Dualism or diversity in family farming? Patterns of occupancy change in British agriculture

Geoforum. Vol. 22. No. I. pp. 105-117, 1991 Printed in Great Britain

0

w1~7185/91$3.w+n.w 1991 Pergamon Press plc

Dualism or Diversity in Family Farming? Patterns of Occupancy Change in British Agriculture

RICHARD TERRY

MUNTON,* MARSDEN,t

London, U.K., and London, U.K.

Abstract: The dualist thesis of structural change in advanced capitalist agriculture,

postulating the disappearance of the middle-range family farm, is examined. In the case of the U.K., aggregate statistical evidence in support of this tendency is not forthcoming whereas in the United States recent research has downplayed the trend. It is suggested that the thesis is too structuralist, paying inadequate attention to the range of responses to be found among farming households and generally directing attention to patterns rather than processes of adjustment. In order to analyse the latter, a series of detailed farm interviews, providing social and economic profiles of farm business change between 1970 and 1985, was conducted in three contrasting agricultural areas of southern England. The survey data revealed important local differences set within broadly similar trends though with a high level of unpredictability regarding individual household strategies. Areas requiring further detailed analysis are outlined.

(1979)], while exhibiting considerable ambivalence, if not antipathy, towards its long-term well-being in their actions. They have demanded of it considerable adaptability, improvements in business efficiency and greater integration into the wider economy; and these expectations have been no more clearly expressed than in the agricultural policies of the British government since the early 1950s [see BOWERS (1985)].

Introduction The family farm is often championed as an important institution of liberal, democratic societies and advanced as an antidote to the corporate industrial enterprises which dominate advanced capitalist economies. The histories of these economies tend to suggest, however, that it is the larger industrial and financial interests which have commanded real political and economic power during the twentieth century, and that their interests have generally conflicted with those of family-based agriculture. In part, this contradiction may be explained by the behaviour of governments. They have rarely failed to be supportive of the family farm in their rhetoric [see, for example, TRACEY (1984) and COCHRANE

In Great Britain, and elsewhere, the state has insisted upon gains in productivity and efficiency in exchange for public support, gains to be achieved through the adoption of advanced industrial farming technologies and improved methods of economic management, almost all of which have tended to favour the larger producer [see MUNTON et al. (1990)]. In addition, large farmers have benefited disproportionately from the tax regime (TRAILL, 1982), a price support system geared to encouraging higher production, and from a general unwillingness in government to interfere in the operation of the land market or to provide subsidized credit to smaller or new-entry farmers.

*Department of Geography, Rural Studies Research Centre, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London WClH OAP, U.K. tDepartment of Planning, Housing and Development, Polytechnic of the South Bank, Borough Road, London SE1 OAA, U.K. 105

106 There has been but limited and sporadic agrarian protest at these conditions. Any radical and sustained opposition to the general thrust of govenment policy has been rendered ineffective by the limited size of the ‘rural vote’, the absorption of poorer members into the non-agrarian sector of the economy, and a belief among farming interest groups that a corporatist relationship between themselves and government has been the best means of protecting their position in an urban society (SELF and STORING, 1962; COX et al., 1986). These circumstances have provided some gains for the large producer and propertyowner, but have failed to stem the decline in the importance of agriculture to the national economy or the food system, or the loss of human resources from the industry.’ In particular, since the mid-1970s the industry’s income has declined substantially in real terms,2 opening up sharp variations in the economic viability of businesses of different size and in different farming sectors (MAFF, 1990). There has been little positive reaction in government to the social consequences of these changes or to the growing concentration of production in a smaller number of larger farm businesses. Beyond government, the decline in the importance of family farming and the growing disparities between the political rhetoric and economic realities have revitalized debates over the future organization of agriculture. Neo-classical economists have reexamined the significance of economies of scale and technological change [e.g. BRITTON and HILL (1975)] whilst neo-Marxist political economists have explored the accumulation and concentration of capital, and the ‘persistence’ of family farming [e.g. GOSS (1980)]. Of greater significance to this discussion, both schools of thought believe they have detected a consistent pattern of structural change regarded as inimical to the future of the full-time family farm (see below). Its features are described by BUTTEL (1983, p. 92) as: the emergence of a bimodal structure characterised by the increased dominance (in both numbers and sales) of extremely large farm units and by the increased prevalence (in farm numbers) of extremely small farms. A third component of this dualistic transition has been the marginalization and relatively rapid disappearance of medium-sized farms-what many observers have termed the ‘disappearing middle’. Empirical evidence in support of this pattern has been drawn largely from the U.S. Agricultural Census. SULAUF (1984), analysing the changing share of the industry’s net income by size of farm, noted that in

Geoforum/Volume

22 Number

l/1991

constant terms ‘super farms’ with gross sales in excess of $500,000 per annum increased their proportion of the industry’s net income from 25% in 1970 to 48% in 1982. LYSON (1986) reported an increase of 17% in the number of farms of less than 20 ha between 1978 and 1982, while BEAULIEU and MULKEY (1986) indicated that over the same period the number of farms with gross sales of less than $2500 per annum rose by 16.4%, those between $2500 and $99,000 fell by between 7.5 and 16.8% according to size group, and those businesses with gross sales in excess of $100,000 increased by 36.4%. Questions remain, however, as to the reliability of the data, the universality of these trends within advanced capitalist agricultures, and what they might mean for the future of the family farm.

The British Experience The average size of farm holding with more than 2 ha of land remained virtually unchanged at 32 ha in England and Wales between 1885 and 1951 (GRTGG, 1987). Since 1951, however, the average size has doubled to 63 ha, although part of this increase must be attributed to adjustments to the Census.s Nonetheless, some conclusions can be drawn from the statistics even if the temporal and spatial coverage of the analysis is restricted by frequent changes to size categories and the introduction of metrication (see Tables l-4). When the relative importance of each size group is measured either as a proportion of all holdings or as a proportion of the total agricultural area it occupies, ‘large’ holdings have increased their share substantially. The relative importance of ‘small’ holdings has consistently declined on both measures while the ‘medium’ category has grown as a proportion of all holdings, but declined as a proportion of the area occupied. The growth of an elite is especially evident. Between 1975 and 1985 holdings of more than 200 ha rose from 3.8% of the total to 6.1%, and their share of the farmed area from 25.5 to 36.7%. National figures often conceal important regional differences, but, because the boundaries of administrative areas were redrawn in 1974, long-term analysis is problematic. For simplicity, data from only six counties which exhibited few boundary changes, but represent the range of English farming conditions, are included in Tables 24. In Table 2 the same size categories are used as in Table 1, but the period is different (1955-1975) so as to match the availability of consistent, published material. Two points are apparent. There are major county-level differences in

GeoforumNolume

22 Number

l/l991

107

Table 1. Holding

size, England

and Wales,

1951-1973*

% area

% holdings

Small

Medium ~

Large -

Small -

Medium ___

Large _

Size (ha)

240

40-120

120+

2-40

4&120

120+

1951 1966 1983

30.8 25.6 14.4

44.0 40.5 31.8

25.2 33.4 54.3

73.9 70.1 59.6

21.8 23.5 26.7

4.3 6.4 13.7

*Based on GRIGG

(1987, p. 185).

holding size, but, despite these, a similar pattern of change is evident everywhere, confirming the national picture presented in Table 1. In large measure this pattern is repeated for the most recent period for which data are available, albeit using different size categories. Individual figures in Tables 3 and 4 should be treated carefully because of the short period covered; however, they show that nationally there is a continuing decline in the two smallest size groups and growth in the two largest. Of potentially greater interest is the suggestion that in Dorset and Surrey holdings of less than 20 ha may be increasing in relative importance while those in excess of 300 ha may be declining in Surrey. The trends returned for Surrey are almost certainly accounted for by the county’s location adjacent to London. At face value, this evidence fails to provide consistent support for any aspect of the structural changes described by Butte1 and others for the United States. The ‘middle’ is especially sensitive to the boundaries selected to describe it and to the measures used. In most cases, for example, the ‘larger middle’ might be regarded as expanding and the ‘smaller middle’ as declining (Tables 3 and 4), while Table 1 indicates Table 2. Holding

that holdings between 30 and 120 ha lost 30% of their share of farmland between 1951 and 1983 but increased their proportion of total holdings. The suggestion is that, within a national pattern of increasing farm size, especially among the larger units, there is a diversity of responses and it is this diversity rather than the notion of duality that should command our attention. It would, however, be premature to reject the potential relevance of the bimodal thesis to British conditons on the evidence presented. Information in the U.K. Agricultural Census consists of static crosssections reporting net change. It is not truly longitudinal and cannot, therefore, inform on the detailed restructuring of the industry at the individual farm level. This was equally true of most early North American analyses [but see EHRENSHAFT (1983)] until EDWARDS et al. (1986) gained access to farmlevel data. Their analysis suggests a slowing down in the 1980s of the dualistic trends reported for the 1960s and 1970s. The ‘disappearance of the middle’ now seems to be the least dynamic element in the pattern although it has, for reasons relating to the continuing political support for family farming, attracted most

size by county,

1955-1975

% holdings 1955

1975

Small -

Medium -

Large -

Small -

Medium ___

Large -

Size (ha)

2-40

40-120

120+

2-40

40-120

120+

Bedfordshire Cumbria Dorset Northumberland Staffordshire Surrey

71.8 68.9 65.4 52.6 78.4 78.4

20.3 29.0 25.9 32.9 19.2 17.8

7.9 2.2 8.6 14.5 2.4 3.8

60.0 46.1 54.9 28.0 69.4 69.1

22.6 42.3 29.5 31.7 24.2 21.6

17.3 11.6 15.5 40.3 6.4 9.3

England

71.3

23.4

5.3

58.8

28.8

12.4

and Wales

108

Geoforum/Volume

Table 3. Holding size by county,

1977-1985:

percentage

22 Number

l/1991

area

% area

1977

1985

Size (ha)

<2@

20-l 00

100-300

300+

<20

2&100

10&300

300+

Bedfordshire Cumbria Dorset Northumberland Staffordshire Surrey

5.1 3.4 4.6 1.0 10.4 9.9

24.7 43.2 31.9 12.3 50.7 36.7

41.3 33.7 36.4 36.7 31.3 38.4

28.8 19.7 27.0 50.0 7.6 15.1

4.3 3.2 4.7 0.9 9.6 11.1

23.5 41.0 30.6 11.6 48.4 36.5

3x.3 35.1 37.6 38.3 32.9 37.9

33.‘) 20.7 27.1 49.2 Y.2 14.5

5.7

35.6

36.3

22.4

5.2

33.5

37.2

24.2

England

attention [see BUTTEL and LaRAMEE (1987)]. The presumed link between the ‘disappearing middle’ and the fortunes of the ‘family farm’ also demands critical scrutiny, and, in particular, the assumptions being made about the relations between changes to the pattern of farm structure and the processes surrounding the survival of the family farm [see the critical comments of BARLETT (1986)] .’

The need to examine this presumption is stengthened by, on the one hand, a wider dissatisfaction with structural arguments which project a unilinear thesis of farm development and the relations of production under capitalism and, on the other, detailed empirical evidence which reveals a wide range of coping strategies among farming households (MARSDEN ef al., 1989). Some of this evidence arises from investigations into why and how some farm businesses have managed to survive the recent farming recession in the Mid-West of the United States [see, for example, BULTENA et al. (1986), MURDOCK et al. (1986). SALAMON and DAVIS-BROWN (1986) and SMALE et al. (1986)]. It indicates quite clearly that neither farm size per se nor entrepreneurial ability is Table 4. Holding size by county,

associated with the risk of bankruptcy. Financial difficulty is linked structurally to the wider operation of the United States economy and individually to the timing of borrowing for business expansion. Specifically, loans raised in the 1970s at low real rates of interest have become increasingly difficult to service in the 1980s as interest rates have risen, farm incomes fallen and capital values slumped. A similar thesis has been put forward for explaining the pattern of farm debt in Britain (HARRISON, 1989) which, together with the recent American evidence drawn from the Mid-West, argues for diversity of response at the farm level rather than a dualistic one.

Differentiation

and the Farm Household

It is writers in the political economy tradition who have most consistently addressed the process of differentiation. With the exception of Kautsky, early theorists anticipated a rapid elimination of family interest in farming under the forces of industrial capitalism. This has not occurred, leading some to argue that the retention of a family-based organiz1977-1985: percentage

holdings

% holdings 1977

1985

Size (ha)

<20

20-100

100-300

300+

<20

20-100

100-300

300 +

Bedfordshire Cumbria Dorset Northumberland Staffordshire Surrey

48.3 26.5 40.1 19.3 47.1 56.9

32.6 56.4 42.1 33.8 44.2 32.3

15.4 15.0 14.1 34.1 7.9 9.4

3.6 2.2 3.6 12.7 0.7 1.4

47.0 25.1 40.4 18.1 45.2 58.9

33.1 55.9 40.6 32.4 45.0 31.2

15.5 16.5 15.3 36.3 9.0 8.6

4.3 2.5 3.7 13.2 0.9 1.2

England

43.3

41.4

12.9

2.5

41.4

41.6

14.1

2.9

GeoforumNolume

22 Number

l/1991

ation is not accidental [see, for example, the contributions of BUTTEL and NEWBY (198O)J. Family farming is seen as advantageous to industrial and banking capitals because the family performs roles economically unattractive to such capitals, partly through a willingness to exploit its own labour [see DAVIS (1980) and WINTER (1984)]. Thus, although external capitals have continually sought ways to penetrate agricultural production they have chosen to do so indirectly, deliberately leaving the family on the land. The formal control of the farm business, in terms of the legal ownership of its capital and land, remains with the farm family, but their management choices become increasingly dependent upon technical and financial considerations determined by off-farm interests [see WHATMORE et al. (1987)]. Elsewhere, FRIEDMANN (1986) has reconstructed the theory of simple commodity production (SCP), dependent upon and located within the capitalist mode of production, as a means of explaining the persistence of family farming. She defines SCP as referring to “family labour units, patriarchal relations, possession of the means of production, [and] production to use” (p. 2), and argues that while simple commodity producers may be dominated by capital their distinctiveness is such that they cannot be dissolved into it. Their uniqueness lies in the unity of property ownership and family labour, and the importance of kinship and patriarchy in determining the relations of production [FRIEDMANN (1986); but see the criticisms of GOODMAN and REDCLIFT (1986)]. However valuable these two perspectives are they have hindered methodological progress because the former engages only with an economistic framework, which makes limited reference to the mediating influences of either culture, aspiration and family structure, or the inherent adaptability and reproductive capacity of the farm household, while the latter places too much attention on the presence or absence of wage labour in defining family farming. Establishing the presence or absence of wage labour may be of intrinsic interest in helping to distinguish between family and ‘capitalist’ farms, but it draws attention away from other key aspects of the labour process, including readjustments between family members, growth of off-farm employment and even the transfer of agricultural jobs from the farm to supporting industries. In consequence, analyses have been conducted within too static a framework in which the range of responses articulated by farm households is under-

109 stated. We need, instead, to emphasize the continual transformation of the family farm rather than its resilience as a form of production. Research effort needs to be concentrated on the opportunities and constraints confronting the farm household and the compromises farm families constantly make in response to internal and external pressures for change. Analysis can then incorporate the internal relations of the household, particularly gender and generation, as well as relations between the farm and external capitals. It is this complex set of interactions, taking place within specific historical and local conditions, which should act as the focus for examining the nature and dynamics of family farming. Following this argument, it is necessary to redefine the family farm in terms of family-capital relations. Form of labour alone (hired or family) will not suffice. Family labour farms are only one variant of family businesses which, because of the continuing substitution of capital for labour, are increasing in number whilst also growing in size. The great majority of farm businesses in the U.K. are still recognizable as family businesses, whether they hire labour or not, in the sense that: (a) the principals are related by kinship or marriage, (b) business ownership is usually combined with managerial control, and (c) control is passed from one generation to another within the same family (GASSON et al., 1988, p. 2). In terms of (a) and (b), 95% or more of farms in the U.K. may be regarded as family businesses which means that families run farm businesses of all sizes. About one-fifth of these employ some hired labour. The same authors suggest that those traditional attributes which previously aided survival, such as cheap family labour, patriarchal authority and the acceptance of a relatively low standard of living, may be less significant in today’s more mobile society than, say, a willingness and the opportunity to work off the farm (GASSON et al., 1988). They also argue that flexibility in farm planning and continuity within the nuclear family are becoming more important to the growth of the larger farm business with family members assuming a range of managerial responsibilities. These comments suggest a continued sorting of family businesses within the industry with a modest tendency towards further concentration. The high cost of entry to farming, exacerbated by technological advances which still tend to encourage the search for further economies of scale, and the strategy of in-

110 direct subsumption on the part of industrial and banking capitals, all suggest the continued dominance of agriculture by family-type units. Moreover, while the opportunities to obtain off-farm income and to diversify into new enterprises on the farm remain buoyant, family farms of all sizes can be expected to remain in business. It is just that the nature of their responses will vary quite considerably. The thrust of this argument is that farm households have a range of strategies’ from which to choose, although the range tends to be more restricted for smaller producers, making them more vulnerable to rapid economic change. These options include the substitution of family labour for hired labour, the restructuring of the firm’s business assets between different family and non-family members (MUNTON et al., 1988), new sources of income on and off the farm [see, for example, POTTER and GASSON (1988) and MARSDEN et al. (1986)], as well as changes in the area of land occupied. Indeed, many households combine more than one of these options depending on the resources available to them, the local opportunities for obtaining off-farm employment, the size of the family and the aspirations of its members [see MARSDEN et al. (1989)]. There may be no consistent pattern with reference to any one of these, but, given the concern with farm structural change, this option will remain the primary focus of attention for the remainder of this paper.

Geoforum/Volume

22 Number

l/1991

on the farmland property market were only just becoming apparent. These effects included the search for economies of scale and secure access to land, leading to a rise in land prices and the proportion of land in owner-occupation.” The net effect was to reduce land mobility, favouring those already engaged in farming and especially those who owned their land. In the early 1960s NALSON (1968) also investigated changes in land occupancy, but in the upland farming economy of north Staffordshire. He, too, was able to link family life cycle effects to increasing and decreasing demands for land by each farming generation. But since then the increasing difficulty of gaining access to land has made such cyclical adjustments to land occupancy within each farming generation largely redundant, replacing them by continuous competition between farming families for land [see SYMES and APPLETON (1986)].

Changes in occupancy have occasionally been the focus of farm enquiries in Britain [e.g. EDWARDS (1978), CLARK (1979) and ILBERY (1984)] and some of the rural community studies conducted in the 1950s and 1960s were concerned to illustrate the relations between family continuity and access to land. The latter infrequently looked beyond the community for their explanations of local change, and rarely to the wider economic forces restructuring the farming industry. Nonetheless, two studies in particular drew attention to farmers’ search for land.

There have been no comparable longitudinal studies of farm development in recent years [but see MARSDEN (1984)] and for this reason detailed farm interviews were conducted in 1985 and 1988 in order to provide social and economic profiles of farm business change between 1970 and 1988 in five contrasting areas. These areas were: (i) the Metropolitan Green Belt (MGB), an area of intense land-use competition arising from its close proximity to London (up to 15 km from the urban edge); (ii) north and east Bedfordshire, primarily a large-scale cereal producing area about 80 km north of London; (iii) west Dorset, an area dominated by family-operated dairy farms increasingly influenced by tourist activities; (iv) north-east Staffordshire, a locality of small upland farms dependent upon the rearing of livestock; and (v) west Cumbria, an area of livestock farms linked primarily to dairying on the coastal plain and sheep rearing in the Lake District National Park. The five study areas may be said to be ‘typical’ of different but well-recognized kinds of farming in England, but in no sense do they together form a ‘representative’ sample of farming types. The three lowland farming areas were investigated in 1985 and the two upland ones in 1988.

Following a detailed study in Devon, WILLIAMS (1963) concluded that a ‘dynamic equilibrium’ existed in the market for land rights. In this market many families had to move from one tenancy to another in order to survive, but at least their economic needs were met. In retrospect, it is clear that Williams was writing at the end of an era and about a part of Britain where the full effects of state support for agriculture

A wide range of evidence was collected, including information on changes in land occupancy and ownership, business organization, farm labour, the nature of the farming system, on- and off-farm sources of income, levels of indebtedness and family structure. The farm samples were drawn largely from the membership lists of the National Farmers’ Union and with this qualification in mind are broadly, if not

Context and Survey Method

Geoforum/Volume

22 Number

l/1991

111

Table 5. Change in mean farm size (ha) 1970

1985/1988*

Change (ha)

% change

Bedfordshire Dorset MGB

182.4 110.6 119.6

226.2 117.0 131.5

+43.8 +6.4 +17.6

+24.0 +5.8 +10.0

Cumbria Staffordshire

134.2 48.7

156.6 54.9

+22.4 +6.2

+16.7 +12.7

*Figures relate to 1985 for Bedfordshire, Cumbria and Staffordshire.

Dorset and the MGB, and to 1988 for

Table 6. Total land mobility by locality (ha)

Land gained

Land lost

Total

Total as % of land occupied in 1970

Bedfordshire Dorset MGB

4111 1809 2651

783 1200 1634

4894 3009 4285

35.3 28.6 42.3

Cumbria Staffordshire

2399 582

424 150

2823 732

23.9 21.5

1970-1985/1988*

*Figures relate to 1985 for Bedfordshire. Staffordshire.

Dorset and the MGB. and to 1988 for Cumbria and

statistically, representative of the full-time farms in each area. By definition, all those interviewed were ‘survivors’ and no information has been collected on those who left the industry after 1970. Out of the 414 farm businesses only 16 were not in being in 1970, indicating the high degree of ‘closure’ of the industry to new entrants7

Changes dence

in Farm Occupancy:

the Factual Evi-

The average size of full-time holdings8 in the U.K. increased from 92.1 to 104.6 ha, or by 13.6%, between 1970 and 1985. The farms in each study area recorded an increase over the same period, ranging from 5.8% in Dorset to 24% in Bedfordshire (Table 5). The greatest rates of growth occurred where farms were already largest. In 1970, the average farm size in Dorset was 60.5% of that in Bedfordshire. By 1985 it was only 51.7%. For Staffordshire, the comparable percentages were 26.7 and 24.6. The survey method also allowed the determination of gross as well as net change in land area for each farm, providing a much fuller picture of land mobility (see Table 6). The figures in Table 6 refer only to land bought and sold,’ and not to transfers within the family, but still reveal considerable market activity, including major losses as well as gains. In all five localities an area in excess

of one-fifth of the total occupied in 1970 changed hands in just 15 years, approximately half a generation, and in the case of the MGB the proportion exceeds 40%. The modest increase in average farm size in the MGB (+ 10%) is more a consequence of the amount of land lost than limited land acquisitions. In Befordshire, not only have established farmers bought a considerable area but they have also sold relatively little land. A similar pattern exists in Cumbria but both upland areas exhibit a lower overall level of land mobility. Only about one-third of the sample did not change in size and less than 20% declined in area (Table 7), but with major differences in frequency between the study areas. With the exception of the MGB, the Table 7. Frequency

of change in farm business size by locality (%)* Increase in size

Decrease in size

No change

Bedfordshire Dorset MGB

51 58 41

15 14 42

34 28 17

Cumbria Staffordshire

63 43

6 3

31 54

*Figures relate to 1985 for Bedforshire, Dorset and MGB, and to 1988 for Cumbria and Staffordshire.

Geoforum/Volume

112

results from which clearly reflect its urban-fringe location with its numerous small land transfers, much larger proportions of farms gained in size than lost, with even fewer farms in the marginal environments of the uplands declining in size than in either Bedfordshire or Dorset. More than half of the farms in Staffordshire did not change in size, with proportions closer to 30% elsewhere than in the MGB. In spite of the varying rates of aggregate net gain in area in Bedfordshire and Dorset (Table 5), the frequencies of net change by individual farm are remarkably similar. These differences are explained by variations in the local patterns among ‘gainers’ and ‘losers’ (Table 8). The average size of net increase in Bedfordshire is 4 times that of Dorset while the average loss is very similar. The average size of net reduction in the MGB is smaller, reflecting losses to various forms of urban development. In the uplands, the main feature is the small scale of gains and losses in Staffordshire. Although the average size of farm among net ‘losers’ is high in Dorset because of two very large businesses weighting the results, there is little evidence in this sample of more than 400 farms to support the view that small farms are more likely to

22 Number l/1991

be net losers than gainers. It is those that have remained the same size that on average constitute the smallest farms in the lowlands but are among the largest in the uplands. The pattern of land tenure has moved consistently in favour of downer-occupation throughout this century (see Note 6). The survey data confirm this trend to be continuing in ail five study areas. although for historical reasons the proportion of rented land is very much higher in Cumbria and the environs of London where a considerable amount of land is in either public or institutional ownership (Table 9). Significantly, the area in secure tenancies held under the Agricultural Holdings Act fell substantially (by one-third in Dorset) while the amount of land occupied on insecure leases has doubled. By 1985 the proportion of let land held on insecure leases had reached 14% in Staffordshire and 17% in Dorset. In absolute terms the area of insecurely let land is greatest in the MGW where a quarter of all farmers now hold at least some land on this basis, and five occupy more than half of their area this way. In an area of intense land-use competition where owners are constantly seeking planning per-

Table 8. Mean area (ha) of farms by locality and growing,

declining

and no change categories

Mean size (ha) of farms that are: Growing 1970

198511988”

Bedforshire Dorset MGB

21.5 X0 113

Cumbria Staffordshire

102 37

*Figures

Declining

Constant

Change

1970

198511988

Change

198011985

315 IO6 173

+100 +26 +t?o

218 318 145

165 257 114

-53 -51 -31

119 73 71

142 52

+40 +15

150 35

99 26

-51 -9

198 59

relate to 1985 for Bedfordshire,

_

Dorset and the MGB, and to 1988 for Cumbria

Table 9. Change

in land tenure

by study area (%)” Let land

Owner-occupation _.-..

Insecure

Secure leases

leases

1970

1985/19883

1970

lVW1988

1970

198S/1988

Bedforshire Dorset MGB

75 76 38

78 82 46

24 23 59

20 1s 48

1 1 3

2 3 6

Cumbria Staffordshire

26 52

34 58

72 43

62 36

2 5

4 6

*Rounded to nearest full percent. i-Figures relate to 1985 for Bedfordshire, Cumbria and Staffordshire.

Dorset

and the MGB,

_

and Staffordshire.

and to 1988 for

GeoforumNolume

22 Number

l/1991

113

Table 10. Changing nature of owner-occupation

Sole operator

Family shared

(% area)* Fiscal tenancies?

1970

198509883

1970

198.511988

1970

198511988

Bedfordshire Dorset MGB

17 14 19

15 14 22

29 68 45

25 71 27

54 18 36

60 15 51

Cumbria Staffordshire

41 47

40 48

51 29

55 33

8 24

5 19

*Rounded to nearest full percent. TFiscal tenancies and share farming. iFieures relate to 1985 for Bedfordshire, CuGbria and Staffordshire. mission for urban land uses, and where farmers need additional land to expand their businesses, land will often be occupied on an insecure basis-perhaps for long periods-by tenants with few rights [see MUNTON et al. (1988)]. More generally, in their search for land, farmers are both seeking greater security through owner-occupation and, where necessary, a larger amount of land even if some of this has to be held on insecure leases. Finally, the legal category of owner-occupation is taking on a variety of forms. In particular, property rights have become more widely distributed among members of the farm family, and even between them and others outside the family. When faced by higher effective rates of capital and inheritance tax in the 197Os, also a time of rising land prices, a key means of ensuring the continued occupancy of the family into succeeding generations was to spread the taxation liability; it was also a response to changing social conventions which encouraged a more even distribution of family property between children. As a result, the traditional situation based on the sole ownership of the land by the head of the household has become very much less important in lowland Britain although it retains significance in the more conservative farming areas of upland Britain (Table 10). Little change in the proportions has occurred since 1970, the main change taking place between simple family shared arrangements and more complex devices designed to spread the tax liabilities of ownership.“‘In areas of large farms and sophisticated tax planning, such as Bedfordshire, ‘fiscal tenancies’ are now commonplace and the recent and startling growth in share farming in the MGB reflects the complex landownership pattern on the edge of London. Here many smaller owners are not committed to, or experienced in, farming and seek partners who can manage their land effectively while their plans for

Dorset and the MGB, and to 1988 for

its future non-agricultural MUNTON et al. (1988) (1990)].

development mature [see and WHATMORE et al.

Aspects of Strategy The survey data reveal important local differences and significant variations in the pattern of occupancy which lie beyond the statistical definitions and aggregated evidence contained in the Census. In these areas they raise important questions about the validity of the dualist thesis of occupancy change as based upon statistical constructions. Nonetheless, in broad terms the local evidence confirms national trends on the continuing growth in farm size, a decline in traditional forms of tenancy and the redistribution of land rights among a larger number of family members. It also suggests quite different individual household strategies towards gaining access to land, and increasing the security of that access. Furthermore, at an aggregate level, these strategies do not seem to relate closely to the existing size of farm. One reason for this is that seeking additional land is only one approach the farm household can pursue. Another is that this option represents a high-risk strategy in present economic circumstances [see similar arguments in SMALE et al. (1986) for the United States]. The explanation for the high risk lies in its costs, the need to make accurate long-term predictions about the future performance of the economy and the profitability of agriculture, and its unpredictability. These conditions also place considerable emphasis on the ability to raise and service loans. The high level of unpredictability arises for two main reasons. First, less than 2% of all land is sold each year and for the individual farmer the chance of land being offered for sale adjacent to, or close by, existing

Geoforum/Volume

114 land, is low. Thus the purchaser has little control over timing and the opportunity to buy. When the opportunity arises, it will not necessarily be at a financially convenient moment, but the occupier may feel that this ‘once-in-a-lifetime’ opportunity has to be taken in spite of the additional economic stress it may bring. The intention to buy may always be present and is frequently linked directly or indirectly to the perceived need to expand the farm’s operation in order for a member of the family to succeed to a viable business. The level of family expectation is often optimistic. When farmers were asked whether they expected another member of the family to succeed, only X3% were prepared to make a clear response because in some cases it was too early in the family life cycle to say. But among those who felt able to reply, 65% did so in the affirmative, a figure which reached 77% in Bedfordshire but only 55% in Staffordshire. Second, where substantial borrowing is required for land purchase it inevitably represents a long-term commitment, perhaps for 25 years. In recent years the volatility of the national economy and falling farm incomes have doubly squeezed those with large debts because it has been a period of historically high real interest rates (i.e. the difference between the interest rate and the rate of inflation). As a result, the servicing of loans has become a major burden on the industry. In recent years, the interest repayments on all forms of debt including land have been equivalent to more than 40% of net farming income (MAFF. 1990). This high cost accounts, in part, for the large amount of selling as well as buying recorded in the survey data. It has become a common strategy to buy with the immediate intention to sell either part of the purchase or some other farm asset in order to avoid crippling repayments. This may even be a stipulation imposed by those providing the loan. Such practices allow a ‘trickle down’ effect on asset accumulation within the farming population. This process can either encourage the kind of dualism postulated earlier in this paper (i.e. larger, full-time farmers buy small pieces and then sell to part-time or hobby farmers), or act as a source of relatively small parcels of land which can be afforded by the smaller, full-time farmer to expand as a means of survival. The survey data, albeit drawn from among the survivors in the population, tends to support the latter view, leading to greater differentiation among family businesses as a group rather than to the polarity implicit in the dualist thesis. Finally, strategy

the risky nature of the land accumulation also lies in the high absolute cost of land

22 Number

l/1991

purchase, by comparison with most other expansion strategies. Even though land prices have fallen in the 1980s as farm incomes have declined, the price of land has remained high in relation to farming income. In a densely populated countryside there are many competitors for land prepared to pay ‘above agricultural’ prices and farmers have often only been able to compete on the assumption that the extra cost involved could be spread over the whole of the enlarged business. This strategy represents dubious economics at the best of times and threatens disaster if the profitability of farming declines. It also highlights the ever present conflict between family continuity and rational decision making over the opportunity cost of capital [see HUTSON (1987)j. Similar arguments can be made in the context of rented land. In recent decades there has been a marked absence of new tenancies [see discussion in NORTHFIELD COMMITTEE (1979)]. and virtually none at less than ‘rack rents’ determined by tender. This removes the cheapest route into farming, or means of enlarging a farm business, for those unable to afford the high price of land. As the farm survey reveals, where new leases are granted they often do not provide security of tenure, contributing a new source of risk. In effect the system is loaded in favour of the owner-occupied business and this tends to create a closed industry of established farming families in the absence of new tenancies.

Conclusions This paper has examined the validity of the dualist thesis of structural change in both theoretical terms and as it may be applied to the British case. Aggregate statistical evidence in support of this tendency, which is not as readily forthcoming for England and Wales as it is for the United States, plays down this trend. The thesis, simple and attractive though it is in its apparent support of political economy perspectives on structural change under advanced capitalism, as well as bolstering the ideologies of those opposed to the loss of traditional family farms, is clearly too mechanistic. As our analysis of survey evidence suggests, it pays inadequate attention to the range of responses to be found among farming households and, in general, directs attention to the patterns rather than the processes of adjustment. In particular, changing tenurial conditions have been largely ignored in favour of physical size considerations. Longitudinal

evidence

from Britain

suggests

a much

GeoforumNolume

22 Number

l/1991

115

more complex picture, even if it does not necessarily deny certain elements of the dualist thesis. Instead, it emphasizes the historical and geographical specificity of change and indicates that access to, and the social relations surrounding, land have to be assessed in wider terms. The availability of land per se cannot be treated separately from the more general development of the farm business or the changing degree of dependence that the farm household has upon it. Further detailed analysis is required of the social dynamics which condition individual and group responses. These are covered in the survey but have not been followed up here. These concern family structure and, in particular, the presence (or absence) of a successor to the business and the families’ collective aspirations; the social and economic means by which the present household acquired its rights to the land, especially whether the land was inherited; and the size and period (because of the effect of inflation in reducing the real burden) of the debts that are currently being serviced. By far the most important question, however, is the extent to which establishment strategies developed by farming families, as partly revealed by this analysis, will become progressively redundant during a period of post-productionist agriculture in which the drive for further increases in output based on industrial technologies and increased access to land will receive a much lower priority. In particular, it may be the family’s labour skills in meeting the opportunities presented by off-farm employment or on-farm, non-food enterprises which will permit continued occupancy of the land. Such considerations will be further emphasized if the will among agribusiness, the state and society at large to discriminate in favour of the family farm diminishes under a neo-liberal ment. The family resolve to invest modest

returns,

the changing

3.

4.

5.

6.

philosophy of economic managecontinuity ethic, especially the one’s livelihood in farming for

may become global economy

the ultimate casualty of food production.

of

7.

Acknowledgements-The

authors wish to acknowledge the generous financial support for this study received from the Economic and Social Research Council and the Leverhulme Trust.

Notes The proportion of the gross domestic product accounted for by agriculture has fallen from about 6% in 1950 to 1.7% in 1987. The numbers employed in the industry have declined from about 1.1 million to 593,000 over the same period and now only constitute 2.4% of civilian manpower. In real terms, the farming industry’s pre-tax income has

8.

9. 10.

declined by more than half since the mid-1970s, mainly since 1980. Farm households have kept up their incomes by acquiring a larger proportion from off-farm sources and by a smaller number sharing in the industry’s proceeds. Evidence from the U.K. Agricultural Census is difficult to interpret in this regard partly because of weaknesses in the way data have been collected. These concern, first, a lack of consistency in the definitions used to measure size over periods long enough to provide reliable evidence of structural change; second, the use of the ‘holding’ (or unit for which a Census return has to be completed) as the basic unit of analysis, rather than the farm business, the net effect being to overstate the number of small units and understate the number of large [see HARRISON (1975)]; and third, the lack of historical data which measure size in terms of output and thus an excessive dependence upon the sole criterion of farm area as an indicator of farm size [see also HILL and RAY (1987)]. BUTTEL (1983, p. 104) is careful to suggest that the dualist thesis is but an “empirical trend, rather than a completed process” and that the crude categorization of farm businesses into only one of three size categories may be misleading and an inadequate reflection of the process of differentiation. There is a critical debate over the use of the term ‘strategy’ in social science [see CROW (1989)], especially where this imposes a degree of post hoc intentionality by researchers on the responses of families where no such forward planning was present. While some actions may be a response to unanticipated opportunities or disasters, our experience of farmers’ behaviour strongly suggests a co-ordinated plan for future events, often associated with stages in the family cycle and the needs, or otherwise, of family succession. Over the last 30 years land prices have fluctuated alarmingly. In real terms they rose by almost 5 times between the late 1950s and their peak in 1974 since when they have fallen back substantially to between twice and 3 times their 1950s level. The proportion of farmland in owner-occupation has risen steadily from 38% in 1950 to 62% in 1987, and even this percentage is thought to be an underestimate. The amount of farmland sold each year has also halved since the late 1950s to less than lJ% per annum. These data exaggerate the total degree of closure, if not that for those wishing to farm full-time, as many small part-time and hobby farmers are not members of the National Farmers’ Union. There is no consistent run of data for all holdings because of changes in the comprehensiveness of the Agricultural Census and in the definition of a full-time holding, but these figures can be accepted as being broadly accurate for full-time holdings. There is a small possibility of double-counting where land has been transferred between two farms in the same sample. The definitions used are: (a) sole operator, usually head of household, as sole owner; (b) family shared, where more than one member of the family has a beneficial interest in the land; (c) fiscal tenancy, a legal arrangement where the ‘tenant’ also has an ownership interest in the land, usually entered into for tax avoid-

116

Geoforum/Volume ante reasons; and share farming, where the landowner retains the freehold, just entering into a contract with a farmer to carry out the farming, usually with shared profits. No lease is granted.

References BARLETT, P. (1986) The ‘disappearing middle’ and other myths of the changing structure of agriculture, In: Agricultural Change: Consequences for Southern Farms and Communities, pp. 139-1.54, J. Molnar (Ed.). Westview Press, Boulder, CO. BEAULIEU, L. and MULKEY, D. (1986) An assessment of community forces and agricultural change, In: Agricultural Change: Consequences for Southern Farms and Communities, pp. 267-299, J. Molnar (Ed.). Westview Press, Boulder, CO. BOWERS, J. (1985) British agricultural policy since the Second World War, Agric. Hist. Rev. 33,66-76. BRI’ITON, D. and HILL, B. (1975) Size and ~~ciency in Farming. Saxon House, Farnborough. BULTENA, G., LASLEY, P. and GELLER. J. (1986) The farm crisis: patterns and impacts of financial distress among Iowa farm families. Rur. Social., 51, 43-48. BUTTEL, F. (1983) Beyond the family farm, In: Technology and Social Change in Rural Areas, pp. 87-107. G. Summers (Ed.). Westview Press, Boulder, CO. BUTTEL, F. and LaRAMEE, P. (1987) The ‘disappearing middle’: a sociological perspective, Paper read to the Rural Sociological Society, Madison, WI. BUTTEL, F. and NEWBY, H. (Eds) (1980) The Rural Economy of Advanced Socie&x Critical Perspectives. Allenheld, Montclair, NJ. COCHRANE, W. (19’79) The ~e~~e~opnzetz~ of Arner~~a~z Agricz~Zture:a historical Anulys~.~. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN. CLARK, G. (1979) Farm amalgamations in Scotland, Scott. geogr. Mug., 95, 93-107. COX, G., LOWE, P. and WINTER, M. (1986) From state direction to self-regulation: the historical development of corporatism in British agriculture, Policy Politics, 14, 475-490. CROW, G. (1989) The use of the concept of ‘strategy’ in recent sociological literature, Sociology, 23, l-24. EDWARDS, C., SMITH, M. G. and PETERSEN, R. N. (1986) The changing distribution of farms: a Markov analysis, Agric. Econ. Res., 37, l-16. EDWARDS, J. (1978) The effects of changing farm size upon levels of farm fragmentation: it Somerset case study, J. agric. Econ., 29, 143-154. EHRENSHAFT, P. (1983) The industrial organisation of modern agriculture, Can. J. agric. Econ., 31, 122-133. EHRENSHAFT, P., LARAMEE, I’., BOLLMAN, R. D. and BUTTER, F. H. (1984) The micro-dynamics of farm structural change in North America, Am. J. agric. Ecot1., 66, 823-828. FRIEDMANN, H. (1986) Patriarchy and property: a reply to Goodman and Redclift, Sociologia Ruralis, 26. GASSON, R., CROW, G., ERRINGTON, A., HUTSON, J., MARSDEN, T. and WINTER, M. (1988) The farm as a family business: a review, 1. agric. &on., 39, I-42.

22 Number

l/1991

GOODMAN, D. and REDCLIFT, M. (1985) Capitalism, petty commodity production and the farm enterprise, Sociologia Ruralis, 25, 231-247. GOSS, K. (1980) The political economy of class structure in US agriculture: a theoretical outline, In: The Rural Economy of Advanced Societies: Critical Perspectives, pp. 83-132, F. Butte1 and H. Newby (Eds). Allenheld, Montclair, NJ. GRIGG, D. (1987) Farm size in England and Wales from early Victorian times to the present, Agric. I-fist. Rev., 35,179-189. HARRISON, A. (1975) Farmers and Furm Businesses in England. Miscellaneous Study 62, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Reading. HARRISON, A. (1989) The Changing Financial Structure o,f Farming. CAS Report 18, University of Reading. HILL, B. and RAY, D. (1987) Economics for Agriculture: Food, Farming and the Rural Economy. Macmillan, London. HUTSON, J. (1987) Fathers and sons: family farms, family businesses and the farming industry, Sociology, 21,21.5231. ILBERY, B. (1984) Farm fragmentation in the Vale of Evesham, Area, 16,159-165. LYSON, T. (1986) Entry into farming: implications of a dual agricultural structure, In: Agricultural Change: Consequences for Southern Farms and Communities, ;p& 155-176, J. Molnar (Ed.). Westview Press, Boulder, MAFF’(I990) Agriculrure in the United Kingdom. HMSO, London. MARSDEN, T. (1084) Capitalist farming and the family farm: a case study, Sociology, 18, 206-224. MARSDEN, ‘r’. (1988) Commoditisation of the Lahour Process: Farm household in British Agrii,u~ture. Sociology of AgricuIture Working Paper Series No. 2, Rural Studies Research Centre. University College London. MARSDEN, T., MUNTON, R. J. C., WHATMORE, S. J. and LITTLE. J. K. (1989) Strategies for coping in capitalist agriculture: an examination of the responses for farm families in British agriculture, Ceoforum, 20, I-14. MARSDEN, T., WHATMORE, S. J., MUNTON, R. J. C. and LITTLE, J. K. (1986) The restructuring process and economic centrality in capitalist agriculture. J. rur. Stud., 2, 271--2X0. MUNTON, R. J. C., WHATMORE, S. and MARSDEN, T. (1988) Reconsidering urban-fringe agriculture: a longitudinal analysis of capital restructuring on farms in the MGB, Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr., 13. 324-336. MUNTON, R. J. C., MARSDEN. T. and WHATMORE, S. (1990) Technological change in a period of agricultural adjustment. In: Technological Change and the Rural Environment. pp. 104-126. P. Lowe, T. Marsdcn and S. Whatmore (Eds). Fulton, London. MURDOCK, S. H.. ALBRECHT. D. E.. HAMM, R. R.. LEISTRITZ, F. L. and LEHOLM, A. G. (1986) The farm crisis in the Great Plains: implications for theory and policy development, Rur. Social., 51, 406-435. NALSON, J. (1968) T%e Mobility of Farm Fumilies: a Study of Occupational and Residential Mobility in an Upland Area of England. Manchester University Press, Manchester.

GeoforumNolume

22 Number l/1991

(1979) Inquiry into the Occupancy and Acquisition of Agricultural Land. Cmnd 7599, HMSO, London. POTTER, C. and GASSON, R. (1988) Farm diversification and rural development, J. agric. Econ., 39, 175NORTHFIELD

COMMITTEE

182.

SALAMON, S. and DAVIS-BROW, K. (1986) Middlerange farmers persisting through the agricultural crisis, Rur. Social., 51.503-512.

SELF, P. and STORING, H. (1962) The State and the Farmer. Allen & Unwin, London. SMALE, M., SAUPE, W. E. and SALANT, P. (1986) Farm family characteristics and the viability of farm households in Wisconsin, Mississippi and Tennessee, Agric. Econ. Res., 38, 11-27. C. (1984) Changes in US Agriculture during the 1970s: an examination of Farm Sire Measured by Constunt Dollar Safes Categories. ES0 1146, Department of

SULAUF,

117 Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. SYMES, D. and APPLETON, J. (1986) Family goals and kinship strategies in a capitalist farming society, Sociologia Ruralis, I&,346-363.

TRACY, M. (1984) Issues of agricultural policy in a historical framework, J. agric. Econ., 35,307-318. TRAILL, B. (1982) Taxes, investment incentives and the cost of agricultural inputs, J. agric. Econ., 33, I-12. WHATMORE, S., MUNTON, R. J. C., MARSDEN, T. and LITTLE, J. K. (1987) Interpreting a relational typology of farm businesses in southern England, Sociologia Ruralis, 27, 103-122.

WHATMORE, S., MUNTON, R. J. C. andMARSDEN, T. (1990) The rural restructuring process: emerging divisions of agricultural property rights, Reg. Stud., 24,235-24.5. WILLIAMS, W. (1963) The social study of family farming, Geogr. J., 129,63-75.