The Dispossession of the Peasantry (ص 285)

غرض

عنوان

The Dispossession of the Peasantry (ص 285)

المحتوى

269
Report since it dealt with land that was primarily used for extensive cereal
cultivation and using the same methods of production. On the other hand, there
was the inverse relationship between size of holding and the extent of the need to
hire out labor.
In the Johnson-Crosbie Report’s category of “owners-occupiers living
exclusively on their holding,” there were two subgroups. First, there were those
who owned over two feddans (i.e., over 240 dunums). The survey does not specify
an upper limit. We know from the 1936 survey that there were holdings in the
thousands of dunums. However, most of the big holdings were held by absentee
landowners, which were excluded from the Johnson-Crosbie Report. If we assume
big landownership to be over 1,000 dunums, we are left with holdings of wide
variation between roughly 240 to 1,000 dunums. In the 1936 survey, such holdings
represented about 2 percent of the number of holdings and 16 percent of the area
of the holdings. Since the average size family could not, given the available
methods of production, be able to cultivate much more land beyond 240 dunums if
at all, it is obvious that such holdings required the use of outside labor either as
sharecroppers or seasonal wage labor. The extent of the hiring in of labor varied
with the size of the holding and access to other resources. The larger the size of
the holding, the more labor was used. We know from the Johnson-Crosbie Report
that wages and rent were paid out with the latter being almost three and a half
times as the former.”° Thus, those whose holdings approached the high end of this
**Johnson-Crosbie Report, Table XXVI, 23.
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

مجموعات العناصر

Generated Pages Set

Theses رسائل ماجستير ودكتوراه