The Dispossession of the Peasantry (ص 63)

غرض

عنوان

The Dispossession of the Peasantry (ص 63)

المحتوى

47
On the other hand, he recognizes the limited effect of protective tariffs on
agricultural products because of the free trade agreements with Syria,”’ and
rejects the argument that protective tariffs on domestic manufacture and the
exemptions on raw materials were important contributing factors in the
development of Jewish industry nor that the “benefits were in any way
consequential. ””®
Finally, Metzer discusses the role of Zionist public funds in education,
health welfare services, and land acquisition. In spite of this important role, Metzer
acknowledges that “throughout the entire Mandate period, the share of the ©
nonprivate labor economy . . . probably did not exceed 20 percent of Jewish
NDP.””
In a postscript, Metzer sets out to distinguish between Jewish European
settlement in Palestine and African setthement colonies, which were also
characterized by “economic dualism.” However, there are “crucial differences”
between the two. He bases his argument on a study by Paul Mosley on Kenya and
Southern Rhodesia that “showed that the mark of a ‘settler economy’ is not
necessarily any specific economic structure, but rather a distinctive mechanism of
‘extra-market operations’ and interventions by the colonial administration.”'™
*Tbid., footnote 8.
*®This is in response to Smith.
Ibid., 198.
Ibid. , 200-1.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

هو جزء من

The Dispossession of the Peasantry

تاريخ

٢٠٠٦

المنشئ

Riyad Mousa

مجموعات العناصر

Generated Pages Set

Theses رسائل ماجستير ودكتوراه