|
Dominican Republic Mixed Farming
Landholding was less concentrated in the north and the
west;
mixed crop and livestock raising dominated agricultural
production. Much production was geared to subsistence, but
growers also produced a number of cash crops such as
cacao,
tobacco, coffee, and vegetables. The twin constraints of
land and
money affected the various strata of rural society
differently,
depending on the precise configuration of resources a
family
could command, but hardship was widespread.
Those without land were the most hard pressed.
Agricultural
laborers rarely enjoyed opportunities for permanent
employment.
Most worked only sporadically throughout the year. During
periods
of high demand for labor, contractors formed semipermanent
work
groups that contracted their services out to farmers. As
in much
of social life, the individual stood a better chance if he
could
couch his request for work in terms of a personal link of
kinship
with the prospective employer.
Families that depended on wage labor had very limited
resources at their disposal. Their diet lacked greens and
protein; eggs and meat were luxury items. Such fare as
boiled
plantains, noodles, and broth often substituted for the
staple
beans and rice. Keeping children in school was difficult
because
their labor was needed to supplement the family's
earnings.
Those with very little land (less than one hectare)
also
faced very severe constraints. Although members of this
group had
enough land to meet some of their families' subsistence
needs and
even sold crops occasionally, they also needed to resort
to wage
labor to make ends meet. Like wage laborers, smallholders
had
trouble leaving children in school. The children's
prospects were
extremely limited, moreover, because their parents could
neither
give them land nor educate them. The daily need for food
also
limited farmers' ability to work their own land. Those who
were
both land-poor and cash-poor faced a dilemma: they could
not work
their lands effectively because to do so meant foregoing
wage
labor needed to feed their families. A variety of
sharecropping
arrangements supplemented wage labor for those
smallholders able
to muster some cash or credit. These were of little use to
the
landless; only those who had land or money to finance a
crop
entered into these schemes. Smallholders and the landless
lived
enmeshed in a web of dependent relationships: they
depended on
their neighbors and kin for help and assistance, on store
owners
for credit, and on larger landholders for employment.
Families with middle-sized holdings (from one to three
hectares) faced slightly different problems. They often
had
enough land and financial resources to meet most of their
families' food needs and to earn cash from the sale of
crops or
livestock. They did not usually need to work for hire, and
sometimes they could hire laborers themselves. They
usually ate
better than smallholders, and their children stayed in
school
longer. However, although middle holders earned more, they
also
had greater needs for cash during the year, particularly
if they
hired laborers before harvest.
Even relatively large holders faced seasonal shortages
of
cash. Their production costs--especially for hired
labor--were
typically higher.Their standard of living was notably
higher than
that of people with less land. They generally ate better
and
could afford meat or fish more frequently. Although their
holdings supported their generation adequately,
subdivision among
the family's offspring would typically leave no heir with
more
than a hectare or two. Faced with this prospect, these
farmers
often encouraged their children to pursue nonagricultural
careers
and helped support them financially during their student
years.
Almost all farmers depended to varying degrees on
credit from
local storekeepers. The landless and the land-poor needed
credit
simply to feed their families. Middling landholders used
it to
tide them over the lean months before harvest. Prevailing
interest rates varied considerably, but the poorest
farmers--
those who could not offer a harvest as collateral and who
usually
needed short-term credit--generally paid the highest
rates.
Farmers often depended on storekeepers to market their
crops
because they were usually unable to accumulate sufficient
produce
to make direct marketing a viable option. Most farmers
committed
their crops to their merchant-creditor long before
harvest. Store
owners could not legally require that someone who owed
them money
sell his or her crops to them. Nonetheless, for the farm
family,
the possibility of being denied necessary credit at a time
of
future need acted as a powerful incentive. The cycle of
debt,
repayment, and renewed debt was constant for most.
Traditionally, the local storekeeper aided farmers in
ways
beyond the extension of credit. He often established a
paternalistic relationship with his customers; farmers
consulted
him on matters ranging from land purchases to conflicts
with
neighbors. Such patronage carried a hefty price tag,
however;
farmers found it difficult to haggle about terms with a
storekeeper who was also a friend or a relative. Studies
of
coffee growers in the mid-1970s found that the cost of
credit
could easily take one-third to one-half of a middling
landholder's profits.
Cooperatives sometimes offered an alternative. The most
successful drew their membership from groups of kin and
neighbors
already linked by ties of trust. Cooperatives provided a
solution
for farmers vexed by the problem of cash shortfalls.
Consumer and
savings and loan cooperatives thus expanded the options
for some
rural families. Cooperatives have not ameliorated
appreciably the
plight of the poorest rural dwellers, however. Cooperative
loans
were predicated on a family's ability to pay, which
effectively
excluded the landless and the land-poor.
Data as of December 1989
|
