Family Farming In Europe And America

Boguslaw Galeski

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN:
  9780367013639
• eBook ISBN:
  9780429712616
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Agricultural Public Policy
• Index: Social Sciences

Much has happened since agricultural economists and rural sociologists met at the University of Chicago in 1946 to discuss family farming. The problems and issues related to the structure of agriculture have been intensified by current economic considerations, which promote the growth of larger-scale commercial farming operations and edge out many smaller farms owned, operated, and worked by families.

In this book, contributors from eleven nations in Europe and North America provide a comparison of farm structure under different economic and political systems, including Poland as an example of a non-market economy. In addition to providing information on how local, state, and international policies have affected the agricultural enterprise, they look at the role of farmers' organizations in policy formulation and take note of changes in farm patterns and policies that have had an impact on farm production, off-farm work, and the welfare of farm families and rural communities.

1
Introduction

Food production has continued to be a family enterprise in most countries of the world, even with increased industrialization and urbanization. The family owned and operated enterprise has provided the incentives and the commitment of people to produce for their own needs and for others under a wide range of natural, economic, and political conditions. The family farm also provides the basis for self-sustaining family and community life, as well as a way of producing for the market. But farming is increasingly influenced by the market for its products and by the investments in land and other resources by nonfamily interests. So family farms must respond to changing technology and market forces if they are to provide the income and opportunities comparable to nonfarm enterprises. As these forces change, it becomes more difficult for the famliy farmers to survive without local and national policies to support them.

Values other than economic must be considered as they relate to structure of agriculture. These include the maintenance of stable communities and rural population throughout the country. Families who live on the land require adequate social as well as economic opportunities to maintain a good quality of life for the family as well as for the nation. There must also be concern for the maintenance of the natural resources upon which the farm is based. As the family farm appears to be in crisis in the industrialized nations, it is an appropriate time to examine the family farm as it relates to these considerations.

While definitions of the family farm vary among the countries, it is generally regarded as a farm which is owned and operated by a family which may include one or more generations. Most of the land and capital is provided by the family, although additional land may be rented for expansion of the operation and capital may be borrowed for supplies, machinery, and improvements. Most of the labor is provided by members of the family living on the farm, but additional labor may be hired, most often on a seasonal basis. This indicates that the concept of the "family farm" is an "ideal type" in which the farm is owned and operated by a family. This conception varies among countries and is undergoing change as larger operations with improved technology are needed to utilize family resources and to provide an adequate income. Thus, the concept of family farming must be used with flexibility to refer to the extent to which the social as well as economic goals and values of the family are considered in the decisions and policies related to the farm. For example, the average family farm in North America is larger, more specialized, and commercialized than those in Europe, but the family is the risk taking manager and provides most of the labor.

In Europe the family farm has grown out of a range of conditions. In some countries the abolishment of serfdom provided land to peasant families and economic independence in relationship to markets. In some countries the farms were not isolated family units but part of a village and pastureland, with residential areas and services being shared within the community. In North America, farming families were generally free from feudal bonds, tending to live on their land in isolated settlements which provided more flexibility in size and services and more opportunity for expansion. In this sense the family farm in America may be regarded as the fulfillment of dreams of European peasantry in its striving for land and individual freedom. Most European settlers have brought with them and maintained certain traditional patterns of farming, but from the beginning these patterns have been influenced by the nature of land disposition in the region, market forces, and various public policies affecting access to land, water resources, and public services.

Overproduction and low prices have presented a problem in the market economies, while Poland and other non market economies of Eastern Europe are suffering from a shortage of food products. How is the increasing concentration and global competition of the food industry related to the structure of agricultural production? What policies are needed in response to the present crisis for the long-term sustainability of food production without severe economic, social, and environmental costs? In general, there has been little opportunity to go beyond the current issues of market price and production to see how the people and producers of the rural areas are affected. The chapters which follow should assist those who want to preserve the family farm for social and ecological as well as economic reasons. They should also be useful for developing countries in considering the alternative paths of development to avoid the undesirable consequences of large scale, nonfamily farming.

In order to understand what is happening to the structure of agriculture and its consequences authors from nine European and two North American countries have responded to the following issues related to the family farm:

1. As a general basis for a comparative perspective on the family farm, what historical forces have produced the current patterns of farming?

2. What is happening to the structure of agriculture with respect to size, labor, and management and why? What are the consequences of these structures for the income, market, and maintenance of rural life and the natural resources of these countries?

3. How have government policies affected the family farm in nonmarket as well as market economies? How do such policies affect the maintenance of the land and water resources as well as the welfare of the people operating the land as compared to nonfarm families?

4. What are the prospects for the family farm in the future and how are these prospects likely to be affected by local, state, and international policy regarding agriculture and the food industry?

5. What are the alternatives to the family farm and the consequences of those in different countries and cultures?

The countries providing contributions to this book from Europe and North America have certain historical similarities. This is important for a comparative study of the issues. Although Poland is from the Eastern block of nonmarket economies, it has maintained its family farm rather than shift a major part of its food production to State and collective farms as in other East European countries. While only France provides a contribution from Southern Europe, other chapters in this volume should have significance for that part of Europe, as well as other industrial nations around the world.

The contributors to the volume have reaffirmed a concern for the structure of agriculture and the well-being of those associated with it in the industrialized nations. They indicate that while the farm population has declined, it still represents an important element in the economy and rural life that is of national concern. The nature of this concern and the policies following from it is a major justification for this volume. The effect on farm organizations, political parties, local groups, and cultural patterns are revealed. While there are some common concerns among the various countries, each country has dealt with the problem of the family farm and the crisis affecting it in a different manner. This underscores agriculture's dependence upon national and international conditions and policies.

2
Family Farming in Britain

Ruth Gasson

Although "the family farm" is highly regarded in Britain, there seems to be no general agreement on what is meant by family farming. The term implies a close association between the farm and the family running it, with business control, capital supply, and investment patterns determined largely by such factors as the farmer's age, size of family, and interpersonal relationships. A measure of business continuity could be expected from one generation to the next, as well as a close correspondence between phases of the business cycle and phases of the family cycle.

Virtually all farms in the United Kingdom could be described as family farms in the sense that they are run by and on behalf of families. Even some of the largest enterprises, which are operated along strictly commercial lines and are highly capitalized and heavily dependent upon hired labor, are nevertheless strongly identified with families. According to one authority, 94% of agricultural holdings are run by individual proprietors, partnerships, or private (usually family) companies (Commission, 1981). Another authority has suggested that no less than 97.5% of all English farms are genuinely family businesses in that all the business principals, if more than one, are closely related by blood or marriage (Harrison, 1975).

The much publicized purchase of farms by financial institutions during the 1970s raised fears about the survival of the family farm. A Government Committee of Inquiry, the Northfield Committee set up to investigate trends in agricultural land acquisition and ownership, established that institutions owned only 1.2% of the agricultural land in Great Britain and they were directly involved in farming only a fraction of that figure (Northfield, 1979). By 1982 the proportion had only risen to 2% (Burrell, Hill and Hedland, 1984).

The family farm is perhaps best understood as an ideal type which can be contrasted with another ideal type, the large-scale capitalist farm. Family farming implies that the family which owns and controls the farm business also provides the capital, management, and some, if not all, of the labor. It need not own the land, for in Great Britain, where roughly two-thirds of farmland is owner occupied, no distinction seems to be made between family farming on rented and owned land. Under the capitalist system, land, labor, capital, management, and business control could all be supplied from different sources.

In everyday use, "family farming" has come to mean farming on a small scale, and it will be used in that sense here. The term may also have gathered connotations, justified or otherwise, of traditionalism, inefficiency, and a disregard for economic rationality. Newby (1979), for instance, characterizes the family farmer as one who spends most of his time working on the land, is low in market orientation, whose behavior is "molded not so much by economic incentives as by family, social, and even religious values."

Accepting that the small size of the business, rather than identification with a family, has become the distinguishing feature of family farming in Britain, the question is where the boundaries should be drawn. As there are no policies directed toward family farming as such, there is no official definition, leaving the way open for a variety of approaches to suit different needs.

Defining The "Family Farm"

The Smallfarmers' Association, a pressure group set up to promote the family farm, has not been able to agree on a precise definition of family farming. The organization wants farms to be of a size which can be worked by "an efficient average sized family." The family-worked farm has been depicted as "a unit large enough to support two members of a family or one member of a family and one employee, possibly part time, with a standard of living fully comparable to urban occupations but probably with a higher quality of life" (Buccleuch, 1981) Another definition describes the family farm as one that would enable "an efficient family unit, plus some outside labor, to make a reasonable living using accepted modern techniques for the production of wholesome food or other products on a sustainable basis" (Hunter-Smith, 1982).

On this basis, the family farm would be a two- to four-man unit, but other definitions would include the one-man unit as well. Most family farms would, therefore, be in the range of 250 to 1,000 standard man days (smds) where 250 smds represents one man year of work. The smd factors, which are periodically revised to reflect improvements in work rates, have now been superceded by European Size Units (ESUs), one ESU being 1,000 European Units of Account of Gross Margin. Farms between 4 and 24 ESUs are described as "small and family-sized farms" (Furness, 1983). The family farm can also be defined in terms of labor use, the ceiling being where hired workers make up half of the labor force. Britton and Hill (1975), using data for 1970 and 1971, identified a threshold at 800 to 850 smds, this being where hired labor made up half of the total labor bill.

In Britain, then, the boundary between the family farm and the large-scale capitalist farm is ill-defined but conventionally located in the region of the three- to four-man unit, between 750 and 1,000 smds or 16 to 24 ESUs. For present purposes, all farms below this threshold will be described as "family farms." Those which in theory provide insufficient employment for two persons, that is, below 500 smds (previously 600 smds) are referred to as "smaller family farms." The term "larger-than-family farm" will be used to denote all types of "large-scale capitalist business," "industrial-type enterprise," and "megafarm" above the threshold.

Importance of Family Farming in Britain

Farms in the United Kingdom are large by West European standards. In 1982, half of the 242,300 agricultural census holdings were capable of providing full-time work for at least one person, and they averaged almost 300 acres. Half of the total cultivated acreage was on holdings of 250 acres and above. Individual enterprises are also large, with the average cereal acreage on cereal growing farms being 100 acres, and average size dairy herd 55 cows.

Larger-than-family farms dominate in terms of production. Table 2.1, relating to England and Wales, indicates that farms above 1,000 smds, although representing less than 12% of all holdings, occupied 40% of the farmland and accounted for 52% of the total smds, which is a rough guide to their importance for production.

Table 2.1. Distribution of agricultural census holdings, crops & grass acreage and total standard man days by size of farm business, England and Wales, 1977

The top 4% of farms contributed more than 30% of the output of British agriculture. Although family farms of less than 1,000 smds are numerically the most important, accounting for almost 90% of holdings, they contributed less than half of the output. Taking ESUs as the yardstick, family farms accounted for 88% of all UK holdings in 1982, occupied 42% of the total cultivated area, and contributed 30% of total business activity, measured by aggregate Standard Gross Margin (Furness, 1983).

Although output is skewed towards larger-than-family farms, Britton arid Hill have demonstrated that there is more agricultural activity taking place on two-man holdings than on any other size interval of equal range. When they plotted the number of holdings within each 50 smd interval against the total number of smds those successive batches of holdings contained, the curve peaked at about 550 smds and fell off quite steeply thereafter. This gave substance to the image of British agriculture as an industry still dominated by family sized businesses, both in numbers and in productive activity.

The nature of the labor force further underlines the importance of family farming. Of the 702,000 persons working on UK farms at the 1983 agricultural census, 421,000, or 60% were farmers, partners or directors, spouses of farmers, or other family workers. More than three-quarters of British farms employ no workers apart from members of the family on a full-time basis, and a further 10% employ only one. Larger-than-family farms employing more than one man full time account for only 12% of the holdings in England and Wales, although they employ 85% of the nonfamily labor.

Using any definition, then, family farms dominate UK agriculture in terms of numbers. They are especially important in Wales and Northern Ireland, where about nine farms out of ten are family farms, accounting for more than half of the total farm business activity. Family farms contribute between a quarter and a third of total farm business activity in the north and west of England and in Scotland but only about 15% in eastern England. This is consistent with their emphasis on livestock production. Family far...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• 1 INTRODUCTION
• 2 FAMILY FARMING IN BRITAIN
• 3 FAMILY FARMING IN IRELAND
• 4 FAMILY FARMING IN NORWAY
• 5 A PERSISTENT CULTURE: SOME REFLECTIONS ON SWEDISH FAMILY FARMING
• 6 POSTWAR TECHNOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON FAMILY FARMS: THE CASE OF FINLAND
• 7 FAMILY FARMING AND THE AGRICULTURAL CRISIS IN DENMARK
• 8 THE FAMILY FARM IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
• 9 FAMILY FARMING IN FRANCE: CRISIS AND REVIVAL
• 10 FAMILY FARMING IN POLAND
• 11 THE SOCIAL ECONOMY OF CANADIAN AGRICULTURE: FAMILY FARMING AND ALTERNATIVE FUTURES
• 12 FAMILY FARMING IN THE UNITED STATES
• 13 CONCLUSIONS
• ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS