Chayanov-Nastacio

It is interesting to note how Chayanov's view of the family is different from the reading last week in which the family was viewed in economic terms. According to Chayanov, the peasant family is not to be viewed as a business or as a capitalistic enterprise. This is because a family does not employ hired wage labor, as opposed to those capitalistic enterprises who hire workers for the sole purpose of earning profits. He also thought of the house as a single economic unit. It is interesting to note that he defines family composition as the upper and lower limits of the volume of its economic activity. However, since his theory is based on the agrarian culture in Russia, that brings up the question of whether or not these economic theories can be imposed in other countries with a different family dynamic. For example, farms in America used slaves as laborers. In this sense Chayanov notes that the slave is only a tool used for surplus product. A flaw to his theory might be that it seems to work better for countries who have a smaller population than those with a large population. To me it seems as if creating one economic theory on which to define a household is nearly impossible. Each city or region within a country has a unique culture which usually helps govern their way of life. For example, he states "in the fifteenth year, the first child comes to the aid of the parents when he has reached semiworking age and the consumer-worker ratio immediately falls..." (59) however, not every culture allows their sons to work at age 15.