The authors gratefully acknowledge the comments of Ronald C. Wimberley and anonymous reviewers.
Still Going: Recent Debates on the Goldschmidt Hypothesis1
Version of Record online: 3 FEB 2010
1993 Rural Sociological Society
Volume 58, Issue 2, pages 277–288, June 1993
How to Cite
Lobao, L. M., Schulman, M. D. and Swanson, L. E. (1993), Still Going: Recent Debates on the Goldschmidt Hypothesis. Rural Sociology, 58: 277–288. doi: 10.1111/j.1549-0831.1993.tb00495.x
- Issue online: 3 FEB 2010
- Version of Record online: 3 FEB 2010
Abstract The literature on the Goldschmidt (1978a) hypothesis has passed through distinct stages. This article is a commentary on the present status of the literature and particularly on a recent article by Barnes and Blevins (1992). Our arguments draw in large part from our previous work. Researchers in the 1970s and early 1980s were concerned mainly with replicating Goldschmidt's work. However, these studies had a number of methodological and conceptual limitations that limited closure on the debate. A new generation of research from the mid-1980s onward was premised upon addressing the limitations, including the need to incorporate indicators of nonfarm economic structure, to take spatial or geographic features into account, and to adequately conceptualize farm structure. Barnes and Blevins (1992) disregard these inroads, evident in that their article repeats earlier arguments, offers solutions to problems addressed a decade earlier, and is vulnerable to its own methodological problems. To move inquiry forward, new directions for studies concerned with the broader issues raised by Goldschmidt are suggested.