Reactions to the Market: Small Farmers in the Economic Reshaping of Nicaragua, Cuba, Russia, and China

1. Theoretical Backdrop

1 The Theoretical Backdrop Profound economic crises characterized Nicaragua and Cuba in the early s. Despite their sharing a socialist orientation toward policy making during the s, the strategies that each government later pursued to address the crisis differed significantly. These strategies reflected the overall political economic orientation of their respective governments. In Nicaragua, the structural adjustment implemented in response to the crisis was geared to open up the economy to the international market and to eliminate all barriers to the market that might exist. A central part of this effort was the renewed emphasis on production for export. Traditional and nontraditional agro-export products were to be prioritized, as well as nonagricultural exports. Domestically oriented production, and producers, had to quickly find means of vying against the massive influx of imported goods or perish. Given that most small farmers engaged in domestically oriented production, they were subjected to the fierce winds of international competition at the same time as they were cut off from receipt of any of the government ’s increasingly limited forms of support for agricultural production. The result was that they (as producers) and their production became more marginalized . Many, if not most, of them were forced to withdraw into subsistence farming. Nicaragua’s new policy makers did not look to this sector of production to play any kind of major role in agricultural development or in economic development more generally, and their policies toward small producers reflected this.     In contrast, with the economic crisis facing Cuba’s policy makers in the early s came the recognition that bold initiatives would have to be adopted if the regime, and Cuban socialism with it, were to survive. An early manifestation of the crisis was the shortfall in food imports, as well as of the imported inputs required for Cuba’s large-scale agriculture. Hence, local food production became a priority, especially over the next few years, as did those who were most efficient at its production—small farmers. Many incentives were set in place—including the most critical of all, being given access to land—for those who were willing to move into agriculture from other sectors of the economy, triggering peasantization.1 Far from considering small farmers to be only social subjects whose welfare would have to be protected to some extent, in the s, Cuba’s policy makers also came to consider them to be important economic actors with the potential of contributing to the country’s agricultural—and, therefore, economic—development. The transformations Nicaragua and Cuba underwent in the s paralleled changes set in motion in two significantly larger socialist states on the other side of the globe, Russia and China, respectively. Russia engaged in a rapid retreat from socialism with the collapse of socialism there and in Eastern Europe. Structural adjustment (SA) measures were adopted in all sectors of the economy, with agriculture being among the most hard hit by them. As a consequence, output plummeted, and a return to subsistence production was widespread. Clearly, only those who were willing to take up the challenge, in risky and difficult times, to become capitalist farmers were perceived to be economic actors. The remainder were left to fend for themselves . China’s policy makers saw their peasantry in quite a different light. Given their sheer numbers, and their centrality in ensuring political and economic stability, their role in reconfiguring socialism, which was initiated shortly after the death of Mao Zedong, was taken much more seriously by China’s reformers. Although agriculture was not envisioned as a leading sector of China’s new economy, its crucial contribution to that economy was not underestimated . Thus, a variety of means were adopted to try to improve the performance of this sector and with it the lives of the multitudes of China’s small farmers. These began with increases in the prices paid for agricultural produce and improvements in the terms of trade between agriculture and . The term peasantization is used herein to refer to the movement of people who had not previously taken part in agricultural production into it.     industry and went on to include the momentous downsizing of agricultural production to the household level. That China’s policy makers considered their small farmers to be economic, as well as social, subjects was evident in this whole package of policies. Chapter  seeks to place Nicaragua’s and Cuba’s small farmers in a comparative light, as...