The Changing World of Rural Tibet

Melvyn C. Goldstein, Ph.D.J.R.Harkness Professor, AnthropologyCo-Director, Center for Research on TibetCase Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

First, a caveat. It is hard to generalize about the Tibet Plateau

Political Tibet-- The Tibetan government has ruled continuously from the earliest times down to 1951. (Now the Tibet Autonomous Region)

Ethnographic Tibet– Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan, Yunnan--“Areas where the Tibetan race once inhabited exclusively and where they are still in the majority‘ … [and where] political' Tibet exercised jurisdiction only in certain places...” (Richardson, 1984: 1-2)

The Tibetan plateau is vast -– about 1000 km by 2500 km, 2.5 million square kms. This is about 8 times the size of Norway.

My Research Sites are in the Tibet Autonomous Region

NOMAD: PalaIn 2005- a total of 30 households and 154

individuals [fieldwork 1986-2009]

FARMING: Shigatse-Panam area 3 farming villages in a study reexaminingthe “Aging and Modernization” theory:

relatively rich (more developed)relatively middle (mid developed)relatively poor (less developed)

In 2005-a total of 335 households and 2325 individuals [fieldwork 1997-2009]

The farming area: Much of traditional culture and values are intact

But technological change is increasing

The Farming Dilemma: after decollectivization, gradually not enough

profit from farming

• 1. farmland is owned by state; land was divided equally at end of commune and households can not buy and sell land.

• 2. decrease in farmland/per capita and per household due to floods, population growth, family fission, use of farmland for housing sites, eminent domain.

• 3. value of grain is low: overall prices have increased 323% since 1985, but the farmers’ main crop, barley, has declined when controlled for inflation.

• 4. reduction of government subsidies, e.g., health care, foods.

• 5. difficult to increase crop yields further since farmers already apply large amounts of fertilizers , insecticides, etc.

• 6. demand for manufactured goods and other non-traditional items has increased dramatically.

Adaptation: A New Paradigm: “Going for Income”

Length of time away: 1-2 months to 11 months

Location: All over Tibet including Western Tibet, Kongpo, Nagchuka, Shigatse and Lhasa

Types of Work: Manual labor, skilled labor, various entrepreneurial activities (construction teams, truckers)

Going for (Non-Farm) Income

2009- outside Shigatse city

2009- remote nomad county

The proportion of males and females going for income 1997-2005.

Males Females

1997 2005 1997 2005Poorvillage

20-29 18% 69%(+284%)

7% 32%(+357%)

30-39 25% 72%(+188%)

2% 17%(+750%)

Midvillage

20-29 28% 64%(+129%)

3% 28%(+833%)

30-39 29% 64%(+121%)

7% 28% (+300%)

Richvillage

20-29 na 63% na 14%30-39 na 71% na 22%

Non-farm income dominates the hh economy:Mean Income per household, 2005

Village Site

Farm income

Non-farm income

Rich 5,323 ¥ 19,161 ¥(79% of total)

Middle 1,954 14,113(86% of total)

Poor 778 5,861(86% of

total)

Incipient “Entrepreneurial Transition”: % workers by job category

Job category Rich village

Middle village

Poor village

Manual labor 27.3% 41.2% 66.1%

Skilled labor, vehicle driver/ owner, businessman

62 52 23

Government 3.7 4.2 4.7

Other 7.5 2.3 5.8

Nomadic Pastoralists of Pala:A Different Adaptation

TRADITIONALNOMADIC WAY OF LIFECONTINUES

1st houses, 1986 1st motorcycles 2003-51st cell phones, 2008

But also major changes

1st houses, 1986-87

Rich nomad’s house, 2005

Substantial increase in the quality of life

1987

2005

Despite houses, the nomads have not become sedentary. In summer, e.g., some nomads prefer to live in tents which they pitch in front of their houses, and in fall, all lock up their houses and move for 3 months

Source of this nomad prosperity is not “going for income,” but increases in the price of nomad products, e.g., 1986-2005

Percent Change

Sheep +650%Yak +655%Goat Cashmere

+669%

Yak Skin +1200%Sheep Skin +208%Goat Skin +246%Sheep Wool +131%Yak Wool +91%

Barley in farm areas

+100%

RECENT CHANGE for RURAL TIBET:The “People-First” development approach of the 11th Five Year Plan (2006-2010) in the TAR—about 100 billion RMB allocated

— An emphasis on social development and quality of life versus primarily GDP

— An emphasis on development projects and programs aimed at reaching village households directly

— Target of raising rural per-capita income to national average

GOAL: internal strategy to win rural Tibetans’ loyalty to the nation without making an agreement with the Dalai Lama and without meeting other grievances, e.g., monasteries

“Comfortable Housing Program”— 3.2 billion RMB allocated in TAR

Target = 80% of all rural hhs → construction boom

Houses Built-Renovated since 2006 in study sites

Farming Sites

2006-09 # new houses

%

poor 42 46

middle 52 42

rich 51 55

total 145 47

Farming: Total government cost for the 145 houses in the 3 farm villages = ~1.6 million yuan (~$238,000) [47% of hhs]

Nomad: Total cost for 225 new Houses in the nomad xiang =5.5 million yuan (~$820,000) [50% of hhs]

Almost of this money throughout the TAR is going to villagers who are building the houses

Increasing non-farm income: “The Chicken Fattening” Program

Our own data show the total government cost: 1 village – 1.8 million yuan ($240,000); 5 villages = 9 million yuan ($1.2 million)

In Conclusion, we find: rapid change and adaptation

rural folk are not marginalized and passive--There is increasing integration into the economic marketplace and marked material improvement; shift in attitude to education

culture and religion in tact–Rural Tibet is not being assimilated; it is gradual acculturating at its own pace to modern society

Will Beijing’s “People First” strategy win over Tibetans? Too early to say!

The End.Questions?

All photos taken in 2005

All pictures © Melvyn Goldstein. Please contact for permissions before use.