THREE TYPES OF RURAL WELSH COMMUNITY

b

HOWARD WILLIAMS

Rnrol Edrrcatwn Researcb Unit, Uniuersio Col&ge of Nmtb Wales, Bangor.

INTRODUCTION

Discussion of the Sociology of Rural Life has suffered from over- concentration on the problem of rural-urban differences. I refer here, of course, to the lengthy, if not unrewarding, debates on the notion of an urban-rural continuum. In attempting in this way to differenti- ate, no matter in how refined a manner, the urban from the rural it has been difficult to get a grip on the types of rural community which do, in fact, exist. It is in an attempt to correct t h i s bias that I offer this paper on rural communities in Wales.

The account has grown out of an attempt to establish what social configurations are typical of the Welsh countryside. This was as a preliminary to studying in detail certain selected rural communitiez in North Wales. I reasoned that although there cannot be any hard and fast rules about what kinds of community are to be found in the area it was possible on the basis of existing literature to distinguish certain types of rural community from others. Margaret Lloyd and George Thomason (1963) have made an attempt to synthesize existing work on the sociology of rural Wales and to derive from it an accurate typology of Welsh rural communities. Their conclusions therefore offer a convenient starting-point from which to construct our own typology. This typology may then form a basis for further research.

I am well aware that there are certain obvious objections which can be raised to this procedure of erecting what might be called ‘ideal types’. The most significant of these objections is, I think, one that can also be raised to Weber’s original concept of ‘ideal types’. Webe- accorded a far greater significance to the concept than I wish to here. believing that ‘theoretical analysis in the field of sociology is possible

280 Howard Wibiams

only in terms of such pure types’ (1964, p. I 10). Weber assumed that social reality was so inlinitely complex it was impossible for a general theory to allow for ans explain all particulars (Freund, 1968, p. 60). Therefore, in Weber’s view, the ideal type cannot be taken to represent accurately any particular aspect of social reality. The clear objection to this is, of course: why go to the lengths of constructing an ideal type if the social scientist knows it will not make complete sense of reality?’ And, to be sure, there appears little to be gained from constructing logically watertight definitions which can have but a slight bearing on social reality

Although this conclusion may constitute an objection to Weber’s theory of pure types it is, I think, far less damaging to the view I wish to present here. The construction of ideal types, in our view, forms an essential preliminary to the sociologist’s task, but far from exhausts it. Any sociologist must decide what precisely are the problems which interest him. He has, in other words, to decide what in fact he is going to study. If, for instance, he is an industrial sociologist he must get clear in hs mind the nature of the objects it is possible for him to study in the industrial world. Here ideal types, which are acknowledged to be mere approximations to reality, can be of considerable importance They will help iiarrow down, and make sense of, the field of study and also ensure that a relevant choice is made in deciding which community or place to study. Hete ‘ideal types’ are not put to as grand a use as that envisaged by Weber but they are, on the other hand, put to an undoubtedly legitimate use. They form an important initial step in understanding social reality: and it is in this sense that these ideal types of rural community in Wales are intended.

A C O U N T R Y S I D E O F SCATTERED SETTLEMENTS

In Lloyd and Thomason’s view there are two principal types of rural Welsh community, namely, what they call ‘a countryside of scattered settlements’ and, ‘the rural village’ (1972, pp. 6-11). As I have said, they base this judgement on work that has been done already on the sociology of rural Wales. The first major type corresponds to Alwyn D. Rees’ (19jo) description of life in Llanfihangel yng Ngwynfa at the end of the last war. Cohesion is maintained in this kind of community, they argue, by kinship ties. The group is, on the one hand, geogra- phically dispersed, very few people living in the hamlet of Llanfihangel itself, but socially shows a great deal of cohesion because of the family ties. So, for instance, Evans in the neighbouring farm may be three

Three Q p e s of Rural Welsh Community 2 8 I

miles away, but his only daughter is married to the third son of the farm, who lives with his wife and young family some I o miles away on the fringe of the parish. Close social connections are, therefore, maintained over a wide geographical area, and in a real way, then, Evans and his neighbour are part of the same community. In a community of this kind farming is, of course, the predominant

occupation. In Llanfihangel yng Ngwynfa, for instance, ‘nine-tenths of the inhabitants’ according to Reed lived in ‘scattered farms and cottages’ (1950, p. I I). The farms, however, are not large. Indeed, in Llanfihangel few of the holdings were sufficiently large to justify the employment of a farm labourer. They were, almost without exception, family farms. For tasks which required greater numbers than the family itself could muster the farmer could look to his neighbours for help. According to Rees, there is a long tradition in such matters, indeed, ‘before the advent of modern farm machinery cooperation’ was ‘much more widespread than it is now, and tales are s t i l l told of the days when bands of neighbours would go out together to mow one an- other’s fields with scythes.’ Nowadays, however, ‘the main cooper- ative tasks are threshing, sheep-dipping, shearing, and, to a smaller extent, the hay and corn harvest’ (1950, p. 93).

There are, I believe, perfectly good material reasons for this cooperation. Cooperation does not result, as Rees implies, from people in the Welsh countryside being innately neighbourly. Indeed the whole notion of men possessing innate qualities is far too shaky for Rees to employ it in this unreflecting way. The small farmers of Wales must be neighbourly to get through their annual round of work. As Rees himself says, there are accepted cooperative tasks. And this is, of course, tied to the smallness of the farms. For the owners of larger farms who are more economically self-sufficient depend to a much lesser degree on the cooperation of their neighbours. In Littlejohn’s study of Westrigg, an upland parish in a mainly rural county in the south of Scotland, for instance, there is little mention of cooperation amongst the parish’s fourteen large farms. Indeed, when he does draw attention to what cooperation there is, it serves to substantiate my point. ‘Each farm’, he says, ‘is a productive unit on its own, a business from which the farmer tries to make a profit. There is little cooperation in work among them. The occasions which give rise to most are sheep clipping and threshing. Small farms seek help oftener than large OWS’ (1963, p. 28) . As Littlejohn adds, then, ‘it may be that size of farm explains’ the difference in the amount of cooperation taking place amongst farmers’ (Ibid.). But Littlejohn is not convinced

282 Howard Williams

that it is the sole factor. He believes that the number and nature of kinship ties are also of some significance in explaining the amount of cooperation taking place. So he attributes some of the absence of widespread cooperation in Westrigg to the complete lack of kinship ties amongst the farmers of the area.

If, on the one hand, kinship ties are non-existent in Westrigg the opposite may be said of I.lanfihange1. Patterns of cooperation and family connection go hand in hand. We can see immediately why this is so. You are most likely to turn out to help one of your neighbours if he is your first cousin. Indeed, it would not be proper to do other- wise. To refuse would not only be ungenerous but would also tend to undermine family solidarity. Nor surprisingly, therefore,. cooperation in Llanfihangel includes such things as ‘borrowing and lending ... machinery, giving a hand in the performance of some special job, or “lending” a son or a workman for such a purpose’ (1950, p. 93).

Llanfihangel yng Ngwynfa is almost the ‘ideal type’ of the ‘scattered settlement’ rural Welsh community. Here approximation to reality becomes almost a faithful reflection of reality. The situation becomes more complex, however, where there is in the settlement a village which acts as a centre for a significant proportion of the population. One such settlement is that found in the coastal parishes of Penbryn and Llangrannog which J. G. Jenkins studied. Penbryn and Llangran- nog are situated some miles north west of Cardigan in the new county of Dyfed. Now Jenkins in his study (Davies 8c Rees, 1960) brings out the differences between social life in the villages and that of the scattered hinterland community. These differences arise in the parishes of Penbryn and Llangrannog primarily because the village of Llan- grannog itself is a holiday resort. This means that during the summer months the population is swollen to about double its size by the arrival of English visitors. In addition Llangrannog village tends to be cut off from the surrounding area because of the traditional con- nections with the sea of many of its families. Most of the villagers have some relation who is, or has been, employed on board a ship.

The combination of these two factors, in Jenkins’ view, leads to a marked difference in the ways of life of the village and hinterland communities. Of Penmorfa (part of the area of scattered settlement Jenkins studied), Lloyd and Thomason conclude, ‘there is opposition to any form of centralisation’. And t h i s is despite the fact that ‘the villages of Llangrannog and Tresaith could well provide social and institutional foci for the whole area’ (1963, p. 9). What explains this opposition to centralisation is, to a large extent, the change wrought

Three opes of Rwal Welsh Community 283 in the character of the coastal village community by the large influx of English visitors in the summer months. Not only does the English language itself become more important to the rural seaside community but also, because the visitors are possible sources of a livelihood, a new commercialism takes a hold. Holidaymaking is, after all, an industry. The populations of the coastal villages of rural Wales do to a large extent make their living through supplying holiday- makers with goods and services such as: caniping equipment, fishing tackle, boarding rooms, meals, food in all other shapes and forms and, of course, the indispensable ‘Bed and Break- fast’.

Before the coming of the holidaymaker the coastal village survived through, first of all, many of the community being seafarers of one kind or another and, secondly, by supplying the agricultural hinterland with the stores, food and equipment essential to survival. With the development of the holiday industry the extent of the dependence of the village storekeepers on the population of the hinterland has decreased. The independent source of income has in many ways led to an independent form of life. Certainly, as we shall see from David Jenkins’ study of Aberporth, social contact between the inhabitants of the hinterland and the village inhabitants is far less than the social contact within those groups themselves.

This village-hinterland division pertains in North Wales as well. This dichotomy within the scattered rural settlement means, of course, that for all practical purposes it is a less viable social unit than a similar such settlement which, like the Llanfihangel Rees studied, is homogenous. This dichotomy is quite clearly attributable to the advent of tourism as a major industry and, to a lesser extent, to the traditional dependence of the coastal village on the sea. Consequently, this division is not so noticeable in inland areas. Webster, for instance, who studied the parish of Llanfihangelesceifiog in Anglesey, which, according to Lloyd and Thomason, is also characterised ‘by having the two quite distinct settlement patterns of the scattered farmsteads and of the closely settled villages’ (1963, p. 9), found much more sign of homogeneity within the two communities than did Jenkins in Llangrannog. Because Llanfihangelesceifiog is an inland parish which has derived next to no bendit from the holiday and tourist trade, the division between hamlet and countryside has not been greatly fostered. This is the conclusion suggested by Lloyd and Thomason when they ray: ‘Unlike the sharp economic contrast found between the farming and village communities in Llangrannog and Penbryn, there seemed

2 84 Howard Williams

to be no clear line of demarcation between farmers and villagers in Llanfihangelesceifiog’ (1963, p. 9).

T H E R U R A L V I L L A G E

We come now to Lloyd and Thomason’s other main category of community : The Rural Village. In a rural village, they say, ‘families live closer to one another. Proximity of dwelling supercedes physical if not social isolation in the countryside’ (1963, p. 10). There is, I believe, much wisdom in this choice of category. I doubt, however, that Lloyd and Thomason have really put their fingers on the real distinguishing features of the Welsh rural village. Surely, it is not simply the physical proximity which makes a place like Nantlle, a North Wales village founded on slate quarrying, different from Rees’ Llanfihangel yng Ngwynfa. First of all, there is simply the matter of numbers. The hamlets in the scattered communities have no way near the population of the rural village. And there is, secondly - and most importantly - the different economic structure of the rural village. In the rural village the proportion of the occupied population working on the land is, quite simply, a great deal smaller than in the scattered com- munity. It is not possible to be precise about what proportion this should be to make the community into a rural village. And, of course, any attempt to fix a number would do great injustice to the fluidity and variability of the actual state of affairs.*

According to Thomason and Lloyd, Aberporth in the former county of Cardiganshire (and as it forms the subject of David Jenkins’ study) constitutes one such rural village. The total population of the area is not large. At the time Jenkins studied the area the population was 5 2 5 , which is only 25 greater than the civil parish of Llanfihangel Rees stuhed. The comparison with Llanfihangel yng Ngwynfa becomes more significant, however, when we look at the proportion of the population of the Aberporth area that lives in the village itself. Out of the total population half(286) lived in the village and a further 72 lived in the nearby hamlet of Parc-llyn (Davies & Rees, 1960, p. I I) .

On the other hand, in Lladihangel only one-tenth of the population lived in the hamlets of Llanfihangel, Dolanog and Pontllogel (Rees, 1950). Clearly, then, in the village community the population is far more concentrated.

The most important feature of Aberporth from our point of view is that it is a seaside village. Jenkins, therefore, is able to say this of it : ‘Until little more than a generation ago each family in the village had

Three Typs of Rural Welsh Community 281

at least one member who was a sailor, often three or four’ (Davies & Rees, 1960, p. 3). This traditioiial connection with the sea is, of course, still an important factor in the make-up of the place. It serves to separate, as we have seen ,the coastal village population from the inhabitants of the inland area. This separation has been further sustained and indeed hardened by the advent of the holidaymakers.

The division between village and hinterland is, if anything, more marked in these larger, more compact seaside communities. This be- comes clear in Jenkins’ discussion of Aberporth. For, on the one hand, Jenkins’ description of social relations in the countryside around Aberporth reads very much like Alwyn Reed description of life in Llanfihangel yng Ngwynfa: ‘As a result of the hereditary nature of the occupation of the famer’, Jenkins says, ‘and of the movement of children to farms other than those of their parents, kinship ties among farming families in the area are highly ramified. These bind the farming community together and bind the farmers of the Aberporth area to those of neighbouring areas’. On the other hand, however, relations between the farming community and the nearby village are far less close. As Jenkins adds, ‘even today, in spite of the occasional retirement of farmers to it, kin connections with Aberporth village are far less common.’ Indeed, ‘not only does kinship link the farming f a d e s but the common economic base of their life, the land and their work on it, provides a unity in their lives which is now lacking in those of the people of the village’ (Davies & Rees, 1960, p. 34). The radical differences in the seasonal rounds of work, the kinds and amounts of work required, of the seaside village and the inland agricultural community means that the one community becomes gradually more and more cut-off from the other.

Another example of a rural village is Glynceiriog in North East Wales which formed the subject of Frankenberg’s study Village on the Border. The economy of this village is clearly different from that of the open countryside. The village, as the author points out, grew up around a slate quarry and textile mill. By now these industries have long since died but the villagers themselves have remained. At the time Frankenberg was writing (1954) the village’s population was around 600. Appropriately, in his study he called the village Pentre- d i ~ a i t h . ~ For, as he says, ‘the economy that was built on local material is now a thing of the past. The economic basis of Pentrediwaith village community has disappeared. The villagers still reside together in their compact nuclear settlement, but many no longer work in the valley alongside their fellow-villagers. The roads, built to take Pentredi-

286 Howard Williams

waith’s products ta the wider market, now serve to carry the men of the village to their daily work outside the valley . . . .’ (19j 7, p. 10).

Kinship is the most important factor explaining the continued survival of the village despite the loss of its economic base. Indeed so close are the kinship ties within the village it is possible to say that ‘ordinary Glyn people live in almost the same environment of kinship as the “pig’s entrails” described by Reed in his study of Llanfihangel and Williams in his study of Gosforth village in Cumberland. In Glynceiriog village there is a large housing estate whose kinship ties take on this form and indeed, in the author’s words, ‘draws into social relationships the surrounding farms and even to some extent . . . cuts across social class’ (1966, p. 93). So strong is the pull of kinship it explains, it appears, why so few of the inhabitants left the valley at the height of the depression when jobs were not even to be had in the nearby towns. It was not exceptional to find an industrial worker who had a job and house to go to outside the village but stayed, because his wife wished to remain with their kind.

There is one last point that Frankenberg’s description of kinship relations in Glynceiriog raises for us. He notes that, as we have seen, the kinship relations of the village ‘draws into social relationships the surrounding farms.’ This is something we could not say of the Aber- porth Jenkins describes. It seems then, again, that the division be- tween the village community and surrounding agricultural community is far less marked in areas which do not border on the sea. To what do we attribute this?

The answer is, I think, fairly clear. The distinction is far less marked in the inland areas because the inhabitants are far less dependent on visiting holidaymakers for their livelihood. The vast majority of holidaymakers are English or, if not that, are from the predominantly English-speaking parts of Wales. The holiday industry, then, inevit- ably brings with it Anglicization, and this in itself proves sufficient barrier to separate the seaside population from the population of the agricultural hinterland. With little or no holidaymaking in the inland areas such division is less likely to take place.

T H E MARKET T O W N

The scattered settlement and the rural village are, then, according to Lloyd and Thomason, the principal forms of community to be found in rural Wales. As I have suggested, there is much to be said for this view. It has, also, the merit of bringing out other important dis-

T h e e i’ jpes of Rural Welsh Commmity 287

unctions in the social organisation of the Welsh countryside. But there is perhaps one form of rural community that Lloyd and Thoma- son neglect. These, I would argue, are the market towns of the Welsh countryside. Most typical of these market towns is Tregaron in the old county of Cardiganshire. Admittedly there seems, at first sight, to be a contradiction in what I say. A town, of whatever kind, is surely urban and therefore represents the antithesis of a rural com- munity. This need not be so, however. For the physical and sociologi- cal setting of many of the Welsh market towns is such that we can, with reason, describe them as rural.

We can see from Emrys Jones’ study of Tregaron how the town is peculiarly rural. First of all, we must note, the population is not large: ‘Some six hundred people,’ Jones says. On the other hand, however, the community provides some, if not all, of the services which are usually to be found in a town: Banks, a concert hall, police court, county council offices, etc. And as Jones says, ‘as far as house types are concerned ... Tregaron has features which are typical of the development of the Welsh towns: the old centre, simple but pleasant, the Victorian accretions, pretentious even on the smallest scale and never far from being ugly, and the detached individualized modem villas, which might be part of the suburbia of any city in Britain (Davies & Rees, 1960, p. 70). Now, what made Tregaron into an important market town was cattle-droving. Tregaron, as Jones says, ‘was ideally situated for this trade, being the last lowland station before the upland trek to Abergwesyn and eventually to the English low- lands’ (Davies & Rees, 1960, p. 73). And what confirmed the status of Tregaron as a community with an independent economy was the development of a small textile industry in the town. By now, however, these have ceased to be of significance for the economy of the town. Cattle-droving went out, of course, with the advent of motor and rail transport, and the local textile industry was destroyed by the com- petition from firms producing on a mass scale. So, what economic activity now persists, exists to serve the surrounding areas.

Tregaron is, principally, a service centre for the agricultural com- munity of the central northern area of Cardiganshire. This is, in my view, what makes Tregaron into an essentially rural community. What- ever services it provides and whatever goods are produced in the town are, in the main, intended for the surrounding agricultural population. This is well put by Jones when he says: ‘ardal Tregaron . . . is an economic area, the region upon which the people of Tregaron for the most part depend for their livelihood. It explains the bustle of

288 Howard Wiiliams

the market-day as well as the number and variety of shops found in so s m a l l a town’ (Davies & Rees, 1960, p. 86) . The half-dozen or so general stores, the three ironmongers, clothes shop, and several shoe shops all reflect, in his view, a wide hinterland.

Thus although only 7.4 per cent of the population of Tregaron are directly employed in agriculture (whereas shop-keepers and managers account for 21 per cent, and other professional z j per cent) because all these services exist to serve the needs of those who work on the land, Tregaron, and other market towns like it: may still be called a rural community. It is important to recognise, therefore, that the notion rural, in Wales at least, does not apply simply to those areas which are visibly so, but also to areas which seem, at first sight, urban. We have also attempted to show that the notion does not apply in a hap-hazard way. There are at least three distinctive types of community to be found in the Welsh countryside. And this list is not intended to be an exhaustive one. It is more than possible that other sociologists will suggest further types of community, or be able to discover an useful subdivision within the three ideal types. None of this would detract from the usefulness of assembling, before going on to do fieldwork, a picture of the communities with which we are dealing.

NOTES

This is an objection which Runciman (1972, p. 36) has raised. He suggests that Weber’s emphasis on the purely logical nature of the ‘ideal type’ conflicts with his other strongly held opinion that social scientists should aim at a causal explanation of events. * This brings up the quation of the relation of the ideal type to reality. We have not claimed that the ideal type here is an entirely accurate reflection of any given community. The community of Aberporth parish, for instance, consists of neither simply a countryside of scattered settlements nor is it simply a rural village. Both types of community are to be found in the same parish. And this we have found is the general experience; few com- munities can be said unequivocally to be of one kind or the other. One community, for example, may both be agriculturally and industrially based. Here we might have a nucle- ated village with a wide agricultural hinterland which is also supported by a local quarrying industry. Such a community approximates just as much to one ideal type as to the other. This docs not make the construction of the ideal types worthless because the ideal types point to the joint base of the community, a joint base which may in some communities lead to conflict. a Pcnlrrdilvaitb is the Welsh for ‘village without work’. ‘ Sa, for instance, what Margaret Hughes and A. J. James (Pbysicul, Economic a d Sorid Grogrupby of Wulcr) have to say of Haverfordwat and Carmarthen: two similar towns in South-Wat Wales. Haverfordu-est, they say, ‘has grown up around a Norman Castle which was built in I I 13 . . . It survived as a port for its agricultural hinterland and it exported agricultural produce: butter, cheese and wool. With the advent of the railway this trade declined. The town, however, is still an important marketing centre for south-

Three Types of Rwal Welsh Community 289 west Pernbrokeshirc’ (p. 105). Carmarthm, equally, ‘remains an important market centre for the riverinc lowlands of south-west Wales. The industries which have developed here are allied to the agricultural hinterland and include milk processing and the repair of agricultural machinery’ (pp. 105-6).

REFERENCES

DAVIES, E. & REES, A. (1960), Welsh Rural Communities, (Cardiff: University of Wales

FRANILENBERG, R. (1966), Communities in Britain, (London: Penguin Books). FRANKENBERG, R. (1917). Village on the Border, (London: Cohen 6 West). FREUND, J. (1968), Sociology of Max Weber, (Translated from the French by Mary Ilford.

HUGHES, M. & JAMES, A. J. (1961), Physical, Economic and Social Geography of Wales,

LITZLEJOHN, J. (1963), Westrigg: The Sociology of a Cheviot Parish, (London: Routledge

LMYD, M. G. & THOMASON, G. F. (1963). Welsh Society in Transition, (The Council of

REFS, A. D. (1950). Life in a Welsh Countryside, (Cardiff University of Wales Press). RUNCIMAN, W. G. ( I ~ z ) , A Critique of Max Wcbci’s Philosophy of Social Science,

WEBER, M. (1964), The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation, (New York Free

Press).

London: Penguin Press).

(University of London Press).

& Kegan Paul).

Social Service for Wales and Monrnouthshirc).

(Oxford University Press).

Press).

S U M M A R Y

In this paper it is argued that there are three types of rural Welsh community, firstly, what has been called ‘a countryside of scattered settlements’, secondly, the rural village and, thirdly, the market town. In suggesting these three ideal types we have beer, concerned to demonstrate the usefulness of ideal type theory when employed in a critical fashion and, at the same time, to demonstrate that the problem of distinguishing the various types of rural community which exist is a more fruitful problem for a sociologist to explore than the problem of distinguishing the rural from the urban.

R kS U hl k

Dans cet article on argumente que le Pays-de-Galles comprend trois types de communautks rurales; en premier lieu ce qui a ttt d6crit comme ‘une contrte d’agglomtrations disperstes’, en second lieu le village rural, en troisieme lieu le bourg. En proposant ces trois types idtals, nous avyons essay6 de montrer I’utilit6 de la thkorie des types idials lorsque elle est appliquee d’une facon critique, et, en m&me

290 Howard Williams

temps, de prouver que le probltme d’une distinction entre les divers types de communaute rurale est, pour les sociologues, un probkme plus prometteur explorer que celui d’une distinction entre le type rural et le type urbain.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

In diesem Artikel wird behauptet, daB cs drei Typen landlicher Ge- meinden in Wales gibt: Erstens was man unter ‘Streusiedlungen auf dem Land’ versteht, zweitens die landlichen Dorfer, drittens die Markt- stadte. Bei der Vorstellung dieser drei Idealtypen wollen wir die An- wendbarkeit der Theorie von den idealen Typen demonstrieren, in- dem sie in einer kritischen Weise angewandt wird und gleichzeitig darstellen, daR das Problem, verschiedene bestehende landliche Ge- meinden zu unterscheiden, ein fur einen Soziologen fruchtbares Pro- blem darstellt, als das Problem liindliche und stadtische Gemeinden zu unterscheiden.

JOURNAL OF RURAL COOPERATION Vol. IV Partial Cuntents (Semi-Annual) Nr. 2, 1976

M. DICBY Cooperation in Forestry

B. W. BENECKE Recent Development in Latin-America Cooperative Movement - an Overview

D. IZRAELI, J. ZIP, D. N. IZRAELI Marketing Boards & Societal Marketing

Research Report: J. F. BANCO Some Social - Historical Aspects in the Development of Hungarian Cooper- ative Farming

Annual Subscription: f 15.-

C.I.R.C.0.M. INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CKNTRE ON RURAL COOPERATIVE

COMMUNITIES

24, Ha’arbaa St., P.O.B. 7020, Tel-Aviv, Israel

Order through: JERUSALEM ACADEMIC PRESS. P.O.B. 2390, Jerusalem, Israel