Contemporary Pastoralism: Old Problems. New Challenges

Contemporary Pastoralism: Old Problems. New Challenges

In all probability, in the foreseeable future, spatial mobility will remain an important characteristic of stock breeding in many arid environments. The general trend in pastoralists’ development will be connected with the growing commercialization of production, introduction of modern livestock tec...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Datum:2007
1. Verfasser: Khazanov, A.М.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:English
Veröffentlicht: Інститут сходознавства ім. А. Ю. Кримського НАН України 2007
Schriftenreihe:Хазарский альманах
Online Zugang:http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/171569
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Назва журналу:Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
Zitieren:Contemporary Pastoralism: Old Problems. New Challenges / A.М. Khazanov // Хазарский альманах. — 2007. — Т. 6. — С. 240-258. — Бібліогр.: 92 назв. — англ.

Institution

Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
id irk-123456789-171569
record_format dspace
spelling irk-123456789-1715692020-09-27T01:25:01Z Contemporary Pastoralism: Old Problems. New Challenges Khazanov, A.М. In all probability, in the foreseeable future, spatial mobility will remain an important characteristic of stock breeding in many arid environments. The general trend in pastoralists’ development will be connected with the growing commercialization of production, introduction of modern livestock technology, the better definition of property rights, and, in some cases, even the introduction of private land tenure. Some pastoralists will benefit from This process will continue to be very painful, and will bring a lot of resentment. Perhaps, it is possible to somewhat alleviate its negative collateral effects, but hardly to avoid them completely. However, eventually mobile pastoralism should become more efficient and more productive along the lines of the capitalist economic efficiency. 2007 Article Contemporary Pastoralism: Old Problems. New Challenges / A.М. Khazanov // Хазарский альманах. — 2007. — Т. 6. — С. 240-258. — Бібліогр.: 92 назв. — англ. XXXX-0128 http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/171569 en Хазарский альманах Інститут сходознавства ім. А. Ю. Кримського НАН України
institution Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
collection DSpace DC
language English
description In all probability, in the foreseeable future, spatial mobility will remain an important characteristic of stock breeding in many arid environments. The general trend in pastoralists’ development will be connected with the growing commercialization of production, introduction of modern livestock technology, the better definition of property rights, and, in some cases, even the introduction of private land tenure. Some pastoralists will benefit from This process will continue to be very painful, and will bring a lot of resentment. Perhaps, it is possible to somewhat alleviate its negative collateral effects, but hardly to avoid them completely. However, eventually mobile pastoralism should become more efficient and more productive along the lines of the capitalist economic efficiency.
format Article
author Khazanov, A.М.
spellingShingle Khazanov, A.М.
Contemporary Pastoralism: Old Problems. New Challenges
Хазарский альманах
author_facet Khazanov, A.М.
author_sort Khazanov, A.М.
title Contemporary Pastoralism: Old Problems. New Challenges
title_short Contemporary Pastoralism: Old Problems. New Challenges
title_full Contemporary Pastoralism: Old Problems. New Challenges
title_fullStr Contemporary Pastoralism: Old Problems. New Challenges
title_full_unstemmed Contemporary Pastoralism: Old Problems. New Challenges
title_sort contemporary pastoralism: old problems. new challenges
publisher Інститут сходознавства ім. А. Ю. Кримського НАН України
publishDate 2007
url http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/171569
citation_txt Contemporary Pastoralism: Old Problems. New Challenges / A.М. Khazanov // Хазарский альманах. — 2007. — Т. 6. — С. 240-258. — Бібліогр.: 92 назв. — англ.
series Хазарский альманах
work_keys_str_mv AT khazanovam contemporarypastoralismoldproblemsnewchallenges
first_indexed 2025-07-15T07:24:17Z
last_indexed 2025-07-15T07:24:17Z
_version_ 1837696819521388544
fulltext Anatoly м . Kha; C O N T E M P O R A R Y P A S T O R A L IS M : O L D P R O B L F M o C H A L L E N G E S I will start with terminology because it is sometimes confusing and and results in the wrong conclusions. One should discriminate between the n miSleaclin9, nomadism, which, as some scholars claim, is coming to its end (H u m p h reyariPas,0fal 1999), other forms of traditional, subsistence-oriented moDile pastoralism, a n d n Snealh mobility in general that is characteristic of many various forms of stock-breedinas,0raiist as they utilize natural pastures (Khazanov 1994: 85 ff ). In accordance with some not very precise estimates, there are still million people in the world for whom mobile pastoralism remains the main activity. They are living mainly in Africa, in the extended Middle East, in Central Asia, in South Asia, and in the Far North. Besides, industrialized and about 40 econom ic an d Inner c o m m erc ializedranch stock-breeding is practicing in the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, and few other countries. In some countries, such as Niger, Djibouti or Somalia, mobile pastoralists still constitute the majority of population; in many others they constitute a significant minority. Thus, in Mongolia, a country with a population of 2 .5 million people, ab o u t 40 0 000 thousand people are pastoralists. while a half of the population directly or indirectly depends on pastoralism (Fernandez-Gim enez 1999: 4). A remarkable resilience of mobile pastoralism, despite numerous gloomy predictions to the contrary, is not accidental indeed. Climate and environment are not subject even to our post-industrial civilization It is worth keeping in mind that pastoralism was originally developed as an alternative to cultivation in the regions where the latter was impossible, or economically less profitable In many of these areas the situation remains basically the same In Mongolia, pastures constitute 74. 8 percent of the total area, while arable lands only 0, 8 percent. In Kazakhstan, the ratio is 68, 8 and 12, 9 percent; in Turkmenistan, 61. 6 and 3, 0 percent, in Kyrgyzstan, 42, 9 and 7, 2 percent. In Sudan, only one third of the land is potentially arable In sub-Saharan Africa in general, the arid zone accounts for 37 percent, andthe semi-arid zone for 18 percent of its land area (Jahnke 1982). Thus, mobile stock-breeding may retain some advantages in comparison with other forms of economic activity remain a rational and sustainable system for utilizing natural resources in the ar,d semi-arid zones. Moreover, new ecological thinking holds that in many dry zo pastoralism is more environmentally benign than cultivation. ljsm Still, one must admit that, at present, traditional, subsistence oriented pasto ̂ is experiencing many difficulties and has to adjust to the new realities. Our times ar jng called the "age of globalization", but globalization is just a new stage in the orvg ^ modernization process. To avoid any misunderstanding I would like to m ho|d clarification W hen I write about modernization I do not imply simplistic views w i {epea i that the developing non-Western countries should copy the Western models an based the W estern stages of development. I perceive modernization as economic gr° cU|tural on technological innovations with corresponding changes of socio-political an_____ ^ — .. Международный центр х<п<*РоН̂ * jjjS j к | would also add that, as the world practice has demonstrated time and again, J and long-term modernization, especially in our age of the transnationalization llion, production and finance, is inseparably linked to the market economy and !oroperty. All other ways of modernization eventually lead to the d e a d -e n d j Г However, it is difficult for traditional economies not only to compete with, but even — ing to the modern economies. Therefore, it is difficult, in principle, to maintain mobile pastoralism within the contemporary, increasingly globalized economic [ it is evident that traditional pastoralism should be somehow modernized. The 1 problem, however, is how to do this in the least painful way for pastoralists ~s There no general recipes applicable to all individual situations, which is not considering a great variety of ecological, socio-political, and economic .5 o f pastoralists in different countries and in different parts of the world. Still, it is to note that two major and radical solutions of modernization of traditional alists that up to now have been suggested and experimented with, in many cases I up to be inadequate j The first solution was the communist one It was based on nationalization and/or svization of the stock and pastureland accompanied by forced sedentarization of the alists. In its extreme form: collectivization plus sedentarization, this model was, first, J in the Soviet Union, in the late 1920s and in the early 1930s. Later, some other fries adopted the whole model, or more often, either its collectivization or ntarization parts: Iran, in the 1930s; Mongolia, in the 1950s; China, in the 1960s, j i a , in the 1970s; Eritrea, in the 1990s. Generally, this method was a failure, i f J j It is true that in the communist countries pastoralist production process was ^ewhat modernized, but this was done in their characteristically inefficient and ju s way. Livestock breeding had lost its traditional character, but it was never iized on the rational principles of modern economy. In the late communist period.'the i goal was to increase the stock number by any means This should not be surprising u, since even in Mongolia urban dwellers suffered chronic shortages of milk and products (Fernandez-G im enez 1999:19) However, an increase in the stock numbers was achieved by large subsidies, a “ rd of the production cost, and, especially, of rapidly deteriorating environment Vast of fertile pastures in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan have been turned into sand ; other pastures were rapidly degrading In Kyrgyzstan, overgrazing resulted in lation of 1, 7 million hectares of pastureland (according to some data, even 3, 5 n hectares), while another 30 percent of pastures lost their productivity (Dzoldoshev i-J7: 168. Kliashtornyi 1999: 61), In Uzbekistan, more than 30 percent of pastures in the and semi-desert zones are in various stages of degradation (Aripov 1997: 139) In J p n g . salinization and desiccation affected about 4 , 7 million hectares (Benson and vanberg 1998: 141), while the average productivity of rangeland has fallen by 30 p c e n t since the 1960s (Banks 1999: 298). . Besides, all pastoralist activities were put under everyday control and supervision aPP°inted managerial staff, which denied any initiative on the part of pastoralists mselves The lack of personal responsibility and stimuli made the work of shepherds ■ 9 and uninspiring, while narrow specialization within appointed groups brought about 2 4 2 the loss of the whole complex of pastoralist skills. Those who are lamenting the dissoh t of state and collective farms in the countries, like Mongolia or Kazakhstan, claim that t П was done for political reasons. They prefer policies which are pursued by the th's authoritarian countries, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, where the collectives were™081 disbanded but only "reformed" (Sneath 2002: 174, Kerven 2003. 14 ff ). However th °l fail to notice that this also was done for political reasons. Their other claim, that thV conditions for pastoral households in the latter countries are still better than Kazakhstan and Mongolia, remain unsubstantiated and raises many doubts. In It is true, however, that post-communist period is marked everywhere by ma negative developments in the pastoralist sector. One of the most striking characteristics of the current situation in the region is that in its main stock-raising countries. Kazakhstan 1 and Kyrgyzstan, as well as in the Russian North, pastoralist specialization has become unprofitable to the majority of households and farms due to the high input prices undeveloped market channels, and low prices for animal production. Other conspicuous characteristics are a serious decrease in the stock number, which was somewhat stabilized only in the last few years, and the decrease in pastoralist mobility. These negative developments were mainly the result of the state s premature retreat from its former role as a provider of subsidies, credits, and input-supply systems, which was accompanied by widespread corruption and em bezzlement (Khazanov et al. 1997, Khazanov et al, 1999, Khazanov and Shapiro, 2005, Kerven, 2003). In the beginning of the 1990s, some scholars from Central Asia and other countries predicted the revival of traditional forms of mobile pastoralism in the region So far, nothing like this has happened. Communal forms of land tenure and pasture utilization destroyed in the Soviet period are not restored, and the role of kinship-based ties in the organization of pastoralist production remains insignificant. At the same time, the transition to market-oriented forms of pastoralism and animal husbandry is also blocked for the majority of pastoralists. There is the danger of re-peasantization and even pauperization of the majority of those who remain in the pastoralist sector. Instead of becoming small-scale but efficient market-oriented producers, these people may be locked into the role of subsistence-oriented non-capitalist holders Another solution advocated mainly by some experts from Western countries is iransformation of traditional pastoralists into commercial stock producers (Ingold 1978: 121), or even into capitalist ranch-owners. However, their recommendations did not take nto account the environmental and social conditions in many Third World countries. The anch system that emerged in the United States and in some other countries during the second half of the 19m and in the first half of the 20th centuries was by no means a result >f the development of the traditional pastoralist economies. Rather, it was created an ntroduced anew From the outset, the ranch system was aimed at production of l'vest0gS ixclusively for sale and wag operating within profit-oriented market economies. There wa о introductory period of subsistence production. Ranchers might, and still may, enj У leir peculiar subculture, life-style and the quality of life, which for them were more ' юпеу, but they could not survive without having been market oriented and ProduCiri?.ets rofit. In the beginning, the rapid growth of the East Coast and European beef w a r uaranteed cattlemen high prices and profits, especially after the introductio Междуна/юдный центр хизаро сведения 2 4 3 lerator cars, in 1869, and refrigerated ships, in 1875. Stock owners were not infrequently absentee cattle barons, who possessed capital, Jnological know-how, and means to develop the intensive system of fenced ranching fl irrigated pastures, machinery, motorized transport, tame-seed forage plants, selective jd ing and artificial insemination, sheiters for animals in the winter, and so on (Dale jo, Atherton 1961, Bennett 1985, Barsh, 1990, Jordan ,1993, Starrs, 1998). But today n in the USA many family-owned ranches are facing growing difficulties and have but d profitability. It is hard to them to compete with the giant agro-industrial enterprises. W use relatively cheap grain and agricultural by-products to feed cattle Nowadays, it rstill cheaper to ship animals to the feed by trucks, trains, ship, and even by planes, than ^deliver feed to animals (Shields and Mathews 2003). Besides, contemporary ranchers sdentary people, and often their cattle are for the most part stationarary In the short run, it would be unrealistic to expect similar developments in many d World countries, where the relative costs of labor versus capital are unlikely to be jstent with large-scale, capital intensive operations. This is why many scholars are •«ating now much more gradual transformation of traditional pastoralism. In fact one j already single out three stages in its attempted development. In the beginning, the i ln attention had been paid to the technological improvements in stock-breeding within в framework of traditional pastoralist social organization and land tenure. In other words, jlstock development had taken priority over pastoralists' development However, the real world is often quite a different place from the one assumed by e development experts who had supposed that appropriate technological inputs would tnatically yield desirable economic and social outputs. As Gorse and Steeds (1987: [1 0 ) noted "Planners have often misunderstood the logic of traditional production systems. |j have thereby overestimated the ease with which improvements could be introduced q underestimated the negative consequences of intended improvements ’. 1 Many early developmental projects in Africa had failed or resulted in unforeseen lercussions because administrators and planners ignored the peculiarities of the social “ ’"'.ation and land tenure of pastoralists. Thus, attempts at intensifying traditional fetoralism by implying modern technologies not infrequently gave rise to overstocking, [grazing, degradation of vegetation, soil, and water, and even to desertification (see. (r example, Reining 1978, Goldschmidt 1981: 104 f f , Handule and Gay, 1987, Bernus, [9 9 0 166-167). Later, in the 1970s and in the early 1980s, an understanding cam e that it would be ( difficult to introduce effective innovations without the general changes in social ‘ ns. The World Bank, the FAO, the European Union, the USAID, and other donors, iarently influenced by the 'tragedy of commons’ theory (Hardin 1968: 1243-1248, Sdin and Baden 1977, cf. Harden, 1988) began to promote individualized land tenure, tsuming that it would be more efficient and productive than communal one (Fratkin P997). This theory, which is still extremely influential in China (Banks 1999: 300), holds "“fat if a resource belongs to everybody, nobody is interested in its preservation; therefore, ^ t io n s where stock is privately owned but pastures are in common property inevitably N»t in overgrazing In fact, this theory is wrong because it has failed to take into p o u n t a plethora of ethnographic data on pastoralists and does not distinguish between Юзарский альманах". 2 4 4 an open access to pastures and their communal tenure, sometimes with furth regulations (M cCay and Acheson 1987, Berkes et al 1989, Paine 1994: 187-188). 6r No wonder that the new trend in the development policy has brought, at be ambiguous results. The traditional pastoralists usually lack both the experience and th necessary capital to start market-oriented ranch enterprises. It is not surprising that th6 development of capital-intensive livestock production, and sometimes speculatiy6 investments, usually led to a concentration of benefits in only a few hands (Waters-Bavp6 and Bayer 1992: 4). r Commodification of livestock and labor resulted in the emergence of absente herd owners and hired herders. Thus, in Turkey, Iran. Kenya, Tanzania, Botswana, some W est African countries, and several others, it is not pastoralists but sedentary businessmen with managerial experience and people with good connection in the governments who have established commercial enterprises (see, for example, Bates 1980: 125 ff. on Turkey. Beck 1980, and Bradbury 1980 on Iran, Pelican 2002 on Cameroon, Little 1985, Galaty 1992, Ellwood 1995 9 on Kenya, Arhem 1985 on Tanzania, Hinderink and Sterkenburg 1987 on Botswana, Maliki 1986 on Niger, Salih 1990a on Sudan, and W aters-Bayer 1988 on Nigeria). Even the advocates of ranch schemes admit that concentration of large tracts of land in the hands of but few individuals creates a new set o f social and political problems (see, for example, Awogbade 1 987 25- 6 ). This inevitably leads to an increasing number of displaced and unemployed persons who, in the currently prevailing conditions in many developing countries, are often denied viable possibilities for adjustment and alternative employment. At the same time, at present, the pastoralist systems in Africa, as well as in some other parts of the world, are no longer capable of reabsorbing destitutes without help from the outside sources, which, at best, are insufficient and often inefficient, and, at worst, are non-existent Only recently are some scholars and experts coming to the conclusion that modernization of traditional pastoralists can not be taken in isolation from the broader political and developmental issues. There are two main obstacles that hinder successful modernization of traditional pastoralists. The first one is connected with their growing political weakness and subjugated positions in many post-colonial states. These states remain alien to the pastoralists. The latter cannot escape them, as they were sometimes capable of doing in the past, but they do not benefit from the state either When they are running away from the state as the pastoralists of Madagascar have literally tried to do in the quite recent past (Kaufmann 1998), the state is running after them; and the state is much stronger The second obstacle consists in double marginalization of the pastoralists. They are becoming increasingly marginalized within national systems of Third World countries, which, in turn, are marginalized within regional and global economic systems. These countries are often euphemistically called the developing’ ones; however, in fact, rnan ĥ°t them especially in Africa and in some parts of the Middle East, are not developingi bu stagnating. In all, the pastoralists have to adjust to external forces of great magm u which are beyond their control. xt In some respects, the colonial period was easier for pastoralists than the n one. It is true that they lost their political independence, that colonial power confis 2 4 5 ie of their lands, regulated their migratory routes, and forced them to pay taxes, /ever, som e exceptions notwithstanding, in general, those powers were often satisfied with the maintenance of order and did not intentionally try to undermine the traditional way ■ nfe and social organization of the pastoralists. In the post-colonial period, many national governments and ruling elites Uionstrate much stronger anti-pastoralist bias (Azarya 1996: 69 ff., Manger 2001: 29). )>ey consider the pastoralists as not sufficiently productive, and, at the same time, as a jsruptive and unruly elem ent that has to be pacified and domesticated. In 1973, when the __ahel was affected by a severe drought and many pastoralists lost their stock, Ebrahim onate, at that time the Secretary of the Permanent African Interstate Committee for jght Control, expressed his satisfaction with the situation with remarkably cynical He stated: "We have to discipline these people, and to control their grazing and }ir movements. Their liberty is too expensive for us. Their disaster is our opportunity" Marnham 1979: 9). Terms, like "YdrClk", in Turkey, or "Kuchi", in Afghanistan, have ;ome derogatory labels. Pastoralists in China to this very day are often portrayed as jnorant. irrational, backward, lazy, uncooperative, destructive to the environment, and jsisting modernization (Williams 1997: 334 ff.). The governments of some Central Asian buntries are glorifying their “nomadic.heritage", but are doing very little, if anything at all, о assist their pastoralist in practice. No wonder that in many countries, pastoralists are Currently facing more threats to their way of life than ever before in their long history. Population growth, industrial development, and urbanization result in the encroachment of sedentary populations into territories occupied by the pastoralists This is often encouraged by the national governments. Not only in Central Asia, but in such mtries as Nigeria, Mali, Cameroon. Ethiopia, Sudan, Kenya. Syria, Israel, Turkey. Iran, ndia, China (especially in Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang) many pasturelands were appropriated by the state, or were simply seized by agriculturalists to be put under the plow (Lewis 1987, Galaty and Johnson 1990, Galaty and Bonte 1991, Koehler-Rolleson 1992, Smith 1992. Ma 1993: 173, Sheehy 1993: 17-30, Abu-Rabi'a 1994 15, Galaty et I, 1994, Medzini 1998, Benson and Svanberg 1998: 141, Zaal 1999: 98-101) In Nigeria, in 1957, 67 percent of the land was utilized as pastures; by 1986, the irritory of pastureland decreased to 39 percent (Gefu and Gelles 1990: 39, 40). Even in (ongolia, according to some estimates, between 1957 and 1994, the total grazing area ias been reduced from 140 to 125 million hectares for urbanization purposes, tilling, extension of roads and steppe tracks, etc. (Szynkiewicz 1998: 208). In the Scandinavian id Russian Arctic, many pasturelands utilized by reindeer were lost to hydroelectric development, extractive industries, and other projects (Morris 1990, Vakhtin 1992, Paine 11994. Krupnik 1998). Not infrequently, herding lands are also lost to gam e parks and I urban areas (Anderson and Grove 1987, Kaufmann 1998: 136-137, Chatty 2001, Lenhart jand Casimir, 2001: 10 ff., Rao, 2002). In addition, pastoralists face increasing dislocation | brought about by droughts, famines, banditry, conflicts, and civil wars. Many national governments and governmental agencies force the pastoralists to |sedentarize. Actually, the allegedly permanent battle between the desert and the sown is 'an oversimplification of a great variety of real situations and is profoundly ahistorical [Nevertheless, already in 1979, the Fifteenth International African Seminar held at Ahmady :Bello University made a remarkable statement: “The conference notes that the nomadic хазарский альманах", там 6. Харьков. 200/ ~ aspect of the life of pastoralists is no longer tenable in the face of ever greater pressu land, and that it is not in the interests of the pastoralists themselves to continue to i ГеСг* nomadic or semi-nomadic way of life'1 (Adamu and Kirk-Greene 1986: XVII, sepea<la Khogali 1980, and Salih 1990: 64 ff.). The Chinese government is still pursuing a Dq i als° settling down pastoralist peoples in Xinjiang (Benson and Svanberg 1998: 80, 146 1 вп'0? In principle, sedentarization and urbanization of at least a part of m pastoralists is inevitable and even desirable under contemporary conditions, if it Cha ^ the surplus labor in the pastoralist sector into other occupational activities. It may nnels facilitate an increase of economic efficiency of those who will remain involved in ггЛ,6*1 pastoralism. However, at present, sedentarization of pastoralists confronts rn difficulties, such as shortage of land suitable for cultivation, demographic pressure, etc7 is very difficult to turn to cultivation when arable land is already occupied by other peoni who are numerically and politically stronger. As a result, the pastoralists often have Г sedentarize in marginal areas, where cultivation is risky and unpredictable to the extern that the sedentaries themselves consider such lands of little use for cultivation Thus, at present, sedentarization can hardly be considered a general solution for the majority of pastoralists. As Salzman (1980: V II) aptly remarked. "Sedentarization viewed as an inevitable and necessary step in furthering progress and advancing civilization, and pressed upon nomadic peoples by external forces, can have detrimental consequences not only for the nomadic peoples themselves but for the large societies of which they are part". Likewise, for a growing number o f pastoralists who are moving into the cities and become urbanized, the problem of an employment is quite acute in many countries. In the past, pastoralist economies were never deliberately profit-oriented or consistently aimed at meeting market demands, although they almost always had a barter exchange or even a market component. Nowadays, the pastoralists, whether they like it or not, are increasingly becoming involved in state, regional or international systems based on a monetary economy with a corresponding shift from use-value to exchange-value and commoditization of livestock and its products. At the same time, their engagement with the market is proceeding in unfavorable conditions of state intervention and expanding world markets Products of animal husbandry from the developed countries are dominant on the world markets, and it is very difficult for the pastoralist produce in the developing countries to compete with them. Moreover, export produce from the developed countries has seiZ® a significant share of the markets in some developing countries, while the Pastoral(she there face many difficulties in selling their own produce. If one visited supermarkets m major cities of Kazakhstan, in the 1990s, one would find a great variety of meat, saus g ̂ cheese, and even butter produced in Australia, New Zealand, the countries о ^ European Union, almost everywhere, except Kazakhstan. The local produce wa grs mainly in bazaars. The situation began to change for better only in the last щ M any milk products and other foodstuff in Mongolia are imported from other ^ |jng of the second half of the 1980s and in the early 1990s, European Community du ssed low-grade industrial beef, pork and offal on coastal W est African marketf haha 1996 demand for Sahelian fresh beef and small ruminant meat (Holtzman and Kuli K a i) - Most m i,k Proc|u c ts available in Cameroon are imported from European countries Regionally produced on the basis of imported products (Pelican 2002). This situation contains an almost ironical side. W hile many international agencies, Г the World Bank, are arguing that in Third World countries agriculture, including I ^ ! toralism, should be self-sustainable, in all developed countries they are enjoying direct 4 jp d ire c t subsidies and other support by the governments and/or consumers. However, L should take into account .that in the developed countries only a small percentage of ^ population is involved in agriculture, while in the developing countries the ■bjculturalists constitute more than a half o f population In some countries, the price control and policies exercised by national iments are unfavorable to the pastoralists even with regard to the local markets In jhina since the 1980s, comparative price advantages have moved in favor of crop K jjc t io n relative to animal husbandry (Williams 1997: 346) In 1998, in Mongolia, m eat ;less than a third of its value in terms of flour, in 1990 (Sneath 2002: 172). Prices on It in Africa in general a re artificially low (John Galaty, personal communication). I Besides, subsidies by themselves far from always change the situation for better ,really assist the development. I can refer to the example of some Arab countries, dally the oil-producing ones. They support the Bedouin in the form of money u^nts. land allocations, job offers in the military and administration, and so on. As the lit of this policy, many people moved into other sectors of national economies and es. O ne might expect that this would facilitate modernization of pastoralism and Mtion of its production. Nothing like this has happened, however. It seems that in в « . 0e subsidies and subventions serve not as incentives for development but rather as S en s a tio n for a lack of development. There are but few ranch and commercial stock­ i n g enterprises in those countries which are unable to satisfy their needs R e lay s , countries, like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Lybia, and even Jordan, have to у upon imported m eat and even dairy foodstuff (see, for example, Katakura 1977, Cole 181, Fabietti 1982, Lancaster and Lancaster 1986, Kostiner 1990: 244 ff on Saudi i; Scholz 1981; Jansen 1986 on Oman; Behnke 1980 on Libya; Abu Jaber and jaraibeh 1981, Hiatt 1984 on Jordan). One may complain about unfair competition and about limited export opportunities W je developing countries as much as one wants, but this is how the things are in ^ tic e , at the moment. To provide but one of many possible examples I can refer to the Jeolian case. As far as I know, cashmere is the only product of animal husbandry that f country successfully exports to the world markets. Moreover, while the developed Jtintries build various barriers, like rigorous quality constrains, which prevent the import M n im a l products from the developing countries, the governments of the latter, not ^B Jently , encourage the import and control producer and consumer prices to keep n on the lower level for the growing urban population. So far, I have talked about various schemes suggested and implemented by g r -s , experts on development, and government officials. But what about social J p s ts , especially anthropologists? in many cases we were sitting on the fence B ja in in g about the decay of traditional pastoralism but having been unable to offer a p © and practical alternative. Perhaps, this attitude was the best expressed by Baxter Международный центр **Рскнй альманах” . ■ ■■2 I (1987: I): "...A lmost all, indeed maybe all, the development Interventions to date had n helped the impoverished pastoralists at all, nor had they added a cent to the wealth of a nation”. This opinion is echoed by Scoones (1996: 3): 'The last 30 years have seen th^ unremitting failure of livestock development projects across Africa, Millions of dollars ha 6 been spent with few obvious returns and not a little damage Most commentators a o /6 that the experience has been a disaster, so much so that many donors and oth 6 international agencies have effectively abandoned the dry zone in their developme^ efforts" It should not be surprising then that attempts at dialog between anthropologists and developers and governmental officials so far was not very fruitful. When administrators and planners began to advance and implement the schemes aimed at transformation of traditional pastoralists into commercial livestock producers, this brought them into direct conflicts with the majority in anthropological community Thus, we pointed out time and again that our opponents did not realize that production is not only an economic activity; it is also a socially and culturally constructed activity I must confess that in the past I also was very critical of many development projects suggested by various international organizations and implemented by national governments in Third World countries (see, for example, Khazanov 1998 12 ff ). I am still critical of many those projects However, now I am coming to the conclusion that my general attitude to the principle goal of advocated development, which I shared with many other anthropologists, was, to some extent, unfair and unrealistic Explicitly or implicitly, we the anthropologists, resent most development projects because they undermine those types of social organization, culture, values, etc. that are connected with the traditional pastoralism, Essentially, our criticism has a certain anti-modernist touch, although we rarely admit this. Som e recommendations m ade by anthropologists, e.g. that "room should be found on the rangelands for less fortunate people, if necessary at the expense of the more fortunate' or that "government should encourage and support traditional mechanisms for redistributing livestock so that the rich provide the poor with oasic needs” (Baxter 1987: II) are well-intended indeed, but I wonder whether they are realistic. One may agree with Sanford (1996: 179) that “we social scientists have not yet structured our views rigorously enough to have any clear message for policy makers and practitioners except that everything is very complex, that Hardin (1968) was wrong and that livestock mobility is to be encouraged” T h e opinion expressed by Raikes (1981: 250) more than twenty years ago tha the most productive (or least destructive) way to incorporate mobile pastoralists in national economies is "through developing the production and productivity of existl. - herding systems r a t h e r than through their replacement by modern systems unsubstantiated. The practice is teaching us the opposite. Traditional forms of soc organization and of associated social behavior are often becoming c o u n t e r p r o d u c t iv e inappropriate in the age bf globalization. -ve£j It is true that so far mobile pastoralism in the developing countries has su despite ail kinds of development schemes, rather than because of the,|nsm ^0т development projects were ill-devised. Attempts at transforming mobile pastoiiJijgtflitive above, initiated, designed and implemented by the state through purely adm'™ a \ and measures in most of the cases have not brought the desired results In te rn a ti Btional aid was sometimes directed at the wrong goals, misused and then was feinaturely withdrawn. For example, in the 1990s, the assistance to African pastoralists ^"international agencies was much less than in the 1960s and in the 1970s The Soviet и amounted to more than a third of annual G DP in Mongolia Its withdrawal was one of ^,e main reasons of the economic crisis in the country, 4 The sam e can be said about national assistance to and investment in pastoralist Ic to r o f economies in rare cases, when it takes place at all. Thus, in China, only a Ctatively small portion of agricultural development resources goes into improving testock production. Even when the arid lands along its northern frontier manage to Bract large investment capital, local herders are bypassed in the development process Williams 1997: 346-347) In Mongolia, the level of investment in pastoralism is low and I s declining steadily in the 1990s. The percentage of all bank loans granted to borrowers btside the capital, Ulaanbaatar, has fallen each year throughout the nineties, from 46 bcent. in 1993, to 11 percent, in 1998 (Sneath 2002: 173) ji In any case, excessive paternalism, even a benevolent one, will not help. The rain problem is not w hat to do with the mobile pastoralists, but what the pastoralists have L do themselves in order to cope with challenges of globalization. The pastoralists must pcome full-fledged citizens of modernizing states and have a voice in decision-making, hey should not only be listened to; they should directly be involved in the planning and nplementation of development programs. At the sam e time, learning from the previous K takes national governments and international agencies should do more by providing Ю pastoralists with various kinds of input, education, water service, veterinary care Bnsportation facilities, stock insurance, information, market infrastructure, credits, etc. Some protectionist measures can not be excluded as well. T jjv Only the future will tell whether these recommendations, and many similar ones, emam wishful thinking, or not. Still, the general trend of transformation of mobile estoralism in the 2 1 * century seems to m e quite clear and unavoidable Let us face the ruth. In many countries, mobile pastoralism in its current forms is not a viable economic lotion anymore In East Africa, in the Middle East, in Central Asia, and in the Russian porth the inability of many pastoralists to subsist primarily on livestock-economy has tecome a common theme Modernization, which is highly beneficial in general, at the sam e time, was, is, and Ml remain a merciless selection process. It is uneven and differential. It has its winners, fs losers, and those whose awards are delayed. Those who fail to cope with it either P *sh . or, at best, are relegated to the margins of the developed world. They will be ■Wed access to proper education, advanced medical service, the telecommunications gjolution. a chance of improving their living standards, and many other benefits of BM em ity because directly or indirectly these benefits are intrinsically connected with the warket-oriented economy. Щ ' Without modernization the mobile pastoralists face the risk of being further ■ftginalized and alienated, or of becoming "zoo groups", an exotic attraction for urban 2™antics and tounsts Contrary to Krupnik (2000 54), I am by no means sure that [ a9ging public spirit and herders’ pride can be boosted via outreach and exhibit ^ B jjn w n e rs publication of elders narratives, historical photographs, catalogues and passical ethnographies addressed primarily to local audiences". There is nothing wrong ЧН'кин альманах” , том 6 Харьков. 2007 with this and other similar suggestions Besides, they help to keep anthropologists occupied. But it would be very naive to expect them to really change the situation f0r better In order to continue being pastoralists people should benefit from their capability of being pastoralists. It is indeed high time that anthropological concerns shift from a concern for a 'way of life’ to a concern for the people who have to live it under dire circumstances. Likewise, episodic revivals of more or less traditional pastoralism, in one country or another, are more connected to temporary factors than with dominant trends in contemporary development Thus, in Somalia this revival was connected with the disintegration of the state, in Mongolia, in the early 1990s, it was connected with the collapse of the communist command economy which resulted in a high unemployment rates Modernization is an irresistible force, and there is no viable alternative to it. This is w hat the antiglobalists do not want to comprehend. In all probability, spatial mobility will remain an important characteristic of stock breeding in many arid environments. The complete transformation of mobile pastoralists into sedentary cultivators or town-dwellers would mean that vast desert and semi-desert territories unsuitable for cultivation would cease to be used fcr food production and would be left to lie as waste land Besides, it is worth to remember that crop cultivation is more environmentally degrading than pasturing. Apparently, the general trend in pastoralists' development will be connected with the growing commercialization and monetarising of production, introduction of modern livestock technology, and other innovations. Probably, one will witness the better definition of property rights, and, in some countries, even the introduction of individual land tenure. One may only hope that the appropriate land tenure arrangements will be flexible enough to adjust to environments, especially to non­ equilibrium ones, which are characterized by high climatic variability. There is also a danger of the substitution of long-term optimization for short-term maximization of production Modernization brings not only technological and economic changes, but social and cultural changes as well. Some pastoralists will benefit from these developments, but I am afraid, that many will find themselves at the losing end. These changes may increase further the tension within pastoralist groups, which is already evident in many countries. They may result in the erosion of many traditional social institutions, bonds, statuses, values, loyalties, and authenticities, as well as in a growing economic inequality Actually, these processes are already quite conspicuous in Africa (see, for example, Bovin and Manger 1990) and other parts of the world. They may have other disruptive consequences, since the mere destruction of the traditional forms of socia organization will hardly bring a vital new system; on the contrary, this may result in socia disorganization and dislocation In any case, more people will have to leave pastoralism and to move into other Rectors of economy. In the worst scenario more pastoralists may becom e destitutes, whose physical survival will depend on the international reie organizations. ... It is impossible to predict in detail what exact forms the integration of mo J pastoralism in the developing countries into the globalized market will take. .^Р рагЛ гоГП there will be various forms, including transitional ones, which may be quite differen ̂ each other in terms of land tenure, degree of specialization, and many other param Международный центр хазар0**** |n all, this process will continue to be very painful, and will bring a lot of resentment perhaps. it is possible to somewhat alleviate its negative collateral effects, but hardly tc Lvoid them completely. However, hopefully, eventually mobile pastoralism will become jpore competitive and more productive along the lines of capitalist economic effectiveness Meanwhile, anthropologists and other social scientists will be able to write many more j»ooks and articles critical of this development and blaming everybody and everything, o' fcourse, except themselves, for the decay of traditional pastoralism References <№u Jaber, К S. and Gharaibeh, F.A. 1981. Bedouin Settlement: Organizational, Legal and Administrative Structure in Jordan In: D. Aronson, J. D Gaiaty, and P. C. Salzm ar [eds) T he F u tu re o f P a s to ra l P e o p le s . Ottawa: International Development Researcr Centre: 294-300 kbu-Rabi'a, A. 1994 T h e N e g e v B e d u in a n d L iv e s to c k R e a r in g S o c ia l, E c o n o m ic anc P o lit ic a l A s p e c ts Oxford: Berg Publishers. Adamu, M. and Kirk-Greene, A.H.M. (eds ). 1986. P a s to ra l is ts o f th e W e s t A fr ic a r S ava n n a . Manchester: Manchester University Press. Anderson, D and Grove, R (eds ). 1987 C o n s e rv a tio n in A fr ic a : P e o p le , P o lic ie s a m P ra c tice . Cambridge Cambridge University Press. Arhem, К 1985 P a s to ra l M a n in th e G a rd e n o f E d e n : T h e M a a s a i o f th e N g o ro n g o rc C o n s e rv a tio n A re a Uppsala: Uppsala Research Reports on Cultural Anthropology Aripov, U. 1997 Karakulevodstvo i aridnoe kormoproizvodstvo v Uzbekistane: sostoiani< I problemy razvitiia. In: A. Khazanov, V. Naumkin, and K. Shapiro (eds ). P a s to ra l is m ii C e n tra l A s ia . Moscow: University of Wisconsin-Madison and Russian Center for Strategic Research and International Studies: 134-141. Atherton, L. 1961. The C a tt le K in g s . Bloomington: University of Indiana Press. Awogbade, M. D. 1987 Grazing Reserves in Nigeria N o m a d ic P e o p le s (N S ) 23: 19-30 Azarya, V. 1996. N o m a d s a n d th e S ta te in A fr ic a : T h e P o lit ic a l R o o ts o f M a rg in a lity Leiden: African Studies Centre. fanks, T. 1999. State, Community and Common Property in Xinjiang: Synergy or Strife' d e v e lo p m e n t P o l ic y R e v ie w 17: 293-313. Barsh, R .L 1990. The Substitution of Cattle for Bison on the Great Plains. In: P A. Olson (ed.). T h e S tru g g le fo r the L a n d : In d ig e n o u s In s ig h t a n d In d u s tr ia l E m p ire in th e S e m ia r id W o rld Lincoln and London: The University of Nebraska Press: 103-126. Bates, D.G. 1980. YOruk Settlement in Southeast Turkey. In: P C Salzman (ed.). W h e n N o m a d s S e ttle : P ro c e s s e s o f S e d e n ta r iz a tio n a s A d a p ta tio n a n d R e s p o n s e N ew York Praeger 124-139. Baxter, P .T .W . 1987. Introduction. In: P. T. W . Baxter (ed.) P ro p e r ty , P o v e r ty a n d P e o p le : C h a n g in g R ig h ts in P ro p e rty a n d P ro b le m s o f P a s to ra l D e v e lo p m e n t. Manchester University of Manchester: l-VII Beck, L. 1980 Herd Owners and Hired Shepherds The Qashqa'i of Iran. E th n o lo g y 19, 3. 327-352. Behnke, R. 1980. T he H e rd e rs o f C y re n a ic a : E c o lo g y . E c o n o m y a n d K in s h ip a m o n g th e B e d o u in o f E a s te rn L ib y a . Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Bennet, J.W . 1985. Range Culture and Society in the North American W est. F o lk lo re A n n u a l: 88-104. Benson, L. and Svanberg, I. 1998 C h in a 's L a s t N o m a d s . T h e H is to ry a n d C u ltu re o f C h in a ’s K a z a k h s . Armonk, New York: M E. Sharpe. Berkes, F., Feeny, D., McCay, В J ., and Acheson, J.M. 1989 The Benefits o f the Commons. N a tu re 340: 91-93. Bernus. E 1990. Dates, Dromedaries, and Drought: Diversification in Tuareg Pastoral Systems. In: J.G .Galaty and D.L.Johnson (eds.). The W o rld o f P a s to ra l is m : H e rd in g S y s te m s in C o m p a ra t iv e P e rs p e c tiv e . New York: Guilford Press Bovin, M. and Manger, L. (eds.). 1990. A d a p t iv e S tra te g ie s in A f r ic a n A r id L a n d s Uppsala: The Nordic Africa Institute. Bradburd, D.A. 1980. Never Give a Shepherd an Even Break: Class and Labor among the Komachi. A m e ric a n E th n o lo g is t 7, 4: 603-620. Chatty, D. 2001. Pastoral Tribes in the Middle East and Wildlife Conservation Schemes: The Endangered Spicies? N o m a d ic P e o p le s (N S) 5: 104-122. Cole, D 1981. Bedouin and Social Change in Saudi Arabia. J o u rn a l o f A s ia n a n d A fr ic a n S tu d ie s 16, 1-2: 128-149 Международный центр хичароаедення Dale, E.E 1960 T he R a n g e C a ttle In d u s try : R a n c h in g o n th e G re a t P la in s f ro m 1 8 6 5 i 1925 . Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Dzoldoshev, K. 1997. Sostoianie pastbishch i probiemy proizvodstva i zagotovki Kyrgyzstane. In: A Khazanov, V. Naumkin, and К Shapiro (eds.). P a s to ra l is m in C e n tr A s ia . Moscow: University of Wisconsin-Madison and Russian Center for Strateg Research and International Studies: 168-177. Ellwood, W . 1995. Nomads at the Crossroads. N e w In te rn a tio n a lis t 266 {April): 7-10 Fabietti, U . 1982 Sedentarization as a M eans of Detribalization: Som e Policies of tl Saudi Arabian Government towards the Nomads In; T Niblock (ed.). S ta te , S o c ie ty a i E c o n o m y in S a u d i A ra b ia . London: Croom Helm FernanaeZ'Gim enez, M E. 1999 Reconsidering the Role of Absentee Herd Owners: View from Mongolia H u m a n E c o lo g y 27, 1: 1-27 Fratkin, E 1997. Pastoralism: Governance and Development Issues. A n n u a l R e v ie w A n th ro p o lo g y 26. 235-261. Gaiaty J. 1992. “The Land is Yours": Social and Economic Factors in the Privatizatic Subdivision and Sale of M aasai Ranches. N o m a d ic P e o p le s 30: 26-40 Gaiaty, J. and Bonte, P. (e d s ). 1991. H e rd e rs , W a rr io rs , a n d T ra d e rs : P a s to ra l is m A fr ic a Boulder W estview Press. Gaiaty, J. G . and Johnson, D.L. (eds ). 1990. T h e W o r ld o f P a s to ra l is m : H erd . S y s te m s in C o m p a ra t iv e P e rs p e c tiv e . N ew York: Guilford Press. Gaiaty, J. G , Hjort a f Ornas, A., Lane, Ch., and Ndagala, D (e d s ). 1994. The Paste Land Crisis: Tenure and Dispossession in East Africa. N o m a d ic P e o p le s 34/35 (spe< issue). Gefu, J O and Getles J.L 1990 Pastoralists, Ranchers and the State in Nigeria г North America: A Comparative Analysis. N o m a d ic P e o p le s 25-27: 34-50. Goldshmidt, W . 1981. The Failure of Pastoral Economic Development Programs in Afri In J.G.Gataty, D.Aronson, and P.C .Saizman (eds ). T h e F u tu re o f P a s to ra l P eop . Ottawa: International Developmental Research Centre: 101-118. Gorse, J.E. and Steeds, D.R. 1987 D e s e r t i f ic a tio n in th e S a h e lia n a n d S u d a n ia n Z o n e ■ W e s t A fr ic a . Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Handule, A. and Gay, С W 1987. Development and Transitional Pastoralism in Som; N o m a d ic P e o p le s 24: 36-43 2 5 4 Hardin, G. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. S c ie n c e 162; 1243-1248. Hardin. G 1988. Commons failing N e w S c ie n tis t, 22 (October) Hardin G. and Baden: J. 1977 M a n a g in g th e C o m m o n s . San Francisco: W H. Freeman. Hiatt, J.M. 1984. State Formation and the Encapsulation of Nomads: Local Change and Continuity among Recently Sedentarized Bedouin in Jordan. N o m a d ic P e o p le s , 15: 1-11. Hinderink, J. and Sterkenburg. J J 1987. A g r ic u ltu ra l C o m m e rc ia l iz a tio n a n d G o v e rn m e n t P o l ic y in A fric a . London and New York: KPI. Holtzman, J.S. and Kulibaba. N.P. 1996. Livestock Marketing in Pastoral Africa: Policies to Increase Competitiveness, Efficiency and Flexibility. In: I. Scoones (ed.) L iv in g w ith U n c e r ta in ty . N e w D ire c t io n s in P a s to ra l D e v e lo p m e n t in A fr ic a . London. Intermediate Technology Publications' 79-94 Ingold T. 1978. The Rationalization of Reindeer M anagem ent among Finnish Lapps. D e v e lo p m e n t a n d C h a n g e , 1: 103-122. Jahnke, H 1982. L iv e s to c k P ro d u c tio n S y s te m s a n d L iv e s to c k D e v e lo p m e n t in T ro p ica l A fr ic a . Kiel: Kieler Wissenschaftverlag Vauk. Jansen, J 1986 N o m a d s in th e S u lta n a te o f O m a n : T ra d it io n a n d D e v e lo p m e n t in D h o fa r Boulder: Westview Press Jordan, T G 1993. N o r th A m e ric a n C a tt le -R a n c h in g F ro n tie rs : O r ig in s , D iffu s io n a n d D iffe re n t ia t io n Albuquerque, NM: University o f New-Mexico. Katakura, M 1977. B e d o u in V illa g e : A S tu d y o f a S a u d i A ra b ia n P e o p le in T ra n s it io n Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Kaufmann, J. C. 1998. The Cactus W as Our Kin: Pastoralism in the Spiny Desert of Southern Madagaskar In: J.Ginat and A .M Khazanov. C h a n g in g N o m a d s in a C h a n g in g W o rld . Brighton: Sussex Academic Press: 124-142. Kerven. C. (ed.). 2003 P ro s p e c ts f o r P a s to ra l is m in K a z a k h s ta n a n d T u rk m e n is ta n F ro m S ta te F a rm s to P r iv a te F lo ck s . London and N ew York: RoudledgeCurzon Kerven, C. 2003. Agrarian Reform and Privatization in the W ider Asian Region In: C. Kerven (ed ). P ro s p e c ts fo r P a s to ra l is m in K a z a k h s ta n a n d U z b e k is ta n . F ro m S ta te F a rm s to P r iv a te F lo c k s . London and New York: RoutlrdgeCurzon Khazanov, A.M. 1994. Nomads a n d th e O u ts id e W o r ld . 2 nd ed. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. Международный центр хизиронсдсни* Khazanov, A.M. 1998. Pastoralists in the Contemporary World: The problem of Survivs In J Ginat and A. M. Khazanov (eds ). C h a n g in g N o m a d s in a C h a n g in g W o rld . Brightoi Sussex Academic Press: 7-.23 Khazanov, A., Naumkin, V , and Shapiro, K. (eds.). 1997. P a s to ra l is m in C e n t ra l A s i Moscow: University of Wisconsin - Madison and Russian Center for Strategic Researt and International Studies. Khazanov, A., Naumkin, V., Shapiro K., and Tomas, D. (e d s ). 1999. T h e K a za kh s * ; L iv e s to c k S e c to r in T ra n s it io n to a F re e E c o n o m y . Moscow: University of Wisconsin Madison and Russian Center for Strategic Research and International Studies. Khazanov, A. and Shapiro, K. 2005. Contemporary Pastoralism in Centrai Asia. In: Amitai and M. Biran (eds ). M o n g o ls , T u rk s a n d O th e rs : E u ra s ia n N o m a d s a n d t S e d e n ta ry W o r ld Leiden: Bril!: 503-534. Khogali, M .M . 1981 Sedentarization of the Nomads: Sudan In: O.Aronson, J.G Gals P .С Saizman, and A. Chouinard (e d s } T he F u tu re o f P a s to ra l P e o p le s . Otta\ International Development Research Centre: 302-313. Kliashtornyi, S. 1999 “Sel'skokhoziaistvennaia revoliutsiia’’ v Kyrgyzstane predpolagaemye lendentsii daineishego razvitiia. In- A. Khazanov, V. Naumkin, Shapiro, and D Thom as (eds.). T h e K a z a k h s ta n L iv e s to c k S e c to r in T ra n s it io n t M a rk e t E c o n o m y . Moscow: University of Wisconsin-Madison and Russian Center Strategic Research and International Studies: 60-70. Koehlrer-Rollefson, L The Raika Dromedar Breeders in Rajasthan: A Pastoral Syster Crisis. N o m a d ic P e o p le s 30: 74-83. Kostiner, J. 1980 Transforming Dualities. Tribe and State Formation in Saudi Arabia P S. Khoury and J. Kostiner (eds ). Tribes and State Formation in the Middle E Berkeley: University of California Press: 226-251. Krupnik, I. 1998. Understanding Reindeer Pastoralism in Modern Siberia: Ecoloi Continuity versus State Engineering. In: J. G inat and A.M. Khazanov (ed s ). C h a r nomads in a C h a n g in g W o rld . Brighton: Sussex Academic Press: 223-242. Krupnik. I. 2000. Reindeer Pastoralism in Modern Siberia: Research and Survival D the Tim e of Crash. P o la r R e s e a rc h 19 ,1 : 49-56. Lancaster, W . and Lancaster, F. 1986. The Concept of Territory among the F Bedouin. N o m a d ic P e o p le s 20: 41-48. "Хазарский альманах” , том й Харьков. 200' Lenhart. L. and Casimir, M.J 2001 Environment, Property Resources and the Slate: An Introduction. N o m a d ic P e o p le s (N S) 5, 3: 6-20. Lewis, N. N 1S87. N o m a d s a n d S e ttle rs in S y r ia a n d J o rd a n , 1 8 0 0 -1 9 8 0 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Little, P. 1985. Absentee Herd Owners and Part-Time Pastoralists. The Political Economy of Resource Use in Northern Kenya. H u m a n E c o lo g y 13 . 2 :131 -151 . Ma, R. 1993 Migrant and Ethnic Integration in the Process of Socio-Economic Change in Inner Mongolia. A V illage Study. N o m a d ic P e o p le s 33: 173-191. McCay, В. M. and Acheson, J M. (eds ). 1987. T he Q u e s t io n o f th e C o m m o n s : T he C u ltu re a n d E c o lo g y o f C o m m u n a l R e s o u rc e s . Tucson: University of Arizona Press Maliki, B. 1986. The Changing Structures of Livestock Ownership among Pastoralists in Niger. B u lle t in o f the In s t itu te fo r D e v e lo p m e n t A n th ro p o lo g y ,4 ,1 : 3-5. Manger, L. 2001. Pastoralist-State Relationships among the Hadendowa Beja of Eastern Sudan. N o m a d ic P e o p le s (N S) 5 ,2 :2 1 -4 8 . Marnham, P. 1979. N o m a d s o f th e S a h e l. London: Minority Rights Group Report 33. Medzini, A. 1998. Bedouin Settlement Policy in Israel, 1964-1996. In: J.Ginat and A.M. Khazanov (eds.). C h a n g in g N o m a d s in a C h a n g in g W o rld . Brighton: Sussex Academic Press: 58-67. Morris, C.P . 1990. Hydroelectric Development and the Human Rights of Indigenous People. In: P.A.OIson {ed.). T h e S tru g g le fo r L a n d : In d ig e n o u s In s ig h t a n d In d u s tr ia l E m p ire in th e S e m ia r id W o rld . Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press: 193- 209. Paine, R. 1994. H e rd s o f th e T u n d ra : A P o r tra it o f S a a m i R e in d e e r P a s to ra l is m W ashington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1994 Pelican. M. 2002. From Cultural Property to M arket Goods: Changes in Economic Strategies and Herd M anagem ent Rationales of Agro-Pastoral Fulbe in North W est Cameroon. A paper submitted to the workshop "C o lle c t iv e a n d M u lt ip le F o rm s o f P ro p e r ty in A n im a ls 11 held at the M ax Planck Instiute for Socia! Anthropology, Halle/Saale Raikes, P.L, 1981. L iv e s to c k D e v e lo p m e n t a n d P o lic y in E a s t A fr ic a . Uppsala: The Scandinavian Institute of African Studies. Rao, A. 2002. Pastoral Nomads, the State and a National Park: the Case of Dachigam, Kashmir. N o m a d ic P e o p le s (N S) 6,2: 72-98. Между, Reining, P (ed ). 1978 H a n d b o o k o r, D e s e r t i f ic a tio n In d ic a to rs Washington, [ American Association for the Advancement of Science. Salih, M 1990. Agro-Pastoralists Response to Agricultural Policies The Predicame the Baggara, Western Sudan. In. M. Bovin and L Manger (eds ). A d a p t iv e S tra te g y A fr ic a n A r id L a n d s . Uppsala: The Scandinavian Institute of African Studies: 59-75. Salih, M. 1990a Government Policy and Options in Pastoral Development in the S i N o m a d ic P e o p le s 25-27: 65-78. Salzman, P C. 1980. Preface. In: P.S. Salzman (ed.). W h e n N o m a d s S e tt le P ro c e s s S e d e n ta r iz a tio n a s A d a p ta tio n a n d Response. New York: Praeger: V II-VIII. Sandford, S 19S6. Improving the Efficiency of Opportunism: New Directions for Pa; Development. In: I. Scoones (ed ). L iv in g w ith U n c e r ta in ty . N e w D ire c t io n s in P a : D e v e lo p m e n t in A fr ic a . London: Intermediate Technology Publications 174-182. Scholz, F. (ed ). 1981. B e d u in e n im Z e ic h e n d e s E rdO ls : S tu d ie n z u r E n tw ivk - 'u r B e d u in is c h e n L e b e n s ra u m S u d o s t-A ra b ie n s . Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag Scoones., 1 .1996. N ew Directions in Pastoral Development in Africa In: I. Scoones. i w ith U n c e r ta in ty N e w D ire c t io n s in P a s to ra l D e v e lo p m e n t in A fr ic a . London: In ter mu Technology Publications: 1-36. Sheehy, D.P. 1993. Grazing M anagem ent Strategies as a Factor Influencing Ecol< Stability o f Mongolian Grasslands. N o m a d ic P e o p le s 33 :17 -30 . Shields, D A. and Mathews, K.H. 2003. Interstate Livestock Movements. Ecoi Research Service Report. U S DA-LDP-M -108-01. Available 06/06/05 http:/www. ers.usda.gov/Data/lnterstateLivestockMovements. Smith, A.B 1992 P a s to ra l is m in A f r ic a : O r ig in s a n d D e v e lo p m e n t E c o lo g y . Londo Athens. Christopher Hurst and Ohio University Press. Sneath, D. 2002. Producer Groups and the Decolectivization of the Mongolian Ps Economy. In J. Heyer, F Stewart, and R. Thorp (eds ). G ro u p B e h a v io u D e v e lo p m e n t. Is th e M a rk e t D e s t ro y in g C o o p e ra t io n ? Oxford: Oxford University 161-184. Starrs, P F. 1998. L e t th e C o w b o y R id e : C a tt le R a n c h in g in th e A m e ric a n W e s t С / th e N o r th A m e ric a n L a n d s c a p e Baltimore. John Hopkins University Press. Szynkiewicz, S. 1998. Contemporary Mongol Concepts on Being a Past Institutional Continuity, Change and Substitutes In: J.Ginat and A M Khazanov C h a n g in g P a s to ra l is ts in a C h a n g in g W o rld Brighton: Sussex Academic Press: 202- “ Хадерскии альманах", том 6. Ха/>ыс< 258 s = = Vakhtin, N. 1992. Native Peoples of the Russian Far North. London; Minority Rights Group. Waters-Bayer, A. 1988. D a iry in g b y S e tt le d F u la n i A g ro p a s to ra lis ts in C e n tra l N ig e ria . Kiel. Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk. Waters-Bayer. A. and Bayer, W . 1992. The Roie of Livestock in the Rural Economy. N o m a d ic P e o p le s 31 :3 -18 Williams, M 1997. The Desert Discourse of Modern China M o d e m C h in a 23, 3: 328- 355. In all probability, in the foreseeable future, spatial mobility will remain an important characteristic of stock breeding in many arid environments. The general trend in pastoralists’ development will be connected with the growing commercialization of production, introduction of modern livestock technology, the better definition of property rights, and, in some cases, even the introduction of private land tenure. Som e pastoralists will benefit from This process will continue to be very painful, and will bring a lot of resentment. Perhaps, it is possible to somewhat alleviate its negative collateral effects, but hardly to avoid them completely. However, eventually mobile pastoralism should become more efficient and more productive along the lines of the capitalist economic efficiency. A bs tract Международный центр хазарат-дения

Ähnliche Einträge