we include these various structural and temporal aspects, and we aim to isolate the specific factors responsible for the differential processes and outcomes observed.

Some concept of ‘agrarian structure’ is necessary in order to identify and classify the types of agricultural development patterns, the forms of interaction between different sectors (agrarian and non-agrarian), as well as the specific ‘driving’ forces. Agrarian structure includes not only the set of technical, natural resource and production factors involved in a particular farming system but also the legal and political institutions supporting the system, the rural-urban relationships, marketing structures, and the wider economic parameters. Linked to this are the notions of ‘regional structure’ and ‘regionalization’ (Long & Roberts 1984). Agrar- ian change often evolves in the context of particular types of regional settings and therefore it is important to develop analytical frameworks for a better understanding of regional socio-economic and political structures. The importance of regional units is further underlined by the fact that regional planning has become a powerful instrument, shaping regional conditions, dynamics and potentials.

We also need some concept of the ‘state’ along the lines of Skocpol’s (1979) view that we should concentrate upon the ways in which the state, through its various development programmes and organizational structures, attempts to control territory and people. One should distinguish between different functions of the state: the state as ‘protector’, as ‘ar- bitrator’, as ‘cohesive force’, as ‘facilitator’, as ‘investor’; and we should recognize the extent to which the state’s capabilities are conditioned by developments in the national economy and class structure, and by changes in the international situation. But our main attention must be directed towards understanding how the actions of the state concretely affect the lives and life-chances of the rural population and how, in turn, the character of the state and its policies are affected by the actions of its constituent elements, including the farming population. We should avoid at all costs a reification of state institutions and actions.

Understanding these issues necessarily entails developing modes of analysis for studying administrative processes and the work and strategies of bureaucrats, especially in respect to the bottom-end of the agricultural bureaucracy. Such analysis should look at problems of access to and rationing of services, as well as the forms of ‘labelling’ (e.g. of target groups etc.) practised by administrative, planning and technical person- nel. We also need to refine our understanding of the organizational styles

38

and the ‘transformation of policy’ during implementation. These dimensions can be integrated into a framework of studies dealing with types of rural development ‘interface’ (Long 1984).

At another level it is crucial in characterizing agricultural systems to define and analyse the relevant operational or management units with respect to agricultural production, the family-household enterprise, and the patterns of distribution and exchange. Much of the literature avoids the complexities of this issue by simply equating the farm with the household enterprise and failing to study the internal divisions of labour based upon gender and age. There is also a failure to analyse systematically the intermediate structures that lie beyond the farm gate and that link the farmer and his household to the wider social system (Benvenuti 1985). Central to one’s research on agricultural production and rural economies, then, is the analysis of different types of labour process and enterprise, including within this not only farm activities but also domestic-household and off-farm activities. We should also give attention to isolating the basic resource-management units and to the question of intermediate structures, such as interhousehold confederations, farmers’ networks, vertically- integrated systems based on contract farming or farmers’ cooperatives. As our recent volume on The Commoditization Debate brings out, these dimensions relate to theoretical issues concerning the character and significance of ‘commoditization’ and ‘externalization’ (i.e. the delegation of production and reproduction functions to external bodies). Types and levels of commoditization and externalization undoubtedly affect scales and specialization of enterprise, degrees of capitalization and styles of enterprise management, but much more systematic work on this is required.

Linked to this issue is the interrelation of ‘commoditized’ and ‘non- commoditized’ relationships in agriculture. This is an important unre- solved topic of research since many of the theories of agrarian development assume that the logic of the peasant farm is simply undermined by commodity relations.

This issue merits special attention, and raises the necessity of analysing how farmers and householders manage their particular life-worlds and develop their own ‘projects’. Since these farmer- or householder-initiated strategies draw upon and may reshape existing socio-cultural resources, it becomes important to introduce into this type of research an appreciation of how particular cultural repertoires or social organizational resources create or constrain choice. Research on farm labour and enterprise must also be set within an account of changing economic and political conditions, thus enabling us to relate micro-level research on enterprise organization and farmer strategy to larger scale questions of agrarian transi- tion.

The concern for farmer, entrepreneur and bureaucrat strategies implies

39

attention to cultural dimensions. This entails, on the one hand, a study of the types of conceptual and ideological frameworks that orientate their behaviour and strategies, and on the other, the sets of social relationships (e.g. social networks, groupings, and ties with colleagues or seniors) that structure their everyday interactions. These cultural and interactional elements are essential for studying agrarian development processes and problems, since they help us to explain differential strategies towards and outcomes of apparently similar structural conditions.

One way in which one can take up these cultural dimensions is through the study of agricultural knowledge systems. This work should draw upon the sociology of knowledge and cognitive anthropology to analyse how farmers or other actors generate, reproduce and transmit knowledge that is relevant to agricultural practice. Such studies must focus, in part, on the schemes of classification used by farmers for structuring production, organizing crop reproduction or recruiting a labour force. They should also bring out differences that exist between sectors of the farming population or between men and women or persons of different age groups. In the same way, one can examine the conceptual schema among agricultural scientists or extensionists for dealing with farming matters. Exposing the underlying assumptions and rationales of these various knowledge systems and the bases for their reproduction (e.g. the institutions and interactional networks that function to maintain them), we believe, reveals the points at which the conceptual models and expectations of the different actors coincide or collide (Arce & Long 1987; van der Ploeg 1987). Through this one learns a lot about the ideational impact of new tech- nologies or the incorporative power of existing local cultural frameworks.

This understanding of differing (and possibly conflicting) knowledge systems and ideologies is central to the analysis of rural development interface. The interactions between government or outside agencies involved in implementing particular development programmes and the so-called recipients or farming population cannot, we maintain, be ade- quately understood through using abstract conceptions such as ‘state- peasant relations’ or by resorting to normative concepts like ‘participa- tion’. These interactions should be analyzed as forming part of ongoing processes of negotiation, adaptation and transfer of meaning between defined social groups and individuals. Interface analysis entails not only an understanding of the struggles and power differentials between the parties involved, but also an attempt to reveal the cultural dynamics of these encounters between differing ‘world views’. This is a difficult research topic but one which is central to developing an actor-oriented perspective on the implementation and results of agrarian development policy.

The above discussion represents only a start in formulating the kind of research agenda needed for a revitalized sociology of rural development.

40

This agenda is large in scope and contains a built-in tension between theoretical and practical or policy concerns. It is a difficult task to carry out, but one which Vandergeest’s contribution, like good Dutch gin, provides the courage to embark upon.

NOTE

* These comments were written at the invitation of the Editors and with the consent of the author.

REFERENCES

ARCE, A. & N. LONG (1987), The dynamics of knowledge interfaces between Mexican agricultural bureaucrats and peasants: a case study from Jalisco. Boletin de estudios Latinoamericanos y el Caribe, 43: 1-25

BECKFORD, G.L. (1984), Induced innovation model of agricultural development: Comment, in C.K. EICHBR & J.N. Srurz, eds., Agricultural Development in the Third World (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press)

BERNSTEIN, H. (1979), African peasantries: a theoretical framework, Journal of Peasant Studies, 6: 421-443

BERNSTEIN, H. (1981), Notes on state and the peasantry, Review of African Political Economy, 10: 50-73

BERNSTEIN, H. (1986), Is There a Concept of Petty Commodity Production Generic to Capitalism? Paper presented to the XIIIth European Congress for Rural Sociol- ogy, Braga, Portugal

BLOCH, M. (1939), ficonomie-nature ou 6conomie-argent : un pseudo-dilemme, Annales d’Histoire Sociale, I@), 7-16

Boom, D. (1985), Marxism and development sociology: interpreting the impasse, World Development, 10,60-73

CHEVALIER. J. (1982), Civilization and the Stolen Gift: Capital, Kin and Cult in Eastern Peru (Toronto and London: Toronto University Press)

FRIEDMA“, H. (1978). World market, state and family farm: social bases of household production in the era of wage labour, Comparative Studies in Society and History,

FRIEDMANN, H. (1981), The family farm in advanced capitalism: outlines of a theory of simple commodity production in agriculture, Paper presented to the Thematic Panel, Rethinking Domestic Agriculture, American Sociological Association, Toronto

20,545-586

FRIEDMANN, H. (1986), Patriarchy and Property, Sociologiu Ruralis, XXVI (2), 186-193 GIBBON, P. & M. NEOCOSMOS (19851, Some problems in the political economy of ‘African

Socialism’, in H. BERNSTEIN & B.K. CAMPBELL eds., Contradictions of Accums- lation in Africa: Strdies in Economy and the State (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications)

HAYAMI, Y. & V. RUTTAN (1985, new edition), Agricultural Development: An International Perspective (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press)

J ~ R Y , A. DE (1981), The Agrarian Question and Refonnism in Latin America. (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press)

LONG, N. (1977), An Introduction to the Sociology of Rural Dwelopment (London: Tavistock)

LONG, N. (1984), Creating space for change: a perspective on the sociology of development, Sociologia Ruralis, XXIV, (3/4), 168-184

41

LONG, N. & B. ROBERTS (1984), Miners, Peasants and Entrepreneurs: Regional development in the central highlands of Peru (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

LONG, N., J.D. VAN DER PLOEG, C. CURTIN & L. Box (1986), The Commoditization Debate: Labour Process, Strategy and Social Networks. Agricultural University Wageningen. Paper of the Departments of Sociology, No. 17

MACEVEN S C O ~ ; A. ed. (1986), Rethinking petty commodity production. Special Issue of Social Analysis: Journal of Cultural and Social Practice. No. 20, December

PLOEG, J.D. VAN DER (1986), The agricultural labour process and commoditization, in LONG, N. et al. (1986)

PLOEG, J.D. VAN DER (1987), De werzuetenschappe&jking wan de landbouwbeoefening. Agricultural University Wageningen. Paper of the Departments of Sociology, No. 21

LIKES, P. (1978), Rural differentiation and class formation in TanzaniaJournal of Peasant Studies, 5 (3), 285-325

SKOCPOL, T. (1979), Statesand Social Revoltrtion: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

WOOD, G. (1985), Labelling in Development Policy (London: Sage Publications)

new challenges in the sociology of rural development: a rejoinder to peter vandergeest

Documents