The Social Metabolism of Spanish Agriculture, 1900–2008: The Mediterranean Way Towards Industrialization

296 Pages·2020·10.268 MB·English

by  Manuel González de Molina, David Soto Fernández, Gloria Guzmán Casado, Juan Infante-Amate, Eduardo Aguilera Fernández, Jaime Vila Traver, Roberto García Ruiz

Environmental History 10
Manuel González de Molina ·
David Soto Fernández · Gloria Guzmán Casado ·
Juan Infante-Amate · Eduardo Aguilera Fernández ·
Jaime Vila Traver · Roberto García Ruiz
The Social Metabolism
of Spanish Agriculture,
1900–2008
The Mediterranean Way Towards
Industrialization
Environmental History
Volume 10
Series Editor
Mauro Agnoletti, Florence, Italy
The series intends to act as a link for ongoing researches concerning the historical
interrelationships between man and the natural world, with special regard to the
modernandcontemporaryages.Themaincommitmentshouldbetobringtogether
different areas of expertise in both the natural and the social sciences to help them
find a common language and a common perspective. Interdisciplinarity and
transdisciplinarityareneededformoreandbetterunderstandingoftheenvironment
anditshistory,withnewepistemologicalframeworksandmethodologicalpractices.
Thelinksbetweenhumanactivitiesandflora,fauna,water,soil,areexamplesofthe
most debated topics in EH, while established discipline like forest history,
agricultural history and urban history are also dealing with it. The human impacts
on ecosystems and landscapes over time, the preservation of cultural heritage,
studiesofhistoricaltrajectoriesinpatternandprocesses,aswellasappliedresearch
onhistoricaluseandmanagementoflandscapesandecosystems,arealsotakeninto
account. Other important topics relate to the history of environmental ideas and
movements, policies, laws, regulations, conservation, the history of immaterial
heritage, such as traditional knowledge related to the environment.
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10168
á
Manuel Gonz lez de Molina
(cid:129)
á
David Soto Fern ndez
(cid:129)
á
Gloria Guzm n Casado
(cid:129)
á
Juan Infante-Amate Eduardo Aguilera Fern ndez
(cid:129) (cid:129)
í
Jaime Vila Traver Roberto Garc a Ruiz
(cid:129)
The Social Metabolism
of Spanish Agriculture,
–
1900 2008
The Mediterranean Way Towards
Industrialization
Manuel González deMolina DavidSotoFernández
Departamento deGeografía,Historia Agroecosystems History Laboratory
y Filosofía,Agroecosystems History Universidad deSantiagodeCompostela
Laboratory SantiagodeCompostela, Spain
Universidad PablodeOlavide
Sevilla,Spain JuanInfante-Amate
Agroecosystems History Laboratory
Gloria Guzmán Casado Universidad PablodeOlavide
Agroecosystems History Laboratory Seville,Spain
Universidad PablodeOlavide
Seville,Spain Jaime Vila Traver
Agroecosystems History Laboratory
Eduardo AguileraFernández Universidad PablodeOlavide
Agroecosystems History Laboratory Seville,Spain
Universidad PolitécnicadeMadrid
Madrid,Spain
RobertoGarcíaRuiz
Agroecosystems History Laboratory
Universidad deJaén
Jaén, Spain
ISSN 2211-9019 ISSN 2211-9027 (electronic)
Environmental History
ISBN978-3-030-20899-8 ISBN978-3-030-20900-1 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20900-1
©TheEditor(s)(ifapplicable)andTheAuthor(s)2020.Thisbookisanopenaccesspublication.
Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adap-
tation,distributionandreproductioninanymediumorformat,aslongasyougiveappropriatecreditto
the originalauthor(s)and the source, providealink tothe CreativeCommonslicense andindicate if
changesweremade.
The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book’s Creative Commons
license,unlessindicatedotherwiseinacreditlinetothematerial.Ifmaterialisnotincludedinthebook’s
CreativeCommonslicenseandyourintendeduseisnotpermittedbystatutoryregulationorexceedsthe
permitteduse,youwillneedtoobtainpermissiondirectlyfromthecopyrightholder.
Theuse ofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc. inthis publi-
cationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfromthe
relevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
The publisher, the authors, and the editorsare safeto assume that the adviceand informationin this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authorsortheeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinor
for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictionalclaimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
Introduction
Until recently, scholars have portrayed the history of Spanish agriculture as a
backward sector that has failed to live up to its key economic role in Spain’s
development (Pujol et al. 2001). This view goes back to the agrarian crisis in the
late nineteenth century. The “Agrarian Question” (Acosta et al. 2009) emerged,
associated with the 1898 restoration crisis and growing awareness of “Spain’s
decadence.” Until the late 1980s, the predominant narrative in Spain’s economic
historiography was that agrarian production was lagging, submerged into deep
lethargyoralongsiesta(Simpson1997).Historiansoverwhelminglysubscribedto
theparadigmofcontinuouseconomicgrowth.Theyquestionedwhetheragriculture
hadfulfilleditshistoricalroleinthecountry’sdevelopment,aroleassignedtoitby
prevailingeconomictheories.Themajoritybelievedithadnot,andawiderangeof
explanations were advanced, spreading a pessimistic understanding of agrarian
development and the rural world. The sector was marked out as an obstacle to
Spain’s modernization, thus distancing the country from the rest of Europe and
from developed countries generally.1
Improvements in agrarian macroquantities from 1960s onwards and Spain’s
incorporation into the European Economic Community (1986) established a new
scenario, where Spanish agriculture seemed to have taken the path of “modern-
ization” once and for all. These developments coincided with a new generation of
agrarian historians, the majority of whom adopted conventional economic
approaches.Freshstudiesinthefieldandthefactofincludingthesector’sdynamics
overthelastdecadesbroughtaboutlesspessimisticaccounts.Differentapproaches
were used to examine the past and a more positive image of Spanish agriculture’s
trajectorysincethelatenineteenthcenturywasadvanced(Garrabou1985;Garrabou
and Sanz 1985; Garrabou and Barciela 1986). The idea that Spain’s limited
industrialization was due to backwardness was definitively set aside following the
publicationofPozodetodoslosmales(the“Wellofallevils”),almosttwodecades
ago (Pujol et al. 2001). In hindsight, the path followed by Spanish agriculture no
longer seems abnormal.
1AdetaileddescriptionofthisdebatecanbefoundinAcostaetal.(2009).
v
vi Introduction
ThishistoriographicrenewalhasshedapositivelightonSpain’sagrarianpast,in
direct contrast with traditional views. The underlying theoretical assumptions,
however, have remained unaltered. Although the main writings by agrarian econ-
omists date back to the 1950 and 1960s, economic historians still query agricul-
ture’s contribution to economic growth. Agrarian historiography continues to be
trapped in economic approaches that have barely evolved. It is acknowledged that
the role played by agriculture depends on different countries’ specific environ-
mental, cultural, and institutional conditions; the expectation, however, is that this
role be significant and that agriculture actively cooperates with other economic
sectors. Agriculture’s contribution is thus assessed based on its provision offood
and raw materials, the transfer of capital, the transfer of labor, and the market
participation of industrial goods and services.
Agenerallypositive balancehasbeendrawnbasedonthesecriteria.2However,
as we shall see, there have been far from beneficial effects for the sector itself.
Contemporary Spanish agriculture followed a coherent model of transformation
given the resources it was allocated; though its ensuing sector results cannot be
compared to that of other countries, agriculture underwent reasonable growth
(Clar et al. 2016). In terms offood and raw material supplies, production growth
superseded population growth during the twentieth century, ending all famine and
subsistencecrisesandimprovingdiets.Thisgrowthislinkedtootherchanges,such
as the nutritional transition, which put an end to traditional consumption defi-
ciencies of meat and dairy products and led to significant improvements to living
standards (Collantes 2016).
Therewerefurtherimplications.Successiveincreasesinagriculturalproductivity
turned the country into a net exporter of agricultural products and food, signifi-
cantly contributing to the favorable balance of foreign trade. Without this contri-
bution, it would have been much more difficult to finance the import needs proper
to a developing country. After a period during which, due to the Franco regime’s
economic policies, commercial activity declined drastically or was in deficit,
agrarian trade surplus recovered in the 1980s and continues to be one of the most
important chapters of foreign trade today included within the agri-food industry.
Regarding the transfer of resources to other economic sectors, the terms of trade
seemingly only began to deteriorate, that is, to produce an effective transfer of
resources, until well into the 1960s. According to calculations by Prados (2003),
termsoftraderemainedstableuntilthen.However,theagriculturalsector’sroleas
a market for industry was considered insufficient during the first sixty years of the
twentieth century because capitalization levels were low. Nonetheless, things
changed with the massive incorporation of external inputs and income increases
thatpermittedtheagrarianpopulationtodemandothertypesofnon-foodgoods.In
this respect, the agrarian sector started to fulfill expectations from the 1960s
onwards. Regarding the sector’s contribution to labor transfer to industry and to
2InlinewithrecentlyformulatedthesesbasedonneoclassicorthodoxybyG.FedericoFeedingthe
world. An Economic History of Agriculture, 1800–2000 (2009), that considers the history of
agricultureonaglobalscaleasan“extraordinarilysuccessfulhistory.”
Introduction vii
urban economic activities generally, two periods must also be distinguished. Until
well into the 1950s, given the country’s low industrial development, rural exodus
had not been a major phenomenon. This exodus even came to a halt in the
immediate postwar period. There were, for a fact, positive emigration balances in
the 1920s, when labor productivity increased and the active agrarian population
began to fall. But it would take some time, until the mid-fifties, for a massive
population transfer to begin. The phenomenon reached its peak in the 1960s and
persists today. This exodus not only took place from the countryside to the city, it
also spurred foreign emigration first to Latin America and then to Central Europe.
Moreover,thesemigratoryflowsareallvaluedpositivelynotonlybecausetheyfed
the expanding industry’s growing demand for labor, but because they reduced
agricultural labor supply and thereby stimulated mechanization. Finally, regarding
capitalsupply,thegreatestfiscalpressurethatseemstohavebeenexercisedonthe
agrarian sector until the Civil War was clearly capital transfer. This pressure may
not have been very intense, but it was deeply unfair, as family farms were taxed
morethanbiglandowners(Vallejo2001).AbadandNaredo(1997)highlightedthe
agrariansector’sroleinfinancingindustryandconstructionduringtheearlystages
of Francoism a long time ago. However, agriculture’s industrialization led to
heightened financing needs that could not be met by falling agrarian income. This
explains why the agrarian sector has become a net borrower of capital in recent
decades. In short, the discourse of mainstream Spanish economic historiography
regarding the agricultural sector’s evolution and its contribution to Spanish eco-
nomic growth can be summed up as follows: “… The agrarian sector was char-
acterized by two diverging tendencies: it was not dynamic enough to be the key
driver of the industrialization process; but it was not static enough to explain the
slow pace of Spanish industrialization” (Clar et al. 2016, 200). According to this
narrative, Spanish agricultural growth could have been stronger and more intense,
butitwaslimitedbyenvironmentalandinstitutionalconstraints.Thepublicationof
Pozo de todos los males (González de Molina 2001) was a wake-up call on the
importance of environmental aspects that also led to the criticism of economic
growth(Naredo2004),thushelpingtounderstandSpain’s“ecologicaluniqueness”
in Europe. Specific ecological conditions have made it necessary to build costly
infrastructuresto extend irrigatedlands inSpain (Cazcarro etal. 2015). Additional
costshavebeenincurredforcommercialactivityandthesettlingofpopulationsina
countrythatisextremelymountainous(Simpson2002).Thesecostshavenaturally
preventedSpainfromachievinglandproductivitylevelscomparabletothatofmore
northern European countries. Environmental conditions have helped to highlight a
featureofSpanishagriculturethathassofarbeenoverlooked:itsdualanddivergent
structure,asitissplitbetweentheinterior’srainfedlands—thatgeneratelowyields
andareunabletocompeteinagriculturalmarkets—andhighlyproductiveflatlands,
located especially incoastalareas, withaccess to irrigation. Spain’senvironmental
uniqueness thus helps to understand the country’s slow and belated agricultural
growth(Claretal.2016,166),i.e.,thatofitsindustrializationprocess.Theessence
of the narrative remains, nevertheless, unchanged.
viii Introduction
Accordingtothisnarrative,Spanishagrariangrowthalsounderwentinstitutional
restrictions,derivingfromitsabnormalandunequaldistributionoflandownership
as well as the weakness of the State’s role and economic policies. From this
perspective, unequal distribution of land ownership discouraged mechanization,
creatingalargegroupofsmalllandownerswithnoinvestmentcapacityandapool
of plentiful and cheap labor that discouraged landlords from adopting mechanized
technologies. This phenomenon was more intense in the southern half of the
Peninsula, where there was greater inequality (Carmona and Simpson 2003).
Peasants were less able to build up savings, which in turn would have delayed the
emergenceofa“modernfinancialsystem”inruralareas(Claretal.2016,169)and
madeitdifficulttoobtaincredittofinancethesector’smodernization.Accordingto
Pinilla and Ayuda (2009), Spanish agriculture faced a capital cost problem. In the
same way, unequal distribution of agrarian income meant that a minority of the
rural population demanded luxury goods while the vast majority demanded basic
goods, and there was little room for the demand of other types of goods.
As for the State’s role, poor public spending on irrigation infrastructure or new
technologies has been explained by a regressive tax regime that maintained con-
siderable fiscal pressure on agriculture (Vallejo 2015) while investing little in the
sector(GonzálezdeMolina2001).Ithasalsobeenpointedoutthatfarmerslacked
supportbetweenthepostwarperioduntilSpain’sentryintotheEuropeanEconomic
Community, when things changed. The Common Agricultural Policy is therefore
generally viewed as positive.
The fact is, in mainstream historiographic thought, the acknowledging envi-
ronmental constraints has not led to putting the economic growth model into
question. It has only led to explaining the slowness of agrarian transformations or
the material impossibility to achieve yields and productivity similar to that of
central or northern European countries. As described above, recognizing Spain’s
specific environmental conditions has mainly led to understanding Mediterranean
uniqueness and the importance of irrigation to overcome low yields proper to
rainfed lands. It is therefore unsurprising that the study of water and its repercus-
sions on agriculture draws interest. In this sense, the analysis of irrigation water
management has focused more on contributions to agricultural growth than on the
effectsoftheindustrializationprocessonthisfundelement.Thisalsoexplainswhy
Spain’s “school” of water footprint and/or virtual water has been relatively suc-
cessful. It barely takes into account the connections between water consumption
andagroecosystems’structuralallocation,asifitwereunlimited(e.g.,seeCazcarro
et al. 2015; Duarte et al. 2014).
Historicaldiscoursehasaddressedtheenvironmentissueinapeculiarway:The
subjectoftheenvironmenthasnotpermeatedtheheartofagrariangrowthdiscourse
and the role of agriculture in the country’s economic development. José Manuel
Naredo(2004)denouncedthislongago,andwelargelyagreewiththisauthor.Itis
not enough to incorporate some environmental variables into the narrative. Taking
into account the environment means that underlying assumptions concerning
agriculture’s contribution to economic development need to be challenged.
Moreover, the valuation language used in conventional economics, that has
Introduction ix
prevailed in Spanish agrarian historiography, needs to be called into question. The
authorsofthepresentbookdonotregardenvironmentallimitationsaslimitationsas
such, but rather as specific features of Mediterranean agroecosystems. We do
believe,however,thatinequalitiesinagrarianincomedistributionplayedakeyrole
in the sector’s dynamics. Both social and environmental restrictions, rather than
delaying agricultural growth, essentially explain the dynamics of Spanish agroe-
cosystems during the twentieth century. We shall return to this later.
Paradoxically, this conventional narrative coincided with the arrival of major
crude realities that challenge the future viability of the past century’s prevailing
industrial agriculture model. The agrarian sector has lost its relative importance in
the GDP and employment. Furthermore, the “agrarian question” has arisen again
withnewproblems:newformsofinequalityrelatingtoaccesstolandandagrarian
income;environmentalproblems;recurrentcrisesbecauseofaspecializationmodel
that is heavily dependent on input prices; the redefinition of agriculture’s role in
economic development; the foreseeable effects of climate change, etc. Together,
these phenomena call prevailing conventional approaches into question. But per-
haps it is the current world food crisis, an epiphenomenon of the global economic
crisis,thatiserodingtheveryfoundationsofindustrialagricultureanditsadoption
as a universal model of growth and welfare.
Although production levels have in fact been more than sufficient to feed the
whole of humanity, hunger and malnutrition not only persist but have increased in
absolute terms; despite the efforts of international agencies, food insecurity has
increased, partly due to the destruction of peasants’ livelihood production; rural
poverty continues to be endemic in neighboring countries; in “developed” coun-
tries, the profitability of agricultural activity has declined, driving an ever bigger
share of the population out of the sector. All this is occurring despite dedicating
abundant public resources (subsidies) to compensate; industrial management of
agrarian systems has caused damage to the soil, water, air, and plants themselves.
The agrarian system’s capacity to produce has itself been affected. The ecological
parameters that make much of human activity possible have been altered, i.e., the
provisionofecosystemservices.3Undoubtedly,today’sagrariangrowthmodelhas
allowed feeding a growing population with less labor. But the technological tools
that have made it possible have seriously undermined the regeneration capacity of
agrosystems. Because of these problems, several international organizations are
today seriously questioning the agroindustrial model and bluntly underscore its
non-viability(IPES-Food2016).Themodelmustundergoamajortransformationif
it is to feed more than 9,000 million people by 2050.
Inthiscontext,weshouldadoptalesscomplacent viewofindustrialization and
its benefits in our agricultural history narrative. In this discourse, we should con-
sider not only the successive productivity increases of land and labor, but also the
mannerinwhichtheseincrementshavebeenachievedandatwhatcost.Thecaseof
3SeethecompellingreportbyUNCADT(2013)orthereportbytheUnitedNationsEnvironment
Program(UNEP)in2010.AssessingtheEnvironmentalImpactsofConsumptionandProduction.
PriorityProductsandMaterials.UNEP,Paris.FortheSpanishcontext,seeMontesetal.(2011).