LIFE IN A FIJIAN VILLAGE:
THE STRUGGLE OF SELF AND COMMUNITY
by Megan Lee

Chapter 3
Village Economics

Chapter 3

Household Income

Remittances

Cane Farming and the Land Lease System

Selling Items from the Home

Pensions

Total Income

Income Distribution

Expenses

Church and Mataqali Donations

Fijian economic principles were traditionally based on a share and care mentality that revolved around communal living within the village. Before the introduction of a monetary system, Fijian life was supported by sharing of village and individual resources for all members of the mataqali and also within the village as a whole. Villagers were socially obligated to provide for their mataqali. As Vusoniwailala states in "Communication, Social Identity and the Rising Cost of Fijian Communalism," "the pre-contact Fijian answered the calls of only one social unit, his mataqali or clan. Even though the mataqali was a unit within the yavusa, the organization of Fijian political-economic activities was largely the function of the mataqali" (n.d.). Villagers lived on a subsistence level; objects held value socially, not monetarily. For example, tabua, yaqona, masi and ibe (goods used in exchange) were of the utmost importance socially. The goods traded between members of mataqali "were exchanged for their pragmatic purposes, and some for their value as status-symbols" (Vusoniwailala n.d.).

Accumulating individual wealth was not important to Fijians. Exchanging items such as tabua (whales' teeth) was not important because of the economic value they held but because they were crucial in building social relations. As Nayacakalou states, "Tabua have a social meaning much more important... than its economic value. This meaning is expressed in the words and symbols of formal presentation" (1978: 112). Therefore, it can be said that the "motivating factor behind them [exchanges] is not economic gain, but the social validation of the transactions which are expressed in the transfer of actual items of wealth against each other" (1978: 112).

With the introduction of a cash economy, the social importance of these items remained important; however, items available in a market economy became valuable as well. Vusoniwailala states that:

Fijians of today still exchange foods, mats, tapa, kava and whales' teeth. But in addition they present goods which have become valuable in the technological modernization of the post-contact era... Additional costs have come with the non-indigenous goods now used in social exchange; since they have become valuables, a communal activity is not complete without them. (n.d.)

The introduction of Western goods and lifestyles has brought with it increased costs to village Fijians. While Fijians of "pre-contact" times had only to provide for their own survival and social obligations to their mataqali, Fijians today "carry heavier economic loads than those of their forefathers" (Vusoniwailala n.d.) because they are now living in two economic systems. The "pre-contact" Fijian faced only two economic demands; the first acquiring enough for shelter and food and the second having enough to contribute to social exchange. Fijians still face these same demands and additionally are faced with the demands of a market economy including electricity, household appliances, and school fees, amongst others. Vusoniwailala argues that "the Fijian of today is expected to straddle two economic systems: the communal economic system of his forefathers and the monetary economic system of his colonizers. The concurrent demands of these two systems make contemporary Fijian life more costly" (n.d.).

Rika argues that these additional costs are leading to the demise of the Fijian kinship social structure. In "Is Kinship Costly?" he states that "the capitalist economic system has changed the human social structure from one of intragroup co-operation to one of competitive individualism" (1975: 28). I will argue, however, this is not true in Naivuvuni today.

Today, the Naivuvuni economy still revolves around maintaining traditional ways of life and "intragroup co-operation" while simultaneously fostering aspects of the market economy. The economy does not control man, as Rika argues. Man is not "a mere puppet in the hands of the capitalist economic system" and has not "surrendered his humanity to suit the economy" (1975: 28).

The continued value of social relations is obvious today in the attitudes of Fijians towards working for wages and in the way in which they still depend on family and the village to support them financially. Villagers today blend both dimensions of these lifestyles by placing value on Western goods and using them in order to maintain their traditional lifestyle. The importance of making money cannot be ignored and is obvious in some of the villagers' attitudes, but the strongest emphasis is placed on the fact that people follow the traditional "share and care" communal aspect of village life. While all villagers acknowledge that there are additional costs associated with living within this mixed economy, one that incorporates both traditional and Western aspects of living, most willingly accept these additional costs in order to maintain their own traditional lifestyle beside a Western one. I found, however, that the village was divided between those who freely contributed to the communal economy and those who resented the demands of the community. Contrary to my expectations, I found that those who had higher incomes and donated more money to communal causes were also most satisfied with the system of contributing to the community. It was those who had little and gave little who thought communal demands were oppressive. This suggests that the villagers place a high priority on social status earned through giving: those who were dissatisfied were those who were unable to give and so were unable to gain status this way. My findings indicate, however, that Naivuvuni residents who were unable to keep up with "the rising cost of kinship" felt alienated from traditional values. This trend has potential to threaten that tradition.

For the purposes of this research, six houses were randomly selected from the village and interviewed about the family's sources of income, debts or loans they currently have, other expenditures they have, including food, clothing, yaqona (kava) and social donations, and their attitudes toward money. Families living in houses numbers 30, 33, 6, 10, 11, and 16 on the village map are included in the survey. In all of the houses interviewed, except for number 30, a women responded to the questions asked. Those interviewed were asked their opinions about donating their income to the mataqali and the church, about the importance of making money and if they would like to make more, and how they felt the introduction of a market economy had changed the demands upon them. I asked if the introduction of a monetary system created more of a burden in providing for their families as well as for social institutions, including the mataqali and the church. While all of the interviewees were willing to give their income to these institutions, there appears to be a division within the village between those who value making money and living a "Western lifestyle" and those who place less emphasis on obtaining money and prefer to live in the more traditional village system.

Sources of income in the village vary for each family; most depend on income from family members living in urban areas, either overseas or in Suva or Lautoka. Most families have or have recently paid off debts from bank loans, or to stores such as Courts, and additionally have daily and weekly expenditures, such as food. A proportion of every family's income is given as mandatory donations to the mataqali and church. It is through these donations that traditional ways are being maintained alongside the new materialism that is becoming more prevalent as Western goods have become readily available in the market economy. Most people expressed sentiments saying that although it is nice to have money, the relaxing and comfortable village life is better than spending stressful days at a job with set hours and a work schedule. While all of the those interviewed felt it was important to maintain traditional ways through the donation of income to social institutions, their attitudes vary from accepting these expenses as part of life, to feeling the need to modify these ceremonies and rituals according to the amount of money available to them. This division appears to be based on the amount of cash income a family has access to. Those families who have more money are also more willing to contribute to social and mataqali functions. This is particularly interesting because families who have more money are expected to contribute more to these functions. Giving is proportionate to income for most of these families. The families who have more are expected to give more. Some families may not contribute anything if they do not have the funds available. Yet it is these families who find donating to these functions to be the most oppressive because it is through these donations that people gain social status. Those who are unable to contribute because they have less money are unable to advance their social status through traditional means.

Household Income

My survey of six households suggested that there was some variation in levels of income. It also revealed that few households had a stable, reliable source of income. Instead, they combined many sources of income including contributions from relatives living elsewhere with paying jobs.

Remittances

I examined six households. Surveying these households suggested that most of them received significant contributions from relatives living in other areas. This is typical of an economy where there are few jobs available. Wage earners give money to many other family members and in turn rely on these family members to look after children and support them in sickness and retirement. This may explain people's willingness to cultivate social ties.

There are currently six people living in house 30. The family is a retired government clerk, and his wife, their 35 year old daughter (who is not a permanent member of the household but has been living in the house for almost two months), and their 22 year old son, his wife and their eight month old son. No one in the family currently has a job. The son works in the family's cane fields. This is the family's main source of income. They do not receive a pension from the government for the husband's previous work as a clerk in the agriculture department. They sell small items from their home (ice pops, yaqona, cigarettes, and butter) and also receive significant sums of money from another daughter who works at an island resort.

Family 33 is a middle aged husband and wife. They do not have any children. The husband is an independent fisherman. He fishes daily, weather permitting. He sells his catch in town and then what he has remaining in the village from his home. They also depend on the wife's sister who is currently living in Australia for money. She does not send money on a regular basis but when she does, it is in large amounts. She also sends the family clothes and household items.

The family living in house number 6 consists of two women, one middle aged, and her nineteen year old daughter-in-law, and her 3 month old daughter. Both of their husbands are currently working in Suva, one as a security guard, the other as sub-contract production clerk in a garment factory. They are renting a house in Suva and return to the village every two or three weekends to visit and bring money to the women. The family depends on the money that they earn as their main source of income. However, they also receive money from land leases. To supplement their income, they also sell fish from their home, but not on a regular basis.

Family 16 consists of a single mother living with her oldest son. Her husband died eleven years ago and her other two children are currently living with other family members. This family relies on cane farming to support itself. A cousin living in Australia also sends money to the family to help them when they request it. She also sends clothes and household items for them. When money is needed immediately, the mother will also sell items (homemade jam, fans, and brooms) from the house.

The most affluent family in the survey lives in house number 10. This family is composed of a husband and wife and five children, the eldest is 11 and the youngest is three months. The husband spends the week as a taxi driver in Suva and comes home on the weekends. This family's main source of income is from the taxi; however, they also sell fish from their home at times to supplement their income. They also receive a significant amount of money from land leases.

The father of family 11 recently passed away. Living in the house now is the father's sister, two of her sons and one of the father's daughters and her seven year old son. No one in this family is currently employed. They support themselves by fishing and also rely on a sister in Australia, (they same sister that family 33 relies on), and another son working at the hospital in Lautoka. The family also receives money from the land leases, although not enough to rely on as a major source of income.

All of the families surveyed rely on more than one source of income to support their family. Three of the six families interviewed rely on remittances from family members living in other places as major sources of income. In family number 6, the husband and father-in-law are working in Suva to support the rest of the family living in the village. The income they send back to the village each month, a little over one hundred dollars, is the family's main source of income. They are also renting a house in Suva where they are staying; the rent for the house, as well as paying for food, electricity, water and other expenses, requires almost half of the income they make each month. Two of the other families, numbers 33 and 11, rely almost entirely on money sent to them from a sister living in Australia. In 1997 she bought a boat for both of the families to use for fishing. The boat cost F$7000 and it was paid for in cash. The Fijian dollar is roughly equivalent to half a US dollar, so the boat was roughly $3500 USD. This sister has also just paid for an addition to family 11's house that will more than double its size. This family also depends on a twenty-year-old son who is working at the hospital in Lautoka. He sends about F$20 a week to the family. Family 30 depends on a daughter who works at an island resort to pay the electricity bill. Although this is not a major expense (between F$20 and F$25 each month) they depend upon her for that money. She also paid for the refrigerator last year and is considering buying a washing machine for the family. Additionally, she gives the family cash when she has it available. Family 16 has a cousin living in Australia who sends clothing and money several times a year, usually at the request of the family. They rely on these remittances to support the family.

Cane Farming and the Land Lease System

Income is also earned from sugar cane farming. Five of the six houses receive money either by farming cane themselves or through the land lease system. The cane growing season is from June to December. Mataqali receive payments from the land leases in June or July and again in December. The land is owned by the mataqali and each family within the mataqali receives some amount of land. Many families have leased their land, usually to Indians, most of whom do not have their own land because it is owned by mataqali and cannot be sold. Most people leased their land in lease agreements that were 99 years long, although some families farm their land as well. The mataqali receives a lump sum twice a year for the lease and then the men of the mataqali are responsible for dividing the money between the families in the mataqali. The turaga ni vanua receives 5% of each family's lease money as recognition of his traditional control over the mataqali land to which the people now have legal rights (Ravuvu 1983: 71). Some money is taken from each family's amount and reserved to be used for the mataqali. For example, at the time of each payment some money is taken from the payments to the mataqali Dawadigo for weeding, mowing and general upkeep of the graveyard. Each family receives the same amount of money, regardless of how much land they own. Family 10 owns ten acres of land, only three and a half of them are used for farming cane, the rest is too rocky. If the head of the mataqali has bought something on credit (usually cow or bullocks), money can be taken from the other family's land money to pay the debt. In addition, each family may also have bought items on credit and will use their lease money to pay off their own debts. Cane farmers report to make a gross profit of between F$80 and F$100 per ton of cane produced. They estimate to spend F$20 a ton for fertilizer and transportation fees and F$10 per ton to pay the cutters. As a net profit they make approximately F$50 a ton.

Selling Items from the Home

All six of the families in the survey earn additional income by selling small items from their home. Three of the families sell fish. Families 10 and 6 purchase fish in Suva and sell it from their homes; the other, house number 33, is the family of the fisherman who sells the excess that he does not sell at the market to families in the village. All three families sell their fish at the same price. It is sold in bags for F$2 and in larger bundles for F$5. All three families report making a profit of between F$20 and F$40 weekly from selling fish. Sunpops, which are frozen popsicles, and frozen milk pops are common items to sell from the home as well. Again, the prices for these are very similar. Sunpops cost F$1.70 for a bag of thirty and are sold for ten cents each to make a profit of F$1.30. Milk pops are bought at the price of three dollars for a thirty pack and sold for twenty cents a piece to make a profit of three dollars. House 30 was unsure of how many bags they sold each week, house 11 estimated that each week they sold between four and five bags of sunpops, making between F$5.20 and F$6.50 each week. Additionally, houses 30 and 16 sell yaqona, and 30 also sells cigarettes. House 16 recorded making a F$12 profit from selling grog every four to five days. Cigarettes are purchased for F$29.95 a carton and sold for F$1.80 a pack for a profit of F$6.05. The woman in house 16 also sells homemade jam for a dollar a jar, handmade brooms for F$4 each and fans made from banana leaves. She does not make and sell these items on a regular basis but only when she needs extra money. She sells these items both in town and to other women in the village.

Pensions

Family 16 is the only family surveyed to receive a pension. They receive a fifty dollar pension from Social Welfare each month because the husband died eleven years ago. The check is used to cover expenses related to the children's schooling. In another family, the husband had a pension plan building while he was working in a government position, but withdrew what money he had saved in 1987 during a government coup because he was afraid that with the instability of the government, he may lose all that he saved until that point.

Total Income

The total amount that a family makes during the course of a year is difficult to determine. No one records their earnings because so few people have a continuous source of income and have no income tax to report. All totals are estimated as closely as possible. The most stable source of income appears to be the taxi driver, in house number 10. He has only been driving the taxi for six months but at his current estimated income, he will make approximately F$13,000 in a year. In addition, this family estimated that they would earn between two and three hundred dollars selling fish from their home. This amount is only an approximation and the actual income earned may be less than this, but compared to many other families in the village, this one appears to be much wealthier.

House number 6, which receives money from wage paying jobs in Suva, land lease money, and money made from selling fish, will earn approximately F$2500 during the year. House 30 which relies on came farming as its main source of income, supplemented by items sold from the house, will earn F$9700.

Families 11 and 33, who rely on money from Australia earn between one and two thousand dollars each year, but live comfortably due to the remittances from the sister in Australia.

Income Distribution

The distribution of income throughout the families in the village is not even. Some families have much higher incomes than others. These are the families that have independent sources of income and are not reliant on others (remittances) as their primary source of income. Families that have to rely on remittances from people living outside the village tend to have less money than those who earn it themselves. Although families who rely on remittances from family have less cash, they do not necessarily have a lower standard of living. Often, instead of sending cash, these family members will send or purchase for the family material goods that have a cash value equivalent to or higher than the actual income of families with their own sources of incomes. For example, family number 11 earns comparatively little in the way of actual monetary income, but lives in one of the nicest houses in the village. Several members of the family have traveled to Australia for holiday on two different occasions, and they are currently working on an addition to their home that will make it the largest house in the village. Both the trips and the addition were financed by the sister in Australia.

Even so, there is still an obvious difference in the amount of material wealth that families hold throughout the village. Family 6 relies on money sent by immediate family members living in Suva and has the lowest income, both materially and monetarily, of those surveyed.

Expenses

Most families have the same basic expenses. These expenses are mainly necessities of life and most families spend little, if any, excess money on luxury items. Families who have televisions and freezers or refrigerators have either been given these items or other family members have purchased them for them. Only one family included in this survey buys yaqona or cigarettes on a regular basis.

The largest weekly expense that families have is buying food. These families on average spend between F$20 and F$40 a week on food, depending on the size of the family they are providing for and the amount of money available to them each week. They supplement food bought in town with growing their own food. Other expenses include a monthly electricity bill, that ranges in amount from F$4.86 to F$25 per month. Clothing is usually bought one or two times a year and between F$15 and F$20 is spent on each family member. Several of the families buy material at F$4.99 a meter and pay an tailor or seamstress F$10 to sew clothes for them.

Family 16, in addition to selling yaqona, also buys yaqona and cigarettes. Weekly, the head of this household said that she spends between F$5 and F$8 on these items. The wife of family 10 said that her husband may buy yaqona without her knowing that he does but not on a regular basis. Spending money on grog has been the basis of arguments in their house in the past. Her husband would take money from the food money before he gave it to her and buy yaqona with it, but she doesn't believe that he does that now. None of the families said they spend money on beer. If the men in family 10 want to buy beer they must find some other way to get the money to pay for it; the family does not sacrifice what little money it has for beer or yaqona.

Several of the families (11, 30, and 6) have bank loans or payments for household items that they are currently making payments on. Family 30 took out an F$8,000 loan for a fishing boat, of which they currently have F$3,000 to pay back. Payments are made on the loan five times a year. One third of the money earned from sugar cane is taken to pay the bank at each cane payment.

Other families are currently making payments on stereos, freezers and stoves. Family 11 has two F$32 payments for a stereo and freezer each month. This F$72 payment is paid for by the sister in Australia. Family 6 is currently making payments on a freezer and a stove. The family pays F$20 a month for these appliances.

Church and Mataqali Donations

While the income that families earn to spend on their daily living is important to them in order to maintain material goods, the main expense people discuss is the money they donate to the church and mataqali for social functions. Most people pride themselves on the fact that they give what they consider to be much of their monthly income for these social obligations. Funerals and weddings are costly ceremonies that require monies from several sources. While the immediate family bears most of the burden in providing for these functions, the mataqali is ultimately responsible for ensuring there is enough money to perform them. This is accomplished by each family within the mataqali contributing what they can for the use of the entire mataqali when it becomes necessary to perform such a ceremony. Additionally, each year the village holds a village festival to raise money for community projects. Each family is expected to contribute between F$100 and F$150. Each family contributes to the mataqali based on how much they have and can afford to give. Families who have more money available to them are expected to donate more for these functions. Family 10, whose income level makes them one of the wealthiest families in the village, automatically deducts ten dollars from their weekly income and reserves it for mataqali functions. Additionally, if there is a funeral or wedding, they may donate another F$100 or so to the immediate family preparing for the ceremony. Similarly, family 30 will donate well over a hundred dollars for weddings and funerals in addition to the ten dollars they donate weekly. Families with less income available to them are expected to donate what they are capable of giving. Families 6, 16, and 10 donate between 50 cents and five dollars weekly to the mataqali. Contributions are also made in the form of material goods. Weddings and funerals and the other ceremonies associated with them require a large amount of traditional and Western goods. At a bulubulu ceremony I attended, there were almost fifty drums of kerosene presented to the family. There were also four bolts of material, fifteen tabua, and several large pieces of masi given to the family. These were given by the mataqali of the husband and also by the other mataqali in the village. Each family of the mataqali of the husband was required to give what they could. At weddings and funerals, if the immediate family cannot provide enough cows or food for everyone present, other members of the mataqali may donate their own cows. The family of the deceased is also expected to provide for the costs of transportation to and from the funeral as well as food and a place to sleep for the duration of the stay of those who have traveled to the funeral. When attending a funeral or wedding there are also costs required.

These donations are costly to the villagers. They are a drain on everyone's income in that people have less money to spend on their own families for their own personal use. People's reactions to making these donations vary, however, according to the amount of income they have available to them. Everyone interviewed agreed that giving to the mataqali is important in preserving the traditional way of life of the village. They all believe that the traditions of giving need to be continued. No one who was interviewed felt that these traditions were being lost or replaced by Western ideas or values. Everyone said that the main focus of their life still revolves around giving to each other, and to these social functions. Several people feel that today people are required to give more than in the past but that is to be expected with more Western goods and money available today. Several people said that money is of no use to Fijians. One woman explained that "money is not ours," so giving it to others is not a problem. One man said that giving to the mataqali and family is "like giving to myself" because they are so closely related and also because he feels that the money he gives will eventually come back to him in one form or another. This man is also one of the wealthiest in the village and one of the highest ranking socially. This man, the father in house number 30, was very willing to give and, although he said his family did not have a lot of money, he does not feel that the demands placed on him by the introduction of Western goods and money has created too great a demand on him to provide for his mataqali. Family number 10 also feels that what they are required to give today is not too much. This family designates ten dollars of their weekly income for mataqali functions. When asked if she would prefer to keep that money for her own use, the wife of this household did not know what she would use the money for if it were not given to the mataqali. Giving is such an ingrained way of living to her that she does not think of it as a sacrifice. It is simply part of life.

This attitude is not the same for all villagers. The people who expressed attitudes saying that giving is not a problem were also those who have the most cash income. They have independent sources of income and are not reliant on others for support. The other women feel that although giving is vital to their life and they feel it is important to continue to do this, they also feel that the amount they are required to give needs to be modified to match their income level. Although they already give less than some families, they still feel that what they are giving is disproportunately large compared to their income level. They feel that the demands that are placed upon them to provide at weddings and funerals are too great. One woman explained that the cost of a funeral for a member of the immediate family could cost as much as F$3,000. Four or five cows are usually slaughtered at the funeral, each costing F$300. At least one cow is needed at the fourth, tenth, fiftieth, and hundredth night ceremonies as well. Food must be provided for all those who travel to each of these events. She explained that while she would want to be able to provide this much for a funeral, it is just not possible given her limited income. She believes that the funeral should correlate to the amount of money a family has available. If she can afford to spend only F$1,000 on the funeral, that should be enough. She should not be required to spend more than she has.

Families are also required to make donations to their church. The amount of the donation again depends upon income level and also upon which church the family attends. Families who are members of the Assembly of God church and also those who are Seventh Day Adventists are required to donate one-tenth of their income to the church as a tithe. Members of the Methodist church are also required to make biannual donations to the church. Family 30, who is a member of the Methodist church, has so far this year given F$250 to the church. They were recently told that they are expected to give another F$200 before the end of the year. Family 10, who attend the Assembly of God church, donates approximately F$20 per month as their tithe, and twice a year makes a large donation of between F$100 and F$150. Additionally, each family makes weekly donations to the collection during mass. All of the families said that they give between two and five dollars to the weekly collection.

Fijians like to think that they are all living equally even though there is an unequal distribution of income in the village. To make all the families standard of living more equal, those who have more donate more of their income to these functions. In theory, by some people donating more of their income to those who have less, the overall income of the village is redistributed so that all the families have similar levels of income. However, although those families with more money do give more of their income for village functions, and this is ultimately distributed to those who give less, it does not in practice, actually equal the monetary resources of the village. Therefore, those who have less income and are able to give less to these functions are not able to advance their social position in the village and are the most dissatisfied with the new demands that have been placed on them with the introduction of a monetary economy. Even though everyone feels that maintaining the traditional ways are important, this dissatisfaction and inability to meet these demands could ultimately undermine the traditional system.

On to Chapter 4...