Re: [PEN-L:3190] Re: Re: Re: Aztecs

["Anthony D'Costa" <dcosta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Raising peasant productivity would mean removal of "surplus" labor
(assuming MP of labor to be zero a la Arthur Lewis) and by extension
contributing to an urban industrial work force.  However, this stylized
structural transformation is problematic because of low industrial growth.
Going beyond urban industry, rising peasant productivity also means rising
income, i.e. greater marketable surplus of peasant output.  A lot
of peasants are net buyers of grain, securing the worst prices at
the time of harvest when distress sale takes place due to
indebtedness.  Because a large section of peasants eke out a living with
barely enough calories to go around, rising productivity means a slightly
higher standard of living in the rural areas and not necessarily leading
to rural-urban migration. Rising income also means off-farm employment,
rural transportation, infrastructure building, and various rural-based
industry.  In fact this is probably the best hope to make it worthwhile
for people to stay in rural areas in the absence of extensive, labor
intensive industrialization.

Anthony P. D'Costa
Associate Professor
Comparative International Development
University of Washington
1900 Commerce Street
Tacoma, WA 98402, USA

Phone: (253) 692-4462
Fax :  (253) 692-5612

On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Doug Henwood wrote:

> Sam Pawlett wrote:
>
> >raise peasant productivity
>
> If you do that, then don't you disemploy peasants?
>
> Doug
>
>