Elsewhere in Asia, during the 1970s and 1980s, analysts
and scholars were generally pessimistic about production
in rural areas being sufficient to sustain
livelihoods for the less well off. There were two main
reasons for this. First, because population growth in the
context of limited resources of land was raising the
spectre of a Malthusian squeeze on livelihoods. And
second, because economic differentiation, propelled by
modernisation, was further marginalizing the poor. 17
This work certainly demonstrates that in some areas
there are very real limits on the ability of the land and
agriculture to deliver adequate livelihoods for less
well-off households. As we have described, agricultural
innovations have increased productivity in some areas,
and among some households in some areas. But they are
far from being generally accessible. In these less fortunate
areas, and among less fortunate households in areas
with agricultural potential, it is increasingly the nonfarm
sector which is providing the critical buffer between
livelihood security and insecurity. Unlike many areas of
Thailand, 18 non-farm activities have not become the
dominant livelihood for most households, but it is clear
that they are important, especially for those with limited
land resources or who live in marginal environments. In
other words, access to opportunities in what we term the
‘new’ economy, however poorly paid, may permit
households to cope and get by in the ‘old’ economy. It
may also however, as we explain above, lead to a progressive
collapse in the old economy as people are drawn
off the land, creatin