Annals of Tourism Research 103 (2023) 103674

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Annals of Tourism Research

journal homepage: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/annals-of-
tourism-research

FULL LENGTH ARTICLE

Understanding Agritourism: A Chayanovian analysis

Jordi Gascón
Department of Social Anthropology, University of Barcelona (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain), Facultat de Geografia i Història, D 2079 - Montalegre, 6, 08001 Barcelona, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Agritourism has generally been analysed in relation to the conventional economy and is there-
Received 12 November 2022 fore occasionally concluded to be inefficient. The contribution of the article is to show that ag-
Received in revised form 25 August 2023 ritourism must be understood from a different logic. Applying the Chayanovian concept of
Accepted 19 October 2023
"differential optima", we obtain four conclusions: a) Agritourism can only be understood by
Available online 17 November 2023
recognizing the exceptionality of peasant logic; b) no income source is independent in a
Associate editor: Raoul Bianchi pluriactive economy, and cannot be studied in isolation; c) tourism does not have a unidirec-
tional impact on depeasantization or repeasantization processes, but rather depends on the
economic context and the strategies of each family unit; and d) peasant logic makes it possible
Keywords:
to manage the vulnerability of the tourism sector (resilience).
Family agriculture
Differential Optima © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC
Peasant logic BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).
Pluriactivity
Resilience.

Introduction

Tourism in rural areas is sometimes detached from agricultural production, but on other occasions it is linked. When the latter
occurs, the two activities may be combined on the one farm, or they may be independent but carried out by individuals who are
part of the same household. Our interest is focused on those cases that have two factors: the domestic unit allocates workforce to
both agricultural and tourism activities, and also manages and controls the means of production of both of these. These proposals
are known under different names, such as Rural Community Tourism, Peasant Tourism, Experiential Tourism, and Agritourism,
among others, and they are managed and organized in different ways. This means that there is no agreed definition of these tour-
ism modalities (Busby & Rendle, 2000; Schilling, Kevin, & Komar, 2012). Therefore, for convenience, we will group them under the
generic name of Agritourism.
Agritourism is a term that has become particularly popular in the countries of the North. It is not usual to find it when
discussing tourist proposals in the South. There is also no unanimity when it comes to establishing which tourism modalities
the concept covers (Ana, 2017). In this text we will talk about Agritourism when a certain domestic or productive unit (cooper-
ative, association or similar): a) combines a tourist offer with agricultural or fishing activities; and b) has significant control over
the management of the two types of activity, as well as the ownership or tenure of the resources that allow it. That is, they are
not agricultural day labourers, nor employees of tourism companies. This term was chosen because it is a compound word made
up of lexemes that refer to the two economic sectors. In this way, we differentiate between those family economies in which tour-

E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Gascón).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2023.103674
0160-7383/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).
J. Gascón Annals of Tourism Research 103 (2023) 103674

ism and agriculture complement each other, which we call Agritourism, and rural tourism, which refers to any form of tourism
that takes place in a rural area.
Agritourism, therefore, is one of the forms that the rural pluriactivity phenomenon has taken. Pluriactivity refers to the asso-
ciation of agricultural activities on the family farm with other non-agricultural activities carried out by the domestic unit.
Obtaining non-agricultural income is not a modern peasant strategy (Kautsky, 1970[1899]). However, it has made up a larger
part of rural income since the last third of the twentieth century, both in countries with much of their social fabric dedicated
to the primary sector (Grammont & Martínez Valle, 2009; Mesclier, 1993), and in those with only a small percentage of the pop-
ulation dedicated to farming (Eikeland, 1999; Fuller, 1990).
The function of pluriactivity has generated some debate. Some authors consider that it is a simple survival mechanism in the
context of the poverty of family farming. From this point of view, it is subordinate to a market for which it is only a reserve labour
force. For others, however, it is a strategy that allows a process of accumulation to begin (Kay, 2006). A third approach states that
it may be the result of the two situations. In these cases, it is necessary to distinguish when it is a consequence of applying basic
survival strategies and when it has the objective of diversified accumulation (Campagne, Carrere, & Valceschini, 1990; Grammont
& Martínez Valle, 2009; White, 2018). Without denying that it can also be the result of poverty, from the Chayanovian perspective
we propose that pluriactivity is an efficient and resilient strategy for managing the family resources that can be combined with
the capitalist market.
In regions of the North, as well as in the so-called Global South, Agritourism is a potential ingredient of the “pluriactive cock-
tail”. Much of the literature that has analysed this phenomenon in the Global South considers that tourism may make the local
population more vulnerable and lead to distortions within communities (Faria & Hidalgo, 2012). Ethnographic studies have
found that the problem, in some cases, lies in a failure to appreciate the structural limitations of the tourist industry. These lim-
itations make it difficult for the local population to exert effective control over the activity, and their enterprise may then become
subordinate to the interests of other agents in the tourism value chain (Blackstock, 2005; Lacher & Nepal, 2010). It has also been
argued that tourism facilitates an increased commodification of natural resources (Fletcher & Neves, 2012). For some authors, the
influence of factors such as difficulty gaining access to the market, a limited understanding of how the sector functions or a lack of
planning at regional level is often underestimated (Blackstock, 2005; McGehee, 2007; Pulido & Cárdenas, 2011). In fact, several
studies have shown that many projects fall well short of achieving their expected economic outcomes (Notzke, 2006; Schilling
et al., 2012; Tew & Barbieri, 2012), and also that tourism can distort social relationships, heightening conflict and inequality
(Gascón, 2013; Pérez Galán & Fuller, 2015; Tucker, 2010).
Other researchers, by contrast, see Agritourism as an opportunity for peasant economies. From this more optimistic perspec-
tive, economic diversification through tourism can supplement a family's income and support the viability of active farms (Brune,
Knollenberg, & Vilá, 2023; Ohe, 2020). It may also strengthen social organization and increase the resilience of rural communities
(Ruiz-Ballesteros, 2011), adding value to the production and way of life of the family unit (Bessière, 2013; Tucker, 2022). In some
cases, it may even serve to establish strategic economic links between the urban and rural working class (Cañada, 2015).
In another text we argued that this disparity in the assessment of the Agritourism may be due to the different contexts of each
case analysed, and also to the researchers’ particular perspectives, which leads them to focus more on some impacts than on
others (Milano & Gascón, 2017). However, there may also be an epistemological limitation: the research on Agritourism has
been carried out without considering the debates and theses raised by Rural or Agrarian Studies, an interdisciplinary field that
analyses the dynamic relationships between agrarian ecosystems, the reproductive strategies of their inhabitants, and their pro-
duction systems (Gascón & Ojeda, 2014). However, it is difficult to understand the logic behind certain Agritourism proposals
without considering some of these debates and theses. Specifically, the hypothesis of this article is that it is necessary to consider
the exceptionality of the economic logic of family agriculture to understand the strategies, and the management of the workforce
and natural resources, that are behind an Agritourism proposal. It is a different logic from that which governs a capitalist enter-
prise: the agrarian family unit is conditioned by – and absorbed into – the capitalist context, but it is not managed under the same
rules (Marsden, 1990; Ploeg, 2013).
The exceptionality of the economic logic of family agriculture was described by the agrarian economist Alexandr V. Chayanov
(1988-1937) in the 1920s. He expressed it in various texts, the most significant of which are On the theory of non-capitalist eco-
nomic systems – originally published in 1924 – and The organization of the peasant economic unit – originally published in 1925.
However, it was not until the 1960s that his thinking became a fundamental piece in the analysis of the rural world, when his
works were translated, edited and disseminated in English (Chayanov, 1966[1924, 1925]).
One of the things that followed from the availability of Chayonov's texts in English was the introduction into rural and agrarian
studies of the debate between formalism and substantivism. Although this debate had long been present in economic anthropol-
ogy due to the work of Polanyi (2001[1944]), the formalist perspective had, prior to the 1960s, dominated the analysis of agrarian
history and economics. The debate concerns the economic logic that is applied by individuals and societies, and it may be framed
as follows: Is there a single logic based on the principles of the capitalist market economy (supply and demand, utility maximi-
zation) or does each culture have its own logic that derives from its particular adaptation strategies? In our view, this debate has
yet to take root within the field of tourism studies, as witnessed by the fact that the analysis of tourism in agrarian societies is
predominantly conducted from a formalist perspective. Tourism is obviously a capitalist economic sector, but as shown by
work in the field of critical economics (Meillassoux, 1975) and feminist research (Federici, 2004), not all relationships of produc-
tion on which capitalism is based are governed by entrepreneurial logic.
By applying Chayanovian analysis to an ethnographic case study, our aim here is to explore whether tourist activity in rural
societies may be better understood from a substantivist perspective. To this end, we consider two questions. The first is whether

2
J. Gascón Annals of Tourism Research 103 (2023) 103674

peasants who invest time and resources in rural tourism apply capitalist, entrepreneurial strategies when making economic deci-
sions, or whether these decisions are governed by a logic that is peculiar to these peasants. In addition, we examine whether this
peculiar logic, if present, is as irrational as it seems when analysed from hegemonic economic perspectives, or whether it in fact
represents an efficient use of available resources. From a methodological point of view, our goal is to determine whether the ex-
ceptionality of peasant economic logic, as described by Chayanov, is a useful notion for analysing and understanding a pluriactive
rural economy in which tourism is one element.
After first describing the methodology used, we set out the principles of Chayanovian theory that may help in answering these
questions. We then apply these principles to an ethnographic case that, by way of illustration, shows how they can be used to
analyse Agritourism.

Methodology

The article has an eminently theoretical character. However, it takes as an example an ethnographic case studied: the island of
Amantaní, in Peruvian Andes. Amantaní is the largest island that Peru has in Lake Titicaca, and its population is Indigenous Que-
chua. The study used the ethnographic method, an inductive technique that analyses individual strategies and practices in relation
to the historical and social context (Bernard, 2017). The field work lasted for three decades: it began in 1990 and the last research
stay was in 2019. The period from 1990 to 1995 was especially intense, with 4-6 months per year being spent on Amantaní. Most
of the research tools used were qualitative, and included participatory observation, semi-structured interviews, life stories, infor-
mal conversations, and retrospective analysis of field journals. Participatory observation and informal conversation, in particular,
enabled us to gather valuable information while living alongside the Amantaní people in their homes for periods of 1-2 weeks.
During the 1990s, our primary focus was on gathering information from different groups of Amantaní residents. For the
purposes of the present article, three groups are especially important. One consisted of the Indigenous peasants who had been
involved in the conflict over tourism that began around the end of the 1970s: the boat owners who controlled transport to the
island, and the opposing sectors calling for an equitable redistribution of the resource. Through semi-structured interviews and
informal conversations, we gained an appreciation of their respective discourses and economic strategies. We also gathered life
stories from some of the key figures.
A second group comprised peasants who had not participated actively in this conflict. Our goal here was to understand their
alliances with the opposing sides, as well as their pluriactive strategies. In 1994, we carried out an agricultural survey in Incatiana
- one of the villages on Amantaní Island. The objective was to learn about the characteristics of all the family farms in a commu-
nity. The survey also explored the uses they made of the family property and its state of repair. The third group we were inter-
ested in comprised those who spent time off the island working in urban areas but who retained both their status as community
members and the land they owned.
Between 1999 and 2014, we made sporadic visits to Amantaní (in 2001, 2006, 2009, 2011 and 2012). Because of the close re-
lationship that had been established with our main informants, these stays allowed us to gather valuable information. In the pro-
cess, we were able to oversee the changes that were taking place on the island, in the developing tourist sector and in the
economic strategies of the island's inhabitants. In 2014, 2017 and 2019 we spent two, one and three months, respectively, on
Amantaní. During this time, we tracked the new generations of the families from whom we had gathered the greatest amount
of ethnographic information in previous decades. In addition, we continued with the life stories of those individuals with
whom we had worked during the 1990s, and also contacted new households. The Covid-19 pandemic prevented us from
returning to the field in the following two years. However, in that period, semi-structured interviews and informal conversations
were conducted online with the main informants.
As a complement to the above, we also analysed the documentation of the last five decades preserved in the archives of local
public institutions: Sergeant de Playa (the institution that regulates lake transport), and Governorate and Municipality institutions.
Likewise, the minutes of the community assemblies were reviewed. This material made it possible to understand the decision-
making processes in relation to the tourism sector.

The exceptionality of peasant economic logic

Until the 1960s, except for a few dissenting voices (e.g. Chayanov, 1966[1924, 1925], Kropotkin, 2020[1902]), the agrarian
world was analysed based on the canons established by conventional and Marxist economy. These currents assert that the
technification of agriculture allows higher yields to be obtained with lower investment of resources. This principle was consoli-
dated with the advent of the Green Revolution after World War II. Green Revolution is an agri-food paradigm based on replacing
workforce by machinery and energy from fossil fuels, using inorganic inputs for pest control and recovering fertility, tending
towards productive specialization, and moving commercial interests towards international markets. This model favours land con-
centration for technical and logistical reasons (McMichael, 2013). The industrialization of agriculture seemed to impose the logic
of the economy of scale and, therefore, the disappearance of family farming. Although it was possible to find authors who, from
the conventional economy, still considered that the desired modernization was detached from the size of the exploitation (e.g.
Dovring, 1969; Mendras, 1967).
In the late 1960s, the Green Revolution began to show its limits. Sometimes increased socio-economic disparities and rural
poverty. In addition, it became perceivable that the use of synthetic chemicals had harmful effects on the environment and
human health (Bretón, 2010; Shiva, 1991). Moreover, the small family farm did not disappear, as predicted; in fact, more than

3
J. Gascón Annals of Tourism Research 103 (2023) 103674

600 million people worldwide continue to live on farms of this kind (Lowder, Sánchez, & Bertini, 2019). Faced with this reality,
Rural/Agrarian Studies took a radical epistemological turn, moving from a formalist view of the agrarian economy to a
substantivist one, according to which economic strategies could have different logics. Family peasant agriculture, considered
until then as a primitive phase of agrarian history, began to be appreciated as a specific model of managing natural resources
and agroecosystems (Giner & Sevilla Guzmán, 1980).
The work of Chayanov played an essential role in this epistemological change. Unfortunately, Chayanov had been dead for
many years when interest in his works revived. Chayanov was a Russian economist who advocated a revolution based on the
peasant family unit, along the lines promoted by the Revolutionary Social Party at the beginning of the 20th century. After the
October Revolution (1917), he supported the agrarian reform that divided the land among the peasants, and assumed responsi-
bilities as an advisor on agrarian policies. But in the 1930s, his analysis of peasant production strategies and his defence of family
farming faced Stalinist dogmas that privileged large collectivisations and agrarian industrialization. He was arrested by the NKVD,
and shot in 1937. Beginning in the 1960s, scholars such as Thorner (1966), Shanin (1973) and Palerm (2008) recovered and dis-
seminated Chayanov's work and thinking, and made him one of the pillars of the new Rural Studies.
Chayanov's thinking has enriched debates on various aspects of rural society. However, for understanding rural pluriactivity –
and, therefore, the role that Agritourism can play in a pluriactive economy – we believe that the main contribution of his thinking
is the assertion that the peasant economy is not governed by the same logic that governs a capitalist business. As a result, the
rural family unit can choose to devote labour and capital to activities that are not profitable by business standards. Some authors
consider that he was the first to argue that peasant agriculture implied a production model with specific characteristics (Sevilla-
Guzmán, 1990; Shanin, 1986). In reality, the Russian Organizational School, of which he was a member, was based on this prin-
ciple (Kerblay, 1966). Even outside Russia, in the 1910s, Rosa Luxemburg (2007[1913]) had defended the peculiarity of the peas-
ant economy. But it was Chayanov (1966[1924,1925]), based on his research into Russian peasantry, who developed this idea and
its theoretical bases.
One of the questions raised about peasant economic strategies is that they do not appear to be governed by any rational order.
It seemed that the peasant farmer devoted efforts and resources to activities with negative returns; that is, when the production
costs are higher than the profits. These practices have been attributed, on occasions, to extreme poverty and the lack of job op-
portunities, which would force the peasant farmer to take advantage of any source of income, even if it was unprofitable and in-
volved investing excessive amounts of work. They have also been attributed to ignorance or the cultural survival of archaic and
inefficient production practices. According to Chayanov, neither of these two answers is correct. The peasant economy is simply
governed by another logic.
There are two differences that establish the exceptionality of peasant logic in comparison to the capitalist logic. First, the cap-
italist enterprise seeks to maximize profits, that is, to reach the greatest possible difference between income and costs. However,
the peasant domestic unit aims to meet their needs by occupying their available workforce, that is, to offer work to all members
of the peasant family, whatever the net benefit that each member generates with their work, provided that it covers the basic
needs of the group. The second distinguishing factor is that, for the capitalist enterprise, the workforce is a variable. However,
for the peasant unit it functions as a constant. Let's explain this more clearly.
When we affirm that the workforce is a constant we mean that the domestic unit must depend on all its members who are of
age and are able to work. Imagine that a peasant family has at its disposal thirty hectares: ten of excellent quality, ten of medium
quality, and ten of poor quality. If the family is composed of only a few members, they will work on just their best lands. As the
family grows in number of active members, it will also exploit the ten hectares of medium quality. The total income is rising, but
average yield per worker is falling, as the new land is not as productive. This is what the classical economy calls decreasing mar-
ginal yields. Finally, the family grows and new members reach working age. The family unit will then begin to work their worst
lands, which offer only a small yield.
A note. The theory of decreasing yields, developed by Ricardo (2003[1817]) at the beginning of the 19th century based on a
Malthusian logic, affirms that ploughing marginal lands makes it possible to increase production, but with lower yields. In its day,
this theory was answered by Marx (2013[1857-1858]), who considered that technological innovation and the development of the
workforce generated leaps in efficiency that made it possible to obtain greater yields from the same resources. The debate length-
ened in the twentieth century: Lenin (1979[1908]) delved into this anti-Ricardian line, which was later taken up by, among
others, Boserup (2003[1965]) and Grantham (1997), while the Ricardian-Malthusian perspective was supported by Marshall
(2014[1890]) and the Neoclassical School. It should be noted that an ecologist rereading of Marx, which began to emerge in
the late 1980s, concluded that he never denied the physical limits of growth but merely considered that the decreasing yields de-
tected by Ricardo were due to other factors such as the metabolic breakdown of nutrients, and the lack of investment or dispo-
sition of resources by the ruling classes (Foster, 2000; O’Connor, 1988; Saito, 2017).
This strategy would be unthinkable for a capitalist enterprise. For capitalist logic, the workforce is a variable, so it will only
employ the labour necessary to exploit the best lands. It will not hire new workers to cultivate the other hectares because the
wages would be higher than the income obtained from the lands. A domestic unit does not have as much flexibility with its work-
force: it must maintain all its members. It may therefore be desirable to exploit these unproductive lands by occupying the entire
family workforce, even if these benefits are small in relation to the invested workforce. Their goal is not to achieve the best price,
but rather to meet their consumption needs. However, from a business logic, it seems that the peasant farmer works at a loss.
Chayanov calls the economic objective of the peasant family unit the differential optima. If the company "maximizes profits"
when it reaches the ideal point between a maximum income level and minimum expense level, the peasant family unit obtains
its "differential optima" when it balances the triad "available workforce – exploited agricultural area – invested capital" with the

4
J. Gascón Annals of Tourism Research 103 (2023) 103674

family needs that ensure the reproduction of the family unit. Another concept related to the differential optima that Chayanov
uses is that of peasant self-exploitation. This concept can lead to misunderstandings because Chayanov does not use it according
to its usual or Kautskyian definition (Kautsky, 1970[1899]); that is, as an overload of work resulting from poverty. When
Chayanov speaks of self-exploitation, he means that, since there are no salaries in the peasant family unit, its members will
work to the degree necessary to meet their needs and to be employed, although there are very low returns. In other words,
the Chayanovian concept of self-exploitation does not refer to a situation in which the peasant farmer works more hours than
socially agreed or under harsh conditions. It refers to the ability of the domestic unit to devote workforce to activities that
offer a lower return than the returns a capitalist enterprise could accept. With this, Chayanov concludes that, reaching the differ-
ential optima, the peasant family unit is more effective than the capitalist enterprise, since it is able to take advantage of all the
available productive resources, and not only those that offer better yields.
Chayanov did not introduce non-agricultural activities into the equation, but the logic of the exceptionality of family farming
can be applied to a pluriactive economy. As an example, we will analyse a specific case: the island of Amantaní, in the south of the
Peruvian Andes, located on the tourist route that passes through Lake Titicaca.

A Chayanovian analysis: the case of Amantaní Island (Lake Titicaca)

Amantaní is the largest populated island pertaining to Peru within Lake Titicaca. Its entire population is Indigenous Quechua,
many of whom have emigrated or reside in more than one location, that is, they combine their life on the island with temporary
employment in other areas of Peru. Since the 1970s, sources of income other than agriculture have begun to emerge on the island,
the case in point being tourism. This situation should come as no surprise. Indeed, peasant pluriactivity has been a recurrent phe-
nomenon in the Andean region since the final decades of the twentieth century (Burneo & Trelles, 2019), and more recently,
Pérez Galán and Asensio (2012) have described the tourism boom as a strategy for improving rural economies. However, the
islanders remain dedicated to agrarian production, even though the amount of land per capita has decreased over the past two
generations. Since the 1980s, all agrarian production has been destined solely for self-consumption.

Limited number of tourists

The increasing number of minifundia on Amantaní was the result of two factors. On the one hand, a culture based on the land
being inherited and divided among all children. On the other, a population growth – between the middle and the end of the
twentieth century, the island went from about 1,500 to 4,000 inhabitants. Currently, few farmers have more than half a hectare.
Already in the 1960s-1970s, the land did not cover the basic needs of most domestic units, making it necessary for agricultural
yields to be supplemented by other economic activities. Pluriactivity became a strategy of the most impoverished domestic
units, who sought to address land scarcity by accessing other income sources. It also became a strategy of those with a certain
capacity for capitalization, who saw in these activities the possibility of investment.
During the 1970s, the inhabitants of Amantaní came to see tourism as a means of economic diversification. This was driven by
the island's location at the heart of the most important tourism circuit in the Andes, the one connecting Cusco with Lake Titicaca
and on to the cities of Arequipa and La Paz. The islanders made the necessary preparations, and Amantaní was officially recog-
nized as a tourist destination. Many residents created a guest room for tourists in their home, and the Municipality established
a mechanism for allocating tourist accommodation in an equitable way so that all providers could benefit. In the 1980s, however,
the hopes that had been placed in this new resource began to fade, for two reasons: the limited number of tourists, and the mo-
nopoly that a certain sector of the population had over them.
Although the number of tourists visiting the island did increase between 1980 and 1989, it never reached any considerable
level: by the end of the decade, an average of only 15-20 travellers arrived each day during the high season months of July
and August, and during the rest of the year, visits by tourists were few and far between. At the beginning of the 1990s, tourism
almost disappeared completely due to renewed armed conflict involving the Shining Path guerilla movement.
A further problem was that the small number of tourists were monopolized by a minority sector of the island's population: the
boat owners who ferried them between Amantaní and the mainland. At the beginning of the 1990s, these boat owners accounted
for around 10% of the total population (Gascón, 1996, 2005). Their monopoly was possible for two reasons. As it was they who
transported tourists to and from the island, the boat owners were able to offer directly to accommodate them in their homes,
bypassing the allocation system that had been established by the Municipality. In addition, the boat-owning community gained
control of what at the time was Amantaní's primary political institution, the Governorate.
Governors served a one-year term, and between 1975 and 1995 only two post-holders were not members of the boat-owning
community. There were two reasons why this came about. One was that fulfilment of the role implied a considerable financial
outlay for which there was no State funding. Consequently, only those with greater purchasing power could assume the role,
and as a result of tourism the boat owners had become the most well-off sector of the population. The other reason was that
the outgoing Governor chose his successor.
Taking control of the Governorate was obviously of interest to the boat owners, as it enabled them to use institutional re-
sources to their own advantage. Between 1975 and 1995, a considerable proportion of the projects promoted or undertaken by
the Governorate benefitted the boat owners: building new docks for their boats, tourism promotion campaigns, etc. By controlling
the Governorate, they were also able to undermine opposition to their monopoly: in particular, they blocked attempts to intro-
duce new rules designed to ensure that tourist accommodation was allocated more equitably among the population.

5
J. Gascón Annals of Tourism Research 103 (2023) 103674

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, tourism was the main cause of social conflict on Amantaní. Opposition to the boat owners
took a variety of forms. On its simplest level, it involved criticizing them or boycotting their proposals for promoting tourism.
More decisive action was taken by the Municipality, which on two occasions sought to establish the role of 'tourist allocation of-
ficer' to oversee the process. Both attempts ended in failure, however, as it was the boat owners who controlled the primary in-
stitution, the Governorate. Furthermore, without their boats no tourists would arrive on the island. There was also the realization
that spreading an already small number of tourists across a larger number of accommodation providers would not yield sufficient
income for individual families to compensate them for the cost of maintaining a guest room.
For most of the population, therefore, the main sources of non-agricultural income were found in emigration. In some cases,
emigration was definitive (Gascón, 2004). However, many families practiced temporary emigration: during the months between
harvesting and sowing some of the family members went to work in the nearby cities of Puno and Juliaca, or even to more distant
places.
Definitive emigration reduced the pressure of the minifundium phenomenon. Most gave it to relatives through some arrange-
ment, or even sold it to a close relative. However, temporary emigration created a strain on the agrarian ecosystem for two rea-
sons. One was the islanders' interest in making the most of their agricultural resources. Emigration is a difficult and unpleasant
decision for an Indigenous rural population in a society marginalized by ethnicity and class. This was even more true in the eco-
nomically difficult period for Peru. The 1980s and 1990s were characterized by an economy and labour market in perpetual crisis
(Gonzales de Olarte, 1998). For all these reasons, the islanders tried to depend as little as possible on temporary emigration, and
for this they needed to obtain the maximum possible benefit from their lands. This entailed the intensification of agricultural ac-
tivity beyond the land's capacity for recovery.
The other factor that strained the agro-ecosystem was the maintenance of agricultural infrastructures. Amantaní is an island
with a pronounced difference in altitudes. In less than 9.5 km2, it goes from 3,810 metres high, the level of Lake Titicaca, to
4,150 metres at its highest point. Therefore, since pre-Hispanic times the island's agriculture has been based on a system of ter-
races. This agricultural infrastructure needs frequent maintenance. Traditionally, this work was carried out between harvesting
and sowing, activating mutual aid systems between families. However, these months began to be used for temporary emigration,
and maintenance work was postponed sine die. In the end, much of the terrace system collapsed.
A technical study conducted in 1990 found that a quarter of agricultural land had been eroded or lost because of these factors
(CIRTACC, 1991). This was confirmed by a survey we carried out in 1994. Another part had been abandoned temporarily or per-
manently as its owners had emigrated permanently without having given their land to neighbours or relatives.

The tourism boom

By the mid-1990s, the armed conflict had been restricted to a few territories in the Amazon. As a result, the number of inter-
national tourists arriving in Amantaní increased. In addition, there was an improvement in national macroeconomic indicators
based on the export of commodities. At the turn of the century, Peru became one of the most dynamic economies in the subcon-
tinent, with annual GDP growth rates ranging from 4.5 to 5% (INEI, 2020). This growth took time to reach the popular sectors, but
in a few years, it strengthened a national middle class that also began to travel around the country (Cotler, 2011).
Another change took place during the 2000s: the Municipality was awarded an annual budget by the State, and as a result it
displaced the Governorate as the main political institution on Amantaní. The increased number of tourists and the loss of political
influence among boat owners enabled the Municipality to establish, around 2010, a mechanism for ensuring a more equitable al-
location of tourist accommodation.
This mechanism operated based on a system that distributed visitors to the island in turns. Due to the distance between
Amantaní and the city of Puno, where the tours that travel Lake Titicaca start, most tourists must spend at least one night on
the island. They are accommodated in the actual homes of the islanders, who also provide the food. The Municipality established
an agreement with different travel agencies to distribute their customers according to a rotation system. Amantaní divides its ter-
ritory and population into ten communities. When it was the turn of Community A, all tourists were taken there. When all mem-
bers participating in the rotation system of that community had received the number of overnight stays previously established,
the turn was transferred to Community B. And so on, until it returned to Community A.
Before the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic (2020), approximately 55% of the islanders were hosting visitors thanks to the ro-
tation system. However, the distribution of benefits remained very unbalanced. Those family units who had homes that were
more prepared for accommodation had bilateral agreements with the most powerful travel agencies, and the arrival of websites
such as Booking also facilitated that this minority had a greater connection to the tourism market. In addition, a large part of the
population still did not receive tourists. There were diverse reasons for this exclusion. For the most part, they were elderly people
who either did not have their housing adapted to the quality requirements demanded by the Ministry of Tourism, or did not want
to accommodate tourists since they had enough with the subsidies they received from the State, the help of their children in em-
igration and/or their agrarian income. Some islanders did not participate in tourism because they had other well-paid sources of
income: they were builders, bakers, shop owners, etc. Finally, there were families who spent most of the year in emigration,
which prevented them from engaging in tourism.
The increase in household income, thanks to the increase in the flow of tourism and a system that redistributed its benefits
more equitably, reduced migration trends. Even more: it encouraged many emigrants to return. This had consequences for the
agro-ecosystem of Amantaní, basically due to two factors: the requirements of the tourism sector and rotation system, and the
Chayanovian strategies aimed at occupying the family workforce.

6
J. Gascón Annals of Tourism Research 103 (2023) 103674

Tourism and the expansion of the agrarian frontier

Tourist accommodation does not generate a daily or systematic work activity. The rotation system meant that families spent
weeks without receiving tourists, and even months in the low season. However, it was difficult for islanders to have a job off
the island if they wanted to participate in the rotation system because it was necessary to be present on the island when it
was time to accommodate visitors. It was also required to be an active member of the community, which involved participating
in assemblies and community work.
Tourist accommodation and community obligations did not have a fixed calendar. Even if that had been the case, few islanders
could establish employment contracts off the island with such an irregular temporary nature. Therefore, participating in the rota-
tion system required that some of the family members always resided in Amantaní. This created a dilemma for families: what
should they do with this workforce that resides permanently on the island if tourism only uses it intermittently?
As the participation of islanders in tourism activities increased, the primary sector played a smaller role in the household in-
come. However, this did not lead to the islanders losing interest in agricultural activity. Paradoxically, the opposite occurred. Since
the 2000s, most families have shown an interest in recovering and making the most of their land. This was especially significant
for those islanders who were more actively involved in tourism. The result was the extension of Amantaní's agrarian frontier.
Islanders expanded their productive capacity through various strategies. The first was the recovery of agricultural terraces that
had been lost in previous decades. By the end of the 2010s, virtually all of these terraces were in perfect condition and in full use.
The agrarian frontier also expanded onto land that had never been used for agriculture or had low yields. This was the second
strategy. Patapampa is a plateau that crowns the island. It occupies about 240 hectares, and is located over 4,000 meters above sea
level. Traditionally, it was dedicated to grazing, since it did not have the appropriate conditions for agricultural production as it is
dry and eroded by strong winds. However, above all, agriculture was not possible because of the continuous frost. Nevertheless,
climate change, which is very decisive in the high elevations of the Andean mountain range (Pérez et al., 2010), has reduced the
impact of these frosts. This encouraged the islanders to plough Patapampa and use it for agriculture. The plain’s soil quality is very
low, which means that the land must be left to rest for years after one or two harvests. However, in 2019 we calculated that ap-
proximately 80% of Patapampa was being cultivated, or had been and was being left to rest.
This eagerness to plough and cultivate wastelands was also observed in the lower part of the island. In the mid-2010s, taking
advantage of the fact that the level of Lake Titicaca had decreased by several metres since the mid-2000s, the lands adjacent to
the lake were ploughed and prepared for agriculture. In September 2019, we estimated that about 2.5 hectares of beach had
been recovered for agriculture. These lands are of good quality and easily irrigated as they are next to the Lake. However,
ploughing this land involved great effort as it was covered by rocks, sometimes of considerable size. Preparing the land involved
an effort that did not seem to be compensated by the agricultural yields that these lands could offer in the medium term. In ad-
dition, there was always a risk that Lake Titicaca would return to its previous level. In fact, this is what happened at the beginning
of 2022, spoiling all the work invested.
Another strategy was the purchase and sale of land. On one hand, some islanders saw that buying land could reverse the ef-
fects of divisional inheritance. On the other hand, some people who had emigrated definitely decided to sell their properties. In
most cases, this acquisition of land took place between members of the same family, between brothers, cousins, uncles and
nephews. However, when that was not the case, only islanders with greater purchasing power could buy land. Those better con-
nected to the tourist economy were especially interested in investing their profits in acquiring agricultural plots.
Finally, a fourth strategy used to increase the productive capacity of island lands was the emergence of a trade in organic fer-
tilizer from Ccotos, a peninsula near Amantaní specialized in livestock production. The traditional way to recover the fertility of
the land was to leave it fallow for a few years, or use the manure provided by the scarce livestock on the island. Very occasionally,
some islanders bought industrial fertilizers. However, throughout the 2010s, sacks of manure purchased from Ccotos farmers and
stored at Amantaní docks became a regular sight.
An example that shows that the commitment to agricultural work – and the maximum use of marginal lands – is not the re-
sult of economic hardship can be seen in Francisco's family. Francisco was, in 2020, about 75 years old. In the 1970s, together with
his two brothers, he had owned a speedboat, which meant he was part of the small minority of islanders who monopolized tour-
ism until the 2010s, when the tourist rotation system was established. As his children formed their own families and became in-
dependent, they used the economic capital accumulated by their father thanks to tourism, their knowledge of the sector, and the
extensive network of contacts he had established with travel agencies and guides: they adapted their homes and their kitchens to
offer a high-quality service, and established agreements with tour-operators from Puno, Cusco and Lima. Therefore, in addition to
participating in the tourist rotation system, they received exclusive travellers. This meant they had to always live on the island.
Tourism only occupied them when they received travellers, and it could take weeks for any to arrive, but they did not take on
temporary jobs in the city because they could receive a reservation at any time. In addition, as we have explained, participation
in the rotation system was only possible if you were an active member of the community, which limited the possibilities of being
absent for long periods.
Although they were one of the most affluent families on the island, Francisco and his children were among the first to plough
the areas of the beach that they owned: a small plot of about 25 m2 covered with stones, some of considerable size, and up to one
metre deep. Two of his children even bought a similar plot of land, which they also had to clean up, for a price that forced them to
borrow from family and relatives.
Making a Chayanovian reading, we can say that the economic strategy of Francisco's family was based on increasing its agrar-
ian frontier. Despite the low yields and the high work investment, as well as the expense of acquiring land at a high price, this

7
J. Gascón Annals of Tourism Research 103 (2023) 103674

strategy is a way to maximize the family’s domestic workforce. In a peasant economy, the calculation is not based on the relation-
ship between investment and profit. The aim is to give employment to the entire available workforce, albeit with returns below
production costs. The availability of domestic labour is not elastic: whether or not it is occupied, the family must ensure the re-
production of all its members. It was therefore more useful to devote that workforce to low-performing activities than to leave it
idle. Tourism is not an activity that requires all the available family workforce; however, it limits the possibility of accessing work
outside Amantaní.
Family units also recover the agro-ecosystem because the income from tourism is not enough for most families, who only have
access to the benefits of this sector through the rotation system implemented by the Municipality in the 2010s. Self-consumption
agriculture continues to play an important role in the household economy: it supplies household consumption of staple foods for
a large part of the year. However, that those domestic units more connected to the tourist market, and in a better economic sit-
uation, devote work and capital to increasing their agrarian frontier despite very low compensation, demonstrates the particular
character of the economic logic with which they work.

Conclusions

From the mid-2000s until the Covid-19 crisis, Amantaní was in a paradoxical situation from the view point of the conventional
economic logic. On one hand, its inhabitants had access to new sources of income: on the island itself, through the growing tour-
ism whose benefits now reached the majority of the population (Gascón & Mamani, 2021); and also off the island, in terms of the
labour market that was much friendlier than before the turn of the century, resulting from the sustained growth of the Peruvian
economy that finally reached the popular sectors (Asensio, 2017). To this we need to add that the State redistributed part of its
budget among the rural and Indigenous population through different assistance programmes – the elderly and single mothers re-
ceived economic aids – and increased their contributions to the municipal coffers. In Amantaní, the Municipality redistributed
these contributions by paying for community work – road repairs, expansion of the docks, etc. – and hiring personnel for admin-
istrative, cleaning and security tasks.
However, at the same time, the islanders increased the agrarian frontier by ploughing and preparing marginal areas that had
never been cultivated due to their low productivity. To do this, they allocated a workforce (and even capital to buy the land) that
did not seem to correspond to the yields obtained.
In other words: just when the capitalist market offered the best job options, there was a process of repeasantization based on
ploughing marginal land for self-consumption. We cannot resort to the hypothesis of extreme poverty – according to which the
peasant farmer carries out uneconomic practices to survive – because we have seen that those with greater purchasing power
were the first ones interested in taking advantage of the marginal lands available to them. Nor is it useful to assert that Indige-
nous people culturally maintain traditional forms of production beyond their usefulness, since the marginal lands that were
cultivated were unused lands just one generation ago.
In short, it is not possible to solve the paradox based on the logic that governs the business economy; however, with a
Chayanovian viewpoint, it is possible. What does this perspective contribute to the understanding of the analysis of tourism ty-
pologies linked to agricultural production?
First, that the pluriactive strategy in which tourism is inserted can only be understood by considering the peculiarities of peas-
ant logic. In Amantaní, the connection of the islanders with the market generates various pluriactive strategies, many of which
incorporate Agritourism and low-yield self-consumption agriculture. The family unit does not consider the effort to increase
the agrarian frontier to be uneconomic, since it does not allocate a salary to pay for the labour. They already have the workforce
and they need to maintain it. Therefore, the family's concern is to seek and provide employment for their members, even in tasks
that, from a business point of view, would be at a negative cost. This is the Chayanovian definition of self-exploitation – which, as
we have explained, has nothing to do with the usual meaning.
Even more: if the family has the opportunity and needs to occupy its domestic workforce, they will buy land that will barely
return the purchase price. Amantaní is not an exceptional case: allocating non-agricultural income to improving and increasing
family farming is common in agricultural societies (Narotzky & Smith, 2006). From the orthodox economy, transferring capital ob-
tained from a resource that provides good net returns, such as Agritourism in Amantaní in the 2010s, to another that only offers
marginal returns, does not make sense. However, the main objective of the peasant farmer is to occupy the family workforce and
it is only a secondary aim to maximize profits.
Second, and as a result of the previous point, the Chayanovian view shows that no income source is independent in a
pluriactive economy. The analytical interest may be tourism, but it cannot be studied in isolation when it is part of a rural econ-
omy of pluriactivity. All economic activities are part of an overall strategy to optimize resources – land, domestic workforce, social
networks, knowledge and expertise in each economic sector, capital, etc. – with the aim of meeting the family’s needs and occu-
pying the available workforce; that is, to reach the differential optima.
Only in this way can we understand the mechanics that exist in the depeasantization and repeasantization processes linked to
Agritourism, and pluriactivity in general. This is the third contribution offered by the Chayanovian perspective. Depeasantization
and repeasantization have to be understood as strategies that the family unit establishes to circumstantially connect itself to the
market (Akram-Lodhi & Kay, 2010; Narotzky, 2016; Ploeg, 2008). From the liberal-conventional economy and the Marxist-Soviet
one, depeasantization is the result of the impossibility of family farming to compete with a modern agrarian market, and
repeasantization can only be explained by a modern labour market in recession, unable to incorporate the surplus rural workforce.
However, Amantaní shows the opposite of this: depeasantization in a context in which the capitalist work market is in crisis –

8
J. Gascón Annals of Tourism Research 103 (2023) 103674

during the decades at the end of the twentieth century – and repeasantization when it is at its greatest peak – in the decade of
2010. The Chayanov viewpoint shows that the family strategies of connecting to the Agritourism market, which are accompanied
by dynamic processes of depeasantization or repeasantization, are explained through the differential optima; that is, accepting
that the objective of the family unit is to maximize the work income, and not the capital.
Finally, peasant logic also makes it possible to manage vulnerability. The Amantaní islander cannot control the tourist flows, or
the labour market in emigration, or the price of the products of domestic consumption, but they can control the production for
personal consumption. The Covid-19 pandemic, which had a strong impact in Peru, highlighted this situation. During the first
weeks of confinement, many migrant families returned to the island and began working their land. Having lost their income
sources in emigration, and although tourism disappeared completely in Amantaní, their agricultural plots offered them the possi-
bility of partially covering their reproduction cost (Mamani & Gascón, 2021). The self-exploitation capacity of the peasant econ-
omy – in the Chayanovian sense, once again – allows the maximum use of their available agricultural resources, and this acts
as a strategy of resilience. Subsistence agriculture may seem primitive from the point of view of the conventional economy,
but it is an effective safeguard against the uncertainty that characterizes tourism, an activity vulnerable to political and economic
crises, competition from new destinations, the price of oil and also health problems.
We will end with a methodological consideration. The case of Amantaní shows that peasant logic impregnates not only agrar-
ian but all economic activities. Yet the field of rural studies has not applied a Chayanovian perspective to non-agrarian activities,
and neither has tourism research proposed a substantivist analysis of Agritourism. However, Agritourism can only be understood
by considering all the domestic activities in which a family unit is engaged, because peasant logic is based on the efficient use of
the available family workforce, which is spread across all these activities. No single ingredient of the peasant pluriactive cocktail,
whether the family's agricultural activity or Agritourism, can be analysed in isolation.

Funding sources

This work was supported by the Catalan Agency for Development Cooperation and the NGDO Xarxa de Consum Solidari, under
Grant ACC145/21/000061.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Jordi Gascón: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project ad-
ministration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the author upon reasonable request.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

Akram-Lodhi, A. H., & Kay, C. (2010). Surveying the agrarian question (part 2): Current debates and beyond. Journal of Peasant Studies, 37(2), 255–284. https://doi.org/
10.1080/03066151003594906.
Ana, M. -I. (2017). Ecotourism, agro-tourism and rural tourism in the European Union. Cactus Tourism Journal, 15(2), 6–14.
Asensio, R. H. (2017). Los nuevos incas: La economía política del desarrollo rural andino en Quispicanchi (2000-2010). Lima: IEP.
Bernard, H. R. (2017). Research Methods in Anthropology. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Bessière, J. (2013). ‘Heritagisation’, a challenge for tourism promotion and regional development. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 8(4), 275–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1743873X.2013.770861.
Blackstock, K. (2005). A critical look at community-based tourism. Community Development Journal, 40(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsi005.
Boserup, E. (2003[1965]). The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change under Population Pressure. London: Earthscan.
Bretón, V. (2010). La tenaz persistencia de la subnutrición o los límites del desarrollo. In V. Bretón (Ed.), Saturno devora a sus hijos: Miradas críticas sobre el desarrollo y
sus promesas (pp. 197–243). Barcelona: Icaria.
Brune, S., Knollenberg, W., & Vilá, O. (2023). Agritourism resilience during the COVID-19 crisis. Annals of Tourism Research, 99, Article 103538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
annals.2023.103538.
Burneo, M. L., & Trelles, A. (2019). Comunidades campesinas en Puno y nueva ruralidad. In P. Vilca (Ed.), Puno en el siglo XXI: Desarrollo, ambiente y comunidades
(pp. 183–236). Lima: ASER.
Busby, G., & Rendle, S. (2000). The transition from tourism on farms to farm tourism. Tourism Management, 21(6), 635–642. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(00)00011-X.
Campagne, P., Carrere, G., & Valceschini, E. (1990). Three agricultural regions of France: three types of pluriactivity. Journal of Rural Studies, 6(4), 415–422. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0743-0167(90)90055-D.
Cañada, E. (2015). La comercialización del turismo comunitario en América Latina. Anuario de Estudios Centroamericanos, 41, 159–189.
Chayanov, A.V. (1966[1924, 1925]). The Theory of Peasant Economy. Homewood: Irwin for American Economic Association.
CIRTACC (1991). Estudio preliminar de los recursos Agua y Suelos para el Desarrollo Integral: Distrito Amantaní. Puno (mimeo)..
Cotler, J. (2011). Las desigualdades en el Perú. En J. Cotler y R. Cuenca (Eds.) Las desigualdades en el Perú (pp. 9-30). Lima: IEP.
Dovring, F. (1969). Variants and invariants in comparative agricultural systems. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 51(5), 1263–1273. https://doi.org/10.2307/
1238002.

9
J. Gascón Annals of Tourism Research 103 (2023) 103674

Eikeland, S. (1999). New rural pluriactivity? Household strategies and rural renewal in Norway. Sociologia Ruralis, 39(3), 359–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.
00113.
Faria, D. M. C., & Hidalgo, M. (2012). Desarrollo, turismo y pobreza: Una mirada crítica. Estudios Turísticos, 192, 71–88.
Federici, S. (2004). Caliban and the Witch. New York: Autonomedia.
Fletcher, R., & Neves, K. (2012). Contradictions in tourism: The promise and pitfalls of ecotourism as a manifold capitalist fix. Environment and Society, 3(1), 60–77.
https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2012.030105.
Foster, J. B. (2000). Marx’s Ecology. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Fuller, A. M. (1990). From part-time farming to pluriactivity: A decade of change in rural Europe. Journal of Rural Studies, 6(4), 361–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/0743-
0167(90)90049-E.
Gascón, J. (1996). El turismo: La gestión de un nuevo recurso: Conflicto y lucha por su control en los Andes. In M. N. Chamoux, & J. Contreras (Eds.), La gestión comunal
de recursos (pp. 307–336). Barcelona: Icaria.
Gascón, J. (2004). Rich Peasant, Poor Peasant: Differing Fates of Urban Migrants in Peru. Latin American Perspectives, 31(5), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0094582X04268401.
Gascón, J. (2005). Gringos como en sueños: Diferenciación y conflicto campesino en los Andes Peruanos ante el desarrollo del turismo. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
Gascón, J. (2013). The limitations of community-based tourism as an instrument of development cooperation: The value of the Social Vocation of the Territory concept.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(5), 716–731. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2012.721786.
Gascón, J., & Mamani, K. S. (2021). Community-based tourism, peasant agriculture and resilience in the face of COVID-19 in Peru. Journal of Agrarian Change, 22(2),
362–377. https://doi.org/10.1111/joac.12447.
Gascón, J., & Ojeda, D. (2014). Turistas y campesinado. Madrid: Pasos.
Giner, S., & Sevilla Guzmán, E. (1980). The Demise of the Peasant: Some ideological inroads into Social Theory. Sociologia Ruralis, 20(1&2, 13–27. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1467-9523.1980.tb00695.x.
Gonzales de Olarte, E. (1998). El neoliberalismo a la peruana: Economía política del ajuste estructural, 1990-1997. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
Grammont, H. C., & Martínez Valle, L. (2009). Introducción. In H. C. Grammont, & L. Martínez Valle (Eds.), La pluriactividad en el campo latinoamericano (pp. 9–18).
Quito: FLACSO.
Grantham, G. (1997). Contra Ricardo: On the macroeconomics of pre-industrial economies. European Review of Economic History, 3(2), 192–232. https://doi.org/10.
1017/S1361491699000106.
INEI (2020). Panorama de la economía peruana 1950-2019. Lima.
Kautsky, K. (1970[1899]). La cuestión agraria. París: Ruedo ibérico.
Kay, C. (2006). Rural poverty and development strategies in Latin America. Journal of Agrarian Change, 6(4), 455–508. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0366.2006.00132.
x.
Kerblay, B. (1966). A.V. Chayanov: Life, Career, Works (pp. XXV-LXXV). In A.V. Chayanov, Theory of Peasant Economy (pp. XI-XXIII). Homewood: Irwin for American Eco-
nomic Association.
Kropotkin, P. (2020[1902]). El apoyo mutuo. Logroño: Pepitas de calabaza.
Lacher, R. G., & Nepal, S. K. (2010). Dependency and development in northern Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(4), 947–968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.
2010.03.005.
Lenin, V.I.U. (1979[1908]). El problema agrario y los críticos de Marx. Moscú: Progreso.
Lowder, S., Sánchez, V., & Bertini, R. (2019). Farms, family farms, farmland distribution and farm labour: What do we know today? FAO Agricultural Development Eco-
nomics Working Paper. Roma: FAO 19-08.
Luxemburg, R. (2007[1913]). La acumulación del Capital. Buenos Aires: Terramar.
Mamani, K. S., & Gascón, J. (2021). Turismo de base local y agricultura de subsistencia: El Covid-19 como test de resiliencia socio-ecológica. In E. Ruiz-Ballesteros (Ed.),
Turismo de base local (pp. 261–282). Barcelona: Icaria.
Marsden, T. (1990). Towards the political economy of pluriactivity. Journal of Rural Studies, 6(4), 375–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/0743-0167(90)90050-I.
Marshall, A. (2014[1890]). Principles of Economics. London: Palgrave.
Marx, K. (2013[1857-1858]). Elementos fundamentales para la crítica de la economía política (Grundrisse). Madrid: Siglo XXI.
McGehee, N. G. (2007). An agritourism systems model: A Weberian perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(2), 111–124. https://doi.org/10.2167/jost634.0.
McMichael, P. (2013). Food Regimes and Agrarian Questions. Halifax & Winnipeg: Fernwood.
Meillassoux, C. (1975). Femmes, greniers et capitaux. Paris: Maspero.
Mendras, H. (1967). La fin des paysans: Innovations et changements dans l’agriculture française. Revue Française de Sociologie, 8(4) 577-279.
Mesclier, E. (1993). Pérou: Vers une redistribution des populations rurales andines? Bulletin de l’IFEA, 22(3), 763–789.
Milano, C., & Gascón, J. (2017). Introducción: Turismo y sociedad rural, o el extraño caso del doctor Jekyll y Mr. Hyde. In J. Gascón, & C. Milano (Eds.), El turismo en el
mundo rural. Tenerife: Pasos.
Narotzky, S. (2016). Where have all the peasants gone? Annual Review of Anthropology, 45, 301–308. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102215-100240.
Narotzky, S., & Smith, G. A. (2006). Immediate struggles: People, power and place in rural Spain. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Notzke, C. (2006). The stranger, the native and the land. Concord: Captus University Press.
O’Connor, J. (1988). Capitalism Nature Socialism: A Theoretical Introduction. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 1, 11–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455758809358356.
Ohe, Y. (2020). Community-based rural tourism and entrepreneurship. Springer.
Palerm, À. (2008). Antropología y marxismo. México: CIESAS.
Pérez, C., et al. (2010). Climate Change in the High Andes: Implications and adaptation strategies for small-scale farmers. The International Journal of Environmental,
Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability, 6, 71–88.
Pérez Galán, B., & Asensio, R. H. (2012). Introdución. In R. H. Asensio, & B. Pérez Galán (Eds.), ¿El turismo es cosa de pobres? (pp. 1–14). Lima: IEP.
Pérez Galán, P., & Fuller, N. (2015). Turismo rural comunitario, género y desarrollo en comunidades campesinas e indígenas del sur del Perú. Quaderns de l’ICA, 31,
95–119.
Ploeg, J. D. v. d. (2008). The new peasantries. London & Sterling: Earthscan.
Ploeg, J. D. v. d. (2013). Peasants and the art of farming: A Chayanovian manifesto. Winnipeg: Fernwood.
Polanyi, K. (2001[1944]). The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press.
Pulido, J. I., & Cárdenas, P. J. (2011). El turismo rural en España: Orientaciones estratégicas para una tipología aún en desarrollo. Boletín de la Asociación de Geógrafos
Españoles, 56, 155–176.
Ricardo, D. (2003[1817]). On The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. Kitchener, Ontario: Batoche Books.
Ruiz-Ballesteros, E. (2011). Social-ecological resilience and community-based tourism: An approach from Agua Blanca, Ecuador. Tourism Management, 32(3), 655–666.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.05.021.
Saito, K. (2017). Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Schilling, B. J., Kevin, P. S., & Komar, S. J. (2012). Examining the economic benefits of agritourism: The case of New Jersey. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and
Community Development, 3(1), 199–214. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2012.031.011.
Sevilla-Guzmán, E. (1990). Redescubrimiento de Chayanov: Hacia un neopopulismo ecológico. Agricultura y Sociedad, 55, 201–237.
Shanin, T. (1973). The nature and logic of the peasant economy (1): A Generalisation. Journal of Peasant Studies, 1(1), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03066157308437872.
Shanin, T. (1986). Chayanov’s Message: Illuminations, Miscomprehensions, and the Contemporary “Development Theory”. Prólogo to A.V. Chayanov, The Theory of Peasant
Economy. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1–24.
Shiva, V. (1991). The violence of Green Revolution. London & Penang: Zed Books & TWN.

10
J. Gascón Annals of Tourism Research 103 (2023) 103674

Tew, C., & Barbieri, C. (2012). The perceived benefits of agritourism: The provider’s perspective. Tourism Management, 33(1), 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2011.02.005.
Thorner, D. (1966). Chayanov’s concept of Peasant Economy. In A.V. Chayanov, Theory of Peasant Economy (pp. XI-XXIII). Homewood: Irwin for American Economic
Association.
Tucker, H. (2010). Peasant-Entrepreneurs: A Longitudinal Ethnography. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(4), 927–946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2010.03.001.
Tucker, H. (2022). Gendering sustainability’s contradictions: Between change and continuity. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 30(7), 1500–1517. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09669582.2020.1839902.
White, B. (2018). Marx and Chayanov at the margins: understanding agrarian change in Java. Journal of Peasant Studies, 45(5&6, 1108–1126. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03066150.2017.1419191.

Jordi Gascón PhD in Social Anthropology, specialized in rural studies. His lines of research are the impacts of tourism on the peasant world, tourism as an instrument of
development cooperation, and sustainability of agricultural processes. Since 1990 he has done research in the Andean Area. He is a professor at the University of Bar-
celona, and member of the research group Antropologia de les crisis i les transformacions contemporànies - CRITS.

11