' "I. .-III"1II:1‘1L"'I1‘,' . 7 '11 ; '9‘ 1; 31:12:. 7"7';., 7 1: -1. .71 §IP>7 flun11fij%.fi “fit‘ ihhw”‘eWn§ .‘7 ‘1’ 15-: .2};- 777777 .7771 “I“ 51.114112! 2"11.11:;II1'I:Iu'b7:II1' I:II w.’ ;1¥~ w, 711"'”w11113 11," ‘.;~;fin‘ ; .7 7:1 1.1,.» " 7- ' 111‘ .17" .1.~ ....7 1-1117 7. 77.7 a .777; .11.. 71.117. , 7111777331111 . \ 1. '1 :1" . 1; CI. H1317 1:7,)“ Iv”, “711.131". .' h” . I . $1.)? . 1 *2: .; 711' .71111‘111‘1131“)? 1‘ 'I 111 II" 1’ I. 773121.] I ‘1 T‘III' 11W): -I'I3.1{I‘17’I” 5 7117,71! 31.111 111115727111 1 . , 31-7170" .l‘IfI IV Iggy} 1%. '4 mIII‘ "II :111I1I11'I '11. 1 fiH‘Vé . .. 1171711 11111;; :11‘111113 ." 1.11" 77:7' 711711.11111I11'11-7I. ‘ .111" ..1;:"' 1117‘" 1’77" 71"" .5 "3131; .1'. " wfihswwufil 11 'I ;__‘,. Pr: .7 .... 7. 1.11177 11‘ 111111 1L1 “1 . '71 .. 7‘32‘J’w - . 7 "11‘- 7.111.111 11 U11 1;: _. ...- w... . “7“ Mlfi‘l « . '35:}; . f1 . - 17.3; 7 ' 7111' . ,7 21' 7‘I 7-. ‘ 151761: 11 t....11'11 [11‘711127i7 131 11117111111! 31 7:'1'-1."1.71727".11'1'f 1.191111171'1'711 177.1 . 7'77; ...~ ..u noc- 7- 1.17.1!“ $' 1! -_ .,' a... ' ”.43, .- .... _..,-. - ... . on .“P‘ l 45.11! 1 ,177711-1111171 77 «3.7171 75. 121 ~17". I ' 1 l7 ".1‘,:~7 : ’ " 31111.7. " 7.21171 1 1‘71 I.I'.'. ""' III .147...” 1‘11. ' 11'111‘11'7131 ‘11IIII'11t; - 132-1 .1 -7: .2 ‘ IIHHSfiWAI 1 '1 ‘%¢"41 3 .1 Far-£11473" :J.‘-I':I7' 7 “1):? 7* . 3 ‘1'1Y-F'IV'7I311331'. I 117'! .r. ’11 1I1‘7'III'1II. ‘1 '111"l ”11.12““, 1 1 . - 1 -=17"7711-3111:“:717‘13711'7 11111. "1.11.1117; 1 717' 1.1.11 1.1411111 1"?" 74.15 7 ~ 1» -. . 71-17 1771171171 .1171 .71 ~ 1 11‘7. "' 1"7.‘;.. '7'V'1'I' '. ' '.77 77 .1111 I "1111 171111 1' I'1111'71111Agni-"17571. 11112171. III. 771 71'171.171.777.117711111. 1 .717 7717. 111 7 ~17WHHI 1V“IMII 1VMW7MHMfi1HH“IJm 1 ' ."1.1'11I‘.‘.“ II ”IrHIaILIh 1111171113, 1.171111111171111 7.9111111 {‘11}: 1177 7‘- 7 . 3-7 7 ,7 r1 . 1 I :1 '1‘11"’1 11111111n'111'17’ 1' 7 '1‘ .111 1.1111. ...—c- pr..- 7,- I1 1111,21, L-c-n' ’7'. 7' THESIS VERSITY LIB BRARIES llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll il “l Ill 3 1293 01698 7376 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Plantations and Dependency: A Case Study of Rubber Plantations in Liberia presented by George Kwaku Ntiri has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D. degree in Sociology 77 / M 8101' professorLL [hue November 10, 1983 .MSU is an Affirmative Action/Er; ual Opportunity Institution } / LIBRARY Mlchlgan State Unlvorolty PLACE IN RETU RN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES retur n on or before date due. MTE DUE MTE DUE DATE DUE PLANTATIONS AND DEPENDENCY: A CASE STUDY OF RUBBER PLANTATIONS IN LIBERIA By George Kwaku Ntiri A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Social Science Department of Sociology l983 ABSTRACT PLANTATIONS AND DEPENDENCY: A CASE STUDY OF RUBBER PLANTATIONS IN LIBERIA By George Kwaku Ntiri The primary purpose of this study was to examine dependency in Liberia, a typical plantation society. In so doing it served to illuminate various social and economic aspects of development. Drawing from the perspectives of different disciplines in its exami- nation of plantations, it sought to formulate an integrated model of the plantation system within the framework of the Dependency School of thought, one that would balance internal and external relations of production. The study is historical and emphasizes the under- development of Liberia as a dynamic process in which internal rural and urban institutions, external market relations, and agri-ecological factors reinforce one another. The integration of subsistence and plantation production in Liberia was viewed in the context of a power and systems paradigm. Case data were drawn from documentary sources and used as the bases for the construction of submodels--labor, land, capital, organization, and agri-ecological factors--of the plantation system. These sub- models were used in clarifying an adaptation of Ellen's model of ecological and socio-economic change (Ellen, Provisional Model of George Kwaku Ntiri Ecological and Socio-Economic Change in Social and Ecological Systems. London: Academy Press, 1979 edited by P. C. Burham). In general, the study suggests conformity of Liberia to the plantation system as an archetype of the Dependency School, that is, the institutional, historical, and ecological factors that determine patterns of agricultural production and resource use are such that they result in the impoverishment of a country, in this instance Liberia. Dedicated to Paapa. And, to the memories of Ngfa, Papa, Maame, Akosua and Kwasi. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It has been my fortune to be encouraged by my teachers to think and examine ideas beyond the confines of any single academic discipline; to question all assertions, and always to disbelieve and to disbelieve impartially. I am most grateful to all my teachers, especially the members of my guidance committee: Dr. C. K. Vanderpool, the chair- person, for his insightful criticism of my work, and above all for his support and encouragement during difficult periods of my studies; Dr. J. Allan Beagle, for his willingness to listen and counsel, and still leave me the latitude for independent thought and action; Dr. David Dwyer, for his friendship and uninhibited yet sensitive criticism of my work; and Dr. Kevin Kelly, for extending to me his unique gift of reducing problems to manageable proportions. I also wish to acknow- ledge with a great deal of gratitude the various ways in which these other professors have contributed to my education: Dr. Jack Bain, Department of Race and Ethnic Studies; Dr. Eugene deBenko, Interna- tional Library; Dr. Ruth Hamilton, Sociology Department; Dr. John Hunter, Geography Department; Dr. Lee James, Forestry Department; and Dr. Clifford Pollard, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology. The privilege of knowing the Beamer, Dwyer, English, Highsmith, Jackson, McPhee, Patterson, Peters, Powers, Sampert, Scribner and Wright families has been an added dimension to my education. Encoun- ters with them, together with many others, have been significant not iii merely because they helped to blunt the difficulty of adjusting to a different culture. More important, the uncompromising honesty of these friends about themselves, their country and the world has served to deepen and sharpen my own passion for ideas and people. I wish to express my deep appreciation to Mrs. Catherine Moehring for her sympathetic interest in my academic work as well as her assis- tance in the typing of this dissertation. Mr. Earl Bringham's editorial assistance is also gratefully acknowledged.“ I will be eternally grateful to my parents, Sam Aninakwa and Amma Ohenewaa, and my uncle, Edward Ohemeng. But for their understanding, encouragement, sacrifice and persistence, my education would have been cut off at a very early stage. I regret that my mother and uncle did not live long enough to see the attainment of what they passionately hoped for me. Many thanks to Daphne, Shana and Boatemaa for their love and patience. Their inspiration is the only "currency" that could sustain and pay for my graduate education. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES vii LIST OF FIGURES ix Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ..................... 1 Liberia: An Instance of a Plantation Society . . . . 3 Towards an Integrated Model of the Plantation 4 II. REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE ............ 6 General Aspects of Plantations ........... 6 Origin and Development .............. 6 Plantations and Socio-Economic Change ....... 8 Class Structure ................. 9 Migration of Plantation Labor .......... ll Agri-Ecological Aspects ............. l2 Dependency and Plantations ............. l3 Dependency Model ................. l4 Plantation Model ................. l8 A Critique of the Plantation Model ......... l9 III. THE NATURAL RUBBER INDUSTRY ............. 23 Historical Background of the Natural Rubber Industry 24 Wild Rubber Industry ................ 26 The Wild Rubber Industry in Africa ......... 27 Plantation Rubber Industry ............. 30 Regulation of Natural Rubber Industry ....... 39 Dependency and Plantation Models Revisited ..... 42 IV. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: THE PLANTATION AS POWER AND SYSTEMS PARADIGM ................. 46 The Plantation as a Power Paradigm ......... 47 Components of Subsistence and Plantation Systems . . 49 Explication of Dual-Model of Economic Growth and Development ................... 56 Methodology and Methodological Problems ....... 69 Chapter V. POLITICAL ECONOMY OF LIBERIA ............. 73 Background ..................... 73 Labor in the Liberian Economy ........... 80 Command over People as the Key to Economic Power . 80 Wage Labor Migration ............... 83 Labor Investigation ............... 89 Internal (Plantation) Wage Labor ......... 95 Adjustments to Wage Labor ............ l03 Land Use and Ownership Patterns .......... 108 Finance: Government Revenue, Foreign Capital, and Loans ..................... ll6 Foreign Capital ................. ll6 Taxes and Tax Revenues .............. 122 Foreign Loans .................. 126 Rubber in the Liberian Economy ........... l32 Firestone in Liberia ............... 134 Subsistence (Peasant)Economy ............ l47 Agri-Ecological Aspects of Rice Culture ...... 154 VI. INFERENCES FROM CASE STUDY .............. l6l Communalities and Contrasts Between Liberia and Other Plantation Societies ........... l97 VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............... 201 REFERENCES 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 205 vi U1 (IT-DOOM LIST OF TABLES World Supply, Demand and Price Index for Rubber, 1900-1920 ........................ Plantation Rubber: Estate and Peasant Production in South East Asia, l909-l940 ............... Parameters of Labor Within Subsistence and Plantation Production Systems ................... Parameters of Land Within Subsistence and Plantation Systems ......................... Parameters of Capital Within Subsistence and Plantation Systems ................... Organizational Aspects of Subsistence and Plantation Systems ......................... Agri-Ecological Characteristics of Subsistence and Plantation Systems ................... Sources and Method of Labor Acquisition by Firestone (Harbel Plantation), l952 ................ Employment by Firestone for Selected Years, l927-l97l . . Firestone Daily Wage, l950-l972 ............. Employment and Wages on Foreign Plantations, l966-l97l. . Liberian Government Revenues and Expenditures, l900-l966 ........................ Economic Account of Concessions, I960 .......... Percentage Distribution of Production and Appropriation Accounts, 1960 ..................... Tax Payments by Firestone and Liberian Mining Company (LMC), l95l-l960 .................... Selected Foreign Loans to the Government of Liberia, l87l-l980 ........................ vii Page 35 37 SI 52 53 54 55 97 99 100 l02 117 119 I31 Table Page 5.10 Share of Rubber in Total Exports for Selected Years, 1941-1967 ....................... 138 5.11 Purchases of Rubber from Liberian Farmers by Concessions, 1969—1971 ................ 140 5.12 Rubber Exports from Firestone Plantations and Liberian Farms, 1944-1970 ............... 142 5.13 Distribution of Liberian Farms by Size and Sales, 1960. 145 5.14 Distribution of Number of Major Crop Combinations by 1,281 Farmers ..................... 154 5.15 Volume and Value of Rice Imports, 1962-1970 ...... 156 5.16 Percentage of Farm Holdings Buying, Selling and Self- Sufficient in Rice Production, 1971-1976 ....... 156 6.1 Labor: Parameters Within Integrated System of Subsistence and Plantation Production ......... 166 6.2 Land: Parameters Within Integrated System of Subsistence and Plantation Production ....... . . 170 6.3 Capital: Parameters Within Integrated System of Subsistence and Plantation Production ......... 175 6.4 Organizational Aspects of Integrated System of Subsistence and Plantation Production ......... 181 6.5 Agri-Ecological Characteristics of Integrated System of Subsistence and Plantation Production ....... 184 viii 5.10 6.1 LIST OF FIGURES Net World Rubber Supply, 1900-1920 ........... Trends in United States' Share of World Natural Rubber Consumption, 1900-1940 .............. Production and Changing Relations of Production ..... Flow of Land Use Patterns ................ Provisional Model of Ecological and Socio-Economic Change ......................... Location, Population, Vegetation and Political Maps of Liberia .................... Map of Ethnic Groups in Liberia ............ Labor Shortages on Firestone (Harbel) Plantation, Liberia ....... . ................ Percent Share of Rubber in Total Exports of Liberia, 1941-67 ........................ Trends in Natural Rubber Prices and Distribution of Planting Stock to Liberian Farmers, 1941-1970 ..... Distribution of Liberian Farms by Size, 1960 ...... Distribution of Average Sale per Farm Size, 1960 . . . . Map: Location of Rubber Plantations, Rubber Farms, and Foreign Concessions in Relation to Roads in Liberia. Spatial Distribution of Rubber, Cassava, and Rice Production in Liberia ................. Trends in Farm Holdings Buying, Selling and Self- Sufficient in Rice in Liberia, 1970-76 ......... Submodel of Labor Within Integrated System of Subsistence and Plantation Production ......... ix Page 36 38 57 62 68 72 76 106 139 143 146 146 148 157 Figure Page 6.2 Submodel of Land Within Integrated System of Subsistence and Plantation Production ................ 171 6.3 Submodel of Capital Within Integrated System of Subsistence and Plantation Production .......... 176 6.4 Organizational Submodel of Integrated System of Subsistence and Plantation Production .......... 182 6.5 Agri-Ecological Submodel of Integrated System of Subsistence and Plantation Production .......... 185 6.6 Plantation System: Model of Ecological and Socio- Economic Change ..................... 191 6.7 Labor Flows Within Agriculture in Liberia ........ 193 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Notwithstanding the attractions of an agriculturally based approach to studies of socio-economic change in developing countries,in general, and Liberia,in particular, there are many problems to be considered. The Dependency School of economic development stresses the inability of many developing nations, including those having plantation systems of agri- culture, to support their populations and at the same time sustain eco- nomic growth. Also, the Dependency School underscores a relative scarcity of resources--physica1 and economic, and their articulation in social relations of production--as central to conflicts and inter- actions within the "plantation mode" of production. Yet such studies have typically emphasized external manifestations (EXOGENOUS ASPECTS) as dominant in shaping the character of a country's agriculture and society. This is often done without cognizance of internal character- istics (ENDOGENOUS ASPECTS) of the host society that make it amenable to the entrenchment of the plantation and its related institutions. The introduction of the plantation system entails integrating it into an existing system of agricultural production within the host society. Typically, the endogenous system of agricultural production and its social and cultural norms may be characterized as "subsis- tence." Against this backdrop, the power exercised by the plantation is dependent, on the one hand, on the resources it commands and, on the other, on the latitude allowed by the character of the host society for the exercise of such power. The present study seeks to bridge the gap between the exogenous and endogenous factors that combine to shape the character of the socie- ties where the plantation system is dominant. Also, the competing and sometimes conflicting claims of subsistence and plantation production for natural resources (principally land) and their impact on the physi- cal environment are evaluated as one result of the integration of the two systems. A case study approach is used to outline and evaluate the histori- cal antecedents and general social mechanisms that have governed the use of resources within both modes of production within a single country. Subsequently, comparative illustrations are made between the case study and other plantation societies. Most studies of plantations have been concerned only with the New World and parts of Southeast Asia. While plantation activities in Africa date back hundreds of years, the continent is often mentioned only parenthetically—-as the source of slave plantation labor. The present study attempts to redress this imbalance by concentrating on Liberia, an African country whose plantations are largely devoted to natural rubber production, an increasingly important export commodity of many developing countries. In addition, Liberia merits such atten- tion in that it exemplifies the character of relations between small developing nations and the large industrialized ones. Documentary sources have been assembled to yield both quantitative and qualitative data, which are analyzed to shed light on the ecological and historico-economic complexes that define the evolving uses of agricultural resources in Liberia. Perspectives from the disciplines of economics, agriculture, forestry, and sociology, among others, are presented to integrate the multi-dimensions of plantations and subsis- tence systems to yield a more integrative interpretation of underdevelop- ment in a plantation society. Liberia: An Instance of a Plantation Society In 1922, following the Stevenson Restrictive Act (Lawrence, 1931; Wolf and Wolf, 1936) by which Great Britain sought to monopolize world trade in rubber, the United States was forced to find new outlets to counteract the impending shortages and high prices. In what has been described as "a case of United States economic nationalism and an un- avoidable expedient altruism" (Azikiwe, 1937: 31), American interest turned to Liberia around 1927. The political economy of Liberia at that time was in a state of crisis. Firestone Plantation Company offered a loan and concluded a concession agreement which forestalled the crisis, marking the opening of an era designed as "The Rubber Period" in Liberian history (Brown, 1941; Carlson, 1977). It is true that iron ore has now replaced rubber as the leading export item, accounting for nearly 70% of all exports in 1976 as against 12% for rubber (Monrovia, 1978). However, the relative share of the two items in total exports distorts their respective importance in the Liberian economy. Iron ore production is capital intensive and has relatively minimal direct linkages with the rest of the economy; it accounts (1976) for only 10% of total employment. 0n the other hand, rubber production has been recorded as the major source of income and employment (Monrovia, 1978). More than one-third of the rubber produced in Liberia comes from "small" farms, with the remaining de— rived from plantations, mostly Firestone operations. In studying Liberia as an instance of a plantation economy, it is not to suggest that estate agricultural production is necessarily the predominant economic activity. Rather, it is that plantations,in general, and rubber p1antations,in particular, have played a central role in the evolution of the political economy of the country. In effect, the political economy of Liberia has evolved both as a response to and as a result of the demands of plantation agriculture. Liberia, therefore, is viewed as an instance of plantation society to the extent that the nation's dominant economic activities center on the production of raw materials, both agricultural and industrial, for an export mar- ket, influencing the internal and external relations of production. Towards an Integrated Model of the Plantation Drawing from the differing disciplinary perspectives, this study seeks an integrated model of the plantation that reconciles the diver- gent views of a plantation society stemming from "particularistic" studies. Focusing on the internal (subsistence) and external (plantation) characteristics and the dynamics of their integration in a historical context provides further clarification of the obstacles to socio-economic transformation of plantation societies. Also the history of rubber,in general, and plantation rubber production,in particular, have evolved within a framework of nations struggling for a scarce resource. Hence, the historical lessons that emerge from this study provide insights that may be pertinent to the world's current struggle with energy resources. Sociologically, the integrated model furnishes further clarifications of the Dependency School of thought within the framework of rural production systems and their power structures. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE The literature on plantations is extensive, showing the tradi- tional disciplinary orientations: history, geography, economics, and anthropology, among the social sciences; agriculture and forestry, within the applied sciences. 0f necessity, the theoretical import of these studies reflects the disciplinary and philosophical tradi- tions in which they are steeped. This immersion imposes a tremendous burden on attempts at selection, synthesis, and focus. To render this maze of literature coherent in its collective clarifications of the relation of production and underdevelopment, the review has been divided into sections. The first part deals with plantations in general; the second looks at plantations within the framework of the Dependency Model and its intellectual undercurrents. General Aspects of Plantations Origin and Development The plantation system is distinguished from other agricultural systems in terms of scale, labor use, types of crops, and demands for and sources of capital investment. The plantation is a large-scale agricultural operation that specializes in a single crop, geared towards an export market. Its capital investments are derived from external sources. Why plantations have been concentrated within the trepics is the subject of a great deal of controversy among geographers and cultural historians. It has been suggested that the origin of plantation agriculture is associated with the invention of sugar refining. This explanation, advanced by Karl Ritter, has subsequently been "confirmed" by cultural historians (Waibel, 1931). Edward Hahn, on the other hand, argues that the plantation system is a specific form of hoe culture: Plantations are cultivated with hoes, as are the fields of Indians and Negroes. European influence, however, gives the plantation system its peculiar character: the European invests his capital and energy and brings together a number of hoe cultivators in order to produce for market such colonial pro- ducts as coffee, sugar and spices (Buchanan, 1938: 175). A third theory, attributed to Keller, is the "climatic theory of the plantation" (Waibel, 1942). This thesis states, briefly, that tropical agriculture is to be distinguished from that of temperate regions; plantations constitute tropical agriculture, while farms are to be found in the temperate zone. A fourth theory is advanced by Waibel (1941) who contends that the major difference between European planta- tions and subsistence agriculture lies in the purposes of agricultural production and the nature of the crops raised. Native production is usually geared toward home consumption, while plantations cater to an export market which requires considerable capital outlay. Neither the invention of sugar refining, climate, cultural tech- niques, nor the scale of enterprise can exclusively account for the origin and the concentrations of plantations in the tropics, however. The fact that in the present world community plantation societies are grouped in or near the tropics...may be accounted on other than climatic grounds....Plantations are largely concentrated in the tropics, not because of climate, but because in the present world community, tropical regions constitute a highly important and accessible trade and agricultural frontier...where there are exploitable agricultural resources attractive to capital and which are nearer to consuming centers in terms of transportation costs than are the vast areas of Sparsely peopled but potential agricultural lands in temperate zones (Thomson, 1941: 55). The climatic theory of the location of plantations in particular is to be viewed with suSpicion. It operates to justify an existing social and economic order, and vested interests connected with that order: The plantation, on the other hand, represents an intruding force from without which is political in character. It arises as a regulator of population movements and racial contacts in the interest of a planter in connection with the exploitation of agricultural resources for market (Waibel, 1942: 307). Plantations and Socio-Economic Change As regards the nature of the socio-economic impact of the plan- tation, Wolf comments: ...Wherever the plantation has arisen, or wherever it was imported from the outside, it always destroys antecedent cultural norms and imposes its own dictates, sometimes by persuasion, sometimes by compulsion, yet always in conflict with the cultural definitions of the affected population. The plantation, therefore, is also an instrument of force, wielded to create and to maintain a class structure of workers and owners, connected hierarchically by staff line of overseers and managers (Wolf, 1959: 136). By the above attributes, Beckford (1972) has argued that the structure of the plantation system limits the possibilities of its proximate economic, social, and political variables contributing to the develop- ment of the societies where it is found. In this regard, the economy of Liberia, a relative newcomer into plantation production, has been described as buoyant with respect to growth but not development (Clower et al., 1966). Some development economists suggest that the plantation can aid development (Baldwin, 1956 and 1963). Also Geertz, a cultural anthro- pologist, draws from his study of plantation society in Java the follow- ing conclusion: Even under admittedly exploitative, race-structure,export-oriented, and in the long run, completely unworkable colonial setup, the plantations came close to building a new sort of rural society in Modjokuto, and only the Great Depression, the inertia of the in- digenous systems, and, most crucially, the inner contradiction of imperialism seem to have prevented them from doing so (Geertz, 1956: 28-29). Also on the positive side, there are studies which stress the planta- tion as a nucleus from which plantation crop production is diffused and incorporated into subsistence agricultural activities, in the process aiding in the "monetization" of the rural sector of the under- developed economy. In Cameroon, it has been pointed out that besides the infrastructure provided by plantations, the spread of banana cul- tivation to the area occurred because farmers felt that they formed a part of, and shared the prestige of, a large-scale enterprise (Ardener gt_gl,, 1960). The development of "local" small-scale rubber farms has also occurred wherever rubber plantations exist. In some countries, small-scale rubber production accounts for a substantial share of total output (Ntiri, 1978). Rubber farms, it is suggested, have developed and survived in this highly competitive industry due to the communica- tions, processing, marketing and research facilities provided by large plantations (Thomson, 1941). Class Structure Internal differentiation of developing societies has been fitted into various conceptual frameworks: the folk-urban continuum of Red- field (1941 and 1960); the Puerto Rican subcultures of Steward (1950); the hacienda-plantation comparisons of Mintz (1957) and Wolf (1966); and the typological constructs of Geertz (1963). As regards planta- tion societies, the typological constructs have centered around "the 10 rural proletariat." The term was originally used in the context of the plantation by Van Lier (1950) in reference to the Caribbean. Its wider application has been based on the pioneering character of the plantation as a mode of agro-social organization (Mintz, 1974). The term has been employed, among other reasons, "to separate the concept of the modern wage-worker from an exclusively urban context...and to raise the question of rural proletarian consciousness in the light of the colonial (plantation, mine, oil well, etc.) experience." The rural proletariat is characterized as follows: A rural proletariat is endowed with some of its social character- istics by virtue of the demands made upon it by the plantation system....Plantation enterprises are, though rural, in some respects, industrial in character. They impose certain features of life-style upon their laboring populations without regard to the antecedent cultures of the working people; rural proletarians thus come to behave sociologically in ways associated with such economic characteristics as wage labor, dependence on imported goods, lack of productive property (especially land), and so on (Mintz, 1974; 300). In addition to the rural proletariat are the "plantation aristoc- racy," those who own and/or manage the plantation, and the subsistence farmers. The rural proletarians and subsistence farmers may form con- junctive (but also competing) groups within the same society. The relationship between the two groups may be complex, due to the oscil- lation of individuals between the two groups. The character of social differentiation within the plantation economy is predicated, largely, on the counter positions of owner and worker, capitalist and rural proletarian, landed and landless. It is also predicated on the demands of plantation wage labor, on the one hand, and family labor for subsis- tence pursuits, on the other hand. By and large, it is a power rela- tionship. 11 Migration of Plantation Labor The dispersal of Africans, and to a lesser extent Indians and Asians, throughout the world has been occasioned largely by the demands of plantations for cheap labor. Beyond initial mass "migrations" and settlements which were induced through slavery, indenture and forced labor have been what may be termed secondary dispersals. Relatively low population densities of plantation areas of the New World, the rela- tive availability of land resources, and a deliberate colonial policy combined to effect the relocation of plantation labor within and be- tween colonies in the New World (Proudfoot, 1950). In the United States, the decline in the importance of plantations and the advent of agricultural mechanization both helped to push redundant plantation labor from the South to the industrial North of the country (Kennedy, 1930; Woodson, 1969). The two West African republics, Liberia and Sierra Leone, were originally established as homes for "burdensome" surplus plantation labor from the New World (Hargreaves, 1964). To Liberia, the early settlers carried with them the plantation institu- tion of the New World. Within Africa, plantations are located in relatively less densely populated areas (Ndaeyo, 1971). As a result, these plantations have resorted to various means of labor recruitment outside the plantation areas to fill their labor requirements (Ardener gt_al,, 1960; Christy, 1911). Slavery, forced labor,and wage incentives have been employed at different times. Characteristically, the recruitment of plantation labor in Africa has resulted in population movements which are unlike the major migratory patterns of the continent. The labor force tends to move from one rural area to another rural area where the plantation 12 is located. An exception is that under the rural plantation setting the migrants have to adjust to a "regimented" work life comparable to the demands of urban industrial life. So far as rubber plantations are concerned, the requirements are for male labor, a situation which accentuates traditional African division of labor by gender (Coleman, 1970; McEvoy, 1971). Agri-Ecological Aspects Plantations are crop specific and as such, they are open to the problems associated with monoculture--pests and diseases. But from an ecological perspective, plantations, or more specifically, plantation tree crops, may serve to benefit the solution of some of the problems associated with the complex yet fragile trepical environment which supports both subsistence agriculture and cash cropping (Ntiri, 1975 and 1976; Hunter and Ntiri, 1978). Rational adaptation of plantation tree-crop production and subsistence pursuits under the Burmese system, TAUNGYA for instance, holds the prospect of containing the depletion of vegetation, soil erosion and "desertification," all of which threaten agricultural pursuits in many tropical areas. Within Africa, in particular, it is interesting to note that while the Spread of the Sahara desert continues to take valuable lands out of agricultural uses (Aubreville, 1947; Jacks and Whyte, 1939; Shantz, 1963), the Taungya system has been tried with considerable measure of success in many parts of the continent. Besides the ecological problems of monocropping characteristic of plantation production, the system also presents serious environ- mental problems where it coexists with shifting cultivation, the predominant system of subsistence production. By taking away 13 subsistence lands or monopolozing the most fertile soil to leave mar- ginal lands for subsistence, deflected fallows, soil erosion, and depletion of plant nutrients combine with more intensive cultivation to destroy the land for agriculture (Hunter and Ntiri, 1978). Dependencygand Plantations The intellectual undercurrents of the Dependency and Plantation Models are related to attempts to convey the unity of forms to be found in agrarian societies in their relationship to capitalism. This embodies the effect of capitalist penetration into subsistence econo- mies and the mediation of the state in the extraction of surplus and in limiting political and social options through repression. In this regard, the key historical factor in defining the situation of contem- porary Africa, Rodney (1972) has argued, has been its forced incorpora- tion into an European-centered imperial system. Galtung (1971), among others, seeks to explore the existence and persistence of inequality in all human conditions and the structural violence that accompanies it. He conceptualizes the nations of the world as polarized about a Center or falling nearer a Periphery, each in turn with its own center and periphery. The dominant system of imperialism fosters links between the two centers to exploit both the peripheries, but even more so for the exploitation of the periphery of the Periphery. In this sense, imperialism is conceived as ...a system that Splits up collectivities and relates some of the parts to each other in relations of harmony of interest, and other parts on relations of disharmony of interest or conflict of interest (Galtung, 1971: 81). There is harmony of interest between the center of the Center nation and the center of the Periphery nation. Within the Periphery nation 14 the disharmony between its center and its periphery are greater than the corresponding relationship within the Center nation. Between the two peripheries (within the Center and Periphery) there is disharmony of interest. The Center corresponds to the developed nations while the Periphery constitutes the underdeveloped ones. In this regard, and for the purposes of clarifying underdevelopment, the world is viewed as an interacting structure so set up that inequality results and persists from a coupling, not in the interest of the weak (peri- phery of the Center and periphery of the Periphery), but instead be- tween the two centers. In this formulation, imperialism manifests itself in economic, political, military, communication, and cultural spheres to sustain "vertical links" of the capitalist Center to a bridgehead--e1ites, petit bourgeoise, etc.--within the center of the Periphery in order to oppress and exploit the masses within the two peripheries and, more so, those in the Periphery. The foregoing view of underdevelopment and inequality within a world system reflects the perspectives of the Dependency and Planta- tion Models as well as social formations outlined as constituting the underdeveloped world. Underdevelopment and the prospects for the transformation of agrarian societies are viewed from a specific problematic: the relationship between capitalism and agriculture (Chaynov, 1966). Dependency Model The Dependency Model views underdevelopment within a world system as 15 ... an historical condition which shapes a certain structure of the world economy such that it favors some countries to the detriment of others and limits the development possibilities of the subordinate economies...a situation in which the economy of a certain group of countries is conditioned by the develop- ment and expansion of another economy, to which their own economy is subjected (Dos Santos, 1968: quoted by Bodenheimer, 1971: 36). As enunciated originally by Latin American scholars (Frank, 1972; Dos Santos, 1968; Quijano, 1967; etc.), the Dependency Model has been based on the historical experience of Latin American economies. These have been appendages of economic, political, military, social, and cultural relations that revolve around market arrangements in which Latin American nations function as exporters of raw materials, agri- cultural products, and other goods and services to complement the economies of industrialized (capitalist) nations. By the nature of their integration into the world capitalist system, Latin American nations find that their capacities for development are compromised. The manner in which such integration fosters underdevelopment is direct: The international system shapes development in Latin America by means of certain institutions, social classes and processes (eg., industrialization, urbanization). These aspects of Latin society become part of the infrastructure of dependency when they -—1 function or occur in a manner that responds to the needs or interests. It is through the infrastructure of dependency that the international system becomes operative within Latin America, and that the legacy of Latin America's integration into that system is transmitted and perpetuated domestically, thereby limiting the possibilities for development (Bodenheimer, 1971: 38). The Dependency Model views foreign investments and aid as mecha- nisms for dominance. However, the infrastructure of dependency sug- gests more than external domination. Equally important are internal class and institutional structures which emerge as legacies of the specific functions of peripheral nations within the world capitalist 16 system. The historical juncture in the development of capitalism at which a particular nation was integrated into the world system deter- mined its character and functions. Amin (1976) outlines along these lines the historical processes that underlie the evolution of partic- ular social formations in Africa. There are three macro-regions in Africa which are distinguished by the period of their incorporation into the world mercantilist and capitalist systems (Amin, 1976). These regions are: (1) Africa of the Colonial Economy--economie 92.252122; (2) Africa of the Concession- Owning Companies, and (3) Africa of the Labor Reserves. Geographically, the regions broadly correspond, respectively to the West, Central, and the East and South Africa. The social formation that emerged within each region was predicated on the stage of development of its "pro— ductive forces” before the arrival of Europeans. During the mercan- tile period Africa became a periphery of the New World, which was in turn a periphery of the Old World, by supplying slaves. As a result, Africa lost its autonomy, and its social institutions began to be shaped by the requirements of mercantilism. The continent's full integration into the international capitalist system occurred in the nineteenth century after the slave trade disappeared. However, the actual shaping of the social formations designated became complete when the European partitioning of Africa was accomplished around the end of the nineteenth century. Within the region designated as Africa of the Colonial Economy, the result was a social formation which retained its traditional appearances and yet remained integrated into the world capitalist system by way of the exchanges of agricultural produce against imported 17 manufactured goods. In the Africa of Concession-Owning Companies, the plantation system became dominant and characterized its ties to the industrial West. The Region of Labor Reserves, it is argued, emerged when the colonial powers sought a large "proletariat" to exploit the region's mineral wealth. Amin sums up the development of underdevelopment in Africa thus: In all three social formations the colonial system organized society so as to produce, under the best possible conditions from the point of view of the metropolitan country, export commodities that provided only very low and stagnant reward of labor. Once this aim was achieved, there were no longer any traditional societies in contemporary Africa, but only dependent peripheral societies (1976: 332). The dependent social formation is characterized by the predominance of agrarian capitalism, a local merchant bourgeoisie, a peculiar bureaucratic system, and incomplete proletarianization (Amin, 1976; 33). It is also linked to the Center capitalist system through technological dependence and social strata and classes integrated, through their consumption habits and an attendent ideology to the Center, a condition which serves to reproduce the system of depen- dence (Amin, 1976: 380). The Dependency Model,as enunciated for Latin America and its interpretation for other parts of the world,views both development and underdevelopment as related. Both internally and externally, the dependency approach to underdevelopment is inherently a conflict model, and it is this attribute that sets it apart from other inter- pretations of underdevelopment. For instance, modernization, diffu- sion, dual, and other "linear cumulative" and "emulative" models seek orderly change and see instability as detrimental to development (Chodak, 1970; Leagans and Loomis, 1971). 18 Plantation Model The plantation, a creation which is associated with European colonization, has persisted as an "economic system” defining the character of relations between metropolitan and peripheral nations. The Plantation Model has been conceptualized in historical-structural terms (Best, 1968). Its changing fortunes have been associated with the evolution of capitalism--from mercantile to industrial and finance capitalism as well as monopoly capital on a world scale (Beckford, 1979). Three periods are designated in the evolution of the planta- tion economy: the period from the seventeenth century to the middle nineteenth century, the terminal point corresponding roughly to the abolition of slavery; middle nineteenth century to the second World War; and, from World War II to the present. The corresponding histor- ical phases of the plantation economy as designated by Best (1968), reSpectively are: Pure Plantation Economy, Plantation Economy Modified, and Plantation Economy Further Modified. There have been significant changes in the character of the plantation economy with its historical evolution; however, the general institutional framework which defines its relationship to metropolitan center nations has persisted. This relationship has centered on: (1) the metropolis as either the exclusive or major market outlet of the plantation economy; (2) a division of labor that restricts the planta- tion to primary production with the bulk of "value-added" activities carried on at the metropole; (3) restriction of banking, financing, and monetary activities to the metropole; and (4) a preference system that ties the plantation economy to a particular center nation. It is argued, the nature of the relationship between the plantation economy 19 and a metropole, as outlined, fosters underdevelopment. The problematic from which the Plantation Model emerges is also associated with the Dependency School: externally propelled economies with change induced from metropolitan areas. However, a set of social relations, principally, as regards the uses of labor, set plantations apart from other dependent economies: A plantation economy then not only is defined by the nature of its production function and typical participation in interna- tional markets, but also by the distinctive mechanisms of labor force control which emerge from it. Where plantations are domi- nant, their manpower requirements are such that these needs, not only come to set the pattern of social relations on the estate, but have implications for the wider society (Mandle, 1972: 58). A Critique of the Plantation Model Both the Dependency and Plantation Models have emerged as a re— sult of attempts to provide new insights into underdevelopment. Pro- ponents of the Plantation Model in particular have linked Marxist and non-Marxist perspectives with a lowering of disciplinary barriers to provide a more integrated explanation of underdevelopment. Thus, for the Caribbean, at any rate, the theory of the firm, the theory of international economy and the theory of growth and de- velopment seem to require a single cogent statement. Related to this, the barriers between sociology, political science, economic history, anthropology and economics, as such, need a drastic lowering (Best, 1968: 323). But in the formulation of the Plantation Model, nearly all social phenomena are directly linked to economic forms, without cognizance of the "structures of mediation" at the economic and superstructural levels. The failure to analyze the complex relationship between eco- nomic and other levels constitutes a serious shortcoming of the planta- tion model (Sudama, 1979). Beyond the lack of serious attention to the 20 mechanisms by which the structures of dependence are maintained, the model puts too much emphasis on the external manifestations of the pro- cesses of dependence. Little attempt is made to look at internal pro- cesses such as "social forces" in order to outline relations of produc- tion and the location of people in the process of production. Beckford (1979) attempts to address this imbalance in the context of a synthesis of class and race as well as the mediations of state apparatus. He comments: My earlier analysis of plantation society has several weaknesses which I attempt to correct....Specifically, its handling of the class question was overshadowed by the emphasis on race; whereas what is needed is a synthesis of how race and class makes planta- tion society a sort of "special case" in the history of social formations....Plantation society is a society in crisis. That crisis stems from the inherent contradiction between white capital and black labor. The capital labor antagonism is central to all capitalist economies. But in plantation society the antagonism is heightened by the element of race. The con— stant situation of conflict places Special responsibility on the state to invest in instruments of violence in order to con- tain the conflict (Beckford, 1979: 6, 12). By addressing the related problems of the internal structures of the plantation society, individuals and groups cease to be passive. And, within this framework, the persistence of underdevelopment in the plantation society emerges not only as a result of external fac- tors but, equally important, as a result of the internal dynamics of the plantation society. This line of analysis also leads to a crucial question: how does the plantation gain a foothold in a given society in the first place? Elsewhere Beckford (1972) suggests that planta- tions have, in general, failed to make strong inroads in societies which were well organized prior to European penetration. And where plantations have become the dominant system of agricultural produc— tion, this has been attained through accommodation to established 21 traditions and customs. Sometimes persuasion alone has been reSpon- sible--negotiation with local chiefs and headmen--but more often, there has been a combination with superior military might. Within the context of redefining the conceptual framework of the plantation society, latitude is provided to salvage fragments of the Plantation Model for the construction of others. Specifically, I will outline the following general proposition as the basis for the con- struction of such a model: In both the external and internal manifes- tations, the exercise of power within the plantation mode of production is dependent on resources and the social latitude allowed for the exer- cise of such power. Thus, the internal conditions (ENDOGENOUS FACTORS) within thegplantation (host) society are just as important in perpetrat- ing the plantation mode ofgproduction and its related social inequality as the external (EXOGENOUS FACTORS) forces that led primarily to the creation of that system. Within this framework, endogenous factors are examined to counterbalance the emphasis of dependency theory on exogenous factors. The plantation economy as a "total system" iS inadequate for the analysis of a great number of plantation societies, especially those where plantation and subsistence production coexist. Also, while the Slave plantation system may be effectively viewed as a total system, the same cannot be applied to contemporary plantation societies. While vestiges of the Pure Plantation phase may be discerned in present-day plantations, they remain qualitatively different from those of the past. Finance capital and multinational corporations have replaced mercantile capital; this is a factor of considerable importance and difference in the evolution of the plantation economy. 22 The plantation model has been characterized as useful only at the static descriptive level and not useful as an analytical construct of the dynamics of underdevelopment of the plantation economy (Sudama, 1979). I do not Share this view. The limitations of the model relate principally to an over-emphasis on external factors and overgenerali- zation across "historical phases" and different plantation societies. These serve as the backdrop for a reconceptualization of the model that I attempt. CHAPTER III THE NATURAL RUBBER INDUSTRY Structure of the Rubber Industny Rubbers are distinguished into two basic types: natural and snythetic. Natural rubber can be secured from a variety of plants-- havea, castilloa, ficus, funtumia, landolphia, etc.--in generaL plants that secrete substances including latex (Bonner and Verner, 1965). Most of these plants are to be found in the tropics. Synthetic rubber is derived from a variety of raw materials including petroleum, coal, and grain (Fieser and Fieser, 1960). The production organization of natural and synthetic rubber differ remarkably. Natural rubber pro- duction is less machine (capital) intensive and occurs under both capitalist and "pre—capitalist" modes of production (Edwards, 1977). Synthetic rubber,on the other hand, is produced under highly machine (capital) intensive conditions and within a framework of extensive social division of labor. Labor requirements, in terms of numbers employed in the produc- tion of natural and synthetic rubber differ a great deal. This is illustrated by labor inputs for the synthetic industry in the United States and natural rubber production within Malaysia, the world's leading producer. Direct employment in the synthetic industry in 1967 amounted to 12,500 for an output of 2,000,000 tons of rubber. In the same year, 696,000 people were employed in Malaysia in the 23 24 production of 938,000 tons of natural rubber (Allen, 1972). The natural rubber industry is much more competitive than synthetic. More than 90% of natural rubber production enters international trade, while only about 25% of synthetic rubber crosses international boun- daries (Allen, 1972). In terms of value, natural rubber is the fourth largest agri- cultural export from the developing nations. Since 1970 it has aver- aged about $l.5 billion per year. Export restrictions following World War I, and relatively low and stable petroleum prices during the 19505 and 19605, resulted in increasing competition from synthetic rubber. And, from the perspective of natural rubber producers, expected annual expansion in demand for rubber, estimated around 5%, represents an un- common opportunity for future growth (Grilli gt_gl,, 1980). But such prospect has to be weighed against the profound structural changes that have characterized the history of the rubber industry. Historical Background of the Natural Rubber Industry The history of the rubber industry is laced with schemes aimed at the control of prices, production and marketing (Lawrence, 1931; Wolf and Wblf, 1936). The period following World War I was particu- larly significant with respect to attempts to control the production and marketing of raw materials in general. Sugar, coffee, rubber, tin, copper, and petroleum, among others, were subjected to one form of control or another. As an aftermath of the war, expanded produc- tion of raw materials to meet wartime conditions had to be adjusted to peacetime demand levels. However, a smooth transition was pre- cluded by the Great Depression, which Shrunk effective demand and 25 paralyzed the entire machinery of international trade and finance. Primary producers were confronted with problems on two fronts: increas- ing production coupled with falling demand and thus, prices. Producers resorted to commodity restrictions as a way of creating artificial Shortages and to boost prices. Brazil tried without success the physical destruction of coffee; the United States and Canada employed stock-piling of cotton and wheat, but were forced to abandon that approach; while Cuba's solitary attempt to curtail sugar production failed. It was against this background of excess production and attempts to restrict the supply of primary commodities that the world entered its second global war. Natural rubber was one of the major commodities subjected to international regulations from the first world war through the onset of the second in 1939. Great Britain controlled, through its colonies, a bulk of the world's supply of rubber, while the United States served as the major market for natural rubber. Hence, restric- tive measures Such as were imposed by the former impacted profoundly on the latter with economic, political, and strategic implications (Bauer, 1948). The history of the rubber industry has evolved within a frame- work of nations struggling over a strategic material. The two prin- cipal actors in that history have been Great Britain and the United States, with colonies of the former serving as the arena. This his- tory has seen the evolution of the natural rubber industry from reliance on wild sources to organized production in the form of plantations and eventually, synthetic rubber. For the purposes of this study, the history of the rubber industry is outlined to 26 encompass the "wild" and "plantation” phases. Synthetic rubber is discussed only to the extent of its impact on natural rubber produc- tion. Wild Rubber Industny Sixteenth century Spanish explorers brought to Europe specimens of the substance, caoutchauc, which they obtained from Indians of the Upper Amazon (Lawrence, 1931). The name rubber is attributed to Priestly, a British scientist who accidentally discovered that caoutchauc would "rub off" lead-pencil marks. Extensive use of wild rubber, however, was delayed until the discovery of the process of vulcanization by Goodyear in 1839, by which rubber retained its properties over a wider temperature range. From a slow start, the rubber industry expanded rapidly under the impetus of the invention of the pneumatic tire, the largest user of rubber, by Dunlop in 1888. A decade or so later, with the growth of the automobile industry, rubber production expanded rapidly. Up to the end of the nineteenth century the demand for natural rubber was met exclusively from wild sources. In "nature," there are many rubber-producing plants which are distributed within various hab- itats. However, with a few exceptions, rubber-producing plants are restricted to the tropics (McFadyean, 1944). The four African coun- tries of Ghana, Sierra Leone, Nigeria and Zaire, with the addition of Brazil in South America, accounted for the bulk of the world's supply of natural rubber from wild sources during the latter part of the 19th century. The wild rubber industry was mainly in the hands of "native” 27 producers who took care of all the intermediate processes from tapping to the conversion of latex into crude rubber. Transportation to con- suming centers was organized by European traders and a few local middlemen. The extent of the exploitation and abuse of the "native" producers has been vividly documented for South America (Collier, 1968) and many parts of Africa (Lawrence, 1931). In present-day Zaire, the area from which a bulk of wild rubber came, King Leopold's Anglo-Belgian Rubber Company, in a period of 15 years amassed profits to the tune of 5 million pounds (about $25 million at the time, not subject to taxes) and expropriated 800,000 square miles of territory by the use of armed mercenaries (Edwards, 1977). The surplus gener- ated from the wild rubber industry was not plowed back into the economies of the producing areas. But it has been suggested that the wild rubber industry was Significant for the producing areas because it brought subsistence producers into a money economy. The Wild Rubber Industry in Africa In Africa, the wild rubber industry left its impact on the physical environment (destruction of vegetation and land resources) as well as on the economic and political lives of the people within the producing areas. Nevertheless, unlike previous tradeS--SlaveS, ivory, gold, etc.--which were heavily capitalized to exclude the bulk of Africans, wild rubber production engaged the services of many Afri- cans. Since it required a minimum of capital investments, individuals could go into independent production. Also, wild rubber, compared with earlier African exports such as palm oil, has a greater value per unit weight. By this attribute, it was economic to produce wild 28 rubber at distant places and transport it to coastal trading posts. Wild rubber thus provided scope for the participation of people from extensive areas and to bring a large number of peasants into an acti- vity tied into the international capitalist market. In Ghana, for instance, the wild rubber industry served as a transitional capitalist economic activity which linked the peasant with the coastal colonial economy and its metropolis (Arhin, 1972). The industry also served as the seedbed of economic institutions, many of which persist to the present day in Ghana. These include the sys- tems of "hiring" land for production, share-cropping (abusa), the "purchase" of labor, and the development of a "class" of professional traders. The greater diffusion and absorption of labor in the wild rubber industry brought many Africans into a cash economy as rubber- tappers, porters, and traders. Equally important, migrants from non- producing areas took advantage of the industry and, in the process, spread a currency system of exchange (Dumett, 1971). The adoption of a currency system of exchange in turn freed agriculture from being practiced exclusively for subsistence and laid the foundation for peasant cash-cropping. The political consequences of the wild rubber industry were as profound as its economic and environmental impact, if not greater. The exploitation of wild rubber in Africa coincided with direct colonial rule, the adverse effects of one compounded by the other. Ample evidence of the brutal exploitation of rubber and humans during the period of direct colonial rule has been documented for the former Belgian Congo, French Congo, Guinea, Angola, and the Gold Coast (Harms, 1975). Within the last colony (now Ghana), oral tradition underscores 29 the twin inception of wild rubber exploitation and colonial rule: "Rubber tapping took hold in Ashanti on a significant scale only after the British imposed their rule in Kumasi" (Dumett, 1971: 93). The industry provided the colonial governments an avenue for easy tax collection to finance their exploits in Africa, while the military and police apparatus of the colonial governments ensured a passive populace amenable to exploitation. Although her findings are somewhat tenuous, Coquery-Vidrovitch (1972) has Shown that in parts of the French Congo the volume of wild rubber output seemed to increase with the number of cartridges expended by the colonial authorities to Sub- due African resistance. Brute force was central to the system of rubber production; but contrary to conventional wisdom, the applica- tion of such force ended independently of efforts at reform. The end of the notorious concession companies in the [Belgian] Congo Independent States has generally been attributed to the efforts of English and Belgian reformers. Recent research on Abir, a major Congo concession company, has revealed that attempts at reform were ineffective, and that exhaustion of the rubber Supplies had caused the rubber system in the Abir concession to break down by 1906, when serious debates on the Congo question were just beginning in Europe (Harms, 1975: 88). The extent to which the interests of metropolitan powers and concession companies were interwoven is demonstrated further by the observation that in French Guinea, for instance, export revenues gen- erated from wild rubber between 1898 and 1910 represented nearly two- thirds of all exports. There were also explicit written agreements stipulating the respective roles of colonial governments and concession companies. In the Belgian Congo the state (colonial) founded posts for companies, supplied guns and ammunition, and, in general, kept law and order within the rubber concessions. In return, the companies gave 3O half of their shares to the state and recruited soldiers and workers for the State (Harms, 1975). Between 1900 and 1910 when the price of rubber nearly doubled as a result of increasing demand, supply response could come in only one way: the intensification of tapping. In the process, wild rubber producing trees were damaged beyond recovery to further aggravate the gap between supply and demand. This development gave impetus to the cultivation of rubber along plantation lines, and also ended the impor- tance of Africa and South America as the major sources of natural rubber. Plantation Rubber Industry Interest in the establishment of rubber plantations was centered in Great Britain and the Netherlands. The United States, the princi- pal consumer of rubber was, however, not unaware of the looming impor- tance of plantation rubber at the turn of the century. Samuel Colt, president of the New England Rubber Club which later became the Rubber Association of America, commented in 1905: The present demand for crude rubber is greater than the normal supply...re1ief must be looked for in increased production of rubber in those vast regions which are watered by the Amazon and the Congo....Alitt1e Yankee ingenuity could readily increase the production sufficient to meet our requirements...,3y syste- matic development and effort the production of Para rubber can be established on a permanent basis which will give it a posi- tion among raw materials practically as reliable as cotton or corn [Indian Rubber World, 31 (March 1905): 204]. Despite the view expressed by Colt, the United States remained silent while Great Britain and Holland wildly promoted new rubber plantations. American manufacturers who consumed a bulk of the world's rubber accepted the British initiative in particular as "evidence of the 31 superior British talent for tropical agriculture" and as regards culti- vated rubber Specifically, "the seasoned fruition of a scientific pro- gram conceived by Wickham and his associates, and carried out with admirable British persistence for almost fifty years" (Lawrence, 1931: 16). The stimulus for the development of rubber plantations and their geographic concentration in the East Indies has been attributed to: a) Early government-Sponsored research by the British and Dutch in their East Indian colonies; b) The rising price of wild rubber; c) Availability of suitable planting lands and favorable cli- matic conditions; d) Adequate supplies of labor either within the planting terri- tories or adjacent colonies; e) The existence of transportation facilities (Edwards, 1977; McFadyean, 1944). While early research efforts conferred advantages on the British and Dutch in establishing rubber plantations, their leadership has to be viewed more in terms of the benefits which their well-established colonial plantation institutions offered. Beginning in the seventeenth century, the two colonial powers could boast of numerous sugar planta- tions (among other crops) with an infrastructure that could be easily transferred. The Dutch, for instance, used a culture system by which the peasants made tax payments either by cultivating one-fifth of their lands in cash crops or devoting themselves to government work for one- fifth of the year. Hence, the same system that was used to establish cash-cropping and estate wage labor was at the disposal of rubber when 32 it became an important crop (Geertz, 1963). Within the emerging rubber-producing areas, land was generally in relative Short supply, contrary to conventional wisdom, while the availability of labor was definitely a limiting factor. Jackson has commented: To facilitate the growth of commercial agriculture in Malaya, three fundamentals were essential: capital, labor and accessible land on easy terms. All three were in relatively Short supply during the nineteenth century...government had accepted the principle that if the desired expansion of European planting activities was to occur then some official effort to provide these essentials of development was necessary....Land regulations were introduced that offered large blocks of land on favorable terms designed to discourage Speculation; loans, in some cases up to a total of $40,000, were made to coffee planters and others to permit them to develop their properties; and legislation was passed in an attempt to promote the inflow of immigrant Indian labor to provide a work-force for the new European estates.... The rapid expansion of rubber planting after 1900 is related closely to an intensification of Government encouragement (1969, 253). In Sumatra, the Dutch had to fight long and hard in the 18705 to gain control of the northern part of the island, so that the area could be brought under rubber cultivation. This colonial war was Significant not only because of northern Sumatra's suitability for rubber cultiva- tion; more important, the opening of the Suez Canal had given a direct sea route to European markets, making the Malacca Straits and the ex- ploitation of its adjacent areas more profitable than the Sunda Straits, far to the South. Equally important, the new rubber-growing areas were effectively protected from outside penetration. For example, in Malaya (as it was then), the British Treasury long prevented the issue of shares by Malayan public companies without its prior consent, in order to limit United States and Japanese investments in the Malayan rubber industry (Drabble, 1973). The availability of labor as a reason for establishing rubber plantations in particular areas is not to be interpreted in its 33 conventional sense. Labor was available to the extent that the same official system of compulsion previously used was at the disposal of rubber plantations. Such labor was either made available locally or extracted from traditional sources--India and China (Arasaratnam, 1970). Unquestionably, a most Significant impetus for the establishment of rubber plantations was the profit motive, not in its Speculative sense in particular, but as the driving force for capitalist invest- ment. Rubber cultivation, as it assumed great importance at the close of the nineteenth century, differed significantly from other cash crops and the associated plantations preceding it. Rubber cultivation was organized as a capitalist enterprise, combining both estate and peasant production. Plantation activities of earlier periods were highly Spec- ulative ventures. Rising prices led to very rapid expansions in the areas devoted to plantation activities, while declining prices resulted in immediate restriction in the acreage cultivated or a shift from one crop to another. In effect, the history of plantations preceding rub- ber was characterized by a series of booms--each associated with a different crop, extension of colonial frontierS--with plantation acti- vities declining rapidly as particular crops became less profitable. By the beginning of the twentieth century, however, plantation activities had passed from the pioneer (Speculative) stage to one of capitalist enterprises backed by corporate capital and a dependent wage labor force. With this transition, neither investor, local govern- ment, nor labor could view the plantation as a speculative venture wholly dependent on the exigencies of short-term price fluctuations. The plantation now became an "investment trap" for all parties engaged 34 in it. This evolving attribute of the plantation system characterized rubber plantations in particular, remaining central to an analysis of the industry. Equally, because of the relatively late date of incep- tion, rubber plantations were in a position to exploit earlier plan- tation infrastructure and peasant production as well, which had been made possible by both the wild rubber industry and the system of peasant cash-cropping already established in many colonies. It is against this background--as well as the demands of the two world wars, official colonial attitude (especially Great Britain), and the needs of the United States for rubber to feed its industries--that the plantation rubber industry has evolved. The most significant factor in the evolution of the industry, however, remains its ties to the finance capital phase of international capitalism. Up to 1913 the world had a deficit in rubber supply, as indicated in Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1. For the period preceding 1913 the deficit ranged between 2,000 and 11,000 tons. Prices were, logically, on the increase as a result. From 1900, the base year, the price index in- creased to a peak of 220 in 1911 before declining to 90 in 1918. Be- tween 1914 and 1919 surpluses were recorded at a low of 4,000 tons (1918) and a high of 56,000 tons for 1919. Related developments in rubber cultivation were as follows: in 1900 there were 5,000 acres under rubber; five years later this had expanded to 150,000 acres, reaching a peak of more than 1.5 million acres in 1911. During the planting boom British capital was poured into rubber plantations, but after 1912 there was no net flow of capital from this source into East Indian rubber plantations (Edwards, 1977). The Slack was taken up by Chinese traders and miners (these plantations were subsequently 35 Table 3.1 World Supply, Demand and Price Index for Rubber, 1900-1920 YEAR SUPPLY (tons) DEMAND (tons) NET DEMAND PRICE INDEX* 1900 44,000 53,000 - 9,000 100 1901 45,000 52,000 - 7,000 90 1902 42,000 50,000 - 8,000 90 1903 49,000 57,000 - 8,000 100 1904 53,000 64,000 -1l,OOO 110 1905 56,000 70,000 -l4,000 120 1906 63,000 74,000 -11,000 120 1907 74,000 77,000 - 3,000 120 1908 70,000 74,000 - 4,000 100 1909 78,000 86,000 - 8,000 147 1910 94,000 99,000 - 5,000 210 1911 94,000 99,000 - 5,000 220 1912 114,000 121,000 - 7,000 190 1913 120,000 130,000 -10,000 120 1914 123,000 121,000 + 2,000 90 1915 171,000 160,000 +11,000 100 1916 214,000 188,000 +16,000 110 1917 278,000 250,000 +28,000 110 1918 220,000 216,000 + 4,000 90 1919 400,000 344,000 +56,000 80 1920 342,000 373,000 -31,000 70 SOURCE: A. McFadyean, 1944: 20-21 * Calculation is based on London prices. 1900 is used as base year; inflation is not built into calculation, hence relative price for 1920 for instance is less than 70. onp-ooap .zpaazm Lanna“ upcoz um: F.m ocaoru £2 08p 83 I36 v—w ow oc Thousand 'Tons 37 "purchased" by the British and Dutch to consolidate their hold on the industry) but more significantly, by peasant producers. Table 3.2 Plantation Rubber: Estate and Peasant Production in Southeast Asia, 1909-1940 YEAR ESTATE PEASANT ACREAGE PRODUCTION (tons) ACREAGE PRODUCTION (tons) 1909 425,000 5,500 75,000 1920 2,545,000 250,000 1,650,000 65,000 1930 4,020,000 465,000 3,930,000 335,000 1940 4,588,000 765,000 4,275,000 610,000 SOURCE: McFadyean, 1944:11 In general, during the boom in rubber plantations the British authorities favored estates over peasant cultivation. Estates were granted loans by British authorities and given preference in land allocations. A5 a colonial policy in the Federated Malay States, land adjoining roads could not be made available to peasant producers with- out official sanction (Edwards, 1977). Despite these sanctions, how- ever, peasant production expanded, partly due to the peasant's capa- city to combine rubber cultivation with other farming activities in the case of British colonies and, in the Dutch areas, as a response to the culture system. Plantation rubber production continued to expand from 1905, when it made up 0.3% of all natural rubber exports, to 1920, after which it accounted for more than 90% of total production. Britain controlled directly in her colonies 69% of the acreage under rubber; this 38 ova— cva . ooo— .comun52mcou cognac pmcauuz u—Loz mo mcacm .moumum umuwca cw econ» ~.m mgamwu oom— - N Q Percent of World Consumption ow 39 together with British ownership in the Dutch East Indies amounted to 75% of world total plantation rubber production. The plantation rubber industry at the onset of World War I was characterized by geographic concentration, mostly in Southeast Asia; the dominance of Britain as the principal supplier; and the parallel development of plantation and peasant rubber farms. The first World War brought to a head the conflicts inherent in the manner of the development of rubber industry-- ‘specifically as between producer and consumer, different geographic areas, and plantation and peasant production. Regulation of Natural Rubber Industry Worldwide rubber production reached a peak of nearly 350,000 tons in 1919 as a result of "frenzied" cultivation that took place earlier in response to declining wild rubber output and correspondingly high prices. Between 1901 and 1919, net average annual profits in the natural rubber industry ranged between 15% and 53%. By 1922, at a peak production level of nearly 380,000 tons, net profits dropped to 6% (Lawrence, 1931). On the demand Side, American industries that consumed a bulk of the world's natural rubber output were saddled with expanding inventories and a declining demand for finished goods. Over-production and under-consumption fed on each other to undermine both supply and consumption markets. Ordinarily, the interplay of market forces, leading to low prices, serves to clear a market under conditions of over-Supply and under-consumption. But the years of the rubber boom and subsequent depressed market were not ordinary cases. On the one hand, Great Britain which controlled the world's natural rubber Supply was 40 struggling to generate revenues to meet debts incurred during World War I. And, on the other hand, rubber manufacturers in the United States were instituting desperate measures to recover from Slumping sales, debts, and mounting inventories. The question as to who pro- duces rubber and who uses it assumed new Significance as the accepted superiority of Englishmen as tropical administrators and exploiters was pitched against much-vaunted "Yankee ingenuity." In October, 1921, the British Rubber Growers Association sought the constitution of a special committee of inquiry into the state of the rubber industry. The request went to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, at that time Winston Churchill, who responded by appoint- ing a committee headed by his personal Commercial Adviser. Except for the inclusion of two subordinate cabinet representatives, all the other members were drawn from the Rubber Growers Association. British rubber manufacturers were excluded from the committee (Lawrence, 1931). Committee members, predictably, saw the problems of plantation rubber as warranting governmental action. AS a response, Winston Churchill launched the British Empire on a program to artificially restrict the production of rubber in October, 1922. But not without protests and counterproposals from within and outside the British empire. The liberal Labor Party parliamentarian, Swoden, noted: I am all for Empire development, but I cannot imagine anything more fatal to the safety of the empire than the policy of build- ing a wall around the British Empire. The only solution of the problem is to throw open the necessary resources of the world for the equal use of all the people who require them (Quoted by Lawrence, 1931: 32). From the United States came both protests and counterproposals aimed at saving the British plantation rubber industry in a manner that would 41 at the same time safeguard the interests of United States industries. Among a number of measures debated both in the United States and Britain was one aimed at combining American and British capital to save the rubber industry. This idea was championed by an American, Edgar Davis, a man with considerable experience with plantation rubber production in Sumatra. His suggestion, which he carried to the British Rubber Growers Association, entailed the formation of an international rubber organization with the purpose of "reju- venating and strengthening a distressed industry." However, it was interpreted in a different light by the British. The response of Thomas, a British parliamentarian, was typical: In 1921 and 1922 there was an effort to bankrupt our rubber pro- ducing concerns, so that people in America could have bought up the whole lot, wiping out the investments of British small share- holders and exploiting the Situation (Lawrence, 1931: 32). There were protests also within the United States against any collaboration with Great Britain in any manner that would stand in the way of free trade. Harvey S. Firestone was in the forefront of that protest. Notwithstanding internal British protests, those of the United States, and counter-proposals, a Scheme for government regulation of plantation rubber production became a fact in the form of the so-called Stevenson Plan. Its impact on the world rubber economy and the extent to which it was able to attain its aims has been the subject of a great deal of discussion in economic history (Bauer, 1948; Firestone, 1926, 1931, 1952; Knorr, 1945; Lawrence, 1931). Before the impact of the Stevenson Plan could be felt, however, "con- templative" men in the United States, Germany, Japan, and later, the USSR, argued for the institution of measures that would make 42 their nations independent of Great Britain and its colonies as the major source of their rubber. Research into synthetic rubber pro- duction was either stepped up or initiated with governmental support at the same time that locations for plantations were sought. Ford Motor Company started rubber plantations in Brazil; the French looked to Indochina, Africa, and Papua New Guinea; and at a later date, the USSR started the cultivation of rubber on collective farms, which in 1942 were estimated to total 600,000 acres (McFadyean, 1944). The most outstanding and perhaps the most successful attempts were in Liberia, for which credit goes to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. Dependency and Plantation Models Revisited Twentieth century plantations have emerged as metropolitan cor- porate capitalist ventures. In addition to rubber, these ventures have included crops such as palm oil, bananas, and the extension of sugar cultivation in the Caribbean and to Pacific and Asia (Beckford, 1972). By and large, wage labor has replaced the systems of slavery, indenture, and forced labor. Land acquisition is also seldom effected through seizure; lands are secured primarily through direct purchases and lease arrangements. The prices and rents paid to native owners are, however, ridiculously low. The increasing incidence of peasant plantation-crop production, which occurs under the proddings of foreign plantation interests, is also a complete departure from past practices. Notwithstanding these differences, the essential attributes of the plantation, as an export-oriented system of monocropping that is externally financed, remain. Also continuing are the debates on the impact of the plantation on the host society and its economy. 43 These debateS--they have been outlined in the preceding literature review—-are elaborated here in the context of the history of the natural rubber industry. The spread of wild rubber production and the establishment of rubber plantations were predicated on the coercion of the host socie- ties for their labor and land resources. Production was also geared exclusively towards the requirements of metropolitan economies with- out reference to the host society's needs. DeSpite the use of violence by the colonial powers and concession companies, however, the inception of wild rubber production and its cultivation along plantation lines (as well as their "inherent system of unequal exchange") cannot be explained exclusively in terms of "external pressures." There remain nagging questions about which factors (or forces) within the producing areas themselves made the use of violence possible as a means of impos- ing wild rubber production and plantation rubber cultivation. Beckford's observation is partially revealing in this regard: ...the plantation failed to make strong inroads into those coun- tries of Southeast Asia which had the most organized societies prior to European penetration. Even in the lesser developed societies the plantation had to make an accommodation to the established traditions and customs and could only gain a foot- - hold by combining superior military might with negotiation with local chiefs and head men (1972: 97). It must be emphasized that the acquiescence of traditional leaders and other groups within the host societies resulted also from their interest in their potential role as "middlemen." The fact that colonial rule in many parts of Africa could be effectively secured only Simultaneously with the establishment of an "exchange economic system" suggests that internal economic interests (or perhaps disrup- tions) were important factors in fostering colonial rule and its 44 associated violence, rather than the reverse. The Ashantis, for in- stance, effectively withstood the British and remained independent of them until 1900 when they were defeated and incorporated into the Gold Coast Colony, as Ghana was then known. As oral tradition has it, this incorporation coincided with the period when the wild rubber industry, the precursor of an exchange economy, gained a foothold in Ashanti (Arhin, 1972; Dumett, 1971).1 The twin inception of colonial rule and a cash economy in Ashanti and elsewhere needs to be empiri- cally evaluated. Did the inception of a cash economy weaken tradi- tional authority, which had served as a bond to ensure effective col- lective resistance to colonial rule? To the extent that rubber pro- ducing areas were subdued, to what extent were internal forces (those whose interest coincided with colonial authorities) important? Specifi- cally, what was the Significance of the role of local leaders, middle- men, and an emerging "merchant class" in the process of political and economic dominance by external forces? In their critique of the dependency model, Howe and Sica (1980) place the blame for the system of unequal exchange on the shoulders of internal groups, such as has been suggested. With respect to Latin America, they comment: 1That the Ashantis perceived the wild rubber industry as detri- mental is illustrated by an incident recorded by Christy (1911): A fetish priest at Takimah in Ashanti suddenly (1908) announced the imminent advent of a new "god" who was to bring riches to the poor and reduce the rich to abject poverty. At his coming the black man would dominate the whites. He let it be known particu- larly that any man found tapping rubber in the forest would on the "god's" arrival, be turned into an antelope. The official report on this matter stated: "Incredible as it may appear, this imposter succeeded in paralyzing the local rubber trade. He was eventually arrested and detained in Kumasi, and his fetish fell into disre- pute." 45 ...the ruling class was engaged in primary exporting, from which it drew handsome rewards. The rise of dependency empha- sizing the "facts" that agriculture made for poverty and that foreign capital's only interest was in exporting surplus, was not contingent upon a radically new understanding of the inter- national economy,...but upon the rise of the industrial bourgeoisie during international disruptions between 1930 and 1945. The economic and political interest of this class were embodied in dependency theory....In a certain sense dependency theory's real basis was not the organization of the international economy,‘but the struggle between classes and factions within the gerjphery itSElf (Howe and Sica,71980: 247. Emphasis in the original). But this interpretation of the role of internal group interests in fostering dependency is grossly exaggerated; it carries the argument to the other extreme. The need is for a balanced interpretation of the links between internal and external group interest as the basis for exploitation and the impoverishment of the periphery. CHAPTER IV THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: THE PLANTATION AS POWER AND SYSTEMS PARADIGM The Dependency Model of underdevelopment entails a power rela- tionship between a periphery (plantation) and metropolitan nation which "tilts" in favor of the latter. Also, the persistence of under- development of the periphery is accounted for by its being tied into a world capitalist system as a producer of primary goods. Hence, the plantation as a dependent economy may be viewed independently as either a power or systems paradigm. However, a more coherent frame- work of analysis may be achieved by viewing both power and systems paradigms together. In that regard, this study looks at power as constituting the dynamic core of the plantation as a system of inter- actions among distinguishable (or perceived) parts; namely, land, labor, capital, agri-ecological aspects, and organization. Neo-classical economic models (as well as their modifications) are used as a means of clarifying both the static and dynamic core of the plantation system, which is inherently a conflict model. Histori- cal and economic events are integrated with ecological phenomenon as a complex, and interpreted in their collective impact on the planta- tion society. The plantation and subsistence "modes" of production are portrayed independently and together to form the "core" of the theoretical model. 46 47 The chapter is organized as follows: first, an outline of the plantation as a power paradigm is presented; second, components of the subsistence and plantation systems are discussed; third, a context for a nee-classical analysis of the underdeveloped (plantation) economy is introduced; fourth, production conditions within the plantation and subsistence systems are outlined. These aspects are then pulled to- gether using an adaptation of Ellen's (1979) provisional model of ecological and socio-economic change. The last part addresses methodo- logical issues. The Plantation as a Power Paradigm The uses of resources within plantation and subsistence systems, as well as their integration, are viewed as relational social and eco- logical experiences. In this regard, inequality as between plantation and subsistence systems, within groups of people, and between individ- uals and groups, stems from the type and relative power enjoyed and exercised respectively with regard to land, labor, capital, and organi- zational resources. Correspondingly, the kind of compliance (as derived from the type of power that regulates the uses of resources within each system) is central to the dominance of one system of agricultural organi- zation over the other. This study assumes three sources of control (power) which serve as the foundation for social order (Etzioni, 1961), in this case, with- in the plantation and Subsistence systems of agricultural organization. The three sources of control are coercion, economic assets, and norma- tive values. These means of control translate respectively into power relations as: coercion--the application or threat of application of 48 physical sanctions; remunerative--control over the rewards through the allocation of material resources; normative--the allocation and manipulation of real and symbolic rewards. In the context of the foregoing, a conception of the manner in which the plantation may impinge on subsistence agriculture and miti- gate its transformation to benefit internal groups is viewed as stem- ming from the power structures that underlie relations between the two. The exercise of power is dependent on the resources commanded respectively by the subsistence and plantation systems and their organizational structures. To the extent that the plantation mode of production and its related social inequality predominates, the internal power structure and relations of production within the sub- sistence system are contributing factors. These related questions are important in viewing the relation- ship between subsistence and plantation systems in the context of power relations: a) What is the nature of power relations respectively within plantation and subsistence systems of agricultural organiza- tion? b) How do the respective power structures within the planta- tion and subsistence systems define independently and "collectively" the uses of land and labor? c) What are the forces which led to the emergence and crystal- lization of internal groups whose power and influence are derived primarily from external plantation interests? d) What are the historical, societal, and agri-ecological factors whose change accounts for compliance trends within 49 the plantation organization? e) Finally, what are the general propositions that may be derived from the foregoing with respect to plantation activities. Relations of production as reflected in access to and the uses of land, labor, technology and capital, as well as the agri-ecological and organizational characteristics of plantation and subsistence sys- tems, serve as central themes for the evaluation of the above questions. Components of Subsistence and Plantation Systems For the purpose of this study, the conception of the plantation has been derived from an interpretation of the plantation as "an agri- cultural estate operated by a dominant (usually organized into a cor- poration) and dependent labor force, organized to supply a large-scale market by means of abundant capital, in which the factors of produc- tion are employed primarily to further capital accumulation without reference to the status needs of the workers" (Wolf and Mintz, 1957). This is in contrast to the traditional subsistence system in which agricultural production is an extension of the social structure, inte- grating political, religious, and economic activities within customary land and labor rights (Geertz, 1956). The respective characteriza- tions of the plantation and subsistence systems are ideal—typical. The growth of private property, "monetization" of peasant agriculture, urbanization and, in general, the integration of plantation and sub- sistence systems over time have Significantly changed and blurred the dichotomy between the two. However, despite the strains imposed by 50 one system on the other, each retains a cluster of its essential attributes to be viewed independently and within the framework of the ideal-typical models. Equally, the spatial variations in the level of integration provide scope for comparative evaluation of the two systems within a Single country. Descriptions of components of subsistence and plantation systems are provided in tabular form (Tables 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5), together with explanatory notes on the consequences of the integration of the two systems of production. The appropriateness of the characterization of the various components in the context of the two systems of production, and the results of their integration, will be assessed in light of the case analysis. Within the subsistence system, the use of labor is defined in terms of reciprocal exchanges, Shared work, and communal work. The plantation, on the other hand, views labor as a commodity whose role is a matter of "indifference." The consequence of the intro- duction of the plantation is a Shift in the "rights" for products defined by labor power to "rights" associated with the ownership of capital. 51 Table 4,] Parameters of Labor Within Subsistence and Plantation Systems Parameters Subsistence System Plantation System 1. Sources 1. Communal 1. Recruitment 2. Family 2. Forced labor 3. Peonage 3. Wage labor II. Uses and l. Communal goods 1. Large labor require- Scope of ments obtained Demand 2. Subsistence and locally or imported wealth for the production of a Single crop for 3. Debt payment an export market III. Control Community, kin or 1. Plantation hierarchy family 2. Contrived control due to absence of other economic pursuits 3. Migrant labor used to dilute labor power 4. Uses of local politi- cal apparatus IV. Division Ages and sex; both 1. Exclusively male sexes are partici- adults pants 2. Unskilled V. Power Normative l. Coercion Relations 2. Remunerative 52 Table 4.2 Parameters of Land Within Subsistence and Plantation SyStems Parameters Subsistence System Plantation System I. Ownership 1. Communal owner- 1. Occupation by force ship 2. Usufruct 2. Purchase from chiefs II. Scope of Labor and scope of Extensive demand to Demand subsistence needs ensure efficient use of limit demand for capital and labor land III. Spatial Spreads; access Concentrated in par- Distribution defined by communal ticular areas or kin ties IV. Ends in Use Subsistence Production for external production market V. Power Rela- Normative l. Coercion tions 2. Remunerative From the perspective of land, the "integration" of the plantation and subsistence systems may create spatial as well as structural problems. Spatially, the plantations may create dichotomy in the level of de- velopment of agriculture as between regions of a country. And, structurally, agriculture may be characterized by two sectors: a developed plantation sector which is highly capitalized and marked by intense economic activity, and a marginal agricultural sector (region) which is under-capitalized and underdeveloped. The planta- tion also breaks down the established relationship of the people to the land that is the basis for the productive organization of the subsistence system. 53 Table 4,3 Parameters of Capital Within Subsistence and Plantation Systems Parameters Subsistence System Plantation System 1. Ownership II. Uses and III. Protection and Control IV. Power Relations Local: Family and communal Limited requirements for subsistence pursuits Creation, protec- tion and inheritance are defined by tradition Normative Foreign and corporate Large scope for capital, demands for maximum return is the over- riding consideration Controlled by foreign corporate body; protec- tion is effected by influencing local political machinery Remunerative While the supra-national nature of capital has been emphasized in Table 4.3, its implications for the host society may be more profound than the immediate interest of the investor to protect himself. More important, the markets from which such investments come are also the markets for the plantation product. the supply Side through quotas, tariffs, prices, etc. This market may be regulated on The supply side of the market may also be structured to ensure rapid expansion to meet sudden shifts in demand. 54 Table 4.4 Organizational Aspects of Subsistence and Plantation Systems Parameters Subsistence System Plantation System I. Groups Family, kin or com- 1. Owners II. Relations III. Mobility IV. Power Relations munity: functions defined by status, age, and sex Defined and con- trolled by tradition Roles are differen- tiated and ascribed by tradition. Age and excellence ensure ”upward" mobility Normative 2. Management 3. Local labor Gaps between owner, management, techni- cians, and labor Distinctions between owner, management, and labor are rigid. Limited mobility within scope of a given group. 1. Normative 2. Remuneration From the organizational point of view, the gap between owners and local plantation labor is further heightened by the residence of owners outside the plantation society. The reduction of the parti- cipation and functions of the host-community to unskilled labor and work tasks that can be undertaken by anybody dilutes labor power and limits the scope for the acquisition of Skills. 55 Table 4.5 Agri-Ecological Characteristics of Subsistence and Plantation Systems Parameters Subsistence System Plantation System I. System of l. Shifting culti- l. Sedentary Production vation agriculture 2. Labor intensive 2. Relatively capital intensive 3. Multiple cropping 3. Monoculture II. Technology Simple and labor in- Large investments in tensive. Patterned machinery, transportation after requirements and direct inputs into of the physical crop production environment III. Crop Multiple subsistence Single cash crop and cash crops IV. Risks Spread over range Tied to Single crop; of crops; relatively relatively high low There are inherent risks both social and technical that may be associated with plantation production as a monoculture. The risks and social costs relate to the host society being "trapped" into investments in a Single crop whose fate is tied to the exigencies of outside plantation interests. As a monoculture, the plantation is also much more susceptible to insects and pests and is on the whole a much more fragile system compared to multiple cropping with- in the subsistence system. 56 Explication of Dual-Model of Economic Growth and Development Under neg-classical assumptions of the dual economy (technologi- cal dualism, diminishing marginal returns, and surplus homogenous labor), capital inputs are insignificant in the subsistence sector. Technological progress is also minimal and land is assumed to be fixed under an extensive system of shifting cultivation. Both capi- tal and technological progress are important in the "modern" sector. Under these assumptions, the transformation of the dual economy is envisaged as a shift of labor and other resources from subsistence into the modern sector. Such shifts, it has been argued, can be accomplished at no cost to the subsistence sector since it is assumed to be effected through a pool of surplus labor within that sector. The usefulness of the dual model as an analytical tool has come under a great deal of criticism, both empirical and theoretical. Its critical assumption that the marginal product of labor within the subsistence sector is either negative or zero has been found to be empirically invalid. It has also been argued that by looking at a money (industrial) and subsistence sector as "discrete" components of the underdeveloped economy, relations of production and the associ- ated inequality between the two sectors are masked. Along Similar lines, the "dichotomy" between plantation and subsistence production, if emphasized as the framework of analysis, will submerge the "inter- dependence" of the two systems of production and their consequences. Figure 4.1, which is couched in terms of the integration of natural rubber and subsistence production, is used to explicate the foregoing argument. 57 mwzo momhzou P.¢ ot=awa zodcuzooma do oz< mom zomhuzooma 58 At the juncture (phase) where production is aimed at "pure" sub- sistence, social relations of production, as manifested through the ownership of capital, use and access to technology, and division of labor are insignificant. This phase can be contrasted with an exchange (money) economic sector as outlined in the dual model. However, what the dual model designates at the subsistence sector corresponds more to phase 3 in the scheme presented. One will be hard pressed to locate in the real world an existing Situation Similar to phase 1. Phase 2 also belongs, largely, to the era of the inception of colonial rule Even if latitude is allowed for the dual model's delineation of sub- sistence and money sectors as ideal typical constructs, it still re- mains unclear what makes each sector, independently, a critical feature of the underdeveloped economy. This study looks at subsistence and plantation cash crop production as integrated activities. They are discussed separately only where the reference point is phase 1 of the scheme outline in Figure 4.1. The following explication of the Dual- Model of economic growth and development is outlined with such a framework. Aggregate agricultural output,(l,within the plantation economy may be derived from plantation production, p, and subsistence produc- tion, 5, thus: 0 = Qp + OS --------------- 1. Income, Y, from total agricultural output, 0, at given price, P, levels is represented by Y = P0 ----------------- 2. Under neo-classical assumptions, the same homogenous labor, L, is employed for both subsistence and plantation production. The land 59 area devoted to agriculture, A, is assumed to be fixed and there are no significant technological changes in Subsistence production. From these we arrived at a production function for subsistence thus: 05 = fs (Ls, A) ------------- 3. For the plantation both capital, K, and technology, T, are assumed to be important, hence: QP T fp (K, Lp, T) ---------- 4- T (K) = Tp (Kp) ---------- 5. Capital input and technological progress ensure that the margi- nal product of labor in plantation production, de/de, is greater than dQs/dLs for subsistence production. Given rational behavior the tendency will be for labor to be Shifted from subsistence into planta- tion production in response to higher earnings, Wp/WS 1. Aggregate labor allocation under these circumstances is: L = Ls (W5) + Lp (Wp) ---------- 6. The above relationship implies that a pool of "disguised unemployed” labor can be shifted from subsistence towards plantation production at no cost. In fact, it has been argued that such a labor transfer serves to increase aggregate income for both subsistence and planta- tion production. This relationship has been based on the Ricardian notion of subsistence farming as an extensive system with very limited potential for intensification. It also assumes relative wage levels within the two "sectors" as the major determinant of labor allocation. This will be assessed in light of the case data. It is argued here that the integration of subsistence and plan- tation rubber production occurs in such a framework that it leads to 60 the intensification of agriculture as a whole. Whether the resulting change benefits a given society is an important but a separate prob- lem. Specifically, the adoption of rubber cultivation by the subsis- tence farmer--the crop, its cultural methods, and its processing on a commercial basis--represents a technological innovation that has to be accounted for in the production function for subsistence. This is accomplished by modifying equation 3 thus: 05 = fs (Ls, A, Ts) ----------- 7. Also, the plantation infrastructure-~transportation facilities and marketing outletS--which are at the disposal of the subsistence sys- tem for rubber production, seedlings distributed to subsistence far- mers from the plantation, and direct investments by farmers in equip- ment--tapping knives, cups, buckets, and chemicals used in coagulating latex--all represent capital inputs in subsistence rubber production. From these capital inputs we obtain the following technological rela- tionship: T5 = TS (Ks) -------------- 8. which we can incorporate in equation 5 as: 1 = r [Tp (Kp); Ts (Ks)] -------- 9. By introducing techfiology and capital into the subsistence system through rubber cultivation, the assumption that the marginal product of labor in subsistence will be equal to either zero or negative ceases to be valid. AS a result, the transfer of labor from subsistence into plantation rubber production cannot be accomplished without costs. Such costs can be measured in terms Such as decreased food production for domestic use. To make up for declining food production, the level of plantation rubber production has to be increased to generate 61 revenue to purchase food from external sources. Figure 4.2 outlines the dynamics of this relationship. There is a threshold beyond which economic incentives alone fail to ensure labor transfers from subsistence into plantation production. This is often "compensated" for through a system of compulsion to force labor out of subsistence production. This imposes further demands on the food supplies to further aggravate conflicts in pro- duction for subsistence and exchange. The introduction of technological change and capital into the subsistence system also implies that land resources are no longer fixed. The Subsistence production function becomes: 05 = fS (Ls, A, K) ------------ 10. In effect, land becomes "capitalized" and as a result finds its "most productive" use in rubber cultivation. As indicated in Figure 4.2, the "financial logic" of the integration of subsistence and planta- tion rubber production is such that increasing amounts of land area will be devoted to the latter. And, as a result, the system of mono- culture characteristic of plantation rubber production gradually re- places mixed cropping practices within subsistence, with serious risk and environmental implications. By modifying equation 10 to account for the capitalization of land through large-scale foreign plantation production and Small- scale local production along commercial lines we arrive at: 05 = fs [L5, A (K)] ----------- 11. This implies that part of aggregate income has to go to land as a capitalized asset of the plantation and small-scale producers within the subsistence system. The "out-flow" cuts into labor's Share of 62 Ame ”aka, .empyu sate emuaaumo mmugzommm can; we :owmcmaxm 63 income to aggravate the poverty of the rural population from which plantation labor is drawn. In general, resource--land, labor, and capital-~allocation be- tween the two systems of production occurs for reasons other than the relative economic efficiency of each of the two systems. Specifi- cally, non-economic factors intrude, such as a system of compulsion inherent in the use of plantation labor and land acquisition. Also the source of capital is an important consideration in how it is in- vested and the uses made of production surplus. Equation 6 may be modified to account for the non-economic fac- tors in the allocation of labor between subsistence and plantation production thus: L = Ls (Ws, F5) + Lp (Wp, Fp) ------- 12. where F designates non-economic factors used to either attract or com- pel labor flows into subsistence and plantation production. The equation incorporates remunerative (economic) power in the form of wages (W) and compulsion (coercion and normative power), represented by F. Regarding foreign ownership of the bulk of investments in plantation production, Sinqer comments: The question of ownership as well as of opportunity costs enters at this point. The facilities for producing export goods in un- developed countries are often foreign-owned as a result of pre- vious investment in these countries....lfwe apply the principle of opportunity costs to the development of nations, the import of capital into underdeveloped countries for the purpose of making them into providers of food and raw materials for the industrialized countries may have been not only rather ineffec- tive in giving them the normal benefits of investment and trade but positively harmful (1950: 221-222). The opportunity costs associated with foreign investments as outlined in the above quotation are reflected in consumption, savings, and 64 resource allocation patterns. Also, foreign investments may lead to outright exploitation; specifically, in the gap between aggregate and retained income. These points are elaborated through a critique of the growth model of Harrod (1948) and Domar (1957) which has been often applied to developing countries. The Harrod-Domar model views the rate of economic growth, 9, as a function of aggregate saving rate, s, with incremental capital out- put ratio, CR, where r is the rate of return on investments at a given level of aggregate income, Y. _ dY E/Y _ S 9 ' nr'- 3R7EY'- fi‘ ——————————— 13. A major criticism in the application of the above model to developing countries, and in particular plantation economies, is that it makes no distinction between foreign (f) and domestic (d) investments. By aggregating foreign and domestic investments, outflows that go to outside capitalists are not accounted for and this distorts saving levels and the growth function of the developing economy as a whole. We may modify the growth model by incorporating I = Id + If --------------- 14 which distinguishes between domestic and foreign investments. I=Id+If+Id(r,Y)+I(r)=Id(rd,Y) + If (rd/rf) ------------- 15. In the above formulation, foreign investment is dependent only on the rate of return, while domestic investment is a function of both the rate of return and aggregate income. Under these circumstances the relative rate of return to foreign investments is higher. And, the fact that a Significant Share is channeled towards transfer payments 65 deprives the host society of the economic expansion that the reten- tion of such revenue could generate under the Harrod-Domar model. The consequences of these transfers as they underpin the arguments of the School of Unequal Exchange, and the appropriateness of equation 15, will be explored and possible modifications made in terms of the case data. The financial rationale of foreign investments in plantation agriculture iS often at odds with the ends in subsistence production. Plantation rubber production defines the uses of land, the scope of investments, and technological choices in agriculture. The conflicts between subsistence and commercial (financial) agricultural production are heightened and perpetuated by the limited technical option that the plantation imposes. Decisions as to what to produce, how to pro— duce it, and the scale of production are all determined to a great extent by past investments which serve to "trap" the plantation society into an international market as a producer of a single agricultural raw material. The state also comes to be dependent on this single commod- ity as its major source of revenue; the "interests" of the state in effect come to be tied to those of the plantation. Neo-classical categories of "private" and social costs of pro- duction and consumption have been used as a way of measuring the impact of development projects and foreign investments on the welfare of developing societies. Unfortunately, in stressing the dichotomy between private and social costs, the relative impact of the latter (negative externalities) on groups within society is neglected. Some of the agri-ecological aspects of plantation rubber cultivation, as 66 well as other common cash crops in West Africa, serve to illustrate this point. In order to attract foreign investments or to encourage the cul- tivation of cash crops, many governments of developing nations have unwittingly accepted the negative externalities that they entail. From an agri-ecological perspective some of the negative externalities may be traced to the tendency for balanced cropping combinations being replaced partly by monocropping, or by hegemony of a few selected crops. Without the balances of "natural controls," simplified crop- ping patterns become vulnerable to weeds, selected pests, and diseases which can multiply to destroy the cash economy of vast areas. Where such havoc has been wreaked, its social implications have often been neglected. Instead, technical solutions in terms of temperate-zone agricultural protocols--herbicides, insecticides, new seed varieties, fertilizer, etc.--are sought. If these support systems fail, govern- mental reactions typically follow the pattern of responses to the plight of the cocoa industry in West Africa a few decades ago. The pattern favored three approaches: the burning of infested crops, de- marcation of areas infested, establishment of buffers around them, and leaving the diseased trees to "self-destruction"; or, using the state's limited agricultural research facilities and talents to develop cocoa varieties resistant to the particular disease (Miller, 1962; Ndaeyo, 1971). The differential impacts of such a development on the state, foreign investor, and subsistence farmer are significant. The costs to the state can be measured in terms of losses in foreign exchange 67 and the provision of substantial subsidies (material and personnel) necessary to contain the crop infestation. Where foreign investments are involved, the decline in output resulting from infestation will lead to revenue and profit losses. However, foreign plantation opera- tors can recover a portion of these losses by laying off labor and from the higher prices that will result from the decline in the pro- duct's supply. The choices of Subsistence farmers and redundant plan- tation laborers may be limited to hunger or outright starvation. Increasing incidence of acreages under plantation crops, espe— cially semi-permanent cash crops such as rubber, may result in poorer and less varied diets for subsistence. The destruction of natural vegetation and its associated animal life over extensive areas de- prives local populations of collectible and nutritionally significant food supplements such as wild edible roots, herbs, mushrooms, and wild animals as a source of protein. The import of the foregoing is not to suggest that agri-ecological stability can be simply ensured and the food needs of agrarian popula- tion met by limiting agricultural practices to methods that are molded after a "natural" system. Rather, it is to argue that "introduced agricultural innovations" are a mixed blessing and they need to be com- paratively evaluated with respect to their varied impacts. And, before replacing an existing agricultural system with another, the new system's intricate expression in social, economic, cultural, and environmental relations has to be anticipated and monitored. Figure 4.3, an adap- tation from Ellen (1979), incorporates the above considerations, in addition to other facets that have been outlined in the context of neo- classical growth models. The model is at the same time both a power 68 8:83”. :93 @3512: 38:989.; «uni—m co... Sum—5mm: Sn: 9?. at: 3 .8: -ESBQQH 3.223.: MISC 3.353 95 ~95.— .m—mgm com 39:23 .2. g a. 3:58 mhzg zwz xpmao pozcc< mmmgw>< AU nu ac nu n4 ... O b: ..... ... k e ...-...- r. p» our 0 I1 " O r. o. t P co.- co no... a: n3 - an an). :1 ....— “m ......a....o..- ..u.... .a ... 1| .QQQOO hr 0.- ....- ...-...... b ........................ .... ...—u.. ... ......- O ole ' ..pv ....................... ....-—-——... ......- ............................. ...... ...:-2.3.2.33...-33......-...-3:..." .....~.~ ..n‘ ...... ... ...‘C. o‘v .pvoado QQQQ ..........-....-...-. ............. ...-... ...... 000‘ 1...... . .....................-.. nun-II. i nu ca muzam365h :. xooum acwuccpa eo Lunsaz 1970 1960 Figure 5.5 Trends in Natural Rubber Prices and Distribution of 1950 1941 Planting Stock to Liberian Farmers, 1941-7O 144 Liberians, the acceptance of this innovation may be for reasons other than what the literature on plantations postulate. That is, the plantation acts as a nucleus from which plantation-crop production is diffused and incorporated into subsistence production and, in the process, the monetization of the latter (Ardener gt_gl,, 1960; Geertz, 1956). In Figure 5.5 the price trend (New York) is superimposed on the distribution of planting stock used by independent Liberian farmers. What emerges is a close relationship between price levels and the number of planting stock used by farmers. Specifically, during the periods when rubber prices are increasing, there are corresponding increases in the number of planting stock used by farmers. The re- verse is also true. While not dismissing the importance of the "dem- onstration effect" of Firestone in the acceptance and expansion of rubber cultivation by Liberians, it would seem that price incentives-- both market and direct financial subsidies such as those provided during World War II and the Korean War--have been more significant in inducing production. This is reflected by the peak periods of the graph depicting the distribution of planting stock. Liberian participation in rubber production is not to be inter- preted uncritically as a manifestation of a positive transformation of subsistence agricultural production. Beyond their participation in rubber production as wage laborers, "native" Liberians are mini- mally involved in rubber cultivation as independent producers. Most Liberian rubber farms and the relatively efficient operations are owned by a small number of absentee owners, mostly urban Americo- Liberians and a few "native" elites. 145 .omm "com. . Hm.mm eesapu "seesaw ooo.oo~.¢ Fe¢._p PNP.Om oom.m 4< —muob umpmewumm Longs: mem comp .mmpmm ucm «New Xe magma cavemnwg mo eaeesaeeemeg m_.m aeaae 146 l____A, 3v + DEV 3V 097‘103 3V 002'101 100J 50 I OOOlS 5; saleg 3V + 09? 3V DEV-[02 3V OOZ'lOI A! O O .— l ._ “1 Farm Size j 4 ad Figure 5.6 Distribution of Liberian Farms by Size, 1960 U I c 8 c swung go auaauad Size flu-93 Figure 5.7 Distribution of Average Sale per Faun Size. 1960 147 As depicted in Table 5.13 and Figures 5.6 and 5.7, about 3% of Liberian rubber farms accounted for 46% of rubber sales in Liberia for 1960. The largest number of farmers (1,426), more than half of all those engaged in rubber production, had holdings averaging less than 5 acres with gross average sales of less than $300, as compared to sales of $105,000 by each of the six largest farms. In effect, rubber cultivation by independent Liberian producers has emerged not to benefit the large numbers of "native" Liberians within subsistence agriculture but, instead as an extension of the economic, social, and political hegemony of a select number of urban Liberians. In this regard, Liberian rubber farm owners and operators emulate the essen- tial attributes of plantation production and their interests are mir- ror images of those of the rubber concessions. The large acreages devoted to rubber production by foreign con- cessions as well as Liberian producers have geen acquired at the ex- pense of food-crop production by subsistence farmers. The following map, Figure 5.8, shows the location of major rubber plantations and farms. The tendency is for all lands made accessible by new roads to be converted into rubber cultivation, irrespective of legitimate claims of "native" Liberians and their subsistence needs. Subsistence (Peasant) Economy The following may be distilled from the various definitions of subsistence or peasant economies. A peasant (or subsistence) socio- economic organization is one in which agriculture is at the same time an occupation, a livelihood, and a way of life rather than a business 148 m.emaw4 cw memos cu comam_mm cw meowmmmucou :mwmgom use .msgmm Leanna .mcowumuempa songs: we :omumuoa “no: m.m wgamvm magma swansm cmpsonmd oum>pga can mccvuouempm swans: coveted 5.33:8 cm Ego... 11..“ l woo: '1 x" ,“I‘»Il. ll l49 (Redfield, 1954). The peasant economy links purchasers and consumers as well as resource and product allocations in a network of ties which are more personal and more directly perceptible than in a more developed economy (Chayanov, l966). Subsistence or peasant economies exist not in isolation but form a segment of larger economies with urban and metropolitan ties (Firth, 1961). Some of the key elements of a subsistence socio-economic organization are: family and kin ties, patronage, clientship and ascribed relations based on seniority, ritual office, gender, etc. as the basis for leadership and work organizations. Land and labor are the two critical items of subsistence produc- tion. Ownership of land and labor power are defined by rights which are ultimately invested in a kin group of which an individual is a member. The overriding rights of kin groups over land is such that in many parts of Africa there are no "free markets" in land (Schneider and Gough, 196l). Liberia differs in this respect. Communal (or kin) ownership of land co-exists with a dominant fee simple system of owner- ship. Also in Liberia, the institution of wage labor is well en- trenched despite the persistence of the norms regulating the mobili- zation of family labor for subsistence purposes. The dictates of the concept of a wider communal or kin good, embodied in the rights in the use of land and labor for subsistence purposes, are often at odds with the requirements for plantation pro- duction in Liberia. A brief account of subsistence production in Liberia is provided and evaluated with respect to its inherent con- flicts with plantation production. The dominant farming system in Liberia is similar to that found 150 in many tropical areas--shifting agriculture. A wide range of crops are cultivated. Rice is the most important crop. The sequence of the agricultural cycle is as follows: land preparation, planting, crop maintenance, harvesting, and storage. After the harvest the land is allowed to return to "bush" or a fallow period which ideally should last between 10 and 20 years. Performance of the various farming activities is by different groups within a family or kin organization whose specific responsi- bilities are ascribed by tradition. The initial selection of the primary or secondary forest to be cleared for farms is the perogative of the village chiefs, elders, and "medicine men" (Porter, l96l). Land preparation which entails clearing and burning is the respon- sibility of male adults who work either as a domestic kin group or as members of male labor cooperatives. Land preparation is done be- tween February and March. Around late April or May, after the first rains, the women cultivate the field. Relieved of their responsi- bilities in subsistence production, many males direct their attention to cash crops such as cocoa, coffee, sugar cane, and rubber. Activi- ties in subsistence production continue with the burden shouldered by women, the old, and children. These activities involve weeding and the protection of the crop from animal predators. The effectiveness of these maintenance activities is critical since they are vital for a successful harvest and thus a family's subsistence needs until the next agricultural cycle. Between August and October, the crops, prin- cipally rice and other cereals, are harvested; food crops such as cassava are left in the ground for another year and harvested as 151 of Rubber, Cassava and Rice Production in Liberia Figure 5.9 Spatial Distribution 152 needed for consumption. During the rice harvest the men assist by collecting and storing the crop. Capital inputs in subsistence production as outlined is mini- mal. Besides seeds which are carried from one harvest to another, the agricultural implements used are simple and often rudimentary. The axe and cutlass are the two principal tools; the former is the most important and it is often shared. The axe has a very important place in native life: It is used to fell or uproot trees or to split wood. For this reason, whenever a person owns in a Jabo community an axe, it is likely to travel the entire length of the village. Almost every household will come to the owner for the use of it. When it is lent to one household, that household will take the liberty of lending it to the next, and so on until it finally returns to the proper owner. (Interpretation of a Jabo proverb cited by McEnvoy, l97l: 328-9). In addition to low capital investment, subsistence production permits very little or no capital accumulation over time except where cash- cropping has been grafted to the system (McCourtie, I973). In 1967 the total number of Liberians within the "subsistence sector" was estimated at 700,000. Out of this number, 310,000 were classified as actively involved in subsistence production. The value of production for the same year was placed between $3l-45 million (Shoup, l97l). This represents l0%-l5% of gross domestic product (GDP) for that year. This figure seems to be an underestimate; it also excludes the value of cash-cropping, which in many instances is grafted on to subsistence production. While rice dominates subsistence farming, the typical Liberian farm may be regarded as a multi-product farm. A pure stand farm de- voted to the production of a single crop is rare or non-existent. 153 Production through a system of inter-cropping, where selections from about 30 different crops are involved, is the rule, In a survey of l,28l Liberian farms in l97l, McCourtie found the following distri- bution of crop combinations shown in Table 5.14. Despite the wide range of subsistence crops cultivated under a system of multi- cropping, rice remains the dominant food crop. Historical records indicate that in those areas in Liberia where greater emphasis is given to the cultivation of crops other than rice, the reasons for such preference are other than those related to climate, as suggested by Porter (l96l) for instance. Relative land scarcity, declining soil fertility, and labor shortages may better explain the increas- ing incidence of cassava cultivation. McEvoy comments with respect to the "Sabo" area: ... cassava has been increasingly emphasized because of labor migration from the area and because of the increase in cash- cropping of tree crops, particularly rubber....The planting and consumption of cassava in southeastern Liberia has in- creased since the coming of rubber because of declining rice yields in under-fallowed, exhausted soils. Moreover, in view of the importance of wage-labor migration in the economic organization of the people of the region, it is important to note that the planting (if not the preparation) of cassava is relatively much less labor-intensive than rice and is easily carried out by households which lack adult male labor (1971: 334-335). The changing pattern of subsistence production, its underlying reasons, and implications are elaborated. For reasons already alluded to, the focus of the discussion is on rice culture. 154 Table 5.14 Distribution of Number of Major Crop Combinations by 1,281 Farmers Farmers, 1971 Number of Number of Crops Farmers Percentage 1 0 0 % 2 49 3.8 3 144 11.2 4 275 21.5 5 289 22.6 6 241 18.8 Over 6 283 22.1 Total 1,28l 100.0 % Source: McCourtie, 1973: 5. Agri-Ecological ASpects of Rice Culture Brown sums up an account of the day of a "Rice Harvest Dance" at a Liberian village in these words: The spirit "devil" was pleased. A brown hawk sailed over the crowd. Soon he would find a chicken, for if the spirit "devil" is ill at ease with an empty belly, while the village is so full with happiness and joy, let him take a chicken for feast. The crowd left to dine on rice, goat soup, Palaver source and bamboo wine (1941: 102). There was a bumper rice crop and with such a good harvest, the vil- lagers' subsistence until the next planting cycle had been assured. The villagers' joy also reflected the experience of bad harvests in 155 the past and, perhaps, they were not unmindful of potentially bad years in the future. Liberia was at one time an exporter of grains including rice. Johnson (1906) traces the trade in rice to about 1611. By the be- ginning of the twentieth century, however, the same author singles out rice and salt as the two major imports of Liberia, the former item amounting to about 150,000 bags or roughly 700 tons annually. There has been a steady increase in rice imports since. In 1952, rice imports were recorded at 170,000 tons and, for the period 1958-70, annual imports were estimated at 112,000 tons. Between 1962 and 1970 nearly one-third to one-half of all rice consumed in Liberia came by way of imports from the United States (Ghoshal, 1974). Available figures for rice imports for the period 1962-70 are presented in Table 5.15. Between 1962 and 1970 the quantity of rice imported increased by 80% with a corresponding price increase of more than 40%. During the same period per capita income increased by only 13%. During the first half of the 19705 the number of farmers who were self-sufficient in rice declined, with a corresponding rise in the number of farmers purchasing rice. Amacheree (1970: 70) argues that the increasing quantity of rice imports "rests more on taste and on the prestige attached to eating imported rice than on the availability of local resources to meet demand." While this may be true for urban Liberians, the same argument may not hold for rural farming communities. As indicated in Table 5.16 and the accompanying Figure 5.10, the percentage of farmers who buy rice (either locally produced or imported) increased from 30% in 1971 to Table 5.15 Volume and Value of Rice Imports, 1962-1970 156 Quantity Thousand Percent Thousand Percent Year Pounds Change Dollars Change 1962 60,163 0% 3,846 0% 1963 79,245 32 6,034 19 1964 92,368 54 6,102 2 1965 71,644 19 6,326 38 1966 102,075 70 7,536 16 1967 75,794 26 6,564 36 1968 100,329 65 8,664 34 1969 61,302 2 5,202 33 1970 108,049 80% 9,771 41% Based on figures from McCourtie, 1973: 72. Figure 5.16 Percentage of Farm Holdings Buying, Selling and Self-Sufficient in Rice Production 1971-1976 cf: ' Year Buying Selling Self-Sufficient 1971 30 % 16 % 7o % 1975 51 % 24 % 54 % 1976 57 % 29 % 46 74 Source: Monke, "Rice Policy in Liberia": 5a. Percent 100 157 Self-Sufficient B uyi n9 .... .... 'unuuusuulusnsssili'“'s" 1.5-n-HIII'5' Selling 1970 1971 1975 1976 Figure 5.10 Trends in Farm Holding. Buying, Selling, and Self-Sufficient in Rice in Liberia, l970~76 158 nearly 60% in 1976. On the other hand, there was only a modest in- crease of 13% in the number of farmers who sold part of their rice harvest. A most alarming statistic, however, relates to the propor- tion of subsistence farmers who were self-reliant in rice production. There was a decline from 70% in 1971 to 46% in 1976. The increasing levels of rice imports and a corresponding decline in local produc- tion may be attributed to labor shortages, relative land scarcity, and declining quality of land. Near Cape Palmas the removal of lands from subsistence produc- tion and its impact are most obvious. Besides Firestone plantations in the area, it appears ... that increasing amounts of land are being given over to the growing of rubber each year in Spite of the generally falling values of rubber in the world market. One apparent consequence of the land conversion process seems to be the adoption of a de- creased fallowing cycle for land which remains available for rice production. This reduction in the length of fallowing appears, moreover, to result in visibly poorer rice and smaller yields. In Gobi, rice grows toaiheight of about four feet while near Plibo, mature rice in 1967 appeared to be often less than two feet in height (McEvoy, 1971: 334). In a similar vein, another author comments on the competing claims of subsistence production and cash-cropping thus: The combined effect of these factors serve to reduce the fallow period in some localities. Farmers in these areas farm what they refer to as "young bush," representing in some cases a fallow period of no more than three years. Where the fertility rating of a farming unit has been adversely affected by a reduc— tion in the fallow period a farmer may resort to planting of a crop of second choice viz. cassava in place of rice. When asked what they intend growing in an area being cleared, far- mers would sometimes state that the bush was too young for rice, but could grow cassava instead (McCourtie, 1973: 15). Adjustments to male wage labor migration tend to have the same ecological impact: a decline in rice production and change from rice to cassava cultivation. Theoretically, migration could be expected 159 to reduce the man-land ratio and thus the length of the fallow needed to restore soil fertility. Observations, however, point to the con- trary. Specifically, there is the tendency for households deprived of male labor to opt for shorter fallows and the cultivation of cas- sava instead of crops such as rice which are more labor demanding. The preference of women for shorter fallows is due to the relative ease of clearing "young bush." Even under conditions where more fertile lands (longer fallows) are available, the preference of female heads of households for shorter fallows represents a rational response to their increased responsibilities resulting from male labor migration (Hunter and Ntiri, 1978). But irrespective of the logic of such a choice, shorter fallows under the system of shift- ing cultivation is damaging to soil fertility, and the preference for cassava is a poor choice in its relative nutrient value to rice. The Liberian government has come to the realization that the substitution of cash-crop production and wage labor for food imports does not constitute a genuine alternative to local food-crop produc- tion. Food import bills continue to increase at the same time that receipts for primary agricultural products such as rubber, cocoa, and coffee either remain unchanged or decline. A primary objective of the government's agricultural policy presently is, therefore, aimed at first curbing food imports and then attaining ultimate self-sufficiency in staple foods such as rice (Clower gt_al,, 1966; McCourtie, 1973; Monke, 1979). But there are several factors that stand in the way of this objective. First, Liberian farmers have come to accept export cash-crop production as an integral part of the agricultural system. Thus, if migrant wage laborers, for 160 instance, are induced to go back into independent agricultural pro- duction, the tendency will be for the large number whose skills and experiences are related to plantation production to opt for export cash crops. In that event, the tendency will be further reductions in the length of the fallow due to the enclosure of subsistence farm- ing by tree cash crops (McEvoy, 1971). The unwillingness to go into rice production in particular has a historical basis. There is the practice of food requisitions--demands of rice and other food stuffs without compensation--by Liberian officials, which many farmers cite as their reasons for producing agricultural products other than food crops (Amacheree,l970). In one area with an estimated 5,000 house- holds, 560,000 pounds of rice, averaging about 112 pounds of rice per household was expropriated in one year (Clower gt_gl,, 1966). In one farmer's words: If I grow cocoa or coffee, they [government functionaries] will not take it because they will have to sell it to get the money and they do not want to do that. They cannot eat cocoa or coffee. Rice yes, they will take it because all they have to do is eat or give it to their girl friends. You see why I don't like to grow too much rice. It is hard work and it is small and then someone comes and takes part of it. So I grow more coffee (Amacheree, 1970: 26-27). The kinsmen are even reluctant to send rice to their counterparts on plantations and in urban areas for fear that soldiers at the numerous checkpoints on roads may insist on their share of the rice. The dismal failure of the government's program to make Liberia self-sufficient in rice was reflected in the so-called Rice Riots of April 14, 1979, which one author characterizes as raising "the level of dissent to a transcendental level" and serving as the harbinger of the April 12, 1980 coup (Liebenow, 1980). CHAPTER VI INFERENCES FROM CASE STUDY Two general inferences may be culled from the materials pre- sented in the preceding chapter. First, plantation rubber production has impacted both positively and negatively on Liberia. Second, natural rubber production has emerged as a dominant economic acti- vity, on the one hand, as a result of pressure from the United States to ensure its strategic needs and, on the other hand, the acquiescence of Liberian authorities for reasons of material rewards, continuing Americo-Liberian hegemony, and a lack of organized resistance to Fire— stone and United States. These two inferences are elaborated on and used as the basis of evaluating the data presented in Chapter V in the context of the theoretical model outlined earlier. From the latter part of 19305 to 1960, rubber was the most im- portant export of Liberia and, by extension, the leading foreign ex- change earner. In 1945, rubber accounted for more than 90% of all exports. By 1960 rubber's share of total exports had declined to 45%. In value terms, however, rubber exports increased from $10 million in 1945 to $49 million in 1951, then dropped to $38 million in 1960. Despite the declining share of rubber in exports, production levels have been increasing. Moreover, compared with iron ore, the leading export item, natural rubber production continues to be the most impor- tant source of wage employment. Firestone alone employed nearly 70% 161 162 of all labor within Liberia's I'money sector" in 1950. By 1960 Fire— stone accounted for less than 30% of total wage employment; this figure, however, excludes wage labor on plantations other than Fire- stone's. Private Liberian farms have been expanding and are becoming significant sources of wage employment. Employment on these farms was estimated at more than 11,000 in 1960. In general, natural rub- ber production remains the leading avenue for the involvement of a large number of Liberians in a money economy and as a means of acquiring skills other than those needed for subsistence production. Plantation infrastructure such as roads, ports, hospitals, schools, communication networks, and marketing facilities are largely at the disposal of Liberia and also serve as impetus for the Liberian govern- ment to create similar ones, possibly from revenues provided to the government by the plantations in the form of royalties and taxes. Technological transfers implied by the adoption of rubber cultivation by Liberians have also served to buttress the "agrarian sector" of the economy. Positive contributions of plantation rubber to Liberia are more than counterbalanced by its negative aspects. Internally, these in- clude the entrenchment of Americo—Liberian hegemony through economic resources made available to the state and by direct Americo-Liberian participation in rubber production as absentee landlords. Beside wage labor employment, there is limited integration of plantation produc- tion into the Liberian economy. Indeed the plantation sector has impacted negatively on both the industrial and agricultural sectors of the Liberian economy; in the case of the latter, with reSpect to 163 food production for domestic consumption. By the reliance of the plantation on external markets for a bulk of its non-labor inputs, Liberia is deprived of the opportunity to create the supportive in- dustries that the presence of the plantations could generate. And, by creating a situation in which resource allocation favors the plan- tation (export cash-crops), subsistence food-crop production continues to suffer. The resulting food deficit, especially in the case of rice, has meant the diversion of scarce foreign exchange resources toward food imports. This development continues to be a source of official concern and citizen discontent. In general, the traditional agricul- tural system and its related social organization have been destroyed without effective substitutes that can ensure good husbandry of land resources and the welfare of local groups. Externally, plantation rubber production has meant perpetration of a division of labor that serves external capitalists' interests without reference to the needs of a large number of Liberians. In the process, social and economic infrastructure, investments (govern- ment, local, and foreign capital), and the skills of Liberians have become "trapped" into the production of a crop that must be sold on external markets which Liberia is not in a position to influence. The transfer payments entailed by foreign investments in plantations also drain the Liberian economy of possible investments from a large share of production surplus. Modified versions of Tables 4.1-4.5 in Chapter IV are presented in the light of the data from Chapter V. These tables have been re- constructed to include the results of the integration of plantation 164 and subsistence production as reflected in the uses of labor, land, and capital as well as in the agri-ecological and organizational aspects of the two systems of agricultural production. Submodels of the plantation system are presented in Figures 6.l-6.5. These are also based on the case data and serve as elaborations on the provi- sional model of ecological and socio-economic change (Figure 4.3) adapted from Ellen (1979). The summaries outlined in the form of tables and submodels are used as the basis of answering the five key questions posed in Chapter IV. While the quantitative data presented in Chapter V are inadequate for the solution of the equations outlined in Chapter IV, an attempt is made to use the available statistics in conjunction with the neo-classical economic models as illustrations of their potential in clarifying the qualitative outcomes of the inte- gration of plantation and subsistence systems. The inferences thus drawn serve to strengthen those derived from the more qualitative data. As a result of the integration of plantation and subsistence pro- duction labor assumes the guise of a commodity. Communal and kin rela- tionships as the mechanisms defining access to labor are replaced by wage as a "unifying“ force between labor and capital. But wage in- centives alone are inadequate to entice labor from subsistence pro- duction. Adequate supplies of plantation labor, however, can be ensured through compulsion and other developments within subsistence production which "push" individuals and groups off their lands. Thus, both wage incentives and compulsion as means of labor acquisition characterize plantation production. However, wage labor migration and forced labor (peonage as well as inter- and intra-tribal slavery) 165 predate plantation rubber production in Liberia. Americo-Liberians, European traders, and colonial powers throughout West Africa adopted and exploited the system of compulsion in traditional labor use to their advantage. Firestone's use of compulsory labor may be ex- plained as a "hold-over" from Liberia's past, fitting into the structure and requirements of plantation production and the interests of Liberia's governing elite. Specifically, "native" Liberian parti- cipation in plantation work was induced by government sanctions in the form of taxes, physical punishment, and financial rewards to government-appointed chiefs. Official sanctions as outlined also undermined traditional authority and ensured the flow of labor to the plantations. Had the government chosen to do so, there would have been a fair chance that it could have resisted the overtures of Firestone for compulsory labor. During the labor investigation which was sanctioned by the United States around the time Firestone was contemplating rubber cultivation in Liberia, world opinion was on the side of Liberia. Numerous groups and individuals throughout the world, especially Blacks, mounted a massive "propaganda" which if Liberian authorities had so desired, could have been capitalized on to forestall Firestone investments and the use of forced labor that it entailed. Indeed, Firestone's attempts to establish rubber plantations in the Philippines, Sarawak, and Mexico had been success- / fully rebuffed by local authorities (Taylor, 1956). Liberial offi- cials, however, have always been beneficiaries of the system of forced labor and the presence of Firestone had the potential of buttressing those benefits. 166 nee :ewueucepe we cewuegmeucH e>wuececesem .m m>weeceeesem .m cewugeeu .N coweceeu .N :ewoceeu .~ meeweepem 332:2 .p 2,5222 .p elueecez .F cezee .> eewuueeege eegu eeew use museumwmeem cwguwz epeeee ewe use eecepwgu .me—ezew we eucegeeeeeece .N meweewuem meweeege gmeu ecu wweam Agemw>ceeem euewcueexm .N eegemm cwcuwx eewwwe geeee Leeep woe: cewueucepe cw mepes upee< .— Lees. nap—wxmce ewes apnea peuee .p _e=ewc use xem .em< we eewmw>wo .>~ meewuucem can asegeeew; coweeuee—e .e mcewes mecca apeceupeuwcaev we euceme< .m mceuecu :ewuueeege :ewueece_e Lew Leeep newcwsee peeep neucweeee pewscce>eu .m we eewueuweemce use eucw meceueecum eewpee use xgeuwpwz .N auwcezeee peeewuweecu we :ewuegmeuc~ .N mexeu Lew :ewueucepe :e aceeceeee mcmceeep meseeew gmeu newegee we me>wuecseupe wee: we xuwcasseu e we aceseepe>eo ._ eeuwsw_ e» wee Pecucee ee>wguceu .p xpwsew Le :wx .xuwcesseu Pegeceu ._~H mpeeew>wecw peeep eue>wge Lew aceexee xeu ece ween .e msgew geese; peeep eue>wge .m mesce>eg euececem e» mageexe Leeee .n gupeez .m peuweeu coweeew uwwece use mcewuwecee uexces meew>cem we {were 3 Swuueeege 8 333m .N ..eEeuxe no women 292 tenses .N 25 meeem 25.5.8 .N 2553 we eece>mg acesece>eu we eeceem .p uceexo Lew eege epmcwm we neweeaeege .— euceumwmeam .— eeeum ecu mew: .HH meege eugeem ee gmceuuew case: Eegw mcwupzmeg :ewuegmws Leeep one: .e :XLG>QPW= on cewuecuwe ecu meecew _eewme—eee we eewuemeeeeee xge>epm peewgu ecucw zepeeeuew —euwgeumw; :e wee cewmpeeeeu emu: saw: acmeuwegueg paweucem .N ecu Leuew .emeceee .m :e ueeeceeee mcwesec zuwpweepwe>e mu~ cowaemeeesee cwx .~ .auweessee e we emwsm ecu mesemme geen; .F was: ueezuw: acesuweceec peweegeu .p peczsseu .p meeceem .~ eeceumwmeem Eeumxm cewueucepe swumam euceumwmeam mgeeesecee :ewpeeeege :ewueecepe ecu eecepmwmeam we Eepmzm eeuegmepcm ewspwz mgepmsecee "Loewe p.m «peek 167 coweeeeege :ewueucepe wee museumwmezm we Eeumxm eeuesmepcw cwcpwz gene; we Feweseem P.m egzoww .Leeep ewes xpucecweeeege zouhwuceucw emu: cewmpeesee wewuwwwo zomwwuecec=Ee¢ .N e>wuececeem¢ .N mceweewea cewuceeu ._ cewuceeu .P e>wuescez Lezee .> meeec euceumwmeem eueweessw cecu emcee; cmeu ece muexcee Fecceuxe we mewuceuwxe e» eewu m—e>e— cewuueeece .m eecu eeew Lew eecu cmee we emcecexm .N ew__ e—ecewuec uexcee e» eeceemwmeem secw mwmeceee we uwwcm .p e>weee ewwece ece umxceE Fecceuxe Lew cewueceece peceeEee ece coweuee nece .euceemwmeem am: e. menu .>. euceumwxe Peceesee ece euceumwmeam e_eew> cow mwmee use me ece m—ewceues sec we eeceem ece .mcwscew .acwppeze mcweauwum -ceu muwca ece— umecew12Lew1emeppw> cw mcewueacmwo .N escapeewcme wewe -LeEEee we cewueewcemwe .ewueem ecu cw eucepeesw ce ee mcweeep cewuueeece eecu cmeu ece cewueace_e eu eeue>ee ece mecep e>wue=eece ece epewmmeeee awe: ._ meeec an e_ewmmeeee wees mecca ceewe “meece Lepauwucee cw eeuecuceuceu mecep Ecew eu mmeeue eueeeeee emeppw> cuee ecemce eu eece mace. e ce>e eeecem ece mucesepuuem =e_e=a_.em.e peweeam .... cewue>wupcu ucwuwwcm we Eeumxm ecu ceec: eeceemwmeam Lew mecep Peczssee we eece ecu mcwuwsw— mace macaw; uuecwem: mewwwees ece meceuxe Ancee» mm ueeeev ceeeec we epuau ewwp upseceem .N coweeeeece eecu eeew Lew mece— epeepwe>e mcwuwewp mcewueucepe an newepu e>wmmwuxe cup: cewueeeece —ewucwssee eu meeec euceemwmeem we cewuecweceeem .p uceEee—e>ee eueweessw Lew eeec cece emcee; cewmmee -cee we erm ce uceeceeeo .N ceeep peuweee we em: ucewuwwwm ecemce ea eceaee e>wmceuxm .p meeec eeceemwmeam ece e~wm cewuepeeee co eemem eceseo we eeeem ..— mecepece— eeucomee ece wee—ece, we mmepu .m Eeumxm ucecwsee on» me meueueem cw eewwweeu cwscew we» saw: macaw; Fecesseu ece —e=e_> -wecw we eeceumwxeeu newcmcecze ecep cw mewuwemwes< .N cewuee -wcemce _eweem ece e>wuuseece _—e we mwmee ecu we ecep e» mcewuepec pecewuweecu cecu emcee; mece queceue cow xaweefieee e we ecep we 5332338 .— emee__ece4 .m mwewce eecw memececee .~ eecew xe cewueeeeeo .P mucmwc uuecwem: .~ e—cmcecze _ec:EEeu .— ewcmceczo .p cewueucepe ece euceumwmeem we cewaecmeucw Emumxm cewueucepe seemxm euceumwmeem mceueEecee cewpuaeece cewuepcepe ece eucepmwmecm we Eeumxm empecmeucH cwcpwz mcepesecee "ece; Ncemczw 171 cewuuzeece cewpeuce—e ece eecepmwmeem we 58.93 8:33... 55.... ece. we .8953 ...... 2...: mmaomw mmweoz<4 oz< mam: nz we mecee pecueucw me ecweeece cmeu Lew mucmsecwaemc ecep mcwmemcec_ oz<4 zowwwuececzsem .m coweceeu .N e>wuecec=sem .N mcewuewem e>wueecez .F e>wueEcez .w e>wpescez emcee .>H especem cewpezeece uexces emcee Pecewuec we xpce we cewuewcueeem .N -ceucw eeuepemec ece eeeepe>ee cewuexee ce mmcwwwee -PFez mcweceemecceu e cuwz Hex ecemxeeerc xep me ceem cewuweecu xe -ces Peuweee ewummEee eccewcez .N mucesemcecce Peepeecucee eecwwee ece eeceu Pecuceu muceseecme cmeeccu meee eueceecee -wceccw ece cewp ece ceew ece mzep mcwxcem .F cowecew an eewwecuceu .F -ueuece .cewueecu cewueeeece .... eceeeecemecwcw =cceees= ece ecescce>em Peuee .m mcewueucepe Peeee .N muwweceuicceuec we muwemcze eeceumwm mceweeucepe euec ce pceecmeee mw eeeum neem Lew muces . cowecew Lew mucesecweeem .F .ecesee emcep ape>wuewem necweemc eeuwswe ece mew: .... eue>wce Feeee .N xwwsew ece W eueceeceu coweceu .F cawecew Fecesseu-upeeee ewcmceczo .H _ eeceumwmeem ece Eeumxm cewueucepe seumxm Leumsecee . cewueucepe we coweecmepcm euceumwmeem 1‘ cewueeeece cewuepcewe ece eecepmwmeem we Eepmxm eeuecmeucw cwcpwz mcepesecee "Feuweeo m.e epeew 176 cewueeeece cewpepcepe ece eeceumwmnzm we Eeumxm empegmeucH cwcpwz weuweeo we weeeEecm m.eeca.. 2mwm>m 4wuepem zo.w.ee.aa mu2uwm_mm:m 177 neither planned nor well financed. Also, Liberia lacked the protec- tion accorded infant industries by metropolitan nations in the form of preferential treatments, quotas, subsidies, and technical assis- tance. At the same time that Liberia was denied these "benefits" it had to compete with European colonies on international markets for its products. Without the protection extended to other nations, Liberia's coffee and sugar industries which could have provided in- vestment revenues remained stagnant. The existence of rich deposits of iron ore in Liberia was reported more than a century before exploi- tation began. Western capitalists were reluctant to venture into Liberia as an independent black republic during the heyday of colonial adventure in Africa. Beyond the unique problems of Liberia as an independent nation, however, the country's leadership was in part responsible for its inability to generate any internal investment capital. The authori- ties did not only condone but actively participated in the export of Liberian labor, in the process depriving the country of the necessary manpower for internal development. The leadership was also at fault in respect to the nature and circumstance surrounding loans obtained from foreign sources, the servicing of which continues to sap the nation of badly needed investment funds. From late 1940 to the first half of the 19705, Liberia enjoyed unprecedented economic growth, prin- cipally as a result of iron ore production and expansion in rubber outputs which were accompanied by a buoyant international rubber mar- ket. But as has been indicated elsewhere, the resulting increase in public revenues was not channeled into development projects. 178 In general, Liberia is poor and like similarly placed countries has to seek investment capital from other than internal sources. The nation's resort to foreign government, private, and corporate capital has been. at the expense of its sovereignty. This has entailed the imposition of outside financial administrators, a banking system tailored to the needs of foreign capital, and a correspondingly mori- bund domestic capital market. It has also meant repatriation of a large share of production surplus that could have been plowed back into the economy. Foreign control of investment capital implies that areas of investments and their scope are determined independently of Liberia's needs. The necessity to distinguish between foreign and domestic in- vestments has been stressed in Chapter IV. Specifically, a modified version of the investment function within the Harrod-Domar growth model was suggested in equation 15 as: I = Id + If = Id (r, Y) + I (r) = Id (rd, Y) + If (rd/rf). Available data on subsistence and plantation production are inadequate to fully explore the relationship outlined. However, information from Table 5.6 may be used to clarify the implications of foreign'owner- ship of capital for domestic income and thus, internal savings and investments. These three equations are introduced for this purpose: Y = Yd + Yf ------------- 16. That is, aggregate concession income, Y, is the sum of domestic con- cession income, Yd, and foreign concession income, Yf. Total domestic concession income is denied thus: Y = WLd + G + Md ---------- 17. 179 where WLd is total domestic concession wages, G, payments from conces- sion to the government (taxes, royalties and rent) and, Md, purchased domestic concession inputs. The corresponding relationship for the foreign concession is: Yf = WLf + Kf + Mf + D -------- 18. WLf is total foreign concession wages, Kf, payments to foreign capital, Mf, purchased concession inputs from abroad and D, depreciation on capital investment. The three equations may be combined thus: Y = Yd + Yf = (WLd + G + Md) + (WLf + Kf + Mf + D). From Table 5.6 we obtain Y Yd + Yf $[(12.l + 13.7 + 2.0) + 8.7 + 34.6 + 22.5 + 5.0)] $98.6 million $[(27.8) + (78.8)] = $98.6 million All the above figures are drawn directly from Table 5.6 except the two for domestic and foreign purchased inputs. The sum of the two figures, $24.5 is designated as purchases of materials in Table 5.6. The distribution of aggregate concession income between domestic and foreign factors of production is critical to an understanding of inability of Liberia to generate internal savings and thus, invest- ments. It also brings into question the growth-without-development hypothesis advanced by Clower and others, emphasizing internal factors of the Liberian economy independently as the major reasons for the underdevelopment of the nation's economy despite significant growth during the 19605. It is argued here that foreign interests in con- cessions which account for a large share of investments in Liberia are at odds with the country's need to create internal capital for invest- ments to meet domestic development needs. As outlined in equation 15, 180 domestic investment is a function of both the rate of return on capi- tal and domestic income. Returns to capital investments as indicated in Table 5.6 are very attractive. Production surplus from $31 million investments by the concession amounted to $48.3 million in 1960. The major factor limiting internally generated capital investments is the small share of income going to internal factors of production. In 1960, $27.8 million went to internal factors as against $78.8 million credited to foreign factors, primarily capital. Shoup (1970) estimated internal Liberian savings and investments at $19.2 and $1.2 million for 1967 and 1968 respectively. Without deductions towards payments for foreign factors--capital and labor-- internal savings and investments would have amounted to $109.2 and $96.8 million for the two years. The organization of "native" Liberian groups has been character- ized as stateless formations. Within these social formations the family, kin groups, and community constitute production units with roles defined by ritual office, age, and gender. Tradition and secret societies serve as the instruments of control; the nature of power re- lations is largely normative. To the extent that communities had a class of slaves and peons, coercion underlined their relationship to the rest of the community. By and large, the communities were small and the absence of centralized state organizations that could bind communities together to enhance their strength made individual com- munities vulnerable to outside intrusions. In contrast to the com- munal (subsistence) organizations, the structure of the plantation is rigid. There are clear distinctions between owners, managers, and 181 e>wueeecese¢ .n cewuceeu .N e>weeeLaz .. e>wuececesem .m ceweceeu .N e>wuescez .— cewuceeu .N e>weeELez .p mceweewem Lezoe .>~ ‘ :.ceeuem weceupeuwcme ece cw ecewcs cecep we eecemce ecu we eecemce cecep we cewewmee ecew>cemcem ece cew: coweewucecewwwe mmepug eeecm ce>wm e we eeeum cwcew: sew—wees eeewewc .N Lece— ece .uceseaeces .cecze geezeec meoweec.em.e ewewe . P eeecm ce>wm e co peeew>we -cw ce we =ee_—ecucee= Le epcepwe>e cece— we euwm .N euwwwe —e:e_c .eae ac eecwwee meueem .cewuweece me eecwcume ece eeeewucecewwwe ece mewem .. xu_pwcoz .HHH mecepecep eeucemce ece mewceceweucew weewewpee cewcecwcueewcee< .m mceweewec uwccue ece cwc we mwmec ecu ce cecew ceweeucewe e» eewu wweum acemw>cee=m weeec .~ cewueewcemee ceweeucepe we ecucecewc cw ceweeeep ece eeec ce eemec mw suwceew—em emec: wweem eeewcueexm .p "eceweecem peceweweece ece pewcemeecw we coweecwcsee e caeecce eecweucwee eceweecwumwe .ecewueeeuee ece .ewuem geceF ece mcewuwccueu .eces -emeces .mcecze ceezuec eeew coweweece we eepwecuceu ece eecwweo meoweawee ..c mewcecewuecew —eewuwpee .m mcewueucepe ecu me cecep ce_wswm mcwxeweEe ecescew eeecemce peeec .N Eeeeec ecu ee ecececew peeep ee—pwxmce we Lecsec emcep e ece eee ue meemeces euewceeexe we eceee .PeEm e cuwx cewueewcemce pecucegew: .p cecec .eceeeaecez .mceczo xem ece eme .meeeum xc eecwwee mcewuucew .xuwcessee ece cw; .xpwsew mezeco .H euceemwmcem ece ceweeecepe we ceweecueucw Eeumxm cewueucepe Eeumxm euceumwmcem mceuesecee cewpeeeece cewueeceE ece eeceumwmcem we seemxm eeeecmeecw we mpeeem< weceweercemco e... 2.5 1132 - cewuueeece cewueucepe ece eeceemwmcem we Eeumxm eeuecceucw we PeeeEcem.FecewuercemLo vc.ee::. mom meeex ece mauemcw me emesee eecu eceeeseu we...e.ew ..66 e=.=..eee ece meo._6w Lee.o;m .e .meece cmee mceuuew Fences -cecw>ce ece meme: .muuemcw Eecw xmwc we upe>ep cecmwc eceeeew peacescecw>ce Lecee ece meeemcw eeew mcwupemec ece—wew eecu we mxmwc we mpe>ep :ep awe>wu -epem .mscew ece memew_w> we cewuccwcemwe eewz ece Lecue ece ceweeucepe ewccxc cuw: eeueweemme mcmwz .p mpweuce eecu ewcczc epmcwm meece we eocec ce>e eeecem mxmwa .>~ ceeeem =eceuweuwwue= ecee meece wewucessee ecu cwcuw: mscew eecu epmcwm eu ewwcm cease .eewwee .eeeeu .ceccem ceceuwx ece e>emmeu .eewa meecu .wwc cewuueeece eecu cewueu -cewe e» eeue>ee emecu x—cwes .mELew eee>wce peuep eu eeeceexe ecaeuewumewwcw ece weepeccueu cewueucewe mseemxm pceeeem peewsecu .m .6656 e=_e=6.a ewes»: .N seamen cewueu uceemcece ece xcecwcees cw neceseme>cw emeec .p acescecw>ce weceuec ece ceuwe eecweuuee ece eweewm ape>weepex .p Ame—eccuew .HH cewue>wuw=u ucwuwwcm we Eeumxm ecu Leec: eemwec meece we geese: ece eeew» ecu cw mcewueceu—e e» mcweeew ecaupaeecez .m e>wm mcweeecu ewewepee ece mcewuecwcsee eewu .m meacece uwseceee-eweem ece peewaeweee we meueeewo .N nceecw peuweee ewe>wuepem .N e>wmceucw cecec .N ceweeeeece eceupzueces ce mwmecese mcwmeecucn ._ eeeeweowcme aceeceeem .p cewee>wupee mcwewwcm ._ we Eeumxm .w eeceemwmcem ece ceweeecepe we cewuecmeuc. seemzm coweeecepe seumxw eeceemwmcem meeeeEecee cewuezeece ceweeuceE ece eeceemwmcem we Eeumxm eeuecmeucw we 836286265 .8328??? me 23 cewueeeece cewueuceE ece eeceumwmcem we ...epmzm eepecmeucH we .8255 .8328??? m... 9:3... 1135 >h_c~wmuw c~0m cz< mxmwm 4 uzu hmmwwo ow m2m~m>m pace Team cwmceuxm zo_w.u—:u e:..w.cm we we...ee.m .ee.ce.eee ecemce ea ecesee ece. e>.mceexm ug:u.m.mm:m 186 throws into relief complex articulation of social, political, economic, and ecological relations which are at the same time products and causes of differential expansion in food (subsistence) and cash (plantation) crop production. That is, resource allocation tends to favor planta- tion production and the system of monoculture that it entails. And as a result, food-crop production and its related system of multiple crop- ping (crop mixtures) and stable fallows suffer and lead to declining food output. Making up for the ensuing food deficits calls for further expansions in plantation production (by diverting more resources from subsistence) as a way of generating foreign exchange to meet food im- port bills. In the social realm, this process implies undermining the auton- omy of traditional subsistence agriculture and making self-sustaining production units dependent on a market economy for their food needs. The diversion of resources--land and labor--to accomplish the expan- sion of plantation production is effected through the political (coer- cive) power of the ruling elite and economic (remunerative) resources of plantation interests. Responses of the subsistence system as out- lined elsewhere include adjustments in the traditional division of labor, changes in crop preferences, shorter fallows, and increasing incidence of monoculture. Adjustments within the subsistence system lead to ecological changes (declining soil fertility, deflected fal- lows, etc.) which in turn impact negatively on levels of food crop production. This serves to "push" more labor out of subsistence into plantations as migrant wage laborers. In general, the agri-ecological changes resulting from the 187 integration of the two systems of agricultural production may be en- visaged as self-amplifying loops favoring plantation production. Within successive loops, the incidence of Liberia's dependence on external sources for food increases at the same time that the entire agri-ecological system becomes progressively unstable and prone to both natural and "man-made" disasters. Despite these signs of decay, however, Liberia is caught in a "production trap" with no easy way out--a dilemma shared by all countries with heavy past investments in export agricultural products. The concept of agri-ecological system is a man-nature-technology relationship. Man may be viewed as being at the center as both the system's curse and its potential. In that sense, the decay outlined may be the very source of constructive and lasting change. The battle cry of "RICE!" has already been sounded by many Liberians. The foregoing discussion has focused on components of the plan- tation and subsistence systems, as well as on the dynamics of the in- tegration of the two systems of production. I now turn to the collec- tive implications of the inferences drawn with regard to labor, land, capital, organization, and agri-ecological aSpects within and between subsistence and plantation production. The five questions outlined in Chapter IV are used as the context of explicating the dynamics of the insertion of Liberia into the world capitalist system as a dependent plantation economy. a. What is the nature ofgpower relations respectively within plantation and subsistence systems of agricultural organization? Power is diffused within the subsistence system, while it is con- centrated among groups within the plantation system of agricultural 188 organization. The observed difference emerges from the control and uses of capital. The use of capital is minimal in subsistence produc- tion, and whatever capital is available is either collectively owned or shared by individuals and groups. Where and when capital accumula- tion by either individuals or groups occurs, the social (kinship) organization of such system has built-in mechanisms for its redistri- bution. In general, the ends in production are geared towards a given group's collective subsistence and welfare. The plantation organization, on the other hand, is a capitalist venture with vestiges of its inception as a colonial activity. It distinguishes between owners of capital, managers, and unskilled laborers within a hierarchical structure that is maintained partly through the remunerative power of capital and the coercion character- istic of colonial ventures. To the extent that the power structure of the plantation organization predominates, this may be explained in part by the fact that power within the subsistence organization is diffused and can be undermined relatively easily. b. How do the respective power structures within the plantation and subsistence system define independently and cfillectively the uses of land and labor? Power relations in the uses of labor within subsistence are based on normative and coercive mechanisms for compliance. Labor used to meet subsistence needs of kin groups and communities are ensured through normative sanctions. Division of labor is on the basis of gender, age, and ritual office. Conflicts are relatively minimal; besides gender roles which are rigidly defined, aging and initiation into various ritual offices ensure that all members of a community at 189 one time or another share in all responsibilities and privileges associated with the labor process. Conflicts arise primarily where coercion is used to acquire labor through peonage and inter- and intra-tribal slavery. But even under such admittedly coercive means of labor acquisition within the traditional system, the abuse of peons and slaves is relatively minimal when compared to the system of forced plantation labor which the traditional system of labor coercion was later turned into. The plantation employs all three types of power--normative, coercion,and remunerative--to meet its labor demands. In its remu- nerative context, the plantation views labor as a commodity for the production of an export cash crop. Wage incentives are, however, in- adequate to attract labor to meet the plantation's labor needs, hence, compulsion is the primary means of labor acquisition. The plantation relies on the internal (Liberia) structures of coercion to bolster its own power structure. The same power relations characteristic of the uses of labor within the two systems are extended to land. Within subsistence, land is viewed as a communal good, while it is a "capitalized" asset in the plantation. On the whole, the uses of labor and land are influenced more by the needs of the plantation. The emergence of landlords, land- less groups, and an increasingly shrinking availability of land and labor for subsistence are related to, on the one hand, the plantation's large appetite for land and labor and the system's power to back up such demands, and on the other hand, the support provided to the plan- tation by Americo-Liberians and other local elites. 190 c. What are the forces which led to the emergence and crystal- lization of internaligroups whose power and influence are derived primarily from externa1 plantation interests? Americo-Liberian hegemony may be explained by the settler popu- lation's effective manipulation of traditional African institutions and leadership, Christianity, and arms support provided by both sympa- thizers and detractors of Liberia as an experiment in black self- government. The emphasis placed on the plantation system as the frame- work of Liberia's economic ties to the world's capitalist system also enhanced the status of the leadership of the settlers (as an aristoc— racy of wealth and means) since they stood to gain further economic and political power. All the initial treaties by which lands were acceded to the settlers by African chiefs were given different interpretations by each of the parties involved. Representatives of the American Coloni- zation Societies viewed these treaties as instruments ensuring their absolute right to land, while the local chiefs saw them as temporary usufructual rights. The ensuing conflicts and their related violent confrontations pitched Christian ideals against African values. The colonization societies and the settlers prevailed by playing African communities against one another through material rewards; and when that failed, by the force of arms. It has been asserted that many of the original settlers were disdainful of agricultural work but this does not mean that they did not engage in agriculture--along the familiar lines of the southern United States plantations. A perusal of the demographic records of the settlers indicates that a significant proportion came from plantations and perhaps carried this cultural medium with them. 191 - .2: .... :3 msxu :ma 39.: 5:5 6_;;aoga< 9:938: 5:350: guy can: gurus—mag B 5:535:33! 9.1 ugxu .3185”: 7 ”:58: 26:03 93 .3355.» 32:: 1.: .izsiwcmc Rx: “5.23:9? 5533a .9:an magi—:5 J53. :35. .55.... .5. .55.: 325:. mac-cu #558538 v... 33933... we :3 “loan .3235: 06 ~59: 5.582... 8:55: 22 .523... 1 5:53... 55:. 55:58 5...... :5. .m.e~.,e..... 3.8. e... 5.: 5....“3... .e 22:53.. €31... 5::5: z 5 an!) n35. 5:52: SD: was THRESMOLD I: 2:53; 8...: we; ' ...... EN.” 5....33: 8:838 853%....“ .4. 5:53.... 32:...33 52.... 3:. y. N r W. o 3......me 5:559... £5: 5.5.... 2. ...a .53: 5:8. 5 $5.53 35.23% 53:5... 3.5:: ...: .29... 5.25:: 3.... .fwmzm 2X: .w.!<:u: 2:25.. .3. $375 .325;— JEEm—an 53:39. .533: .5255 5.22515 2:::. 192 Settlers from Barbadoes, many of whom opted for the interior rather than the coastal settlements, were especially important in this re- gard. Numerous references to large sugar and coffee farms in Liberia during the nineteenth century, as well as settler attempts to secure adequate labor for these farms, will suggest at least an incipient plantation system of agricultural production in that period. The neglect (due to labor shortages) and accompanying decline of these coffee and sugar farms at the turn of the nineteenth century coin- cided with Liberia's economic woes which have lasted through the present century. The same period saw the threat of European powers to Liberia's existence and settler hegemony. By welcoming or acced- ing to pressures to accept Firestone investments, the settlers stood to regain their dwindling power. d. What are the historical, societal, and agri-ecological factors whose Change account for compliance trends Within the plantation organization? Figure 6.6 depicts the results of the integration of subsistence and rubber production emerging in Liberia as a case study of a planta- tion economy. The model is a modified version of Figure 4.3 in Chap- ter IV which has been adapted from Ellen (1979). It is self-explanatory in its attempt to view the social, economic, political, and ecological relationships that serve to trap Liberia into plantation production and define the nation's status as a dependent economy. The model is linear in its historical evolution up to the point where plantation and subsistence systems are integrated. Beyond this threshold the flow is circular with increasing amounts of inputs channeled from subsistence into plantation production. The linear phase of the 193 Labor flows due to Wage and forced decline in rubber labor migration; prices; seasonal SUBSISTENCE ecological change; male return-%r AGRICULTURE landless. migration. lab and . 1 0r . f Redundent plantation \ ”'79ra0r99d labor; old laborers.“ (77953 ’7; FOREIGN PLANTATIONS LIBERIAN OWNED PLANTATIONS Wage Incentives Relatively young redundant plantation labor; switch from wage labor to cash cropping. Figure 6.7 Labor Flows Within Agriculture in Liberia 194 model is ensured by the power relations as outlined with respect to Liberia's political economy. The system of compliance developed dur- ing this phase is fed into the latter circular phase to become "self- generating." All dimensions of the agricultural system defined in the study feed on one another to contribute to the persistence of the system depicted by the model. The relative significance of each sub- model--labor, land, capital, organization, and agri-ecological--is, however, a difficult empirical question. The dual effect of ecology and state economy is critical to understanding compliance trends within the plantation system. For instance, the flows of labor as charted in Figure 6.7 cannot be under- stood independently of the historical, economic, social, and ecologi- cal complexes that underpin labor flows within agriculture. Specifi- cally, the exclusionary processes leading to "classes" of landless and land-owning Americo-Liberian gentry and the devotion of more pro- ductive and accessible lands to cash cropping impact directly on labor flows from subsistence into rubber production. Also, foreign owner- ship of a bulk of capital investments in agriculture limit local sav- ings and investments within subsistence, leaving plantation wage labor as the major alternative to subsistence pursuits. Again, the repro- duction of the plantation organization in internal socio-economic relations, fragmentation and subordination of traditional authority to the dictates of the plantation system, and the use of traditional idioms as cover for wealth accumulation by government-appointed chiefs-- plus labor control on plantations--ensure the flow of labor from sub- sistence and its retention on plantations. The state's participation in recruitment ensures that labor flows from subsistence into Liberian 195 and foreign plantations. The creation and maintenance of social boun- daries and encouragement of two distinct groups of Liberians also ensure Americo-Liberian power and hegemony. The historical, societal, and agri-ecological factors that account for compliance trends within the plantation system are complex. They may be viewed as first, second, third, etc. order consequences and, as depicted in Figure 6.6 and the changes illustrated in Figure 6.7 with respect to labor, are better conceived as a power and systems paradigm. The application of power within the plantation system and the responses of groups and individuals are in part related to the different goals of subsistence and plantation production. The type of power--remunerative, coercive, normative-~employed by each of the two systems of production vary, with compliance resulting from the integration of subsistence and plantation production favoring the latter. With respect to land, a normative system of control within subsistence that emphasizes collective over individual interests is at odds with the needs of the plantation. In the Weberian sense of the role of ideas in social action, the traditional African idiom of land ownership and use was contrary to the individualistic orientation of the Americo-Liberians and the profit motive of foreign plantations. The use of remunerative and coercive power by Americo-Liberians and foreign plantation interest in land acquisitions was, therefore, double-edged. 0n the one hand, it de-emphasized the traditional idiom and its potential conflict and, on the other, substituted in its place the idea of private ownership using coercion and economic rewards as instruments of compliance. In the case of labor, the traditional nor- mative and coercive means of labor control could be effectively combined 196 with the economic power (capital) of the plantation to serve its needs. While the hierarchical organization, power distribution, and associated rewards of the plantation become dominant as a result of the integra- tion of plantation and subsistence production, the integrated system also borrows from the subsistence organization. Financial rewards to chiefs for their assistance in forced labor recruitments help to bol- ster their power within the communities to make further labor recruit- ments easy. The organization of plantation labor along ethnic and communal lines also ensures the effective use of traditional norms in labor control. e. Finally, what are the generalgpropositions that may be derived from the foregoing with respect to plantation activities? l. Emphasis on labor exports and plantation crop production,as outlined, submerge all internal economic interests, other than secon- dary ones enjoyed by Americo-Liberians and a few "native" elites, in the dictates of capitalist (plantation) agriculture. 2. The predicament of Liberia in the utilization of its agri- ecological system to meet the food needs of its population (especially rice) may be better understood in terms of historical antecedents and general social mechanisms that govern the uses of land resources and labor. 3. Components of Liberia's agricultural economy--labor, land, capital, organization, and agri-ecological--may be interpreted as relational social experiences that give reality to inequality as be- tween groups and individuals as well as an urban-rural dichotomy. 4. The tripartite relationship between the United States government, Firestone, and the Liberian government emerging around the 197 period of Liberia's labor investigation by the League of Nations in the l920$ was forged independently of the interests of "native" Liber- ians. Rather, it was based on United States strategic needs and the benefits to be derived from Firestone investments by the Americo- Liberian dominated government. 5. To the extent that rubber cultivation has been accepted as an innovation by Liberians, it serves to buttress America—Liberian hegemony rather than as a means of bringing subsistence producers in- to a cash economy as independent proprietors. Communalities and Contrasts Between Liberia and Other PlantatiOn Societies Liberia shares many of the attributes of plantation societies in that the nation's economic system is characterized by institutional arrangements favoring the production and export of one principal agri- cultural commodity--rubber, and a single raw material-~iron ore, and that the bulk of capital investments is in foreign hands. But upon closer examination of the Liberian economy, characteristics are found that contrast to generalizations about other plantation societies. Nevertheless, these contrasts serve to reinforce Liberia's situation as a dependent plantation economy. There are social and economic distinctions between foreign plan- tation owners, Americo-Liberians, and "native" Liberians, with the last group constituting the source of plantation labor. But "native" Liberians, to the extent that they are involved in plantation labor, may not be adequately described as a rural proletariat. That is, as a group, their plantation experience has not imbued them with a "rural 198 proletarian consciousness" as a result of association with plantation labor, dependence on imported goods, and a lack of productive assets, especially, land (Mintz, 1974). The reasons are to be found in the system of organization and control of plantation labor, as well as in the ties which Liberian plantation labor maintains with its rural ori- gins. The use of kin idiom as the context of work organization and labor control on plantations, traditional communal rights that ensure such labor access to "native" Liberian lands--however limited such lands are--serve as veneer to cloud and dampen the capacity of plantation labor to perceive its collective exploitation. An official ban of unions within the agricultural sector also aids in limiting grievances to parochial concerns of kin groups, thus diffusing any collective awareness of labor's subservient position within the plantation organi- zation. Race and color perform similar functions within New World plantations. In Liberia, as is the case in other plantation societies, a sys— tem of compulsion is central to both labor and land acquisition. As regards labor, slavery in its classic form has been absent and there are no clear indications whether "inter- and intra-tribal slavery" has ever been used directly for the purposes of internal plantation pro- duction. What is clear is that coercion-~wage labor recruitments and forced labor without wages--has been the major means of supplying labor to the plantations. Without a system of compulsion it would be diffi- cult for the plantations to meet their labor needs. In most of the countries in which plantations are important they coexist with peasant producers who normally are engaged in farm- ing cash crops (sometimes the same crop as the plantation) in addition to providing for their own subsistence. These peasant 199 farmers are affected by the plantations in at least two important ways: competition for land and other resources and the provision of wage work on the plantation to supplement their incomes from the main preoccupation of farming on their own account. What evidence there is suggests that normally peasant farmers are re- luctant to undertake wage work on plantations. _This clearly is the case in the West Indies (and other ex-slave plantation areas) where the legacy of slavery has resulted in high premium being placed on an existence independent of plantation (Beckford, l972: l8-19). In the Liberian case also, land expropriations limit the scope for alternatives to plantation wage labor as means of supplementing sub- sistence production. Without land expropriation and forced labor, it is likely that "native" Liberians could use their labor to exploit land and forest resources or engage in activities within what has been de- scribed as the "informal sector" to generate revenues to meet their cash needs for taxes and the cost of the limited range of imported manufactured goods that they consume. In many instances, wage labor has become a substitute rather than supplement to subsistence produc- tion. In this sense, rubber cultivation in Liberia has not been in- corporated into subsistence production. The integration of plantation rubber production and subsistence activities is to be envisaged as occurring along the periphery of the subsistence system, with urban Americo-Liberian farm owners drawing from the rural areas for their cheap labor. This study has stressed the negative impact of plantations on food crop production. This is a departure from Beckford's assertion that . in almost all instances, plantation production did not dis- place previous production and that peasant production of plan- tation crops was more often than not grafted on its subsistence production without any significant diminution, if any, of sub- sistence production. Java is perhaps the only notable exception 200 to this general observation. Apart from this case, plantation agriculture everywhere became established initially in open resource situations (Beckford, l972: l86). This is a rather curious assertion. First, the traditional agricul- tural system associated with subsistence-shifting cultivation is an extensive system, par excellence. Both its stability and viable sub- sistence are predicated on existence of large land areas and associated forest resources. Unless the traditional agricultural technology is changed, any other demands imposed on available land resources will profoundly affect levels of food-crop production. Guyana represents an instance where technological changes (rice culture introduced by indentured immigrants from India) have helped to negate the impact of plantations on food-crop production (Rodney, 198l). In general, most plantation areas rely on imports to meet a very significant share of their food needs, basic carbohydrates and proteins as well as "luxury" food items. The West Indies in particular are deficit food areas; Haiti being one extreme example. Whether decline in subsistence pro- duction is attributed to relative land or labor shortages, the plan- tation is an underlying cause. Liberia as a dependent plantation society shares the problems of similarly placed societies and is plagued by the same questions regarding ways of evolving solutions to the problems attendant upon the plantation system of production. Principally, it is a matter of how to dismantle the plantation infrastructure and re-allocate re- sources in ways that will ensure expanded economic activity for more Liberians and lessen the nation's external dependence. As the exper- iences of the two polar examples of Cuba and Guyana indicate, there are no clear-cut choices. CHAPTER VII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Internal "contradictions" within Liberia's plantation economy have been stressed first, as counterpoint to studies emphasizing ex- ternal relations and, second, as a way of gaining insights into those internal problems and issues that need to be addressed as a pre- condition to evolving measures to ensure the disengagement of Liberia from its dependent status. Within the models outlining the integra- tion of plantation and subsistence production, the plantation has emerged as the dominant agricultural system in Liberia. The dominant status of the plantation is related, at one level, to the system's access to, and the power associated with capital and technology. At another level, it has been suggested that internal relations that characterize subsistence production, a history of exploitative use of labor and land by Americo-Liberians, and agri-ecological changes that undermine subsistence food crop production all reinforce the dominance of the plantation system. There are internal exclusionary processes that ensure the maintenance of distinctions between capi- talists and laborers, landed and landless, rural and urban areas, and Americo-Liberians and "native" Liberians, as well as between ethnic groups. These exclusionary processes are viewed in this study in terms of the power structures underlying and defining the respective production organization of subsistence and plantation systems in the 20l 202 uses of labor, land, capital, and their augmentation by agri-ecological factors. The integration of subsistence and plantation production has en- tailed the incorporation of the Liberian economy into the world capi- talist system. But in general this has not led to a crystallization of the social structures associated with capitalist production. De- spite increasing ties with external capitalist markets and the parti- cipation of a large number of Liberians in plantation wage labor, there are powerful forces which inhere in both plantation (external) and subsistence (internal) production systems to prevent the emergence of an agricultural proletariat as described for other plantation socie- ties. This may be attributed to the fact that, in principle, the character of labor remains the same in the plantation as in subsis- tence production. That is, plantation labor remains an unskilled, undifferentiated, and an interchangeable agricultural input, without any of the benefits associated with the division of labor in the pro- cess of socio-economic change. Also, plantation rubber production has not served as an impetus for rubber production by subsistence farmers. Local participation in rubber production has been restricted largely to Americo-Liberians who emulate the foreign plantations in their preference for large-scale production and the use of cheap un- skilled labor. Competition between plantation (rubber) and subsistence (rice) production in Liberia furnishes an example of the antagonism between capital and labor. But in this instance, the foreign owner- ship of capital and undifferentiated labor and non-market factors that define labor use are the critical features characterizing pro- duction relations. Over time, increasing foreign investments in 203 plantation wage labor, dependence on rubber exports for foreign ex- change, and a correSponding diminution in food-crop production have served to buttress Liberia's external dependence and to ensure hege- mony by Americo-Liberians who control the state apparatus. These developments account for the underdevelopment of Liberia's agricul— ture in particular and the nation's economy as a whole. The Dependency School asserts that in a single and an unevenly developed world there can be no dichotomies but rather dialectical unities. In this regard, the underdevelopment of peripheral forma- tions is seen in terms of the relationship between these formations and metropolitan (center) nations. The present study supports this view, but with the additional clarification that persistent under- development is occasioned collectively by "contradictions," both internal and external to a given social formation. In the case of Liberia, the dominance of agricultural production by foreign planta- tions and the restrictions imposed by Americo-Liberian interests on the ability and chances of the agrarian population to accumulate material and social resources are seen as fundamental to underde- velopment. The world's struggle for rubber as an industrial and strategic raw material, the circumstances surrounding the inception of planta- tion rubber production in Liberia, and the resulting socio-economic impact portend very little which is not familiar. Similar develop- ments and their consequence are subsumed under such themes as imper- ialism, colonialism, and neo-colonialism. However, by emphasizing the internal factors that have contributed to the external dominance 204 of Liberia, the struggle for the nation's development is carried by- yond anti-imperialist denounciations, and the anti-capitalist senti- ment inherent in the Dependency School is placed in its proper con- text. That is, the underdevelopment of Liberia is seen as resulting both from restrictions imposed by the foreign ownership of the nation's capital investments and the effect of internal socio- economic relations on the process of internal accumulation by the agrarian population. Liberia's underdeveloped and dependent status emerges not from the institution of capitalism per_§§, It is rather the exploitative nature of foreign capital and the constraints im- posed by internal factors on the chances for Liberians to evolve as capitalists themselves that restrain development. LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Adamson, Alan H. Sogar Without Slaves: The Political Economy of British Guiana, l838-l904. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1972. Adamson, Alan H. "Monoculture and Village Decay in British Guiana: l854-1872." Journal of Social History 3, 1972: 386-405. Adhin, J. H. Development Planning in Surinam is Historical Perspective. Leiden, Netherlands: H. E. Stenfert Kroese, l96l. AGRI Industrial Development of Tree Crop Estates in Liberia: An Eco- nomic A raisal. Ministry of Agriculture, Monrovia, Liberia. Jan. 3|, l971. Akpan, M. B. "Black Imperialism: Americo-Liberian Rule Over the African Peoples of Liberia, l84l-1964." The Canadian Journal of African Studies 7(2), l973: 2l7-36. Akpan, M. B. "The Liberian Economy in the Nineteenth Century: The State of Agriculture and Commerce." Liberian Studies Journal 6(l), l975: l-24. Amachree, I. D. Agricultural Innovation in Rural Liberia: A Study of Farmers Among the Kissi. Monrovia: Univ. of Liberia, l970. Amin, S. Unequal Development: An Essay on the Social Formations of Peripheral capitaTism. New York: Monthly RevTew Press, 1976. Amin, S. "Development and Structural Change: The African Experience, l950-l970." Journal of International Affairs 7(2), l969. Amin, S. "Underdevelopment and Dependence in Black Africa: Historical Origin." Journal of Peace Research 2, 1972: 105-l9. Amin, S. Neo-Colonialism in West Africa. New York: Monthly Review Press, l973. Ankomah, K. "The Colonial Legacy and African Unrest." Science and Society 34(2), l970: l29-45. Applebaum, R. P. Theories of Social Change. Chicago: Markham Publish- ing Company, l970. Arasaratnam, S. Indians in Malaya and Singapore. Oxford University Press, l970. 205 Archetti, E. et al. "Agrarian Structures and Peasant Autonomy." Journal of Peace Research l, l970: l85-95. Archibald, A. A History of Colonization on the Western Coast of Africa. Philadelphia: W. S. Martien, l846, p. 333. Ardener, E. et al. Plantation and Village in the Cameroons: Some Economic and Social Studies. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1960. Arhin, K. "The Ashanti Rubber Trade with the Gold Coast in the Eighteen- Nineties." Africa 42, 1972: 32-43. Arthur, H. B. et al. Tropical Agribusiness Structures and Adjustments-- Bananas. Boston, l968. Aspinall, A. The Handbook of the British West Indies, British Guiana and British Honduras l926427. London: The West Indian Committee, l926. Aubreville, A. M. "The Disappearance of Tropical Forests." Unasylva l, l947: 5-ll. Azikiwe, B. M. Liberia in World Politics. Westport, Conn.: Negro Univ. Press,‘l970. Azikiwe, B. M. "In Defense of Liberia." Journal of Negro History l7, l937: 30-50. Baldwin, R. E. "Patterns of Development in Newly Settled Regions." Manchester School, May l956. Baldwin, R. E. "Export Technology and Development from Subsistence Level." Economic Journal, March 1963. Barnes, H. E. "The Race Myth Crumbles." The Nation 120(3122), 1925: SIS-l7. Bartels, D. ”Class Conflict and Racist Ideology in the Formation of Modern Guyanese Society." Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropologyl4(4), l977: 396-404. Bauer, P. T. The Rubber Industry: A Study in Competition and Monopoly. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, l948. Beckford, G. L. "The Future of Plantation Society in Comparative Per- spective." Paper Presented at UCLA Symposium on "The Political Economy of the Black World," 1979, Beckford, G. L. Strategies for Agricultural Development: Comment. Stanford: Food Research Institute, l972. Backford, G. L. Underdevelopment in Plantation Economies of the Third World: Persistent Poverty. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, l972. 206 Behrman, J. M. "Price Elasticity of the Marketed Surplus of a Subsis- tence Crop." Journal of Farm Economics 48(4), Nov. 1966: 875—93. Benn, D. M. "The Theory of Plantation Economy and Society: A Methodo- logical Critique." Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics 12, l974: 249-60. Berg, E. "Economics of the Migrant Labor System." Urbanization and Migration in West Africa. Berkeley: University of California Press, l965, H. Kuper, ed. Best, Lloyd. "Outlines of a Model of Pure Plantation Economy." Social and Economic Studies, Sept. l968. Bhagwati, Jagdish N., ed. The New International Economic Order: The North South Debate. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, l977. Binns, Bernard 0. Plantations and Other Centrally Operated Estates. Rome: F.A.0. Agric. Studies, No. 28, June l955. Birtek, Faruk and Cagler Keyder. "Agriculture and the State: An Inquiry into Agricultural Differentiation and Political Alliances .." The Journal of Peasant Studies 2(4), 1975: 446-67. Bizoury, M. A. "Thesis on Liberia." Liberia Studies Journal 2(l), l969: 77-86. Blyden, E. W. Our Origin, Dangers and Duties. New York: J. A. Gray and Green, l865. Bohannan, P. "The Impact of Money on an African Subsistence Economy." Journal of Economic History 19(4), l959: 491-503. Bornschier, V. and Thanh-Huyen Ballmer-Cao. "Cross-National Evidence of the Effects of Foreign Investment and Aid on Economic Growth and Inequality: A Survey of Findings and a Reanalysis.“ American Journal of Sociology 84, l978: 65l-83. Bornschier, V. and Thanh-Huyen Ballmer-Cao. "Income Inequality: A Cross-National Study of the Relationship Between MNC-Penetration, Dimensions of the Power Structure and Income Distribution." American Sociological Review 44, l979: 487-506. Brandes, J. Herbert Hoover and Economic Diplomacy. Pittsburgh, Penn.: l962. Bronkhurst, H. V. P. The Colony of British Guiana and Its Laboring Population. London, l883. Brookfield, H. C. "Problems of Monoculture and Diversification in a Sugar Island: Mauritius." Economic Geography, Jan. 1959. 207 Brookings, R. S. "The Relation of Raw Materials to Peace and Pros- perity." Proceedings of the Academy of Science, July 1926, No. l2, pp.lll3-224. Brown, G. The Economic History of Liberia. Washington, D.C.: The Associated Press,il94l. Buchanan, R. O. "A Note on the Labor Requirements in Plantation Agriculture." Geography 23 (l938): l56-l65. Buell, R. L. The Native Problem in Africa. Vol. II. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1928. Section XIV: "The Liberian Republic." pp. 704-889. Buell, R. L. ”Mr. Firestone's Liberia." The Nation 126 (3278), l928: 521-24. Buell, R. L. "The New Deal and Liberia." The New Republic 76, August 16, l933: l7-l9. Buell, R. L. Liberia: A Century of Survival, l847-l947. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1947. Burham, P.C., ed. Social and Ecological Systems. London: Academy Press, l979. Carlson, J. Transnational Companies in Liberia. Uppsala, Sweden: The Scandinavian Institute oflAfrican Studies, l977. Cavallo, R. E. The Role of Systems Methodology in SociaIAScience Re: search. The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishing, l979. Chalk, F. "DuBois and Garvey Confront Liberia: Two Incidents of the Coolidge Years." The Canadian Journal of African Studies l(2), l967: 135-42. Chalk, F. "The Anatomy of an Investment: Firestone's l927 Loan to Liberia." The Canadian Journal of African Studies l(l), 1967: l2-32. Chang, J. "The Agricultural Potential of the Humid Tropics." The Geographical Review 58(3), l968: 333-8]. Chase-Dunn, C. "The Effect of International Economic Dependence and Inequality: A Cross-National Study." American Sociological Review 40, l975: 720-738. Chatfield, T. W. Firestone Operations in Liberia. Washington, D.C.: National Planning Association, l956. Chaudhuri, J. P. "British Reaction to the Firestone Investment in Liberia." Liberian Studies Journal 4(l), l972-74: 25-46. 208 Chaynov, A. V. The Theory of Peasant Economy. Homewood, Illinois: Irwin, l966. Chodak, S. Societal Development: Five Approaches with Conclusions from Comparative Analysis. Chicago, l970. Christiansen, R. et al. "The Near Edge of Change: A Social and Eco- nomic Survey of Eight Towns in Bong County, Liberia Before the Building of a Road." Liberian Studies Journal 4(2), l97l-72: 99—l35. Christy, C. The African Rubber Industry. London, l9ll. Christy, C. "Liberia in 1930." Geographical Journal 77, 193l: 5l5-40. Christy, C. "Pawning of Human Beings in Liberia." Journal of African Society 30, l93l: l69-l74. Clawson, G. Communal Land Tenure. London, l953. Cleave, J. H. African Farmers: Labor Use in the Development of Small- holder Agriculture. New York: Praeger Publishers, l974. Clower, R. W. et al. Growth Without Development: An Economic Survey of Liberia. Evanston, Illinois: l966. Cockcroft, D. et al. Dependence and Underdevelopment: Latin America's Political Economy. New York: Anchor Bodks, l972. Cole, J. "Traditional and Wage Earning Labor Among Tribal Liberians." Ph.D. Dissertation, Northwestern University, 1970. Coleman, J. "Current Political Movements in Africa." Annals of the American Adademy 298, l955: 95-l08. Collier, R. The River that God Forgot: The Story of the Amazon Rubber Boom. New York: E. P. Dutton and Co. Inc.,il968. Commonwealth Economic Comm. Plantation Crops: A Review of Production, Trade, Consumption and Prices. London,il963, 1969, l970. Coquery-Vidrovitch, C. "Researches sur un mode de production Africain. La Pensee l44, l969: 6l-78. Coquery-Vidrovitch, C. Le Congo au des Grandes Compagnies Concesssion- ares. Paris, l972. Courtenay, P. P. Plantation Agriculture. London: G. Bell & Sons Ltd., 1965. Courtenay, P. P. "An Approach to the Definition of the Plantation." Geographia Polanica 19, 1970: 8l-90. 209 Cumper, G. E. “Dependence, Development and the Sociology of Economic Thought. Social and Economic Studies 23(3), 1974: 465. David, W. L. The Economic Development of Guyana, 1953-1964. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969. Dennis, Francis A. "Economic Progress in Liberia."' Free World Forum 2, 1960: 51-55. Diddens, J. "The Liberian Rubber Industry DPEA. Republic of Liberia, 1967. Dolman, A. J. Global Planning and Resource Management: Towards Inter- national Decision Making in a Divided'World. New York: Pergamon Press, 1970. Domar, E. Essays in the Theory of Economic Growth. Oxford, 1957. Dorjohn, V. R. and B. L. Issac, eds. Essays on Economic Anthropology of Liberia and Sierra Leone. Philadelphia: Institute of Liberian Studies, 1979. Dorjahn, V. R. et al. "Some Aspects of Migration in Liberia." Liberian Studies Journal 2(2) 1970: 139-73. Dossen, James J. ”Past Present and Future of Liberia." The Independent 64, January 2, 1908: 21-26. Dosumu-Juhnson, T. 0. Reflections of an African Nationalist. New York: Vantage Press, 1980. Dos Santos, T. "The Structure of Dependence." American Economic Review 50, 1970: 231-36. Drabble, J. H. Rubber in Malaya,_1876-l922. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1973. DuBois, W. E. B. "Liberia and Rubber." The New Republic Nov. 18, 1925: 326-29. DuBois, W. E. B. "Liberia, The League and the United States." Foreign Affairs 11, July 1933: 682-95. Dumett, R. "The Rubber Trade of the Gold Coast and Asante in the Nine- teenth Century: African Innovation and Market Responsiveness." Journal of African History 12(1),l971: 79-101 Durrant, Robert E. Liberia. London: African International Corporation Ltd. (1924). Edwards, C. "Rubber in the World Economy." Pacific Research 8(6), Sept-Oct. 1977: l-13. 210 Egboh, E. O. "The Nigerian Rubber Industry 1939-1945." The Nigerian Field 44(1), 1979: 2-13. Ellis, G. W. "Political Institutions in Liberia." The American Political Science Review 3, May 1911: 213-23. Ellis, G. W. "Sociological Appraisement of Liberian Resources." Journal of Race Development 5, 1914-1915: 399-415. Ellis, G. W. "Liberia in the New Partition of West Africa." Journal of Race Development 9, 1918-1919: 247-67. Ennew, J. et al. "'Peasantry' as an Economic Category.“ Journal of Peasant Studies 4(4), 1977: 295-322. Etzioni, A. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. New York: The Free Press,il96l. Etzioni, Amitae and Eva, eds. Social Changes: Sources, Patterns and Consequences. New York: Basic Books, 1966. Fage, J. D. "Slaves and Society in Western Africa, c. l445-c. 1770." Journal of African History 21, 1980: 289-310. Falkner, R. P. "The United States and Liberia." The American Journal of International Law 4, 1910: 529-45. Farmer, B. H. "Peasant and Plantation in Ceylon." Pacific Viewpoint, March 1963. Fay, C. R. "Plantation Economy." Report of the British Assoc. for the Advancement of Science. 1936: ll7-l40. Financial Chronicle. "Charges by Prof. Buell that Firestone...Denials ’by StatelDepartment and Liberia President..." Sept. 8, 1928: 1319-21. Firestone, H. S. and S. Crowther. Men and Rubber. New York, 1926. Firestone, H. S. "We Must Grow Our Own Rubber." The Country Gentle- mag 91, April 1926: 6-6, 123. Firestone, H. S. Famous Fortunes. Springfield, Mass.: Milton Bradley Company, 1931. Firestone, H. S. "Private Enterprise and Point Four." Vital Speeches 19, Nov. 1952: 92-94. Forbes, E. A. "Notes on the Only American Colony in the World.“ Ihe_ National Geographic Magazine 21(9), 1910: 719-41. Foreign Policy. "Forced Labor Investigation" 8, 1932: 124-34. 211 Foner, L. and E. D. Genovese. Slavery in the New World: A Reader in Comparative History. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1969. Franklin, J. H. The Free Negro in North Carolina l790-1860. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1943. Fyfe, C. A Short History of Sierra Leone. New York: Humanities Press, 1962. Galtung, J. "A Structural Theory of Imperialism." Journal of Peace Research, 1971 Gardner, M. L. "The Prospects for Development in Liberia's Agricul- tural Sector for the 1970's." Liberian Studies Journal 3(2), 1970-71: 155-65. Geertz, C. The Development of Javanese Economy: A Socio-Cultural A roaCh. Cambridge, Mass.: Center for International Studies, MIT, 1956. Geertz, C. The Social Context of Economic Change: An Indonesian Case Stud . Cambridge, Mass.: Center for International Studies, MIT, 1956. Geertz, C. Agricultural Involution: The Process of Ecological Change in Indonesia. BerkeleyfiUhiv. of California Press, 1963. Geertz, C. Old Societies and New States: The Quest for Modernity in Asia and Africa. wa‘vark: TheiFreeTPress, 1963. Geographical Journal. "Liberia in 1930." 77, 1931: 515-40. Gibbs, J. L., ed. Peoples of Africa. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.,i1965} Gregor, H. F. ”The Changing Plantation." Annals of the Assoc. of American Geographers, 1965. . Griff, D. B. The Agricultural Systems of the World. New York: Cam- bridge University Press, 1974} Griff, D. B. "The Agricultural Regions of the World: Review and Reflections." Economic Geography 45(2), 1969: 95-132. Grilli, E. R. et al. The World Rubber Economy: Structure, Change and Prospects. Washington, D.C.,Tl978. Hailey, Lord. An African Survey. London, 1956. Hallgren, M. A. "Liberia in Shackles." The Nation 137(3554), 1933: 185-88. 212 Hanson, E. P. "An Economic Survey of the Western Province of Liberia." Geographical Review 37, 1947: 53-64. Hargreaves, J. D. "African Colonization in the Nineteenth Century: Liberia and Sierra Leone." Boston Universitnyapers in African History 1(66), 1964. Harley, G. W. "Roads and Trails in Liberia." The Geographic Review 29, 1939: 447-60. Harms, R. "The End of Red Rubber: A Reassessment.‘l Journal of African History 16(1), 1975: 73-88. Harris, J. H. "Forced Labor Investigation." Foreign Policy 8, 1932: 124-34. Harris, J. H. "Liberian Slavery: The Essentials." The Contemporary Review 139, 1932: 303-309. Harris, R. L. My Trip to Africa. Nashville, Tenn.: Cumberland Presby- terian Publishing House, 1890. Harrod, Roy. Toward a Dynamic. London: Macmillan, 1948. Hildebrand, J. R. "Our Most Versatile Vegetable Product." The National Geographic Magazine 77(2), 1940: 143-200. Hlophe, S. "The Significance of Barth and Geertz' Model of Ethnicity in the Analysis of Nationalism in Liberia." The Canadian Journal of African Studies 7(2), 1973: 237-56. Hoover, H. "American Solemnly Warns Foreign Monopolist of Raw Materials." Current History 23, Dec. 1925: 309-10. Horton, R. "Stateless Societies in the History of West Africa." History of West Africa. Vol. 1. Ajayi, J. F. A. and M. Crowder, eds. New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1976. Howe, G. N. and A. M. Sica. "Political Economy of Imperialism and the Problem of World System Theory." Current Perspectives in Social Theor . S. G. McNall and G. N. Howe, eds. GreenWich, Conn.: JAI ress Inc., 1980. Hunter, J. H. and G. K. Ntiri. "Speculations on the Future of Shifting Agriculture in Africa." Journal of Developing Areas 12, Jan. 1978: 183-208. Ince, B. A. Decolonization and Conflict in the United Nations: Guyana's Struggle for Independence. 1974. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD). Surinam: Recommendation for a Ten Year Development Program. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Univ. Press, 1952. 213 International Commission of Jurists. Report of the British Guiana Commission of Inquiry on Racial PrOblems in the PUblic Service. Geneva, 1965. International Conciliation. "Slavery." No. 274 (Nov. 1931): 741-48. International Labour Organization. Plantation Workers -- Conditions of Work and Standards of Living. ‘Geneva: I.LTOl,ll966. Jacks, G. V. and R. O. Whyte. Vanishing Lands: A World Survey of Soil Erosion. New York: Doubleday, 1939. Jackson, J. C. "Toward an Understanding of Plantation Agriculture." Area 4, 1969: 36-41. Jagan, C. The West on Trial. London: Michael Joseph, 1966. Jansen, D. H. "Tropical Agra-ecosystems: The Habitats are Misunderstood by the Temperate Zones, Mismanaged by the Tropics." Science 182 (4118), 1973: 1212-1219. Jayawardena, C. Conflict and Solidarity in a Guianese Plantation. Athlone Press, 1963. Johnston, H. "Liberia." Geographical Journal 26, 1905: 131-53. Johnston, H. Liberia. 2 vols., 1906. Journal of Negro History. "The Colonization of Free Negroes in Liberia l816-1835iii 38, 1953: 41-66. Karen, W. Jr. "Liberia, the League of Nations and the United States." Foreign Policy Association Reports 10(19), 1934. Katzentein, P. J., ed. Between Power and Plenty: Foreign Economic Poli- cies of Advanced Industrial States. *Madison: univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1970. Kennedy, L. V. The Negro Peasant Turns Cityward. New York, 1930. Knorr, K. E. World Rubber and its Regulation. Stanford, Ca1if.: Stanford Univ. Press,il946. Kuhn, G. G. "Liberian Contract Labor in Panama 1887-1897." Liberian Studies Journal 6(1), 1975: 43-52. Lambers, A. M. The Making of the Dutch Landscape: An Historical Geog- raphy of the Netherlands. London: Seminar Press, 1971. Langholm, S. "On the Concept of Center and Periphery." Journal of Peace Research, 1971. 214 Laut, P. Agricultural Geography; Systems, Subsistence and Plantation Agriculture. Sidney, AUstralia: 1963. Lawrence, J. C. The World's Struggle with Rubber. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1931. Leagans, P. and C. P. Loomis, eds. Behavioral Change in Agriculture. Ithaca: Cornell University Press,l197l. League of Nations. International Commission of Enquiry in Liberia. Series of Lufal Publicatro 6(13) "Slavery," Geneva, 1930. League of Nations. Liberia--Politics and Government. Request for Assistance Submitted by the Liberians: Dr. Mackenzie's Mission to the Coast. Geneva, 1932. Lewis, Arthur W. "Reflections on Unlimited Labor." International Economics & Development, 1972: 75-96. Liberia, Ministry of Agriculture. Natural Rubber Forest Conservation and Economic Minerals of Liberia. *Monrovia: Bureau oleatural Resources andTSurveys. Liberia, Ministry of Agriculture. Tree Crop Development for Small- Holder Farmers in Joint Corporation--Outgrower Plantations Scheme: An Etonomic Appraisal. Monrovia,lApril 1974. Liberia, Rural Development Program. Outline of the Report on the Assessment of Liberia's Rural Development. *Draftlenpublished Manuscript. ‘Monrovia, March 1978. Lill, G. G. "Notes on the Villages of the Western and Central Pro- vinces of Liberia, West Africa." The Journal of Geography, 52(5), 1953. Little, K. L. The Mende of Sierra Leone. London, 1951. Lynch, H. R., ed. Selected Letters of Edward Wilmot Blyden. New York, 1978. Macchia, F. R. "African Economies: Basic Characteristics and Pros- pects. Annals of the American Academy 298, 1955: 39-51. Mafeje, A. Science, Ideology and Development: Three Essays on De- velopment Theory. Uppsala, SWeden:lScandinavian Institute of African Studies, 1978. Makeel, S. H. Social Administration of the Kru: A Preliminary Survey.‘ Africa 10, 1937: 75-96. Makeel, S. H. Social Administration of the Kru: A Preliminary Survey, Part II." Africa 12, 1939: 460-68. 215 Malinowski, B. The Dynamics of Culture Change. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 19452 Man, A. B. and D. Blandford. The Outlook for Natural Rubber in the 1980's. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Univ. Dept. oflAgric.'Econ., June l980. Mandle, J. R. "Neo-Imperialism: An Essay in Definition." Social and Economic Studies, Sept. 1967. Mandle, J. R. "The Plantation Economy: An Essay in Definition." Science and Society 36(1) 1972: 49-61. Mandle, J. R. The Plantation Econom : Po ulation and Economic Change in Guyana 1838-1960. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press, 1973. Manning, P. "Slaves, Palm Oil, and Political Power on the West Afri- can Coast." African Historical Studies 2(2), 1962: 279-88. "Marcus Garvey." The New Republic 2(667. Marsden, K. "Toward a Synthesis of Economic Growth and Social Justice." International Labor Review. Nov. 1969: 389-418. McAlister, A. A Lone Woman in Africa; Six Years on the Kroo Coast. New York: HUnt andTEaton, 1896. McCourtie, W. D. Traditional Farming in Liberia. Monrovia: Univ. of Liberia, 1973} McFadyean, A., ed. The History of Rubber Regulation 1934-1943. London: George Allen &—Unwin’Ltd., 1944. McPherson, J. H. T. History of Liberia. Baltimore: John Hopkins Univ. Press, 1891. Meek, C. K. An Official Report of Customs Relating to the Tenure of Land. London, 1895. Meillassoux, C. "The Social Organization of the Peasantry: The Eco- nomic Basis of Kinship.“ Journal of Peasant Studies 1(1), 1973: 81-900 Meyer, J. and M. Hannah, eds. National Development in the World System. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago’Press, 1979. Miller, I. Report on the Agronomic Work Carried Out at Kwadaso Cen- tral Agriculture StationTUp to the Second Season,‘l960. ’Accra, Ghana: Ministry Of Agricolture, 1962. Miller, H. "Ministers to Liberia and Their Diplomacy." Journal of Negro History 22, 1937: 50-95. 216 Mintz, S. W. "The Plantation as a Socio-Cultural Type." Washington, D.C.: Pan American Union, 1957: 1-12. Mintz, S. W. The Rural Proletariat and the Problem of Rural Proleter- ian Consciousness." Journal of Peasant Studies 1(3), 1974: 291-325. Monke, E. A. Rice Policy in Liberia. WARDA, July 1979. Monke, E. A. The Economics of Rice in Liberia. WARDA, July 1979. Moore, B. Jr. Social Origins of Dictatorshippand Democracy. Boston: Beacon Press, 1966. Morris, R. M. Characteristic Features of Overall Economic Growth in Recent Years. ‘Monrovia,lLiberia:*1969. Mower, J. H. "The Republic of Liberia." Journal of Negro History 32(3), 1947: 265-306. Murdza, P. J. Immigrants to Liberia 1865 to 1904 An Alphabetical Listin . ‘Newark, Delaware: Liberian Studies Assoc.,lResearch Working Paper No. 4, 1975. Ndaeyo, Inuaeyen. "The Development of Plantation Agriculture in Nigeria." Journal of Association for the Advancement of Agri- culture Science in Africa. ’September 1971:—116l27. Neal, D. F. "Liberia's Foreign Trade Pattern, 1940-1968." Liberian Studies Journal 4(l), 1971-72: 1-20. New York Times. March 9, 1923, p. 10. "Hoover's remarks to Conference on’Rubber. Rubber Plantations in Liberia." Norton, A. V. and G. E. Cumper. "Peasant Plantation and Urban Com- munities in Rural Jamaica: A Test of the Validity of the Classi- fication." Social and Economic Studies 15(4), 1966: 338-52. Ntiri, G. K. "Forestry as a Handmaid of Agriculture in Tropical Africa.’ Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, Michigan State University, 1975. Ntiri, G. K. Planning Imperatives in Tropical Agriculture: Shifting Cultivation. lMonticello, Illinois:TMay 1976. Ntiri, G. K. Rubber Plantations in Developing Economies: Related Prob- lems andTIssues. MOnticello, Illinois: 1978. Nzula, A. T. et al. Forced Labor in Colonial Africa. London: Zed Press, 1979. O'Brien, D-B-C. "Cooperators and Bureaucrats: Class Formation in a Senegalese Peasant Society. Africa 41(4), 1971: 263-78. 217 O'Brien, D.B.C- Saints and Politigians: Essays in the Organization of SenegaleseiPeasant Society." London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1974. O'Connor, J. "International Corporations and Economic Underdevelop- ment." Science and Society 34(1), 1970: 42. , Opoku, A. A. "Rubber Production: History of Developments in Ghana and the World." The Ghana Farmer 10(1): 10-17. Padmore, G. "Yankee Imperialism Enslaves Liberia." The Communist 10, Feb. 1931: 142-43. Paige, J. M. Agrarian Revolution: Social Movements and Export Agricul- ture in the Underdeveloped World. New York: The Free Press, 1975. Pearson, S. R. et a1. Rice in West Africa: Policy and Economics. Stanford, Ca1if.: Stanford Univ. Press,’l981. Perelman, M. "Natural Resources and Agriculture Under Capitalism: Marx's Economic Model. American Journal of Ag. Econ. 57(4), 1975: 701-704. Perelman, M. Farming for Profit in a Hungry World: Capital and the Crisis in Agricu1ture. ‘Montclair, New Jersey: Allanhel,ll977. Porter, P. "Liberia." Focus 12(1), 1961: 1-6. Proudfoot, M. J. Population Movements in the Caribbean. Port of Spain, Trinidad, 1950. Raynolds, A. J. From Ivory Coast to the Cameroons. London: Alfred A. Knopf, 1926. Redfield, R. The Folk Culture of Yucatan. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1941. Redfield, R. Peasant Society and Culture. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1960. Reynolds, L. “Economic Development with Surplus Labor: Source Compli- cation." Oxford Economic Papers 21(1), 1969: 89-103. Richardson, B. C. "Plantation Infrastructure and Labor Mobility in Guyana and Trinidad." Migration and Development, Safa, H. I. and M. DuToit, eds. Paris: Mouton Publishers, 1975: 205-224. Robinson, R. "Dependence, Government Revenue and Economic Growth, 1955-1970.“ Studies in Comparative International Development 12, 1977: 3-28. Rodney, W. How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. London, 1972. 218 Rodney, W. A History of the Guyanese Working Pe0p1e, 1881-1905. BaltimoreziJehns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1981. Rothchild, D. and L. Curry, Jr. Scarcity, Choice and Public Policy in Middle America. Berkeley: Univ. of Calif. Press, 1978. Rubin, M. Plantation County: Field Studies in the Modern Culture of the South. Chapel Hill, Nortthar61in : 1951. Sackey, J. A. "Dependence. Underdevelopment and Socialist-Oriented Transformation in Guyana." Inter-American Economic Affairs. Sanderson, A. The Agricultural Economy of Surinam. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture, June 1962. \ Seiber, H. D. Indigenous Economic Cooperation in Liberia. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton univ. Press, 1969. Shantz, H. L. "Agricultural Regions of Africa: Part I -- Basic Factors." Economic Geography 16(1), 1940: 1-45. Shantz, H. L. "Agricultural Regions of Africa: Part II -- Vegetation and Potential Productivity on the Land." Economic Geography_l7 (3), 1941: 249. Shantz, H. L. "An Estimate of the Shrinkage of Africa's Tropical Forest." Unasylva 3, 1963: 120-24. Shick, T. W. Immigrants to Liberia 1820-1843 An Alphabetical Listing. Newark, Delaware: Liberian Studies Assoc., Research Working Paper No. 2, 1971. Shick, T. W. “Afro-American Immigration to Liberia; Institutional Transfer in the Nineteenth Century." Unpublished Manuscript, 1978. Shoup, C. S. et al. The Taerystem of Liberia: Report of the Tax Mission. New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1970. Skinner, E. P. "Group Dynamics and Social Stratification in British Guiana." Annals of the American Academy of Sciences 83, January 1960: 904-916. Smith, R. T. The Negro Family in British Guiana: Family Structure and Social Status in the’Villages. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul [£31, 1956. Smock, D. R. and A. C. Smock. Cultural and Political Aspects of Rural Transformation: A Case Study of Eastern Nigeria. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1972. Stavenhager, R. Social Classes in Agrarian Societies. New York: Anchor Books, 1975. 219 Stedman, J. G. Expedition to Surinam. London: Richard Clay and Co., 1963. Steward, J. H. "Area Research; Theory and Practice." Social Science Research Bulletin. New York, 1950. Strong, R. P. The African Republic of Liberia and Belgian Congo Vol. I. Cambridge: Harvard'Univ. Press, 1930. Sudama, T. "The Model of Plantation Economy: The Case of Trinidad and Tobago." Latin American Perspectives 6(1), 1979: 65. Sundiata, I. K. "The Rise and Decline of Kru Power: Fernando P0 in the Nineteenth Century." Liberian Studies Journal 6(1) 1975: 25-41. Sundiata, I. K. Black Scandal: America and the Liberian Labor Crisis, 1929-1936. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1980. Swindell, K. "Iron-Ore Mining in Liberia.“ Geography 50, 1965: 75-78. Taylor, W. C. The Firestone Operations in Liberia. Washington, D.C.: MPA Series, 1956. Templeton, J. K. Natural Rubber: Organization and Research in Produc- ing Countries. New York: IADS, 1978. Terray, E. "Long-Distance Exchange and the Formation of the State: The Case of the Abron Kingdom of Guyanan." Economy and Society 3(3), 1974: 315-45. Tham, P. "Photogrametry in Archaeology." Liberian Studies Journal 5(1), 1972-4: 7-17. Thomas, C. "Diversification and the Burden of Sugar to Jamaica." New World Quarterly, 1969. Thomson, E. T. "The Climatic Theory of the Plantation." Agricultural History 15, 1941: 49-60. Tokman, V. E. "An Exploration into the Nature of Informal-Formal Sector Relationships." World Development 6(4), 1978: 1065-1076. U. S. Agency for International Development. The Development of South- east Liberia. New York: Development anleesources Cbrporation, T965. U.S. Department of State. U.S. Policy Toward Liberia. Washington, D.C.: Current Policy No. 210, Aug. l9,‘l980. Villamil, J. J. "Development Planning and Dependence." Institute of Development Studies Bulletin 9(1), 1977: 57-61 220 Van Lier, R. A. J. "The Development and Nature of Society in the West Indies." Konink-Ligk Vereeniging Indisch Instituut (Amsterdam) XCLL, 1950. Van Lier, R. A. J. Frontier Society; A Social Analysis of the History of Surinam. The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, 1971. Von Gneielinsk, S. Liberia in Maps. London: Univ. of London Press, 1972. Waibel, L. "The Tropical Plantation System." Scientific Monthly 52, 1941: 156-60. Waibel, L. "The Climatic Theory of the Plantation: A Critique." Geographical Review 32, 1942: 307-310. Wallerstein, I. “Migration in West Africa: The Political Perspective. Urbanization and Migration in West Africa. H. Kuper, ed. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1965. Warmington, W. A. "Saving and Indebtedness Among Cameroons Plantation Workers." Africa 28, 1958: 329-43. Webbink, P. American Rubber Concession Abroad. Washington, D.C., 1928. Webster, J. B. and A. A. Boahen. History of West Africa: The Revolu- tionary Years, 1815 to Independence. New York: Praeger Pub- 1ishers,‘l970. Weeks, J. "The Political Economy of Labor Transfer." Science and Society 35(4), 1971: 463-480. Whitford, H. N. and A. Anthony. Rubber Production in Africa. Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce, 1926. Whittlesey, Charles R. Governmental Control of Crude Rubber: The Stevenson Plan. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1931. Williams, E. "The Historical Background of British Guiana's Problems." Journal of Negro History 30(4), 1945: 357-81. Wolf, Howard and Ralph Wolf. Rubber: A Story of Glory and Greed. New York: Covici Friede Publishers, 1936. Wolf, E. R. "Some Aspects of Plantation Systems in the New World: Community of Sub-Cultures and Social Classes." Plantation Systems of the World, 1959. Wolf, E. Peasants. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1966. 221 Woodruff, W. America's Impact on the World: A Study of the Role of the United States in the World'Economy, 1750-1970. John Wiley and Sons, 1975. Woodruff, w. The Rise of the British Rubber Industry During the Nineteenth Century. *Liverpool, UK: Liverpool Univ. Press, 1958. Worsley, P. "Proletarians, Sub-Proletarians, Lumpen proletarians, Marginalidados, Migrants, Urban Peasants and Urban Poor." Sociology 10(1), 1976: 133-42. 222 MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 31293016987376