Pastoralism and Rangeland Management on the Tibetan Plateau in ...

Table 2: Differentiation between rich <strong>and</strong> poor pastoral households
Time-line Rich households Poor Households Notes
before 1981 equal assets equal assets collective
ownership
after dividing
livestock among
households
when disaster
occurs
230
more livestock more livestock private
ownership
more labour less labour
other enterprises without other
businesses
few accidents many accidents referring to
diseases, etc.
prepared for
disaster
Source: author’s own compilation
lacking disaster
preparation
coping possible bankruptcy
From the table we can see that before 1981, due to the implementation of the
collective ownership system, livestock was divided equally among the herders,
as was the use of the pastures. There was an even distribution of wealth. After
that, the initiation of privatization saw the rise of household-run ranches. Although
the redistribution of livestock was based mainly on household population,
different herd sizes <strong>and</strong> different management abilities were soon to cause
a difference in development.
Households with larger populations were allocated more livestock. With more
labour, they could carry out more effective grazing, better utilize the rangel<strong>and</strong>
resources <strong>and</strong> have spare capacity to experiment with sideline businesses <strong>and</strong>
generate non-livestock incomes. Coupled with a stronger response to unexpected
disasters <strong>and</strong> a relatively strong capacity to deal with diseases, they have
earned a comparative advantage over small households with fewer livestock.
When a disaster strikes, what happens for wealthy herdsman is equal to passive
restructuring, with the number of weak animals reduced, but for small
or poor households with a small livestock population, one disaster can lead to
bankruptcy <strong>and</strong> poverty.
This also shows that the government’s policy of “private ownership <strong>and</strong> private
grazing” brings certain volatility to the pastoral area. It is in line with the laws
of social development. However, no public policy can automatically bring equal
benefit to everyone. After some people get richer, we must consider special as-