The Dispossession of the Peasantry (ص 32)
غرض
- عنوان
- The Dispossession of the Peasantry (ص 32)
- المحتوى
-
16
1.3.1 Dual-economy Approach
In describing the dual-economy literature, I will argue that this approach
suffers from six weaknesses. First, some versions selectively rely upon data from
unusual years to characterize the entire Mandate period. Second, and more
generally, this approach tends towards tautology arguing that the socioeconomic
differences between the Arab and Jewish sectors determine the differences in their
market systems while differences in their markets determined (or at least
reinforced) the differences in the socioeconomic systems. This tight circular
causation has only limited explanatory power. Third, in identifying the existence of
surplus labor in Arab agriculture, this approach, when it explains the surplus at all,
exclusively roots this surplus in population growth and its consequent pressure on
land resources without considering the more important processes that alienated
peasants from the land. Fourth, this approach tends to neglect or downplay the role
of the colonial mandatory government in facilitating the growth and development of
the Jewish European sector and at the same time does not address the differential
impact the government’s policy had on the two sectors and communities, Fifth, in
considering interactions between the Arab and Jewish “economies,” the dualistic
approach tends to look at the macroeconomic “benefits” the “Arab sector”
received from demand generated by the “Jewish sector” while ignoring the
negative microeconomic effects associated with a changed distribution of income
and wealth in the Arab sector because of its connection to the “Jewish economy.”
Perhaps most importantly, the dualist approach fails to examine how the spread of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. - هو جزء من
- The Dispossession of the Peasantry
- تاريخ
- ٢٠٠٦
- المنشئ
- Riyad Mousa
Contribute
Not viewed