AECY FOR INTKRNATIONAL DEVKLOPMENT FOR AID USE ONLY WASHINGTON, 0. C. 20523

BIBLIOGRAPHIC INPUT SHEET - " A. PNIMAIRY

I. SIhJECT Food production and nutrition AE50-0000-G354 CLASSI. FICATION. af~lsoiol ogy-- Costa Rica.

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Kinship links among small-scale fishermen in the Gulf of Nicoya;Costa Rica

2. AUTHORIS)

Pollnac ,R.B. 4. DOCUMENT DATE IS. NUMBER OF PAGES 6. ARC NUMBER

1977I 15p* PGC

7. REFERENCE ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

R,I*

8. SUPPLEMENT ARY NOTES (Sponsorlng Organltlaton. Publishafri A valabilit y)

(In Anthropology working paper no.17)

9. ABSTRACT

10. CONTROL NUMBER 11. PRICE OF DOCUMENT

PN-AAG-203

12. DESCRIPTORS Attitudes Psychological aspects

13i PROJECT NUMBER 931011300

Costa Ricadeveloment Small scale industries 14. CONTRACT NUMBER

Economic dCSD-2455 211(d) Family relations Technological change is. TYPE OF DOCUMENT

Fishermen AID 590-1 14-74)

C2S - 24* 5" 2/, )

Anthropology Working Paper No. 17

Kinship Links Among Small-Scale Fishermen in

The Gulf of Nicoya, Costa Rica

by

Richard B. Pollnac

Departmeht of Sociology and Anthropology

International Center for Marine Resource Development

University of Rhode Island

May 1977

Kinship Links among Small-Scale Fishermen in

the Gulf of Nicoya, Costa Rica

by

Richard B. Pollnac

INTRODUCTION When changes are proposed at the productive level

of any sector of the economy it is important to understand

existing sociali'relations between individual workers at the

level involved. Workgroups with which individuals are

personally identified provide a degree of psychological security

and satisfaction, and innovations perceived as threatening the

structure of these groups often meet resistance (Foster 1973).

Among small-scale fishermen, changes in the nature or size

of technology can result in drastic changes in work group com­

position (cf. Fraser 1966; Pollnac 1976). Additionally,

changes restricting access to resources can result in denial

of access to some group members who would-normally enter the

occupation (Gersuny and Poggie 1973). These individuals would be

dispossessed of what they normally considered a right, and re­

sistance to the new regulations would probably develop. An

understanding of these potential problems will facilitate

development of policy and plans which will minimize social

dislocations and increase the probability that proposed changes

will succeed.

Kinship plays an important and varied role in the structure

of the occupation of fishing in many parts of the world. The

importance of kinship in fishe'rmen's workgroups has been

-2­

extensively cited in the literature from regions as widely

separated as Ghana (Quinn 1971), Peru (Sabella 1974),

Micronesia (Knudson 1970), the Faroe Islands (Blehr 1963),

Ulithi (Lessa 1966), and the West Indies (Aronoff 1967). The

need for harmony on a vessel is essential for success at

sea, and kinship ties may enhance cooperativeness within the

workgroup. Other factors may also increase the tendency

toward kin based crews. For example, Gladwin (1970) notes

that among the Mfante of Ghana, boat crews with family cores

are more stable than non-kin linked crews. On Moala kinship

ties are related to the sharing and loaning of capital equip­

ment such as boats (Sahlins 1962), while on Tikopia canoes

are nominally owned by heads of kin groups, but actually by

the kin group as a whole (Firth 1965). Sabella (1974) suggests

that the use of kin in the crew among small-scale fishermen from

Peru is often related to keeping boat production within the

family.

Among some fishing people, however, we find that kinship

plays little or no role in crew composition. Glacken (1955)

notes that family members fish from different vessels on

Okinawa. This is done to minimize loss to individual families

if a fatal accident occurs. Further, neither Taiwanese

(Diamond 1969) nor Malay (Firth 1966) fishing crews are

primarily based on kin ties. Norr (1972) reports a similar

situation in South India and suggests that the skilled nature

-3­

of the 0ccupation of fishing results in worker recruitment

on the basis of skill and interpersonal ability rather than

social ties.

It also appears that recruitment to the occupation of

fishing takes place along kinship lines in many societies.

For example, in societies cited above wherein crew composi­

tion is based on kinship links, kinship doubtless plays a

role in recruitment. Data from the Atlantic Coast of North

America also indicates a great deal of kinship ties between

fishermen (Liguori 1968; Proskie and Adams 1969; Gersuny and

Poggie 1973).

In this paper kinship links between fishermen in the

Gulf of Nicoya, Costa Rica will be examined. Specifically,

the paper provides a description of the role of kinship in

crew structure and recruitment to the industry. The

paper also examines variance in the role of kinship among different

age and residential groups.

- 4 -

METHODS

SAMPLE Data for this report are based on interviews with

125 small-scale fishermen from the Gulf of Nicoya, Costa Rica.

Part of the sample was drawn from Barrio el Carmen, Puntarenas.

Puntarenas, the major Pacific port of Costa Rica, is located

on a thin finger of land jutting westward into the Gulf of

Nicoya approximately 110 kilometers west of San Jose. Barrio

el Carmen is at the extreme western end of Puntarenas and is

inhabited primarily by small-scale fishermen. A sample of

50 small-scale fishermen were interviewed at Costa de Pajaros,

a concentration of fishermen in a rural region approximately

21 air-kilometers northwest of Puntarenas on the coast of the

Gulf of Nicoya. In both areas most small-scale fishermen

fish from motorized wooden plank or dugout vessels from

15 to 30 feet in length using handlines and/or nets. Some

still use sail or oars. Fishing crews usually consist of

three men. Sometimes unskilled individuals are taken along

as helpers. Fishermen report that crews are selected primarily

on the basis of fishing skill. Reported characteristics of

undesirable crew members (i.e. bad character, liar, thief,

etc.) suggest that social skills are also important. Fishermen

report that catches are usually divided fifty-fifty, with one­

half going to the vessel and one-half being divided among the

crew members. If an unskilled helper is present, he gets a

much reduced share which is determined by the crew. In some

cases trip costs are removed before division of catch, and in

others, costs are deducted from the vessel share. Although

-5­

this reportedsystem isthe most frequent , a random'sampling

..of landings over a five month'period,has thus far identified

some 25 systems (Sutinen, personal communication). It is

important to note for purposes of this paper that variance in

Some­catch distribution often occurs when kin fish together.

times the entire catch is pooled, and proceeds go to the

domestic group as a whole.

Data for this report were obtained from questions in-TESTS

cluded in a larger sociocultural questionnaire. Interviews

were conducted in Spanish.

ANALYSIS Turning first to the relationship between kinship

and crew membership we find that for the total sample, a

slight majority (52%) of the fishermen do not fish with kin.

34 percent of the fishermen fish with at least one,relative,

10 percent with two, while only 4 percent fish with three

or more kinsmen.

As can be seen in Table 1, however, the rural and urban

•areas differ significantly with regard to the role that

-kinshipplays in crew membership.

Table 1. Number of Relatives in Crew

Number Urban Rural

4 1 3

3 0 1

2 7

1 20 22

0. 48 17

TOTA .75 50

-6­

66 percent of the rural as contrasted with 36 percent of the

urban fishermen fish with relatives. This difference is

statistically significant (X' = 10.817, p<.01).

Table 2 indicates kin types that fish with respondents

in both the rural and urban area. Tabular entries refer

to number of respondents reporting designated relative as

a crew member.

Table 2. Relationships Between Respondents and Crewmembers.

FREQUENCY

Relationship Urban Rural

Father 6 5

Brother 6 19

Son 5 4

Father's Brother 2 3

Mother's Brother 0 1

Nephew 2 1

Spouse 2 0

Cousin 2 5

Wife's Brother 2 2

Non-relative 48 17

The rural column in Table 2 sums to more than 50 because

some rural fishermen fish with more than one kin type. Over­

all, the greatest difference between the rural and urban

area with respect to crew membership is the higher proportion

of brothers who fish together in the rural area. In the rural

-7­

area',we find that 38 percent of the fishermen fish with a

sibling in contrast to only_8 percent in the urban area

( 16.875, p <.001). Age is not related to inclusion

of relatives in crew. The mean age of the sample is 30.7 years.

48 percent of those less than 30, and 48 percent of those

30 years of age and older fish with relatives.

STurning to familial involvement in fishing, Table 3

reflects number of relatives of each respondent in the rural and

urban areas who are involved in fishing. Tabular entries refer

to the number of respondents who report having the indicated

number of relatives involved in fishing.

Table 3. Number of Relatives Involved in Fishing.

FREQUENCY

Number of Urban Rural Relatives Fishing

20 0 1

16 0 1

13 0 4

12 0 3

11 1 5

10 0 3

9 0 3

8 0 4

7 0 2

.6 3 3

5 6 3

4 7 2

3 9 8

2 " 13, 4

1 19 1

q .0 17 3

TOTAL 75 50

-8-

For the total sample the mean number of relatives in­

volved in fishing is 4.12. If we dichotomize the entries in

Table 3 at the sample mean we find that only 13 percent of the

urban fishermen have 5 or more relatives who fish in contrast

to 64 percent of the rural fishermen, a statistically sig­

nificant difference (X2 = 34.519, p <.001).

Table 4 provides a breakdown of the various kin types in­

volved in fishing. Tabular entries refer to the number

of respondents who report having one or more of the indicated

kin type involved in fishing.

Table 4. Kin Types Involved in Fishing FREQUENCY

Relationship Urban Rural

Father 32 34

Brother 38 38

Son 8 4 Father's Brother 6 22

Mother's Brother 4 8 Nephew 2 1

Spouse 2 0

Cousin 10 7

Confining our remarks to kin types reported by at least .

20 percent of the sample, we find that the rural sample reports

a significantly greater proportion of fathers, father's brothers,

2and brothers involved in fishing (X = 7.726, p<.0l; X2 = 22.367,

-9­

p .00;.; X2= 8..8,.0l respectively).

The preponderance of kinship links between fishermen in the

rural area is also'indicated by the distribution of family

names. If we limit our examination to family names shared by

at least five fishermen, we find that in the rural area out

of a sample of fifty, one family name is shared by 19 fish­

ermen, another by 8, and four others by 5 fishermen each.

In the urban area out of a sample of 75, three family names are

shared by more than five fishermen each, and in each case

only six fishermen share the name.

Turning to occupational succession, we have already seen

that a larger proportion -f rural fishermen have fathers who

were fishermen. This suggests that in the rural area expecta­

tions are high that a fisherman's son will become a fisherman.

This suggestion is supported by the fact that in the rural

area more fishermen report that they would like it if their

son became a fisherman than in the urban area (64% versus

33%, = 11.373, p<.001). Further, individuals who fish

with relatives are more likely to want their sons to become

fishermen than those who do not (61% versus 37% respectively,

X2 = 7.541, p<.01). Finally, as can be seen in Table 5,

rural fishermen are more likely than urban to be introduced

into fishing by relatives.

- 10 -

Table 5. Distribution of Individuals who

Taught Respondent to Fish Classified by Kin Type

FREQUENCY

Relationship Urban Rural

Grand Father 0 1

Mother's Brother 1 1

Brother 3 6

Father and Cousin 1 0

Father 18 28

Non-relative 52 14

TOTAL 75 50

72 Percent of the rural fishermen were taught to fish by

relatives as opposed to only 31 percent of the urban. This

2difference is statistically significant (X = 20.565, p <.001).

DISCUSSION Overall, kinship appears to play an important

role in crew structure and occupational succession among

small-scale fishermen in the Gulf of Nicoya. The large number

of fishermen who have relatives who fish clearly indicates

the salience of kinship links in this occupation. It is

important to note that these links are primarily agnatic

(i.e. through the male line) as would be expected in an occupa­

tion which is composed principally of males (all except one

of the fishermen interviewed were males). For the most part,

these kinship links are more salient in the rural area than

in the urban area.

These interrelationships between kinship and small-scale

,fishing'n the Gulf of Nicoya have several implications for

research and development in this sector of the economy:

(1) Changes in technology which would affect workgroup structure

(ile. by creating highly specialized jobs or radically increas­

ing or decreasing crew size) should be examined to determine the

effect they would have on the role of kinship in crew structure.

Attitudes toward these potential effects should be investigated,

and if necessary, proposed changes should be adjusted to desired

workgroup structure. (2)Changes such as limiting entry to the

occupation need to be more carefully conducted in areas where

occupational succession follows kinship lines. Alternative occupa­

tional opportunities need to be provided to take the place

of the occupation that individuals had normally considered their

birthright. To be most successful, these alternative occupa­

tional opportunities should provide the same degree of satisfac­

tion as small-scale fishing. As a means of achieving this

goal, we need to understand the fishermen's perceptions of

his occupation in comparison with other occupations. (3) Finally,

economic studies involving fishermen's income should be aware

of the degree of kinship involvement in crew structure.

Individual income may appear to be low in some cases, but if

kinship involvement is high and if the proceeds of the catch are

pooled for household use, household income may be higher than

individual income would suggest.

- 12 -

In sum, we have examined the extent of kinship involvement

in small-scale fishing in the Gulf of Nicoya, Costa Rica, and

have found that it is relatively more extensive in the rural than

in the urban area. Implications of kinship links in crew

structure and occupational succession were discussed and

considered of sufficient importance to warrent their considera­

tion in any program of planned change which would affect

the structure or recruitment of workgroups among these small­

scale fishermen.

REFERENCES CITED

Aronoff, Joel 1967 Psychological Needs and Cultural Systems. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc.

Blehr, 0. 1963 Action Groups in a Society with Bilateral Kinship: a case study from the Faroe Islands. Ethrology 2:269-275.

Diamond, Norma 1969 K'un Shen: a Taiwan Village. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Firth, Raymond 1966 Malay Fishermen (2nd ed.). Hamden, Connecticut: Archon Books.

Firth, Raymond 1965 Primitive Polynesian Economy, London: Routledge and K. Paul.

Foster, George M. 1973 Traditional Societies and Technological Change (2nd Edition). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Gersuny, C. and J. Poggie 1973 The Uncertain Future of Fishing Families.. The Family Coordinator (April): 241-244.

Glacken, Clarence J. 1955 The Great Loochoo. Berkeley: University of California Press.

- 13 -

Gladwin, Hugh 1970 Decision Making in the Cape Coast (Fante) Fishing and Fish Marketing System. PhD. Dissertation, Stanford University.

Knudson, Kenneth E. 1970 Resource Fluctuation, Productivity, and Social Organization on Micronesian Coral Islands. PhD. Dissertation, University of Oregon.

Lessa, William A. 1966 Ulithi: A Micronesian Design for Living. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Liguori, V.A. 1968 Stability and Change in the Social Structure of Atlantic Coast Commercial Fisheries. PhD. Dissertation, Princeton University.

Norr, Kathleen 1972 A South Indian Fishing Village in Comparative Perspective. PhD. Dissertation, University of Michigan.

Proskie, J. and J.C. Adams 1969 Survey of the Labour rorce in the Offshore Fishing Fleet-Atlantic Coast. Ottowa: Dept. of Fisheries and Forestry.

Quinn, Naomi R. 1971 Mfantese Fishing Crew Composition: A Decision Making Analysis. PhD. Dissertation, Stanford University.

Sabella, James C. 1974 The Fishermen of Caleta San Pablo. PhD. Dissertation. Cornell University.

Sahlins, Marshall D. 1962 Moala: Culture and Nature on a Fijian Island. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.