Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T15:50:31.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Yugoslavia: Changing Character of Rural Life and Rural Economy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2019

George W. Hoffman
George W. Hoffman*
Affiliation:
University of Texas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Traveling in Yugoslavia one is struck by the great contrasts and variety of its cultural and physical landscape. Nowhere is this contrast more evident than in agriculture and in the rural life and economy. The importance of agriculture and the peasantry in the total economy can easily be seen since roughly 56 per cent of the population derives its sole or principal income from agricultural production, and agriculture contributes close to 30 per cent of the country's national income. Before 1945 Yugoslavia was predominantly a land of peasant subsistence farming, using primitive methods of production.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Slavic and East European Review , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 1959 , pp. 555 - 578
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies 1959

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Basic factual and statistical material throughout this study has been taken from the following sources: Bicanic, Rudolf, “The Effects of War on Rural Yugoslavia,” Geographical Journal , CIII, 1–2 (January-February, 1944), pp. 30-49Google Scholar; Brashich, Ranko M., Land Reform and Ownership in Yugoslavia 1919-1953 (Mid-European Studies Center, New York, 1954)Google Scholar, Ekonomski Institut FNRJ, Privreda FNRJ—u periodu od 1947-1956 godine (Beograd, 1957)Google Scholar; Nikola Dragrćevic, “Perspektiva Razoja Potencijalnih Izvora FNRJ,” Ekonomskog Pregleda, (April, 1957), pp. 203-29; Dusan Lopandić, “Die Agrarpolitik Jugoslawiens,” Suedosteuropa Jahrbuch, Band I, 1956, pp. 170-95; Milos Macura, “Osvrt Na Demografski I Sociološki Faktor U Poljoprivredi Jugoslavije,” Ekonomista, (February, 1955), pp. 3-38; Werner Market, ed. Jugoslawien, Osteuropa Handbuch (Boehlau Verlag, Cologne/Graz, 1954); Mirko Markovic, “Stanovništo Kao Licni Cinilac Društvene Reprodukcije,” Ekonomski Problemi (Zbornik Radova), 1957, pp. 59-83; Josip Roglic, “O Geografskom Polozaju i Ekonomskom Razvoju Jugoslavije,” Geografskog Glasnika, XI-XII (1950), pp. 11-24; Tomasevich, Joszo, “Collectivization of Agriculture in Yugoslavia” in Irwin T. Sanders, ed. Collectivization of Agriculture in Eastern Europe (University of Kentucky Press, 1958), pp. 166-95Google Scholar. Material also has been taken from reports to the Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service and various Yugoslav statistical reports and from conversations with Yugoslav officials.

2 7,838,000 active population—5,145,000 men and 2,693,000 women according to the census of 1953. Population and employment figures are taken from various issues of Indeks published by the Federal Statistical Institut, Belgrade, and Paul F. Myers and Arthur A. Campbell, The Population of Tugoslavia, International Population Statistics Reports, Series P-90, No. 5 (Bureau of Census, U. S. Department of Commerce, Washington D. C , 1954).

3 Peasant Work Cooperatives (Seljacka radna zadruga, or SRZ) are collectives, farms with collective property. Farmers contributed their land holdings to the collectives but they retained their houses and a small plot.

General Agricultural Cooperatives (Opsta zemljoradnicka zadruga, or OSS) owned only 149,000 ha in 1956; members cultivate their own private farms and tend to their own livestock. They rent cooperative agricultural machinery, use trained personnel, buy fertilizers, etc. These cooperatives purchase and market products for the private farmer, operate stores, workshops, give credits and on the whole try to assist the private farmer to improve his production. They are now greatly assisted by the Government.

4 Approximately 800,000 ha were fallow in 1956 and this was distributed as follows: State farms, 13.6 per cent; cooperatives, 6.3 per cent; and private peasants, 8.7 per cent.

5 Vladimir Stipetić, “Poljoprivredna proizvodnja na današnjem pordručju FNR Jugoslavije 1929-1955 (Agricultural output on the present territory of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia from 1929-1955),” Ekonomski Problemi, (Zbornik Radova), 1957, pp. 92-95. The author bases his figures on the output of farms, his own estimate on the output of livestock and on 1938 prices.

6 War losses in death and loss of projected population increases amounted to 15 per cent of the total population. Fifteen per cent of the country's farms were entirely destroyed, including buildings, equipment and livestock. Among those killed or who fled were many technical specialists.

7 United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Economic Survey of Europe in 1957 (Geneva, 1958) p. 40; also Federal Social Plans for individual years and Savezna Narodna Skupstina, Drustverdplan privrednog razvoja Jugoslavije 1957-1961 (Beograd, 1957); also English translation and summary “The Social Plan of Economic Development of Yugoslavia from 1957-1961,” Joint Translation Service, No. 2360, Supplement, January 24, 1958.

8 According to programs provided in the Agricultural Commodities Agreements between the U. S. and Yugoslavia under Title I of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act (PL 480), the U. S. has shipped to Yugoslavia since January 1955 surplus agricultural commodities valued at $296,000,000. A list of the commodities is shown below. The agreements provide that of the equivalent dinars which accrue from the sales of these commodities, 31 per cent as grants and 46 per cent as loans will be used to promote economic development. The rest (23 per cent) is for the use of the U. S. Of this, $1,000,000 will be used to help develop new markets.

Source: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, 1958.

9 Communication and compilation from International Cooperation Agency, September 1958. Amount includes $50,000,000 of the Emergency Relief Assistance Act of 1950 and a small amount for technical cooperation.

10 Harold L. Koeller, “Yugoslavia's Bumper Crops Cut Its Food Import Needs,” Foreign Agriculture, XXII (February, 1958), pp. 11-12, 21. Mr. Koeller is Agricultural Attache at the U. S. Embassy in Belgrade.

Amount of fertilizers used increased from 7.6 kg per ha of arable land in 1953 to approximately 66 kg in 1957; the total actual amount used increased from 30,695 tons to 761,542 tons. In 1956 an average of only 21 per cent of the private peasants were using fertilizers (4 per cent in Montenegro and 41 per cent in Slovenia).

According to reports from Yugoslav and American officials, hybrid corn on carefully prepared land produced yields of 40 quintals per ha, domestic corn only 20 quintals per ha.

At a State Agricultural farm of about 1,500 ha near Stubline, Beogradski district, visited during the summer of 1958, different Italian wheat varieties produced 35-40 quintals per ha, while domestic wheat produced on the same farm only 14-15 quintals per ha. Fertilizer applied per ha of Italian wheat variety amounted to 1,100 kg; for the domestic variety less than half. Foreign Crops and Markets, vol. 77, December 22, 1958, reports that in the important grain area of the Vojvodina about 285,000 acres were seeded to high-yielding Italian varieties of wheat.

11 Number of tractors increased from 9,500 in 1953 to 19,000 in 1957, the number of threshing machines increased between 1951 and 1957 by 17 per cent. Still in 1957 only one tractor for each 600 ha of arable land was available, one combine for each 230 ha and one threshing machine for each 365 ha. These figures are still way below the average of Western European countries.

12 Federal Social Plans for individual years, op. cit. and Drustveni plan, op. cit.

13 Land reforms between 1919 and 1953 reduced ownership of agricultural land from 570 ha to 10 ha.

14 The socialist sector referred to here includes State farms, State Agricultural Institutes— 4.2 per cent of the total agricultural land area, Peasant Work Cooperatives—1.9 per cent and General Agricultural Cooperatives—1.6 per cent. The high point of collectivization was reached in 1950 with the number of Peasant Work Cooperatives reaching 6,960 (507 in 1957) with a membership of 2.1 million (72,994 in 1957).

15 For the position of these General Agricultural Cooperatives atad their contributions see “Agricultural Cooperatives in a New Role,” Jugopress, Weekly Features, I, 21 (July 21, 1957), pp. 1-6 and M. Vuckovic, “Recent Trends in the Yugoslav Co-operative Movement,” International Labour Review, LXXVI, 5 (November, 1957), pp. 467-78.

16 According to R. Bicanic, “ a peasant family” is a group of people related by blood or marriage, and mainly engaged in agricultural production on a family holding. They operate the family holding as one economic unit, and consume jointly a large part of its produce and the bulk of the income earned off the holding. Also many extra-economic services are supplied to a great extent as family services. See also the interesting study by Raymond E. Crist, “The Peasant Problem in Yugoslavia,” The Scientific Monthly, L, (May, 1940), pp. 385-402.

17 An “agricultural household” is defined as one in which members spend more than 50 per cent of their working time in agricultural activities.

18 Rudolf Bicanic, “Personal Income Distribution of Peasant Families in Jugoslavia,” Fifth Conference, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth (August, 1957), pp. 25, unpublished.

19 Rudolf Bicanic, “Occupational Heterogeneity of Peasant Families in the Period of Accelerated Industrialisation,” Third World Congress of Sociology, IV, 1956, 2nd book, pp. 80-96, analyzes the number and type of occupational heterogeneity of these peasant families. Figures are for 1956.

20 The whole structure of agriculture has changed from prewar conditions; e.g., bread grains now participate with 25 per cent in the total gross product of agriculture as against 30 per cent before the war, industrial plants 5 per cent as against 3 per cent, vegetable 10 per cent as against 8.5 per cent. Among the grains, wheat has now replaced maize as the most important bread grain. These changing food habits have been influenced strongly by certain American imports, new to the Yugoslav consumer, e.g., vegetable shortening was first imported in early 1958. It was immediately enthusiastically accepted. As a result it is already produced by two Yugoslav oil plants and a third plant is installing the necessary equipment.

21 Eugen Pusic, “The Family in the Process of Social Change in Yugoslavia,” The Sociological Review, 5,2 New Series (December, 1957), p. 212.

22 Bicanic, “Occupational Heterogeneity,” op. cit., p. 81.

23 Rudolf Bicanic, “Nepoljoprivredna Zanimanja U Seljačkom Gospodarstvu” Statisticka Revija, 2 (August, 1956), pp. 97-119, and “National Income Distribution in Yugoslavia,” Fourth Congress, International Association jor Research in Income and Wealth (September, 1955), p. 21, unpublished, as well as Doreen Warriner, “Changes in European Peasant Farming,” International Labour Review, LXXVI, 5 (November, 1957), pp. 446-66 discuss the effect of this fragmentation and peasant income distribution.

24 One other drawback is the many hours it takes the farmer-worker to reach his place of work. In Zagreb for example, 60 per cent of those employed in industries commute an average of two hours each way to their place of employment. Certainly the productivity can not be high under such circumstances. While there are certain disadvantages in these farmer-workers, on the other hand they perform an important job in the economy. Their employment relieves the housing shortage which otherwise would be a necessity.

25 Macura, op. cit., pp. 10-13.

26 Pucic, op. cit., p. 219 and Bicanic, “Occupational Heterogeneity,” op. cit., pp. 88-90, discuss a number of transitional forms between the traditional large household and the urban two-generation family. They distinguish the “community family” with all family members giving all their income to the family in return for their entire keep; the “partnership family,” with part of the members income going to the family, keeping the rest for themselves; and the “associational family,” with family members paying for certain services received.

27 Elisabeth Lichtenberger and Hans Bobek, “Zur kulturgeographischen Gliederung Jugoslawiens,” Geographischer Jahresbericht aus Oesteneich, XXVI (1955-56), pp. 78-154, discuss these changes in selected areas on the basis of actual observations and supplement them with valuable bibliographical material.

28 The emigration of over 700,000 people is discussed by Myers and Campbell, op. cit., pp. 20-21. 458,000 Germans, 100,000 Italians, 100,000 Yugoslavs who were outside the country during the war and decided not to return and various other people since 1946 e.g., over 14,000 Yugoslavs mostly for economic reasons fled to Austria alone in 1957.

29 Kurt Kayser, “Jugoslawien, ein Beitrag zur laenderkundlichen Analyse eines Staatsgebietes,” Obst-Festschrfit: Landschaft und Land, Remagen: Verlag des Amtes fuer Landeskunde, 1951, pp. 73-88; Josip Roglic, “Prilog Regionalnoj Podjeli Jugoslavije” Geograjskog Glasnik, XVI-XVII, 1955, pp. 9-22.

30 Vladimir Stipetić, “Agrarna reforma i Kolonizacija u FNRJ godine 1945-1948,” Jugoslavenska Akademija gnanosti i Umjetnoski (Zagreb, 1954), p. 444; Vladimir Djuric, “Changements de Structure de la Population dans la Vojvodina,” Recueil de travaux de VInstitut de Geographic (in Cyrillic with French abstract), III (Belgrade, 1956), pp. 3-13; Branislav Bukurev, “Poreklo Stanovnistva Vojvodina,” Matica Stpska (Novi Sad, 1957), 69 pp.

31 The replacement of the industrious Germans with so many people of different agricultural know-how (those coming from the mountainous parts of the country), was one of the contributing factors of the decline in the agricultural production in such a vital region.

32 The prewar government of Yugoslavia and even the Hungarian government of the Monarchy had started work on this irrigation and canal system. The present plan makes use of the earlier constructed canals. Also T. Segota, “Izgradnja Kanala Dunav-Tisa- Dunav,” Geogrqfski Horizont, IV, 1-2, 1958, pp. 51-53.

33 J . Cvijic, La Peninsula Balkanique, Géographic humaine (Paris, 1918) discusses this process for the old Serbian territory.

34 George W. Hoffman, “Yugoslavia in Transition: Industrial Expansion and Resource Bases,” Economic Geography, 32,4 (October, 1956), pp. 294-315.

35 Twenty-eight per cent of Yugoslavia's total water power, 90 per cent of her iron ore, 50 per cent of her lignite, 33 per cent of her timber is located in Bosnia-Hercegovina. For this reason a high priority was assigned to the development of the Republic's resources and related industries.

36 The recent literature is rich with excellent material discussing the problems of this general area: W. B. Johnston and I.Crkvenčić, “Examples of Changing Peasant Agriculture in Croatia, Yugoslavia,” Economic Geography, 33, 1 (January, 1957), pp. 51-71; I. Crkvenčić, “Hrvatsko Zagorje K.ao Emigraciono Zariste,” Geograjskog Glasnik, XVIII, 1956, pp. 33-45; W. B. Johnston and I. Crkvenčić, “Changing Peasant Agriculture in Northeastern Hrvatsko Primorje, Yugoslavia,” Geographical Review, XLIV, 3 (July, 1954), pp. 352-72 and André Blanc, “L'Habitat rural en Croatie Occidentale,” Annales Giographie, LXH, 1953, pp. 108-117.

37 André Blanc, La Croatie Occidenlale, Etude de Géographie Humaine (Paris, 1957). This is the most comprehensive study of the problems along the former military border.

38 Brashich, op. cit., p. 19 described it as follows: “ … a pattern of tenant farming in which the cultivator (colon) was obliged to deliver to the landlord a determinate portion of the produce and, in addition, to perform certain compulsory services during the year.“

39 Close to 500,000 foreign tourists, an all time high, travelled in Yugoslavia. Over 60 per cent of these visitors stayed in the many tourist accommodations along the Adriatic coast. Opatija in the north (Istri'a) and Dubrovnik in the south were the most popular vacation places.

40 H. R. Wilkinson, “Jugoslav Kosmet: The Evolution of a Frontier Province and its Landscape,” Transactions and Papers, The Institute of British Geographers, 21, 1955, pp. 171- 93, discusses in great detail the changes in this area.

41 Harold L. Koeller, “Yugoslavia to Push Cotton Production in Macedonia,” Foreign Agriculture, XXI (April, 1957), pp. 14-15, 18.

42 “Lipkovo Irrigation System Is Put Into Operation,” Information Bulletin about Yugoslavia, III (May, 1958), p. 5.

43 The Mavrovo scheme in western Macedonia, is the most important one and has been completed recently (total output is 200,000 kwh): Among the important raw materials in this regions are Europe's richest lead-zinc deposits at Trepča, Kosmet.

44 H. R. Wilkinson, “Jugoslav Macedonia in Transition,” The Geographical Journal, GXVIII, 4 (December, 1952), p. 399.

45 Ibid., p. 400, discusses the reasons for the large-scale erosion. Some experts are inclined to believe soil erosion is a result of continuous rejuvenation, others feel that the constant sequence of dry followed by a sequence of wet years may be the main reasons.

46 With a larger quantity of meat, dairy products, sugar, fruit and vegetables becoming available, per capita consumption of wheat should decline.

47 According to various studies there exists a direct correlation between the availability of educational facilities and the level of agricultural output and income per farmer and workers. The outlay for research and education in agriculture has greatly increased in Yugoslavia during the last few years and the results of this is making itself slowly felt.