In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Introduction 1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction: Assessing the Dynamism of Southeast Asian Agriculture “Such coincidence of policy across several centuries and, in the modern period, across very different types of regime is prima facie evidence that something fundamental about state making is at work.” (Scott 2009: 79) “A third line of reasoning would look at the ways in which the village economy is tied to supra-village or even national economic structures” (Hüsken 1989: 327) 1 2 Gambling with the Land Studying Southeast Asian Agricultures since the 1960s This book is one among several being prepared in the context of a collaborative research project titled “Challenges of the Agrarian Transition in Southeast Asia” (De Koninck 2004). Its specific purpose is to provide an overall interpretation of the dominant trends in agriculture throughout the region between the early 1960s and the latter years of the first decade of the twenty-first century. Why since the early 1960s? First, because that period corresponds to the beginning of the post-colonial era, with several of the region’s major countries being involved in intensive state making (Map 1). Second, and more specifically, this involved adopting major new policies in state monitoring of the agricultural sector. Such policies were not necessarily adopted concurrently, nor were they implemented in exactly the same manner and with the same rhythm; but some 50 years later — by which time the region’s political map had stabilized (Map 2) — their impact had become quite evident. Nearly everywhere, they consisted of incentives to both intensify and expand territorially the agricultural domain, as they were meant, at least officially, to provide answers to widespread problems of low productivity in agriculture and poverty among rural populations, particularly those involved in farming. The identification of these problems as well as the solutions envisaged to solve them can be traced back to the late colonial and early postcolonial literature , when most observers appeared pessimistic in their assessments of Southeast Asia’s agriculture (De Koninck 2003).1 This was the case with Dumont, as early as 1935 (p. 32), and Gourou in 1936 (p. 574–7). In later works, including in his very influential Les pays tropicaux, first published in 1947 and reedited several times, Gourou repeated, referring to Vietnamese peasants, that cultural as well as ecological constraints were such that there was little hope for an improvement in their livelihoods . Dobby (1960: 359) and Geertz (1963: 144–7) were equally pessimistic about other peasantries in the region. All emphasized the demographic problem, claiming that throughout most of the region, the lowlands were densely overpopulated and population grew faster than food production. Several, notably Gourou in 1953, Robequain in 1958, Burling in 1965 and Fisher in 1966, suggested that part of the solution might be found in moving people to less populated areas, particularly to the highlands. Charles Robequain (1958: 440) was particularly clear about it: “Besides, there must be a transfer of population from overpopulated districts and a real internal colonization of empty spaces”. As for Charles Fisher (1966: 179), his concern appeared more geopolitical: “although many of the governments are conscious of the maldistribution of population within their national territory, it is probably true to say that most of them are more worried by the relative emptiness of their lands which it is feared may arouse the cupidity of overcrowded neighbours.” These statements underscore a major feature of Southeast Asia’s geography, which is characterized by an intricate network of lowlands and uplands, both on the continent and in the archipelago (Maps 3 and 4). The Southeast Asian lowland and upland domains are themselves differentiated by a number of different ecological, demographic and cultural features. While real and complex, these have often been referred to and made use of in a simplistic and deterministic manner during both the precolonial and the postcolonial periods. Thus, the call for population redistribution from the lowlands towards the less densely populated uplands through agricultural expansion was generally made for a number of socioeconomic or geopolitical purposes. It was also frequently motivated by the claim that the minority hill people’s practice of swidden agriculture was environmentally destructive. References to the “backwardness” of the ethnic minorities inhabiting the uplands have remained frequent throughout much of the colonial literature, as well as in more recent writings, as have 1 The following paragraphs resemble closely some of those contained in “A Half Century of Agrarian Transformations in Southeast Asia, 1960–2010”, authored...

Share