Specialisation has been a major explanation of economic growth, the idea set out clearly by William Petty in the seventeenth century and most famously purveyed by Adam Smith. In conventional economic analysis, the degree of specialisation is seen as a function of market size, and as a key aspect of a move away from peasant societies enabled by urbanisation and lower transport and transactions costs, especially for perishable goods.

But, in agriculture, it is not so simple. Pressures to specialise may arise from various reasons. An ancient one is variant (and sometimes complementary) local ecologies. Seasonality entails specialisation over time as well as across space and between individuals. The impetus to specialise may come from the dynamics of landholding patterns, commercialisation emerging through morcellisation rather than demand-side growth.

Equally, it may be uncertain where ‘specialisation’ takes place and should be measured. Is it the marketable output, or the distribution of labour tasks, or the total production of the farm (much of which may be consumed on-farm)? These all matter if a prime consideration is efficiency, the traditional criterion for success. But perhaps the aim is not so much efficiency as diversity? The same questions can be posed in that case. The degree of specialisation will look very different depending on whether holdings are vertically integrated, practising mixed farming, or whether production processes are separated across households. The type and share of output reaching the final consumer might be the same across two societies practising these different forms of organisation, but the apparent degree of specialisation could look very different at the household level. ‘Specialisation’ at the level of holding may thus not be a product of the consumer product market but the relative merits of producing intermediary goods and raw materials ‘in-house’ or not. Once these topics are opened up we can see that one of the apparently simplest and best-loved explanations for economic development is difficult to conceptualise and analyse.

This is the problem that Annie Antoine and Laurent Herment pose in a very useful introductory essay to this timely volume, part of the important Brepols series of comparative rural history. They raise the significant differences between specialisation and diversification, arguing that there is no simple and consistent story of specialisation promoting efficiency. They argue that specialisation can be best understood in terms of a pivot crop to which activity is orientated, and the capabilities developed as a result that are more or less flexible, with various exposures to risk.

The introduction is followed by fourteen further case studies in three sections, the first focusing more on local ecologies, the second on the impact of shocks, and the third on specialisation on ‘traditional socio-economic systems’. There is far too much to cover in a short review, from the oyster-beds of Brittany to hop-growing in Sweden, and from late medieval viticulture in central Europe to post-communist Bulgaria. The case studies provide a rich, varied and complex set of examples covering issues of technology, landholding, commerce, retailing, state regulation, and ecology. However, while being well worthy of examining as a set, they unfortunately do not attempt to develop a consistent form of analysis and enquiry, bearing very little relation to each other or to the introductory discussion. In that sense, the collection is an opportunity missed, and it poses more questions than provides answers. But they are good questions to pose.