In the first place the lots leased by the community are considerably larger than those rented by individual peasants.[61] Moreover by the joint suretyship of all the members of the community a security is offered lacking in small individual contracts. Quite naturally the terms on which land is rented by the community are more favorable for the peasants than those of individual contracts.[62] The result of cheaper rent is the better condition of the communities in question as compared with the average.[63] Why then should not other communities imitate this praiseworthy example? The answer seems to be found precisely in the higher economic level of the communities concerned, which carries with it greater uniformity of interests: +-----------------------+------------------------------------------+ | | Percentage of householders. | |Classes of communities.+-----------+------------+-----------------+ | |Engaging in|Indifferent.|Letting out their| | | tenure. | | own lots.[64] | +-----------------------+-----------+------------+-----------------+ | _Ranenburg._ | | | | |Tenure by the community| 64 | 25 | 11 | |Tenure by individuals | 26 | 57 | 17 | | _Dankoff._ | | | | |Tenure by the community| 58 | 25 | 17 | |Tenure by individuals | 25 | 59 | 16 | +-----------------------+-----------+------------+-----------------+ The language of the figures is unequivocal. Wherever land is leased by the _mir_, the prevailing majority is made up of tenants, while under ordinary circumstances they form but a small minority. On the contrary above one-half of the village assembly consists at large of those householders who are indifferent to the question, and would not put themselves to the trouble of incurring responsibility. Thus it is in the growing heterogeneity of the village that the cause of the decline of communism in tenancy is to be sought. On the other hand, the same reason accounts for the substitution of the usual method of distribution of land and burdens by the community, through subdivision of the rented land in proportion to the money invested by each householder. The question arises whether that can really be called tenure by the community, where a part of its members keep out of the agreement, and the land is held severally, and _pro rata_ to the capital invested? It seems to be rather a joint partnership. Yet partnership is by nature an individualistic contract, whether the parties to such contract be the “elders” of the _mir_, or common business men.[65] We consider therefore rental partnership only as a stage of transition from communal to individual tenancy.