|Food and Nutrition Bulletin Volume 03, Number 4, 1981 (UNU, 1981, 60 pages)|
|Hunger and society|
Department of Sociology, University of the West Indies, Mona, Kingston, Jamaica
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BACKGROUND
Influence of the Plantations
This paper is concerned with the possible impact of certain social arrangements and cultural orientations on food crop production, food availability, and consumption habits. Since it is by now fairly well known and increasingly documented that it is the small-farm population that has traditionally been responsible for the greatest portion of domestic food crop production and for very significant percentages of export crop production, my attention will be concentrated on what might be called the small-farmer subculture: the extent to which it has been shaped by the fact of its evolution out of, and reaction to, the plantation economy, and, in turn, the extent to which it provides a framework for understanding the behaviour of the small producer.
It should be noted that the word "peasantry" is not used here. This is quite deliberate, as it is a term that, in spite of its eighteenth- and nineteenth-century associations, has too often been used indiscriminately to describe a wide variety of small-farmer behaviour, ranging from that of tribal agriculturalists in Africa, of remote corporate Indian communities in Latin American highlands, and of Asian small-farmers to that of the highly individualized family farm in pre-industrial Europe.
The debate in the literature concerning what and who is a peasant has been long and involved and need not be discussed here. To be sure, there are certain common features shared by all small-scale tillers of the soil, many of whom utilize simple technologies and all of whom exist in a dependent and assymetrical relationship with centres of economic and political power outside their communities. However, there is one thing that sharply distinguishes Caribbean small farm society: as a set of social and economic relationships, the Caribbean small-farm society came after and emerged from another mode of production, the plantation, which was industrial in its work organization, capitalist and commercial in its economic relations, and urban in its value orientations.
The Caribbean "peasantry" is what Mintz has called a "reconstituted" peasantry (1). This has a number of implications, the most important of which are, as already indicated, the long exposure of small-farm communities to Western urban and commercial influences. Second, inasmuch as the small-farmer economy was a reaction against the plantation, there is persistent conflict between plantation and small-farmer over land, labour capital, and markets. The general point that needs to be borne in mind is that a small-farm population uses traditional tools and labour in a traditional way but not in a traditional environment (2). This alone produces many of the difficulties and much of the ambivalence to be found in this sector when it comes to introducing modern techniques and innovations.
Commercialized Environment of the Small Farms
Many of the features of present-day small-farm communities can be related to the two factors just mentioned. For example, hardly anywhere in the Caribbean is there a small-farm community oriented primarily to subsistence production. Crops are usually grown for sale at one time or another, and the rapid response to price fluctuations and changes in market demand can be quite remarkable. Many of the crops (e.g., tannia, dasheen, and particular spices) now grown mostly for home consumption were once part of flourishing trading networks both internally and externally. The expansion of banana and sugar production was largely responsible for their dislocation.
It is true that a particular crop or combination of crops may be cultivated and/or consumed for reasons other than economics. Citrus, avocado, coconut palm, and papaya trees were cultivated to provide cover, fruit, and wood, and even in today's Grenada bananas are grown principally as shade trees. In many instances the ex-slaves simply carried the horticultural skills learned on the plantations to their new small-holdings. It is also likely that certain present day taste preferences (for example, for rice and peas) are linked to status considerations and are traceable to the period of slavery when rice and beans constituted a luxury dish (1, pp. 227, 237).
Finally, while there can be little disagreement with the statement that today's small farm subculture is indebted to both its plantation past and African heritage, cultural anthropologists have still to provide adequate explanations for selective retentions, such as ackee in Jamaica and akansan (a corn-meal mush) in Haiti, both of African origin, or for the selective combination of African crops such as corn and sweet potatoes on certain islands only (1, pp. 228, 236). Nevertheless, it is fairly safe to say that the development of the smell-farmers' materiel culture and the adaptation of the various horticultural traditions occurred within, and were largely shaped by, a heavily commercialized environment Farmers* who cultivate as little as one-tenth of a hectare and/or who are primarily engaged in root and vegetable crop production are usually as responsive to prices and are as interested in making a profit on the market as the larger farmers are.
There is, in addition, the small-farmer's deep involvement in a cash nexus that is in itself both cause and effect of extensive participation in the market. Thus the pattern of multiple cropping, livestock rearing, and off-farm employment that one tends to find on the typical small farm can be described in terms of efforts to maximize a combination of limited resources so as to meet monetary needs. It is now almost 20 years since Comitas and Handler reported the fairly common practice of multiple occupations of farmers in the small farm communities of particular Caribbean territories (3-5). Since then there has been an increasing number of studies that have shown that off-farm economic activity is fairly widespread in all farm-size categories* * (6; 2 ).
Off-farm employment provides much-needed working capital and funds for domestic consumption, particularly during slack periods. At the same time, livestock rearing as an important commercial activity for the small farmer is a form of saving and simple capital formation. Further, farmers who carry out livestock rearing by means of cooperative or sharing relationships (commonly known as "half and half'') are thus able to acquire patrons and clients who may become useful either as loan sources or as farm labour. It is therefore fair to say that the small-farm community is a heterogeneous and differentiated one. But more significantly, because of the need to earn income from a variety of sources, it makes little sense to try to understand the social and economic divisions simply in terms of land ownership. Instead, it is only a guide and it is necessary to describe the socio-economic strata and the hierarchy they form in terms of particular combinations of economic pursuits. Indeed, one may even go so far as to say that more often than not it is the wholly full-time small-farmers who are found near the bottom of such a hierarchy.
There is an important policy implication here, and it is this: programmes that do that do not recognize that the small-farmer's needs, demands, and likely response are often heavily influenced by non-farm considerations and by the cycle of activities associated with the tripartite arrangement described above are likely to encounter some difficulty.
Attachment to Land and Migration
There is one other consequence of the long standing participation in an urbanized and commercialized set of relationships to touch on before moving to the principal points of focus of this paper. For a long time it was fashionable to talk, and indeed complain, about the farmer's excessive attachment to land. It was often argued that these "sentimental ties to the land" stood in the way of efficient crop zoning, the amalgamation or consolidation of property, and in general the economic rationalization of the agricultural sector. Further, fear of losing one's property was allegedly one probable cause of an apparent reluctance to approach certain lending institutions. However, the high urbanization and emigration rates experienced throughout the region, the large volume of land sales to the bauxite companies in Jamaica during the 1950s, and the growing awareness of the existence of a land market among the small-farmers themselves have served to question the accuracy of the prevailing view.
Re-examination of the issue has shown that, in fact, there have been conflicting and contradictory statements about the matter; while some bemoan the "conservative" effects of attachment to property, others wonder what is to be done to halt the migration to towns and cities, which they think has its roots in an "unfortunate" association of slavery with agricultural activity in the mind of the African-West Indian. A closer look has also shown that a great deal more information is required on the incidence of circular migration and on the extent to which the "push" factors at work here are similar to those behind the more permanent types of migration.
A very large proportion of most small-farm community residents is made up of persons who have at one time or another worked and/or lived outside that community [either within or outside the island territory), and this would seem to indicate the significance of circular movements and suggest that the simple explanations referred to earlier are inadequate. The explanations are probably to be found somewhere in the nature of the relationship of family to farm and the character of the land tenure system. two social institutions, land tenure and the farm family, in the urbanized rural environment, although not necessarily with a view to providing definitive answers to the question implied above.
LAND TENURE SYSTEMS
As already noted, many of the factors that have shaped the social and economic existence of the small farm have to do with the persistent conflict between plantation and small-farmer over land, labour, and capital. This conflict has of course itself been affected by external developments, such as the state of the international money and commodity markets. Thus, small farmers have at times been able to sharply expand their penetration of the export markets, as was the case in Jamaica for banana-growers during the 1920s and 1930s and in the Windward Islands, where trading in food crops with islands as far afield as Bermuda flourished during the first three decades of this century,
Also, small-farmers have been able to extend their access to land by purchasing, leasing, and renting land from bankrupt or not-so-viable estates or by entering into métayage arrangements with capital-short estate owners. Although the plantation-small-farmer relationship was essentially an antagonistic one, this did not preclude the emergence of collaborative and accomodating relationships. For example, in the Caribbean region there has been a set of adaptations that resulted in a range of tenure system. These include the small tenantries of Barbados, where the hold of the large plantation unit on agricultural land continues to be tight, the sharecropping arrangements that persist in parts of Grenada and St. Lucia, the farming of undivided and divided family land in St. Lucia and Dominica, the individually owned smallholdings that are perhaps most common in Jamaica, St. Vincent, and Grenada, and the government tenants in Antigua.
But farmers tend not to be confined to one particular tenurial arrangement and are likely to be involved in a combination of types. Until additional case material is available, it is difficult to indicate the actual spread of multiple tenure. But evidence from St. Lucia and Dominica has so far shown that most small-farmers hold land under at least two of the following arrangements: family land, fairly recently "bought" land, and rented land (7; 8). The one that seems to be hidden most often is tenancy. This is probably because many of these tenancies have no written contracts, are "at-will" only, thereby involving no cash payments, and are usually of short term duration (one year or less}. Plots may be rented from larger farmers but are quite frequently rented from medium sized or even small-farmers within the community.
An example of the significance of the phenomenon can be found in St. Vincent. Although the 1978 census there reported that 23 per cent of all holdings were rented, a survey of small farms in 1975 found that as many as 54 per cent of all small-farmers surveyed rented at least one plot of land, even though the total area rented accounted for only 20 per cent of the amount reported on, and 84 per cent held at least one plot on family land, even though the total area of family land amounted to approximately 40 per cent.
Agricultural programme design and policy should then of necessity take greater cognizance of the variety of tenurial relations in the region and the phenomenon of multiple tenureship. Traditionally, the focus has been on the alleged constraints to particular arrangements such as the common ownership of family lands or tenancy. To be sure, there are the insecurities of tenancies that make long-term planning difficult and thwart or subvert reasonable credit programmes. Farmers are understandably reluctant to cultivate crops with long-term maturities or invest heavily in new technologies where their future control of the land is at best uncertain. However, without seeking to deny the restrictive effects of tenancies, it would be as well to note that the remarkable production performance of the Caribbean small-farmer in the face of the situation described here suggests that many of the problems traditionally attributed to particular tenurial relationships can probably be traced to the types of tenurial arrangements that developed and to the set of relationships-conflictual or otherwise-out of which they emerged.
A cursory examination of the experiences of small-farm or peasant populations in many third-world countries quickly shows that a variety of institutional arrangements can quite easily adapt to and accommodate the demands of participation in a market economy and that different social relations of production can and do serve the same end of individual profit-making. As Apthorpe has commented:
It is safe to affirm . . . that cases are numerous where land has been occupied and developed without anyone's waiting for questions of titles for instance to be settled first; where occupational fees or rents or the lack of them do not restrict tenants in any way . . .; where vast acreages may be put to highly productive, even innovative use, without the benefit of any form of land registration.... [9, p. 31
These observations are as true for the Caribbean region as elsewhere. A particularly good instance of the lack of autonomy and adaptability of a social institution is to be found in the use and fate of family land. It has up until now been customary to express distress over the apparent tenacity of this institution-especially in countries such as Jamaica, St. Lucia, Dominica, and Grenada. Its persistence seems to be all the more problematic in light of the view that joint ownership of land inhibits the adoption of new cultivation practices, encourages the under-utilization of land, and precludes long-term planning inasmuch as cultivators fear future or potential conflicts with relatives who are supposed to have an equal share of the land and its produce. Multiple ownership is also likely to reduce access to credit institutions whose rules and practices recognize the individual only. But in the eyes of many the most damaging aspect of the institution is its inheritance system, which, insofar as it is based on the norm of "equal shares for all children," inevitably leads to fragmentation and excessive subdivision. Add to this the high birth rates associated with, and expected of, rural society and the situation seems to be almost disastrous.
However, a newer and closer examination of the issues is beginning to show that the picture is not quite as had been imagined. The idea of family land is an entrenched one: the underlying principle of excluding strangers is designed to ensure, in the last resort, an economic niche for every legitimate member of the family. Property is passed on ambilineally, although there is a bias towards male descendants. Matrilocality is often practiced, so that it is not unusual to find villages comprising kinship segments where each segment is a collection of male descendents, their wives, their sisters, and their sisters' husbands. However, there is little evidence that the institution of family land, even during its pristine days, was ever associated with collective farming or confused with individual rights to the use and disposal of farm products. Individuals, upon maturity and/or marriage, may be allocated a farm plot(s), and they usually set up a separate household, albeit within the boundaries of the family's land. Mintz also observed earlier this emphasis on individual in dependence:
The role of independent residence for cohabiting couples appears to hold for almost all rural Caribbean folk.... the establishment of new conjugal associations depends on access to an unoccupied house plot and, commonly, to possession of the means to build a house. [1, p. 239]
Land Disputes, family Power Struggles, and Polarization
In its pure form the family land-tenure system is an expensive one. New couples always require new plots. However, given the effective land shortage facing the small farmer, other solutions have had to be found. Therefore, an individual wishing to establish a farm may have the following options: marry and so gain access to his wife's share of land, rent from another, "borrow" from an absent relative, migrate temporarily and work off the farm, or live-essentially unemployed-in his parents' household until a plot becomes available. The last option is frequently followed. Consequently, rural unemployment rates are high, and many farmers take up full time farming late in life.
Although in theory each legal heir has a right of access by birth, in practice rights based on continuous residence may and do supersede birth rights.* Associated with this practice is another increasingly popular one: that of pre-selecting one's heirs in spite of the common lip-service paid to ambilineality. Consequently, fragmentation and subdivision is not as endemic as has been commonly supposed. Farmers are very much aware of the problems of uneconomical micro-units and for this reason quite often resist subdivision. There is instead evidence of attempts at economic amalgamation and consolidation through intermarriages, within-family purchases, or the use of intrigues that relatives commonly use to swindle each other out of their inheritance.
In those instances where a farmer has improved his economic status, perhaps as a result of his off farm economic pursuits, and has been able to extend his landholdings, he may establish dominating patron-client relationships with other relatives and become the effective head of the family compound. Or, as in the case of Dominica, a limited number of family groupings, through a set of interlocking marriages and cross cutting relationships, come to dominate most of the economic and political resources of the villages.
Processes of individual appropriation and differentiation can and do occur within the framework of the institution. Although it is not entirely a consequence of this differentiation, a distinction must nevertheless be made between family land that has economic value and family land that has been reduced to a family compound comprised of residential house-spots only. To be sure, without such a residential house-spot one may not have the right to rent or purchase land in the community. But it is important to note that the second kind of family land is now of symbolic and non-economic value only. Both types are still to be found in most of the Windward Islands; those in Jamaica are mostly of the second kind.
If what has been said so far is essentially accurate, then it should not be surprising that land disputes tend to be disguised power struggles within families and that they may result from "illegal" or non finalized land sales or derive from disagreements with previous heir selection. The underutilization of "active" family land where it is found is therefore likely to be due to insufficient working capital, the poor condition of the land (factors unrelated to the form of tenure), or to the fact that an individual may be temporarily using land belonging to an absent relative, rather than to the uncertain status of land said to belong to all persons "living, dead, or unborn." It seems that the danger of family land tenure lies not so much in the inner drive toward fragmentation but more in its susceptibility to internal appropriation and polarization.
The small-farm community typically confronts a land shortage situation made worse by the internal processes of differentiation just described. Consequently, economic survival usually demands that farmers rent and/or purchase land when and where they can. Multiple tenureship results, and it is probably this, rather than any inheritance system, that is largely responsible for the fragmentation and excessive subdivision frequently found on most small farms
This multiplicity has a number of other deleterious consequences. The problem of man-hours lost in commuting between widely scattered plots and the difficulties in rationalizing the provision of farm services in such a situation are fairly well known. But in addition it may be expected that crop production decisions are less affected by soil type and soil fertility considerations than they are by proximity of a plot, its size, and its tenurial status. Planning, production co-ordination, and the organization and use of labour all become difficult. Finally, since most official agricultural organizations are not equipped to deal with multiple tenureship, small-farmers are too often unable to obtain the size of loan or amount, variety, and mix of inputs that the total land room actually available may really require. The portion individually owned is frequently the smallest.
This is not to deny that there may be certain difficulties associated with common ownership per se, particularly where it continues to be tied up with exchange labour practices. This last point will be discussed in the next section, but here it may be pointed out that one potential benefit can also be costly. Farmers with access to family land sometimes have the option of rotating or changing their farm plot, thereby increasing the total land area available to each person. However, some crop-mixes and certain kinds of farm improvements thereby become nonviable, and the use of inputs such as pesticides with medium-to-long-term harmful effects have to be contained.
So far, it has been suggested that, as a form of land tenure and social institution, family land has had to adapt to the demands of commercial commodity production and has not in any way been immune to the processes of appropriation, differentiation, and polarization. Indeed, there are cases where family ties have been used to consolidate property and acquire labour from the growing numbers in the near-landless category. It is now rather generally accepted that, if the small-farmer is still to be the principal source of domestic food supply, his resource base must of necessity be expanded.
A more immediate focus for policy-makers could well be on simplifying and reducing the tenure systems, on the rationalization of the farm unit, and on designing mechanisms to control and regulate the rural land market. At the same time, much more information is needed on the relationship between population movements and tenure systems.
This immediately raises the question of what should be the appropriate unit for official attention: the individual farmers, the farm family, the extended family, community types, or large watershed areas? It is obviously not possible to discuss all options within the scope of this paper. Instead, the reality and potential usefulness of the farm family will be discussed briefly.
THE FARM FAMILY AND FARM PRODUCTION
Labour and the Individual Household
It has long been assumed that one of the hallmarks of the peasant or "peasant-like" farm is a close connection between a co-operating nuclear family and the economic production unit. In some instances the household boundaries may be drawn out to include members of the extended family, but basically economic decision-making is said to reside within the principal nuclear family. This picture has proved to be an attractive one to latter-day policymakers-in particular those who wish to pursue what has been called the "peasant-led" rural development strategy. There are a number of reasons for this, but only two of them will be detailed here.
First, it is felt that such a farmer is well placed to exercise initiative and flexibility in the economic management of his enterprise, and, second, he is considered to have the benefit of immediate access to, and control of, unpaid family labour. The establishment of small to-medium sized family farms should therefore simultaneously reduce unemployment levels and create entrepreneurs. It is not important here to tackle the romanticized and nostalgic dimensions of this position or even to try to assess the viability of the strategy in itself. The question is whether or not the socio-cultural environment of the rural Caribbean would admit such a policy.
This paper has taken the position-admittedly, a still insufficiently documented one-that there really is not a great deal of evidence to support the contention that a family-farm tradition exists in the Caribbean region. This position may be supported by looking at what is now known about the use and organization of labour, at least in some of the English-speaking territories.
Three facts have begun to emerge from some of the more recent studies on this question. First, the use of and dependence on hired wage labour is widespread. This is as true of the small farmer on a tenth of a hectare who may only require casual and seasonal labour as it is of his larger counterparts who need a larger and more regular force. Second, the actual utilization of unpaid family labour on any kind of regular or routine basis is, in most instances, minimal. Third, it is not the norm to find children of the same parents farming co-operatively among themselves or with their parents on the same farm plots (2; 7; 8; 11). Instead, a contradictory situation may exist, where labour is hired even while family labour remains idle.
There is one likely immediate explanation for this: given the almost total involvement in a cash economy, the typical small farm in the Caribbean is really unable to generate sufficient income to support a farm family, and it certainly does not have enough work to absorb adequately the services of a full farm family. This probably only serves to reinforce certain existing traditions.
Wider Kinship and Exchange Labour
The importance of the individual household has already been noted. It is now necessary to point out that this emphasis on individual responsibility nevertheless exists within the context of the wider kinship segments that have apparently been a source of a number of farm and household services ranging from the provision of labour to childrearing facilities. Both Mintz and Brodber have spoken of the significance of "yards" in the social and economic lives of rural and urban communities (1;12). The yard is often a repository of tradition, expressing the continuity of the kin group and, as in Haiti for example, representing religious continuity of the family group (1, p. 246). Brodber has focused particular attention on its importance as a principal socializing unit and stable element effectively countering the changes and shifts in domestic and household composition. The causes of these changes vary: people migrate either temporarily or permanently; they often have to follow economic opportunities wherever they may arise; and the "farming out" of children to smaller, though more well-to-do, households is quite common.
The phenomenon of exchange labour is fairly well known. So is the fact that, although known by different names in Jamaica, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent, there are many basic similarities. What is less well known is that in most of the documented cases, the relationship has assumed equity between partners and has essentially been an obligatory and reciprocal one between a man and his wife's male relatives. It may then be expected that the family land tenure system, its inheritance pattern, and the frequency of matrilocality are all closely tied up with the principles and practice of exchange labour. There is, in fact, evidence to support this belief.
Thus, to the extent that this land tenure system has declined and fallen prey to the processes of appropriation and polarization, so too has the practice of exchange labour. Certain types, for example the simple exchange between two individuals, have demonstrated a greater tenacity and ability to adapt to monetization and wage labour norms. But in general, the production cycles associated with some of the more complex group arrangements have been found to be incompatible with land size inequalities, and the work sequences laid down or required by centrally controlled industries (e.g., sugar and bananas) producing for the international markets. These cycles have also not always been able to accommodate the greater need for off farm employment.
Finally, farm plans sponsored and designed by official and not so-official agencies, through their concentration on the "whole farm" approach, have never really assessed the individual in the context of his wider social and economic space. Many plans have therefore helped to destroy the very things they were trying to develop.
With the break-up of the traditional source of farm labour and common ownership units have come the now familiar complaints of labour shortages even while levels of rural underemployment grow. A relative few will have the resources to fill the place vacated by exchange labour with regularly hired labour. However, by and large there is a problem, as neither unpaid family labour nor the family farm have been a part of the small-farm subculture. One immediate consequence is that small-farmers increasingly shy away from the cultivation of crops that demand high labour inputs. The earliest and easiest victims of this development are domestic food and vegetable crops. The fascination in Grenada with nutmeg-a crop with low maintenance requirements-is a long-standing case in point. Again, in Jamaica, efforts to promote large-scale, commercial domestic food crop programmes have begun to encounter difficulties, as small-farmers prefer the less labour-intensive and more lucrative export crops.
Some of the other factors that might affect food availability, such as the internal distribution system, have not been examined in this paper. Also, nothing has been said about indigenous farm technologies simply because so little is known about them. Instead, emphasis has been on the two social institutions that inevitably have a profound impact on productive activities: the farm family and the land tenure system. From what has been said so far, three general conclusions with policy implications can be drawn.
First, it is perhaps necessary for programmes that seek to expand and efficiently distribute the food supply to begin to shift attention away from the individual, self-sufficient "whole farm." A great deal more needs to be known about the internal authority structures of the kinship groupings and about the sets of demands, obligations, and pressures to which its individual members may be subject.
Second, the time has come for policy-makers to recognize the severity of the labour problem faced by the small-farmer. Agricultural programmes must therefore confront the problem of designing feasible labour and work organizations.
Finally, the Caribbean small farmer is a creature of a commercialized economic system and necessarily utilizes an economic calculus in his decision-making processes. His status as a small producer in a limited resource situation introduces a high level of risk, the traditional reaction to which has been diversification of his income-earning sources and selectivity in his response to the market. Efforts there fore ought to be directed towards reducing, or at least determining acceptable levels of risk, and towards assessing the social and economic efficiency of the combinations of economic alternatives pursued by the small-farmer.
1. Sydney Mintz, Caribbean Transformations (Aldine Publishing Co., Chicago, 1974).
2. Agricultural Sector Assessment Team, Office of International Cooperation and Development, US Department of Agriculture, "The Small Farmer in Jamaican Agriculture: An Assessment of Constraints and Opportunities," report to USAID/Jamaica and to the Ministry of Agriculture of Jamaica (Kingston, Jamaica, 1978).
3. Lambros Comitas, "Occupational Multiplicity in Rural Jamaica," in Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society, 1963.
4. Jerome Handler, "Some Aspects of Work Organisation on Sugar Plantations in Barbados," Ethnology, vol. 4 (1965).
5. Jerome Handler, Small-Scale Sugar Cane in Barbados," Ethnology, vol. 5 (1966).
6. "Small Farming in the LDCS of the Commonwealth Caribbean" (prepared for the Caribbean Development Bank by Weir's Consulting Services, Ltd., 1980).
7. Elsie LeFranc, ''Rural Land Tenure Systems in St. Lucia and Their Relevance to Agricultural Development" (mimeographed, University of the West Indies, Kingston, Jamaica, 1981).
8. Elsie LeFranc, "Status Group Formulation in Small Scale Communities: A Case Study of a Dominican Small Farming Village`, (mimeographed, University of the West Indies, Kingston, Jamaica, 1981).
9, Raymond Apthorpe, "Land as a Factor of Production and Distribution: Two Problems, Three Variables" (presented to the Seminar on Problems of Land Tenure in African Development, Leiden, 13-17 Dec. 1971),
10. Edith Clarke, "Land Tenure and Family in Four Selected Communities in Jamaica," Social and Economic Studies, vol. 1, no. 4 (1953).
11. Elsie LeFranc, "Peasant and Community in Jamaica" (Ph.D. thesis, Yale University, 1974).
12. Erna Brodber, "Yards in the City of Kingston," Institute of Social and Economic Research Working Papers, no. 9 (University of the West Indies, Kingston, Jamaica, 1975).