Abstract

While economic diversification by capitalist farmers in India is a commonly accepted fact, it is rarely analysed through the lens of agrarian questions of capital. This paper argues that questions about the movement and transformation of agrarian capital continue to be significant in understanding contemporary processes of agrarian change and rural development. However, these need to be studied by looking beyond the agrarian transition debate in contexts where agrarian capitalism has consolidated itself and non-agricultural capitalist development is not fuelled by agrarian capital. Using the case of the state of Punjab and drawing on intensive field research, the paper examines a broad spectrum of non-farm investments and activities of large capitalist farmers, including agriculture-based business, non-agricultural business, education-based diversification and international migration. It shows that both industrial investments and mobility through education have been limited. International migration is a preferred, but also risky, channel for the utilisation of agrarian surplus. The analysis takes seriously experiences of failure of non-agricultural businesses, resulting in the circulation of agrarian capital across the agricultural and non-agricultural sectors. This both further strains accumulation within agriculture and reveals the limits to productive investment in the non-agricultural economy imposed by historically specific social, political and economic conditions.

摘要

尽管印度的资本主义农民实现经济多样化是一个普遍接受的事实，但很少通过农业资本问题的角度来分析这一问题。本文认为，关于农业资本流动和转化的问题在理解当代农业变革和农村发展过程中仍然很重要。但是，在农业资本主义已经巩固自身，非农业资本主义发展不以农业资本为动力的情况下，需要通过超越农业转型辩论来研究这些问题。以旁遮普邦的情况为例，并通过深入的实地研究，本文考察了大型资本主义农民的各种非农投资和活动，包括以农业为基础的企业，非农业企业，基于教育的多元化和国际移徙。它表明工业投资和通过教育的流动性都受到限制。国际移徙是利用农业剩余的首选但也是有风险的渠道。该分析认真考虑了非农业企业的失败经验，从而导致农业资本在农业和非农业部门之间的流通。这不仅进一步加剧了农业内部的积累压力，而且还揭示了历史上特定的社会，政治和经济条件对非农业经济中生产性投资的限制。利用农业剩余的渠道。该分析认真考虑了非农业企业的失败经验，从而导致农业资本在农业和非农业部门之间的流通。这不仅进一步加剧了农业内部的积累压力，而且还揭示了历史上特定的社会，政治和经济条件对非农业经济中生产性投资的限制。利用农业剩余的渠道。该分析认真考虑了非农业企业的失败经验，从而导致农业资本在农业和非农业部门之间的流通。这不仅进一步加剧了农业内部的积累压力，而且还揭示了历史上特定的社会，政治和经济条件对非农业经济中生产性投资的限制。