- Email: [email protected]
Utilising a farm typology to identify potential adopters of alternative farming activities in Greek agriculture
Journal of Rural Studies 18 (2002) 95–103
Research note
Utilising a farm typology to identify potential adopters of alternative farming activities in Greek agriculture Irene Daskalopoulou*, Anastasia Petrou Department of Economics, University of Patras, University Campus 265 00 Rio, Patras, Greece
Abstract Farm household survival strategies are acknowledged to determine the adoption of alternative farm enterprises as part of the farm household’s production and reproduction pattern and are, thus, used to identify the potential adopters of such enterprises. The present work utilises an ideal typology of Greek farms in order to identify different types of farms as regards their mode of survival. Each survival strategy is linked to different motives for and constraints against the adoption of alternative farm enterprises. Results show that three types of farm households may be identified, namely subsistence, survivalist and productivist farm households. The potential adopters of alternative farm enterprises may be traced among farm households that pursue a survivalist mode of production. It is argued that the diversity of farm structures observed within this type of farm households cannot be regarded as the decisive factor as far as their mode of survival is concerned. Rather, it is considered to form a context of different motivations for and constraints against the adoption of alternative farming activities. r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Farm typology; Alternative farm enterprises; Greek agriculture
1. Introduction Farm household developments paths and the adoption of alternative farm enterprises concern much of the research devoted to the identification and understanding of farmers’ responses to the current trade and policy environment. Intensifying international competition and changing consumption patterns have both affected national and international agricultural markets. In order to sustain viable agricultural holdings farmers must, at least to an extent, accommodate these changes. As recent research shows, ‘‘the adoption of alternative farm enterprises that use farm resources in an innovative and quantitative different way does have the potential of bringing in a new income to farm business’’ (Damianos and Skuras, 1996a, p. 61). Pluriactivity is a widespread phenomenon often employed by Greek rural households as, among other, a means of coping with adverse economic conditions (Kasimis, 1988). The plausibility to engage in off-farm income and employment generation activities will be lower for farms located in primarily agricultural areas, where the other sectors of the economy are poorly *Corresponding author. Tel.: +30-61-996136; fax: +30-61-996161. E-mail address: [email protected] (I. Daskalopoulou).
developed (Glitsos, 1988). This is the case for a large number of Greek regions, which still maintain a strong agricultural character. Moreover, these regions depend upon the production of heavily subsidised agricultural products, such as tobacco, cotton, olive oil, corn, etc., using conventional production processes and techniques. The adoption of alternative farm enterprises, revitalising the means of production towards new directions, is a promising farm development path for these regions. The purpose of this study is to identify the potential adopters of alternative farm enterprises utilising an ideal typology of Greek farms. A typology is used to empirically identify the main types of Greek farms in terms of their structure, evolution and adjustment strategies. In terms of their survival strategies three different types of farms have been identified, namely subsistence, survivalist and productivist farm households. The relationship of each ideal type of farms with farming as an economic activity is then analysed within the context of linking survival strategies to the adoption of alternative farming. The diversity of farm structures that has been found to characterise each type of farms is considered as a decisive factor as regards a context of motivations for and constraints against action, i.e. adjustment through the adoption of alternative farm
0743-0167/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 7 4 3 - 0 1 6 7 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 2 7 - 4
96
I. Daskalopoulou, A. Petrou / Journal of Rural Studies 18 (2002) 95–103
activities, that is rather distinct for each type of farm households. While acknowledging the limitations imposed by a lack of data on an number of other distinguishing variables, (i.e. age, education and training of the farm operator, etc.), results are the outcome of a typology focusing on the internal socio-economic structure of the farm. Other important factors such as personal reactions to changes (psychological characteristics) and institutional arrangements are not being dealt here.
2. The theoretical context The way potential adopters of alternative farm enterprises may be identified raises considerable disagreement among writers. This is the outcome of first, different perceptions of diversity in agricultural production patterns (Buttel, 1980; van der Ploeg, 1993; Redclift and Whatmore, 1990), and second, different meanings attributed to the term alternative (Bowler, 1992; Batie and Taylor, 1991; Damianos and Clark, 1992). According to Whatmore et al. (1987), diversity of agricultural production patterns should be understood as the outcome of external as well as internal to the farm family forces. Under this scope, diversity can be viewed as a phenomenon facilitating the development of regional patterns of growth and integration into the wider processes of socio-economic change (Marsden, 1998). The term ‘‘alternative’’, on the other hand, is being used to indicate anything that is opposed to present-day conventional production practices and processes. Thus, the term is attributed a different meaning depending on the practice or system that is compared with (Batie and Taylor, 1991). Under a broad conceptual framework, Damianos and Skuras (1996b, p. 274), define an alternative farm enterprise as one characterised by the ‘‘redeployment of farm resources (including human capital) into new agricultural products or services on the farm or into new non-farm products or services on the farm’’. New is referred to, in the sense of new in the area or new to the country. The study of family farms as potential adopters of alternative production and/or employment activities has focused on the analysis of two distinct paths of farm business development. For the former body of writers, the identification of the potential adopters can be achieved by means of analysing the production practices employed by family farms (Shucksmith, 1993; Gasson, 1988). In this case, adoption of alternative production and/or employment activities is an issue determined by objective factors such as the physical or economic size of a farm. Alternatively, ideal types of farms are used by writers who attempt to identify potential adopters of alternative activities by means of analysing farm households’ reproduction and survival strategies (Whatmore
et al., 1987). Family farms are viewed as complex socioeconomic formations stemming from the close interaction between the family unit and the farm business. Adoption of alternative enterprises depends upon the choice of family farms’ survival strategies in an ever changing and often adverse socio-economic environment (Vail, 1982; Djurfeldt and Waldenstrom, 1999). Ideal types of farms are based on specific definitions of the family farm, that is, the characteristics of both the farm household and the farm production unit are determined. The aim is to provide a full understanding and an all encompassing categorisation of, either the economic behaviour of farmers (Stanworth and Curran, 1981), or their values and attitudes in relation to their economic functions (Hobbs et al., 1964), or their goal orientations (Fairweather and Keating, 1990; Olsson, 1988; Salamon and Davis-Brown, 1986). Depending on the way and scope of their development, therefore, ideal types are used to aid understanding of farm development processes and strategies. Empirical findings under this scope of analysis might fail to relate adopters of alternative farms enterprises to a specific type of farm household reproduction strategy (Gillmor et al., 1995; Marsden et al., 1986). In many cases, observed characteristics, behaviours and strategies of the farm household serve more than one goal. Thus, it might be difficult for researchers to differentiate between adoption of an alternative production activity and adjustment to changes in the external socio-economic environment (Fuller, 1990; Barlett, 1986; Reis et al., 1990). Complexity of the empirical findings is to a large extent the outcome of different operational definitions of the farm family itself. This stems from the necessity to best illustrate different socio-economic, cultural, environmental, political and institutional contexts. Furthermore, given a specific theoretical context, the different definitions of family farms are acknowledged to implicitly assume different farm household production and reproduction patterns1 (Gasson and Errington, 1993; Djurfeldt, 1996). In the case of Greece, land and labour are viewed as the most important defining elements of the term. Under a political economy perspective Kasimis and Papadopoulos (1997, p. 211), define a family farm as ‘‘that form of production in which the ownership of the means of production and 1 Criteria such as labour, income, ownership of land and financial capital and control over management, being the most important defining principles of the term farm family, raise considerable theoretical conflicts over their use and the degree of their importance. Gasson and Errington (1993), recently introduced a broad definition of a ‘‘farm family business’’ placing emphasis upon the ownership, the managerial control and the intergenerational transfer of land. Their definition, however, has been strongly criticised by Djurfeldt (1996), who emphasised the problem of family labour supply and questioned the operationalisation of such a definition.
I. Daskalopoulou, A. Petrou / Journal of Rural Studies 18 (2002) 95–103
labour power co-exist in the same production unit, without a discrete division between capital and labour, with family members often supplying the bulk of labour necessary for agricultural production’’. This study attempts to identify potential adopters of alternative farm enterprises, as defined by Damianos and Skuras (1996b), on the basis of an ideal typology of Greek farms developed by Kasimis and Papadopoulos (1995). Analysing the reproduction and survival strategies of farm households, they distinguish between three models of farming. They identify as ‘‘subsistence’’ farming the case where households perform agriculture as a complementary, to the other main, source of income and most often for self-consumption. In the second case, the ‘‘survivalist’’ farm households aim at the modernisation of the farm as a means of sustaining total family income. Agriculture is the main income and employment generation activity used to support both the economic and social development of the farm household. In other words, these households aim at the reproduction of both the farm and the family. In the third case, they identify as ‘‘productivist’’ the farm households for which the maintenance of full-time employment on the farm and of a given level of income depends upon farm expansion and efficient adaptation to the changing economic and market environment. As in most developed countries, the ongoing process of agricultural restructuring in Greece is expected to provoke a series of responses from farm households. Adjustment in the form of alternative, unconventional farm practices might be appropriate for the different types of farm households given the importance of farm income to the total farm household income. As a recent research shows, this kind of adjustment is related to the internal dynamic of the farm and not necessarily to its physical characteristics (Damianos and Skuras, 1996b). According to Padel (1994), the motivations underlying such an adjustment process typically are either farm related or personal. The importance of each set of factors or variables underlies, in turn, the farm household’s decision-making process. Gladwin (1989) includes these factors in a decision tree in order to highlight the reasons and constraints in the decision of the farmers to change their production practices. Paths of farm business development that involve the continuation of agricultural activity as the main source of income include conventional, alternative, off-farm pluriactive and industrial farm households (Damianos and Skuras, 1996b). This study aims at the construction of an ideal typology, which is used to highlight the context of incentives and means for as well as the constraints against the adoption of an alternative farm enterprise. Adjustment in the form of adopting an alternative farm enterprise is considered as a possible path of farm business development. In rural areas characterised by the lack of off-farm employment
97
opportunities, available income and employment generation activities are further restricted. The ‘‘survivalist’’ and the ‘‘productivist’’ types of farms are the ones most likely to face an adjustment dilemma compared to the subsistence type of farms. Intuitively, survivalist farms might be characterised as potential adopters of alternative farm enterprises in cases where the ability of pursuing a modernisation strategy is also limited.
3. Utilising an ideal typology of Greek farms The construction of the typology has been carried out in two stages. First, a homogeneous set of rural areas has been selected and then, a typology of farms has been constructed based on an index created by a number of explanatory variables. The selected regions form a homogeneous set of areas in the sense that they are all characterised by non-mixed, primarily agricultural, economies that depend upon the production of conventional, heavily subsidised, agricultural products such as tobacco, cotton, olive oil etc (Fig. 1). More specifically, 14, out of the total number of 51, Greek regions have been selected in which agriculture accounts for more than one-third of the total GDP, while it employs more than one-third of the economically active population (Table 1). Further, the amount of cultivated land engaged in the production of heavily subsidised products is significantly high in all regions considered here (Table 1). Off-farm employment opportunities are limited in the case of areas lagging behind in the development of the secondary and tertiary sectors of the economy thus, being unable to absorb the excess labour force that is currently underemployed in farming (Glitsos, 1988). Consequently, the need for on-farm diversification will be more urgent for farms in these areas. Additionally, more than one-third of the total cultivated land in all prefectures is engaged in the production of heavily subsidised agricultural products2 the production of which will be severely constrained in the foreseeable future. The Agenda 2000 decisions regarding CAP spending will considerably affect agricultural activity (in terms of output, income and employment) in such areas (Daouli and Daskalopoulou, 1998), thus reinforcing the need for adopting alternative production and/or employment activities on the farm. Four variables have been used for the construction of the typology, namely rented land, mechanisation, hired labour and off-farm employment. Data on these variables are provided from the Agricultural Structures’ Survey conducted by the National Statistical Service of 2
The average, per region, amount of cultivated land that is engaged in the production of subsidised products is indicative for all farms irrespectively of the size class to which they belong (NSSG, 1993).
98
I. Daskalopoulou, A. Petrou / Journal of Rural Studies 18 (2002) 95–103
Fig. 1. GreeceFselected areas.
Table 1 Percentage distribution of GDP and employment and cultivated land engaged in the production of subsidised productsa Region
GDP from agriculture (1991)
Employment in agriculture (1991)
Cultivated land under subsidised products (1993)
Aitoloakarnania Argolida Lakonia Messinia Preveza Karditsa Larissa Trikala Kilkis Pella Pieria Serres Evros Rodopi Sample average
36 37 46 42 37 50 36 37 42 42 35 42 36 43 40
45 39 53 37 37 47 33 35 33 49 35 43 39 58 42
46 55 65 62 43 88 67 51 67 39 48 66 57 64 58
a
Source: National Statistical Service of Greece, 1991, 1993.
Greece in 1993. These variables, among others, are referred to as important in explaining farmers’ choices of production patterns in a number of relevant studies (Just and Zilberman, 1983; Goodwin and Schroeder, 1994; Kimhi, 1994; Feder, 1980). Also, these variables account for some of the most important factors that
affect the structure and choice of production patterns of farm households in Greece (Damianos and Skuras, 1996a, b). Each of these variables ranges between low, medium and high, taking an index value of –1, 0 and 1, respectively. The corresponding boundaries for each variable are:3 below 25 per cent, between 25 and 50 per cent and above 50 per cent for rented land and mechanisation, below 0.05, between 0.05 and 0.5 and above 0.5 for hired labour and below 15 per cent, between 15 and 33 per cent and above 33 per cent for pluriactivity. Six size classes of cultivated land per prefecture have been used in order to see how these factors may vary according to size. More specifically, six classes of cultivated land size per prefecture, that range between, 0.1–o1 ha, 1–o5 ha, 5–o10 ha, 10–o20 ha, 20–o50 ha and >50 ha, have been used for the typology construction according to: 3.1. Rented land Rented land as percentage of the total cultivated land has been used as an indication of the farmer’s willingness to undertake risk. Given the small average size of Greek farms and the persistent problems of high land 3 These boundaries emerge from data differentiation of each variable.
I. Daskalopoulou, A. Petrou / Journal of Rural Studies 18 (2002) 95–103
fragmentation, a trend toward increasing the total size of cultivated land through renting is expected. The findings of Moissidis (1993), however, show that the instability of agricultural incomes, resulting from factors such as the weather conditions and the fluctuations of the prices of the agricultural products, usually causes farmers to be hesitant toward undertaking such a risk. 3.2. Mechanisation Mechanisation refers to the percentage of farms per size class that own a tractor. This variable is used to indicate the level of farm modernisation. Over-mechanisation that has been found to characterise Greek agriculture relates primarily to the efficient use of machinery and not to its existence (Moissidis, 1993). 3.3. Hired labour The ratio of hired to family labour is used as another criterion to identify different types of farm family businesses. According to Gasson and Errington (1993), this can be used as a ‘‘theoretically more acceptable criterion’’ in order to determine the degree of family farm capitalisation. 3.4. Pluriactivity Finally, pluriactivity refers to the percentage of households with at least one spouse having an off-farm gainful activity as his/her main occupation. In general, there is a negative relationship between the size of a farm and the existence of another off-farm gainful activity. Pluriactivity is thus, linked to different farm household survival and reproduction strategies depending on the size of the farm (Kasimis, 1988). Pluriactivity should be viewed as a complementary source of income, in the case of small farms, whereas it could be characterised as ‘‘choice’’ or ‘‘privilege’’ in the case of large farms that undergo a process of accumulation/ expansion (Efstratoglou-Todoulou, 1990). The typology has been constructed using the average, per class size, price of each variable.4 Notwithstanding, therefore, the possibility of masking intra-regional differences an attempt is made below to highlight the existing features and trends among different types of farms.5 As shown in Table 2, three types of farms may be identified: 4 The importance of socio-demographic factors for the structure of farm households’ reproduction strategies cannot be neglected. However, due to lack of official data at regional level only economic variables for which official data exist have been used here. 5 As official data (NSSG, 1993), reveal the amount of rented land for which some compensation is paid to the owner does not exceed 50 per cent of the total rented land in all regions examined here. Phenomena such as shared farming and non-paid tenant farming continue to exist with a significant impact upon agricultural structures in the country.
99
3.4.1. Type IFsubsistence farms This type includes all farms of less than 1 ha size, in all prefectures. Rented land and mechanisation for these farms are quite low. The household’s members almost exclusively provide farm labour, whereas more than one-third of these households have declared having as their main occupation an off-farm gainful activity. These family farms could be characterised as ‘‘marginal’’. Agricultural activity in these farms is performed either for self-consumption reasons (in the case of products such as olive oil) or to the extent that a quota (in the case of products such as tobacco and hard wheat) is possessed by the farm household. In any case, these households could be linked to the ‘‘subsistence’’ model of farming, either as households that go through a process of exciting agriculture, or as households that are expected to follow a similar process in the near future. 3.4.2. Type IIFsurvivalist farms This type of farms has been found in a wide range of farm size classes ranging from 1–5 to 20–50 ha. This type characterises arms between 1–5 and 5–10 ha size, while it also characterises a significant part of farms among the 10–20 ha size farms and it can even be traced among the 20–50 ha size farms. Production on behalf of these households is sustained in two ways. In the first case, farm households are characterised by relatively high degrees of rented land and mechanisation, limited use of hired labour, while a significant proportion of them refers to part-time farms. These farm households pursue their survival through the combination of income obtained from agriculture and pluriactivity. In the second case, farm households are characterised by quite high levels of mechanisation and rented land while they make limited use of hired labour. A significant proportion of farms in this category can be characterised as part-time farms. These farm households exercise farming as their main occupation and aim at the modernisation of their farm. In both cases, agriculture continues to be an important income and employment source. 3.4.3. Type IIIFproductivist farms This type of farms has also been observed in a wide range of farm size classes that range between 10 and above 50 ha. This type refers to large-scale, dynamic farms that could be linked to a ‘‘productivist’’ model of farming. Here, again, two categories of farms may be distinguished. On the one hand, the large-scale family farms are characterised by the highest percentages of mechanisation, rented land and use of hired labour. The proportion of part-time farms in this category is quite low. In this case, farm households aim at the modernisation of the farm in order to sustain a given level of income and provide full-time employment on the farm for the members of the farm household. On the other hand, the large-scale, entrepreneurial type of farms is
100
I. Daskalopoulou, A. Petrou / Journal of Rural Studies 18 (2002) 95–103
Table 2 Distribution of the types of farms per farm size class Region
Farm size classes 0.1–o1 ha
1–o5 ha
5–o10 ha
10–o20 ha
20–o50 ha
>50 ha
Aitoloakarnania Argolida Lakonia Messinia Preveza Karditsa Larissa Trikala Kilkis Pella Pieria Serres Evros Rodopi
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
II II II II II II II II II II II II II II
II II II II II II II II II II II II II II
III II II II III III III II II III II III II III
III II II III II III III III III III III III III III
III III III III III F III III III III III III III F
Table 3 Percentage distribution of Types I–III of farms Region
Type I subsistence farms
Type II survivalist farms
Type III productivist farms
Aitoloakarnania Argolida Lakonia Messinia Preveza Karditsa Larissa Trikala Kilkis Pella Pieria Serres Evros Rodopi
22.3 19.0 22.7 20.0 32.2 14.0 12.0 21.0 4.5 13.3 20.7 17.4 5.3 12.2
70.3 80.8 76.9 79.4 36.6 70.3 64.9 76.0 87.5 82.4 77.7 71.2 89.1 77.6
7.3 0.2 0.4 0.6 3.6 15.1 22.9 1.8 8.2 4.2 1.5 11.4 5.6 10.2
characterised by high percentages of mechanisation, rented land and hired labour. Also, the proportion of part-time farms is quite high in this category. In this case, the existence of another gainful activity is related with a process of accumulation/expansion of the farm. Subsistence farming has been found to relate to a large number of farms in all regions. On average, Type I of farms accounts for 17 per cent of the farms in all regions. On the other hand, the proportion of Type III farms accounts, on average, for 7 per cent of the farms in all regions (Table 3). Both types, however, refer to higher proportions of the total number of farms in the case of some regions. A significant part of these deviations might be attributed to the geomorphology of the specific regions. For some regions, therefore, a trend towards land concentration and farm size enlargement should be noted, but no further conclusions
may be drawn from that observation regarding a model of agricultural development (Moissidis, 1993). Apart from these two ‘‘extremes/poles’’, the vast majority of farms are characterised as survivalist (Type II) and concentrate more than two-thirds of the total number of farms in all regions (Table 3). Diversity as regards the structure of these farms is related to the mobilisation of different resources, depending on their availability, towards sustaining total farm household income from agriculture. The adoption of alternative production practices as a conscious adjustment strategy in order to sustain total family income seems to refer primarily to the survivalist model of farming and much less to subsistence or productivist farming as defined here. Subsistence or selfconsumption farms are little affected by agricultural policy measures, while their limited connection to markets cannot really determine either their production process or the amount of total family income. Consequently, survival strategies in this kind of households are structured almost in spite of the external economic environment and not because of it. Their production practices conform closely to hobby/retired farming. Possessing limited natural resources and given the importance of off-farm work in terms of employment and income generation, these households do not constitute potential adopters in the sense of adjusting their whole relationship to farming. This might be the case even under the issue of grant aid schemes and subsidies which have been found to constitute important motivations towards adopting alternative farming activities (Bruckmeier et al., 1994; Fisher, 1989). Productivist farm households, on the other hand, operate better endowed farms and seem to have a choice regarding their adjustment process. They have ownership and control over larger farms while they engage labour and capital on a full-time basis. It could be
I. Daskalopoulou, A. Petrou / Journal of Rural Studies 18 (2002) 95–103
hypothesised that these farms can sustain the cost of adjustment associated with the change towards less intensive production techniques relying on either their own capital resources or their better access to credit. Fisher’s (1989), study however, shows that the amount of capital engaged in current production practices and techniques constitute a constraint against the adoption of alternative practices. Indeed, the goal orientation of these farm households is focused towards increased profits, so that the adoption of alternative activities will be constrained if they do not have ‘‘greater profit’’ incentives to do so. This coincides with the argument that, productivist farm households may better face the growing competition that characterises market economies. According to Barlas et al. (2000), these farms are most likely to pursue strategies such as lowering the cost of production and/or increasing productivity, caught as most of them are in the so-called ‘‘technological treadmill’’. Survivalist farm households are urged to adjust their conventional production practices but constrained towards pursuing a path of farm business development such as the off-farm pluriactive or the industrial type. These farms are most vulnerable to changes in agricultural policy since they face the threat of decreased total family income. Unlike the productivist farm households that face a decrease in profits, these farms consider the possibility of not being able to support the needs of the farm household. Limited opportunities of off-farm employment, on the other hand, signify an unfavourable external environment that does not offer alternative employment and income generation activities. Finally, the limited production means survivalist farms which constitute possess industrial farming a risky farm business development path. Adjustment in the form of adopting an alternative farm enterprise seems to be a very promising choice giving survivalist farms the ability to utilise their resources in an innovative way currently linked to a ‘‘sustainable modernisation’’ development paradigm (Marsden, 1998). According to Marsden (1998), sustainable modernisation involves non-conventional forms of performing agriculture targeted at the rising consumption orientation of rural space. The current institutional, policy and economic setting, therefore, urges farms to adjust their relationship with farming. The survivalist farm households, heavily dependent upon subsidies and off-farm income in order to ensure their survival, cannot sustain the cost associated with the adoption of alternative production activities. The risk involved in such a decision is an important constraining factor. As shown by Dimara and Skuras (1999), it is important to devise agricultural development instruments that aim to assist risk reduction in the adoption of alternative farm activities in the marginal areas of Greece. In the absence of an
101
encouraging and supportive agricultural policy framework, these farm households are unlikely to take action no matter how they might be urged by economic, social, environmental or ideological reasons. The importance of these factors has been acknowledged in a number of studies (Svensson, 1991; Willer and Gillmor, 1992; Lockeritz and Madden, 1987; Milder et al., 1991). Nonetheless, it has been argued that these factors lie behind farmer’s choices of farming methods; choices made provided a set of policy measures on technology and finances is also available (Fairweather, 1999).
4. DiscussionFconclusions This study has attempted to identify potential adopters of alternative farm enterprises by means of utilising an ideal typology of Greek farms. Factors such as land, hired labour, mechanisation and pluriactivity have been associated to different contexts of motivations for and constraints against adjustment in the form of adopting an alternative farm enterprise. Thus, alternative farming has been considered as a production and reproduction strategy examined and analysed within an internal to the farm household decision making process. The overwhelming diversity of farm structures in Greece has been acknowledged to be the outcome of farm households’ specific survival strategies. Further, the persistence of small family farms has been attributed to their ‘‘flexible’’ and ‘‘efficient’’ socio-economic structure that is able to accommodate changes and pursue aims in many ways (Louloudis et al., 1989). This supports the ability of a typology approach to identify potential adopters of alternative farm enterprises by means of identifying appropriate paths of farm business development. The above analysis has revealed the existence of three main types of farms namely subsistence, survivalist and productivist farms. Subsistence farming (Type I), has been found to characterise small, pluriactive farm households, that depend on hired labour and do not present any signs of modernisation (low levels of rented land and mechanisation). Survivalist farming (Type II) characterises small-medium size farms that use an offfarm gainful activity as a complementary source of income while, in some cases, off-farm employment contributes towards the modernisation of the farm. Finally, productivit farming (Type III) has been found to characterise large-scale farms pursuing full-time employment of the farm household’s members on the farm. The existence of off-farm employment in this type of farms is related to higher levels of mechanisation, on the one hand, and the need for more capital investments, on the other. The vast majority of farms have been found to pursue a survivalist model of farming (Type II) depending on
102
I. Daskalopoulou, A. Petrou / Journal of Rural Studies 18 (2002) 95–103
various combinations of land, labour and capital. These farms have been identified as the most likely ones to adjust in the changing policy and economic environment through the adoption of alternative farm activities. Their profile shows that, they engage in farming all the available resources that they own in order to sustain a given level of income, which is supplemented importantly by off-farm activities. Their mode of survival is inexorably linked to farming albeit in a form rather distinct from the other two types of farms identified here. The importance of farming as their main income generation activity prevents these farm households from exiting agriculture. So, they might seem unwilling to practice farming on a subsistence or self-sufficiency basis and become households of Type I. On the other hand, the amount of resources that they own and control do not seem sufficient for them to pursue productivist practices and adjust through enlargement and modernisation, i.e. become Type III of farm households. Adoption of alternative farming activities seems to be a suitable development pathway for farm households of Type II. The diversity observed within this type of farm households reflects differences in the farm characteristics and not in their production and reproduction pattern. Some of these farm households may be more readily able to take advantage of an alternative farming activity, particularly those which show signs of modernisation and use off-farm income to make improvements on the farm. This, however, does not impose any constraints upon the rest of the farms to follow a similar development pathway. Size, therefore, or other farm characteristics may point to an overwhelming diversity as far as structures are concerned but little affect the farm households’ survival strategies. Within this context, farms of different physical characteristics may pursue the adoption of alternative farm enterprises, that is pursuing the same or similar survival strategies. It is important, however, to stress that diversity within this type of farms is relevant to policy measures and the institutional framework underlying agricultural development, a topic not examined in this article. The potential ability of a typology approach to inform policy design and implementation through highlighting a set of forces for and against action should be noted. This coincides with the current focus of EU rural and regional development policy. Different incentives or a set of measures to eliminate different constraints (lack of information, technology, finance, etc.) are sought in the contemporary policy framework.
Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank D. Skuras for his invaluable comments and suggestions on an earlier
draft of this paper. We would also like to thank the anonymous referees for reading through and commenting on this paper.
References Barlas, Y., Damianos, D., Dimara, E., Kasimis, C., Skuras, D., 2001. Factors influencing the integration of alternative farm enterprises into the agro-food system. Rural Sociology, in press. Barlett, P.F., 1986. Part-time farming: saving the farm or saving the life-style? Rural Sociology 51 (3), 289–313. Batie, S., Taylor, D., 1991. Assessing the character of agricultural production systems: issues and implications. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 6 (4), 184–187. Bowler, I., 1992. ‘Sustainable agriculture’ as an alternative path of farm business development. In: Bowler, I.R., Bryant, C.R., Nellis, M.D. (Eds.), Contemporary Rural Systems in Transition. Agriculture and Environment. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 237–253. Bruckmeier, K., Grund, H., Symes, D., Jansen, A.J., 1994. Perspectives for environmentally sound agriculture in east Germany. In: Agricultural Restructuring and Rural Change in Europe. Wageningse Sociologische Studies No. 37, Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands. Buttel, F.H., 1980. Agriculture, environment and social change: some emergent issues. In: Buttel, F.H., Newby, H. (Eds.), The Rural Sociology of the Advanced Societies: Critical Perspectives. Croom Helm, London. Damianos, D., Clark, D., 1992. The definition of alternative farming systems. Working Paper 1, Alternative Farming Systems in the Lagging Regions of the EC, CAMAR (8001-CT91-0119). Damianos, D., Skuras, D., 1996a. Unconventional adjustment strategies for rural households in the less developed areas in Greece. Agricultural Economics 15, 61–72. Damianos, D., Skuras, D., 1996b. Farm business and the development of alternative farm enterprises: an empirical analysis in Greece. Journal of Rural Studies 12 (3), 273–283. Daouli, J., Daskalopoulou, I., 1998. Development of alternative structural policy scenarios and assessment of their economic effects: the case of Aitoloakarnania. Research Report, FAIR3FCT1554 Research project. Department of Economics, University of Patras, Patras, Greece. Dimara, E., Skuras, D., 1999. Importance and need for rural development instruments under the CAP: a survey of farmers’ attitudes in marginal areas of Greece. Journal of Agricultural Economics 50 (2), 304–315. Djurfeldt, G., 1996. Defining and operationalising family farming from a sociological perspective. Sociologia Ruralis 36 (3), 340–351. Djurfeldt, G., Waldenstrom, C., 1999. Mobility patterns of Swedish farming households. Journal of Rural Studies 15 (3), 331–344. Efstratoglou-Todoulou, S., 1990. Pluriactivity in different socioeconomic contexts: a test of the push–pull hypothesis in Greek farming. Journal of Rural Studies 6 (4), 407–413. Fairweather, J., 1999. Understanding how farmers choose between organic and conventional production: results from New Zealand and policy implications. Agriculture and Human Values 16, 51–63. Fairweather, J., Keating, N., 1990. Management styles of Canterbury farmers. Canterbury NZ: Lincoln University Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit, Research Report No. 205. Feder, G., 1980. Farm size, risk aversion and the adoption of new technology under uncertainty. Oxford Economic Papers 32, 263–283. Fisher, P., 1989. Barriers to the adoption of organic farming in Canterbury. M. Appl. Sci. Thesis. Centre for Resource Management, Lincoln College.
I. Daskalopoulou, A. Petrou / Journal of Rural Studies 18 (2002) 95–103 Fuller, A., 1990. From part-time farming to pluriactivity: a decade of change in rural Europe. Journal of Rural Studies 6 (4), 361–373. Gasson, R., 1988. Farm diversification and rural development. Journal of Agricultural Economics 39, 175–182. Gasson, R., Errington, A., 1993. The Farm Family Business. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Gillmor, D.A., McDonagh, P., Cawley, M., 1995. The adoption of alternative farming enterprises in Ireland’s less favoured areas. Paper Presented at the XVI Congress of the European Society for Rural Sociology, July 31–4 August, Prague, Czech Republic. Gladwin, C.H., 1989. Ethnographic Decision Tree Modeling. Sage, Newbury Park. Glitsos, N.P., 1988. Regional inequalities in Greece: demographic and economic features. Scientific Studies 27, KEPE, Athens (in Greek). Goodwin, B.K., Schroeder, T.C., 1994. Human capital, producer education programs, and the adoption of forward pricing methods. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76, 936–947. Hobbs, D.J., Beal, J.M., Bohlen, J.M., 1964. The relation of farm operator values and attitudes to their economic performance. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University, Department of Economics and Sociology, Rural Sociology Report No. 33. Just, R.E., Zilberman, D., 1983. Stochastic structure, farm size and technology adoption in developing agriculture. Oxford Economic Papers 35, 307–328. Kasimis, C., 1988. Forms of farmer’s employment and the structure of farm enterprises: the empirical dimension of the pluriactivity of farmers. Unpublished monograph submitted to the Foundation for Mediterranean Studies (in Greek). Kasimis, C., Papadopoulos, A.G., 1995. Productivist and survivalist farm strategies: studying the sustainability of Greek agriculture. Paper presented at the XVI Congress of the European Society for Rural Sociology, 31 JulyF4 August, Prague, Czech Republic. Kasimis, C., Papadopoulos, A.G., 1997. Family farming and capitalist development in Greek agriculture: a critical review of the literature. Sociologia Ruralis 37 (2), 209–227. Kimhi, A., 1994. Participation of farm owners in farm and off-farm work including the option of full-time off-farm work. Journal of Agricultural Economics 45, 232–238. Lockeritz, W., Madden, P., 1987. Midwestern organic farming: a ten year follow up. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 2 (2), 57–63. Louloudis, L., Martinos, N., Panagiotou, A., 1989. Patterns of agrarian change in east central Greece: the case of Anthili community. Sociologia Ruralis 29 (1), 49–66. Marsden, T., 1998. Beyond agriculture? Towards sustainable modernization. In: Redclift, M., Lekakis, J., Zanias, G.P. (Eds.), Agriculture and World Trade Liberalization: Socio-Environmental
103
Perspectives on the Common Agricultural Policy. CAB International, Wallingford UK. Marsden, T., Munton, R., Whatmore, S., Little, J., 1986. Towards a political economy of capitalist agriculture: a British perspective. International Journal of Urban and Rural Research 4, 498–521. Milder, P.J., Negrave, P.D., Schoney, R.A., 1991. Descriptive analysis of Saskatchewan organic producers. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 394 (II), 891–899. Moissidis, A., 1993. Family farming and valorization of productive resources: agricultural Bank of Greece, Athens (in Greek). National Statistical Service of Greece, 1991. Population census. National Statistical Service of Greece, 1993. Agricultural structures’ survey. Olsson, R., 1988. Management for success in modern agriculture. European Review of Agricultural Economics 15, 239–259. Padel, S., 1994. Adoption of organic farming as an example of the diffusion of an innovationFa literature review on the conversion to organic farming. Centre for Organic Husbandry and Agroecology Discussion Paper Series, 94/1. Redclift, N., Whatmore, S., 1990. Household, consumption and livelihood: ideologies and issues in rural research. In: Marsden, T., Lowe, P., Whatmore, S. (Eds.), Rural Restructuring. Global Processes and Their Responses. David Foulton Publications, Great Britain. Reis, J., Hespanha, P., Pives, A.R., Jacinto, R., 1990. How ‘rural’ is agricultural pluriactivity? Journal of Rural Studies 6 (4), 395–399. Salamon, S., Davis-Brown, K., 1986. Middle-range farmers persisting through the agricultural crisis. Rural Sociology 51, 503–512. Shucksmith, M., 1993. Farm household behavior and the transition to post-productivism. Journal of Agricultural Economics 44 (3), 466– 478. Stanworth, J., Curran, J., 1981. Growth in the small firm. In: Gorb, P., Dowell, P., Wilson, P. (Eds.), Small Business Perspectives. London Business School, Armstrong Publishing, London. Svensson, I., 1991. Governmental subsidy to organic farming 1989. A mail inquiry. Alternativ-Odling No. 7. Vail, D.J., 1982. Family farms in the web of community: exploring the rural political economy of the United States. Antipode 14 (3), 26– 38. van der Ploeg, J.D., 1993. Rural sociology and the new agrarian question. A perspective from the Netherlands. Sociologia Ruralis 33 (2), 240–260. Whatmore, S., Munton, R., Marsden, T., Little, J., 1987. Interpreting a relational typology of farm business in southern England. Sociologia Ruralis 27, 103–122. Willer, H., Gillmor, D.A., 1992. Organic agriculture in the Republic of Ireland. Irish Geography 25 (2), 149–159.
Research note
Utilising a farm typology to identify potential adopters of alternative farming activities in Greek agriculture Irene Daskalopoulou*, Anastasia Petrou Department of Economics, University of Patras, University Campus 265 00 Rio, Patras, Greece
Abstract Farm household survival strategies are acknowledged to determine the adoption of alternative farm enterprises as part of the farm household’s production and reproduction pattern and are, thus, used to identify the potential adopters of such enterprises. The present work utilises an ideal typology of Greek farms in order to identify different types of farms as regards their mode of survival. Each survival strategy is linked to different motives for and constraints against the adoption of alternative farm enterprises. Results show that three types of farm households may be identified, namely subsistence, survivalist and productivist farm households. The potential adopters of alternative farm enterprises may be traced among farm households that pursue a survivalist mode of production. It is argued that the diversity of farm structures observed within this type of farm households cannot be regarded as the decisive factor as far as their mode of survival is concerned. Rather, it is considered to form a context of different motivations for and constraints against the adoption of alternative farming activities. r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Farm typology; Alternative farm enterprises; Greek agriculture
1. Introduction Farm household developments paths and the adoption of alternative farm enterprises concern much of the research devoted to the identification and understanding of farmers’ responses to the current trade and policy environment. Intensifying international competition and changing consumption patterns have both affected national and international agricultural markets. In order to sustain viable agricultural holdings farmers must, at least to an extent, accommodate these changes. As recent research shows, ‘‘the adoption of alternative farm enterprises that use farm resources in an innovative and quantitative different way does have the potential of bringing in a new income to farm business’’ (Damianos and Skuras, 1996a, p. 61). Pluriactivity is a widespread phenomenon often employed by Greek rural households as, among other, a means of coping with adverse economic conditions (Kasimis, 1988). The plausibility to engage in off-farm income and employment generation activities will be lower for farms located in primarily agricultural areas, where the other sectors of the economy are poorly *Corresponding author. Tel.: +30-61-996136; fax: +30-61-996161. E-mail address: [email protected] (I. Daskalopoulou).
developed (Glitsos, 1988). This is the case for a large number of Greek regions, which still maintain a strong agricultural character. Moreover, these regions depend upon the production of heavily subsidised agricultural products, such as tobacco, cotton, olive oil, corn, etc., using conventional production processes and techniques. The adoption of alternative farm enterprises, revitalising the means of production towards new directions, is a promising farm development path for these regions. The purpose of this study is to identify the potential adopters of alternative farm enterprises utilising an ideal typology of Greek farms. A typology is used to empirically identify the main types of Greek farms in terms of their structure, evolution and adjustment strategies. In terms of their survival strategies three different types of farms have been identified, namely subsistence, survivalist and productivist farm households. The relationship of each ideal type of farms with farming as an economic activity is then analysed within the context of linking survival strategies to the adoption of alternative farming. The diversity of farm structures that has been found to characterise each type of farms is considered as a decisive factor as regards a context of motivations for and constraints against action, i.e. adjustment through the adoption of alternative farm
0743-0167/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 7 4 3 - 0 1 6 7 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 2 7 - 4
96
I. Daskalopoulou, A. Petrou / Journal of Rural Studies 18 (2002) 95–103
activities, that is rather distinct for each type of farm households. While acknowledging the limitations imposed by a lack of data on an number of other distinguishing variables, (i.e. age, education and training of the farm operator, etc.), results are the outcome of a typology focusing on the internal socio-economic structure of the farm. Other important factors such as personal reactions to changes (psychological characteristics) and institutional arrangements are not being dealt here.
2. The theoretical context The way potential adopters of alternative farm enterprises may be identified raises considerable disagreement among writers. This is the outcome of first, different perceptions of diversity in agricultural production patterns (Buttel, 1980; van der Ploeg, 1993; Redclift and Whatmore, 1990), and second, different meanings attributed to the term alternative (Bowler, 1992; Batie and Taylor, 1991; Damianos and Clark, 1992). According to Whatmore et al. (1987), diversity of agricultural production patterns should be understood as the outcome of external as well as internal to the farm family forces. Under this scope, diversity can be viewed as a phenomenon facilitating the development of regional patterns of growth and integration into the wider processes of socio-economic change (Marsden, 1998). The term ‘‘alternative’’, on the other hand, is being used to indicate anything that is opposed to present-day conventional production practices and processes. Thus, the term is attributed a different meaning depending on the practice or system that is compared with (Batie and Taylor, 1991). Under a broad conceptual framework, Damianos and Skuras (1996b, p. 274), define an alternative farm enterprise as one characterised by the ‘‘redeployment of farm resources (including human capital) into new agricultural products or services on the farm or into new non-farm products or services on the farm’’. New is referred to, in the sense of new in the area or new to the country. The study of family farms as potential adopters of alternative production and/or employment activities has focused on the analysis of two distinct paths of farm business development. For the former body of writers, the identification of the potential adopters can be achieved by means of analysing the production practices employed by family farms (Shucksmith, 1993; Gasson, 1988). In this case, adoption of alternative production and/or employment activities is an issue determined by objective factors such as the physical or economic size of a farm. Alternatively, ideal types of farms are used by writers who attempt to identify potential adopters of alternative activities by means of analysing farm households’ reproduction and survival strategies (Whatmore
et al., 1987). Family farms are viewed as complex socioeconomic formations stemming from the close interaction between the family unit and the farm business. Adoption of alternative enterprises depends upon the choice of family farms’ survival strategies in an ever changing and often adverse socio-economic environment (Vail, 1982; Djurfeldt and Waldenstrom, 1999). Ideal types of farms are based on specific definitions of the family farm, that is, the characteristics of both the farm household and the farm production unit are determined. The aim is to provide a full understanding and an all encompassing categorisation of, either the economic behaviour of farmers (Stanworth and Curran, 1981), or their values and attitudes in relation to their economic functions (Hobbs et al., 1964), or their goal orientations (Fairweather and Keating, 1990; Olsson, 1988; Salamon and Davis-Brown, 1986). Depending on the way and scope of their development, therefore, ideal types are used to aid understanding of farm development processes and strategies. Empirical findings under this scope of analysis might fail to relate adopters of alternative farms enterprises to a specific type of farm household reproduction strategy (Gillmor et al., 1995; Marsden et al., 1986). In many cases, observed characteristics, behaviours and strategies of the farm household serve more than one goal. Thus, it might be difficult for researchers to differentiate between adoption of an alternative production activity and adjustment to changes in the external socio-economic environment (Fuller, 1990; Barlett, 1986; Reis et al., 1990). Complexity of the empirical findings is to a large extent the outcome of different operational definitions of the farm family itself. This stems from the necessity to best illustrate different socio-economic, cultural, environmental, political and institutional contexts. Furthermore, given a specific theoretical context, the different definitions of family farms are acknowledged to implicitly assume different farm household production and reproduction patterns1 (Gasson and Errington, 1993; Djurfeldt, 1996). In the case of Greece, land and labour are viewed as the most important defining elements of the term. Under a political economy perspective Kasimis and Papadopoulos (1997, p. 211), define a family farm as ‘‘that form of production in which the ownership of the means of production and 1 Criteria such as labour, income, ownership of land and financial capital and control over management, being the most important defining principles of the term farm family, raise considerable theoretical conflicts over their use and the degree of their importance. Gasson and Errington (1993), recently introduced a broad definition of a ‘‘farm family business’’ placing emphasis upon the ownership, the managerial control and the intergenerational transfer of land. Their definition, however, has been strongly criticised by Djurfeldt (1996), who emphasised the problem of family labour supply and questioned the operationalisation of such a definition.
I. Daskalopoulou, A. Petrou / Journal of Rural Studies 18 (2002) 95–103
labour power co-exist in the same production unit, without a discrete division between capital and labour, with family members often supplying the bulk of labour necessary for agricultural production’’. This study attempts to identify potential adopters of alternative farm enterprises, as defined by Damianos and Skuras (1996b), on the basis of an ideal typology of Greek farms developed by Kasimis and Papadopoulos (1995). Analysing the reproduction and survival strategies of farm households, they distinguish between three models of farming. They identify as ‘‘subsistence’’ farming the case where households perform agriculture as a complementary, to the other main, source of income and most often for self-consumption. In the second case, the ‘‘survivalist’’ farm households aim at the modernisation of the farm as a means of sustaining total family income. Agriculture is the main income and employment generation activity used to support both the economic and social development of the farm household. In other words, these households aim at the reproduction of both the farm and the family. In the third case, they identify as ‘‘productivist’’ the farm households for which the maintenance of full-time employment on the farm and of a given level of income depends upon farm expansion and efficient adaptation to the changing economic and market environment. As in most developed countries, the ongoing process of agricultural restructuring in Greece is expected to provoke a series of responses from farm households. Adjustment in the form of alternative, unconventional farm practices might be appropriate for the different types of farm households given the importance of farm income to the total farm household income. As a recent research shows, this kind of adjustment is related to the internal dynamic of the farm and not necessarily to its physical characteristics (Damianos and Skuras, 1996b). According to Padel (1994), the motivations underlying such an adjustment process typically are either farm related or personal. The importance of each set of factors or variables underlies, in turn, the farm household’s decision-making process. Gladwin (1989) includes these factors in a decision tree in order to highlight the reasons and constraints in the decision of the farmers to change their production practices. Paths of farm business development that involve the continuation of agricultural activity as the main source of income include conventional, alternative, off-farm pluriactive and industrial farm households (Damianos and Skuras, 1996b). This study aims at the construction of an ideal typology, which is used to highlight the context of incentives and means for as well as the constraints against the adoption of an alternative farm enterprise. Adjustment in the form of adopting an alternative farm enterprise is considered as a possible path of farm business development. In rural areas characterised by the lack of off-farm employment
97
opportunities, available income and employment generation activities are further restricted. The ‘‘survivalist’’ and the ‘‘productivist’’ types of farms are the ones most likely to face an adjustment dilemma compared to the subsistence type of farms. Intuitively, survivalist farms might be characterised as potential adopters of alternative farm enterprises in cases where the ability of pursuing a modernisation strategy is also limited.
3. Utilising an ideal typology of Greek farms The construction of the typology has been carried out in two stages. First, a homogeneous set of rural areas has been selected and then, a typology of farms has been constructed based on an index created by a number of explanatory variables. The selected regions form a homogeneous set of areas in the sense that they are all characterised by non-mixed, primarily agricultural, economies that depend upon the production of conventional, heavily subsidised, agricultural products such as tobacco, cotton, olive oil etc (Fig. 1). More specifically, 14, out of the total number of 51, Greek regions have been selected in which agriculture accounts for more than one-third of the total GDP, while it employs more than one-third of the economically active population (Table 1). Further, the amount of cultivated land engaged in the production of heavily subsidised products is significantly high in all regions considered here (Table 1). Off-farm employment opportunities are limited in the case of areas lagging behind in the development of the secondary and tertiary sectors of the economy thus, being unable to absorb the excess labour force that is currently underemployed in farming (Glitsos, 1988). Consequently, the need for on-farm diversification will be more urgent for farms in these areas. Additionally, more than one-third of the total cultivated land in all prefectures is engaged in the production of heavily subsidised agricultural products2 the production of which will be severely constrained in the foreseeable future. The Agenda 2000 decisions regarding CAP spending will considerably affect agricultural activity (in terms of output, income and employment) in such areas (Daouli and Daskalopoulou, 1998), thus reinforcing the need for adopting alternative production and/or employment activities on the farm. Four variables have been used for the construction of the typology, namely rented land, mechanisation, hired labour and off-farm employment. Data on these variables are provided from the Agricultural Structures’ Survey conducted by the National Statistical Service of 2
The average, per region, amount of cultivated land that is engaged in the production of subsidised products is indicative for all farms irrespectively of the size class to which they belong (NSSG, 1993).
98
I. Daskalopoulou, A. Petrou / Journal of Rural Studies 18 (2002) 95–103
Fig. 1. GreeceFselected areas.
Table 1 Percentage distribution of GDP and employment and cultivated land engaged in the production of subsidised productsa Region
GDP from agriculture (1991)
Employment in agriculture (1991)
Cultivated land under subsidised products (1993)
Aitoloakarnania Argolida Lakonia Messinia Preveza Karditsa Larissa Trikala Kilkis Pella Pieria Serres Evros Rodopi Sample average
36 37 46 42 37 50 36 37 42 42 35 42 36 43 40
45 39 53 37 37 47 33 35 33 49 35 43 39 58 42
46 55 65 62 43 88 67 51 67 39 48 66 57 64 58
a
Source: National Statistical Service of Greece, 1991, 1993.
Greece in 1993. These variables, among others, are referred to as important in explaining farmers’ choices of production patterns in a number of relevant studies (Just and Zilberman, 1983; Goodwin and Schroeder, 1994; Kimhi, 1994; Feder, 1980). Also, these variables account for some of the most important factors that
affect the structure and choice of production patterns of farm households in Greece (Damianos and Skuras, 1996a, b). Each of these variables ranges between low, medium and high, taking an index value of –1, 0 and 1, respectively. The corresponding boundaries for each variable are:3 below 25 per cent, between 25 and 50 per cent and above 50 per cent for rented land and mechanisation, below 0.05, between 0.05 and 0.5 and above 0.5 for hired labour and below 15 per cent, between 15 and 33 per cent and above 33 per cent for pluriactivity. Six size classes of cultivated land per prefecture have been used in order to see how these factors may vary according to size. More specifically, six classes of cultivated land size per prefecture, that range between, 0.1–o1 ha, 1–o5 ha, 5–o10 ha, 10–o20 ha, 20–o50 ha and >50 ha, have been used for the typology construction according to: 3.1. Rented land Rented land as percentage of the total cultivated land has been used as an indication of the farmer’s willingness to undertake risk. Given the small average size of Greek farms and the persistent problems of high land 3 These boundaries emerge from data differentiation of each variable.
I. Daskalopoulou, A. Petrou / Journal of Rural Studies 18 (2002) 95–103
fragmentation, a trend toward increasing the total size of cultivated land through renting is expected. The findings of Moissidis (1993), however, show that the instability of agricultural incomes, resulting from factors such as the weather conditions and the fluctuations of the prices of the agricultural products, usually causes farmers to be hesitant toward undertaking such a risk. 3.2. Mechanisation Mechanisation refers to the percentage of farms per size class that own a tractor. This variable is used to indicate the level of farm modernisation. Over-mechanisation that has been found to characterise Greek agriculture relates primarily to the efficient use of machinery and not to its existence (Moissidis, 1993). 3.3. Hired labour The ratio of hired to family labour is used as another criterion to identify different types of farm family businesses. According to Gasson and Errington (1993), this can be used as a ‘‘theoretically more acceptable criterion’’ in order to determine the degree of family farm capitalisation. 3.4. Pluriactivity Finally, pluriactivity refers to the percentage of households with at least one spouse having an off-farm gainful activity as his/her main occupation. In general, there is a negative relationship between the size of a farm and the existence of another off-farm gainful activity. Pluriactivity is thus, linked to different farm household survival and reproduction strategies depending on the size of the farm (Kasimis, 1988). Pluriactivity should be viewed as a complementary source of income, in the case of small farms, whereas it could be characterised as ‘‘choice’’ or ‘‘privilege’’ in the case of large farms that undergo a process of accumulation/ expansion (Efstratoglou-Todoulou, 1990). The typology has been constructed using the average, per class size, price of each variable.4 Notwithstanding, therefore, the possibility of masking intra-regional differences an attempt is made below to highlight the existing features and trends among different types of farms.5 As shown in Table 2, three types of farms may be identified: 4 The importance of socio-demographic factors for the structure of farm households’ reproduction strategies cannot be neglected. However, due to lack of official data at regional level only economic variables for which official data exist have been used here. 5 As official data (NSSG, 1993), reveal the amount of rented land for which some compensation is paid to the owner does not exceed 50 per cent of the total rented land in all regions examined here. Phenomena such as shared farming and non-paid tenant farming continue to exist with a significant impact upon agricultural structures in the country.
99
3.4.1. Type IFsubsistence farms This type includes all farms of less than 1 ha size, in all prefectures. Rented land and mechanisation for these farms are quite low. The household’s members almost exclusively provide farm labour, whereas more than one-third of these households have declared having as their main occupation an off-farm gainful activity. These family farms could be characterised as ‘‘marginal’’. Agricultural activity in these farms is performed either for self-consumption reasons (in the case of products such as olive oil) or to the extent that a quota (in the case of products such as tobacco and hard wheat) is possessed by the farm household. In any case, these households could be linked to the ‘‘subsistence’’ model of farming, either as households that go through a process of exciting agriculture, or as households that are expected to follow a similar process in the near future. 3.4.2. Type IIFsurvivalist farms This type of farms has been found in a wide range of farm size classes ranging from 1–5 to 20–50 ha. This type characterises arms between 1–5 and 5–10 ha size, while it also characterises a significant part of farms among the 10–20 ha size farms and it can even be traced among the 20–50 ha size farms. Production on behalf of these households is sustained in two ways. In the first case, farm households are characterised by relatively high degrees of rented land and mechanisation, limited use of hired labour, while a significant proportion of them refers to part-time farms. These farm households pursue their survival through the combination of income obtained from agriculture and pluriactivity. In the second case, farm households are characterised by quite high levels of mechanisation and rented land while they make limited use of hired labour. A significant proportion of farms in this category can be characterised as part-time farms. These farm households exercise farming as their main occupation and aim at the modernisation of their farm. In both cases, agriculture continues to be an important income and employment source. 3.4.3. Type IIIFproductivist farms This type of farms has also been observed in a wide range of farm size classes that range between 10 and above 50 ha. This type refers to large-scale, dynamic farms that could be linked to a ‘‘productivist’’ model of farming. Here, again, two categories of farms may be distinguished. On the one hand, the large-scale family farms are characterised by the highest percentages of mechanisation, rented land and use of hired labour. The proportion of part-time farms in this category is quite low. In this case, farm households aim at the modernisation of the farm in order to sustain a given level of income and provide full-time employment on the farm for the members of the farm household. On the other hand, the large-scale, entrepreneurial type of farms is
100
I. Daskalopoulou, A. Petrou / Journal of Rural Studies 18 (2002) 95–103
Table 2 Distribution of the types of farms per farm size class Region
Farm size classes 0.1–o1 ha
1–o5 ha
5–o10 ha
10–o20 ha
20–o50 ha
>50 ha
Aitoloakarnania Argolida Lakonia Messinia Preveza Karditsa Larissa Trikala Kilkis Pella Pieria Serres Evros Rodopi
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
II II II II II II II II II II II II II II
II II II II II II II II II II II II II II
III II II II III III III II II III II III II III
III II II III II III III III III III III III III III
III III III III III F III III III III III III III F
Table 3 Percentage distribution of Types I–III of farms Region
Type I subsistence farms
Type II survivalist farms
Type III productivist farms
Aitoloakarnania Argolida Lakonia Messinia Preveza Karditsa Larissa Trikala Kilkis Pella Pieria Serres Evros Rodopi
22.3 19.0 22.7 20.0 32.2 14.0 12.0 21.0 4.5 13.3 20.7 17.4 5.3 12.2
70.3 80.8 76.9 79.4 36.6 70.3 64.9 76.0 87.5 82.4 77.7 71.2 89.1 77.6
7.3 0.2 0.4 0.6 3.6 15.1 22.9 1.8 8.2 4.2 1.5 11.4 5.6 10.2
characterised by high percentages of mechanisation, rented land and hired labour. Also, the proportion of part-time farms is quite high in this category. In this case, the existence of another gainful activity is related with a process of accumulation/expansion of the farm. Subsistence farming has been found to relate to a large number of farms in all regions. On average, Type I of farms accounts for 17 per cent of the farms in all regions. On the other hand, the proportion of Type III farms accounts, on average, for 7 per cent of the farms in all regions (Table 3). Both types, however, refer to higher proportions of the total number of farms in the case of some regions. A significant part of these deviations might be attributed to the geomorphology of the specific regions. For some regions, therefore, a trend towards land concentration and farm size enlargement should be noted, but no further conclusions
may be drawn from that observation regarding a model of agricultural development (Moissidis, 1993). Apart from these two ‘‘extremes/poles’’, the vast majority of farms are characterised as survivalist (Type II) and concentrate more than two-thirds of the total number of farms in all regions (Table 3). Diversity as regards the structure of these farms is related to the mobilisation of different resources, depending on their availability, towards sustaining total farm household income from agriculture. The adoption of alternative production practices as a conscious adjustment strategy in order to sustain total family income seems to refer primarily to the survivalist model of farming and much less to subsistence or productivist farming as defined here. Subsistence or selfconsumption farms are little affected by agricultural policy measures, while their limited connection to markets cannot really determine either their production process or the amount of total family income. Consequently, survival strategies in this kind of households are structured almost in spite of the external economic environment and not because of it. Their production practices conform closely to hobby/retired farming. Possessing limited natural resources and given the importance of off-farm work in terms of employment and income generation, these households do not constitute potential adopters in the sense of adjusting their whole relationship to farming. This might be the case even under the issue of grant aid schemes and subsidies which have been found to constitute important motivations towards adopting alternative farming activities (Bruckmeier et al., 1994; Fisher, 1989). Productivist farm households, on the other hand, operate better endowed farms and seem to have a choice regarding their adjustment process. They have ownership and control over larger farms while they engage labour and capital on a full-time basis. It could be
I. Daskalopoulou, A. Petrou / Journal of Rural Studies 18 (2002) 95–103
hypothesised that these farms can sustain the cost of adjustment associated with the change towards less intensive production techniques relying on either their own capital resources or their better access to credit. Fisher’s (1989), study however, shows that the amount of capital engaged in current production practices and techniques constitute a constraint against the adoption of alternative practices. Indeed, the goal orientation of these farm households is focused towards increased profits, so that the adoption of alternative activities will be constrained if they do not have ‘‘greater profit’’ incentives to do so. This coincides with the argument that, productivist farm households may better face the growing competition that characterises market economies. According to Barlas et al. (2000), these farms are most likely to pursue strategies such as lowering the cost of production and/or increasing productivity, caught as most of them are in the so-called ‘‘technological treadmill’’. Survivalist farm households are urged to adjust their conventional production practices but constrained towards pursuing a path of farm business development such as the off-farm pluriactive or the industrial type. These farms are most vulnerable to changes in agricultural policy since they face the threat of decreased total family income. Unlike the productivist farm households that face a decrease in profits, these farms consider the possibility of not being able to support the needs of the farm household. Limited opportunities of off-farm employment, on the other hand, signify an unfavourable external environment that does not offer alternative employment and income generation activities. Finally, the limited production means survivalist farms which constitute possess industrial farming a risky farm business development path. Adjustment in the form of adopting an alternative farm enterprise seems to be a very promising choice giving survivalist farms the ability to utilise their resources in an innovative way currently linked to a ‘‘sustainable modernisation’’ development paradigm (Marsden, 1998). According to Marsden (1998), sustainable modernisation involves non-conventional forms of performing agriculture targeted at the rising consumption orientation of rural space. The current institutional, policy and economic setting, therefore, urges farms to adjust their relationship with farming. The survivalist farm households, heavily dependent upon subsidies and off-farm income in order to ensure their survival, cannot sustain the cost associated with the adoption of alternative production activities. The risk involved in such a decision is an important constraining factor. As shown by Dimara and Skuras (1999), it is important to devise agricultural development instruments that aim to assist risk reduction in the adoption of alternative farm activities in the marginal areas of Greece. In the absence of an
101
encouraging and supportive agricultural policy framework, these farm households are unlikely to take action no matter how they might be urged by economic, social, environmental or ideological reasons. The importance of these factors has been acknowledged in a number of studies (Svensson, 1991; Willer and Gillmor, 1992; Lockeritz and Madden, 1987; Milder et al., 1991). Nonetheless, it has been argued that these factors lie behind farmer’s choices of farming methods; choices made provided a set of policy measures on technology and finances is also available (Fairweather, 1999).
4. DiscussionFconclusions This study has attempted to identify potential adopters of alternative farm enterprises by means of utilising an ideal typology of Greek farms. Factors such as land, hired labour, mechanisation and pluriactivity have been associated to different contexts of motivations for and constraints against adjustment in the form of adopting an alternative farm enterprise. Thus, alternative farming has been considered as a production and reproduction strategy examined and analysed within an internal to the farm household decision making process. The overwhelming diversity of farm structures in Greece has been acknowledged to be the outcome of farm households’ specific survival strategies. Further, the persistence of small family farms has been attributed to their ‘‘flexible’’ and ‘‘efficient’’ socio-economic structure that is able to accommodate changes and pursue aims in many ways (Louloudis et al., 1989). This supports the ability of a typology approach to identify potential adopters of alternative farm enterprises by means of identifying appropriate paths of farm business development. The above analysis has revealed the existence of three main types of farms namely subsistence, survivalist and productivist farms. Subsistence farming (Type I), has been found to characterise small, pluriactive farm households, that depend on hired labour and do not present any signs of modernisation (low levels of rented land and mechanisation). Survivalist farming (Type II) characterises small-medium size farms that use an offfarm gainful activity as a complementary source of income while, in some cases, off-farm employment contributes towards the modernisation of the farm. Finally, productivit farming (Type III) has been found to characterise large-scale farms pursuing full-time employment of the farm household’s members on the farm. The existence of off-farm employment in this type of farms is related to higher levels of mechanisation, on the one hand, and the need for more capital investments, on the other. The vast majority of farms have been found to pursue a survivalist model of farming (Type II) depending on
102
I. Daskalopoulou, A. Petrou / Journal of Rural Studies 18 (2002) 95–103
various combinations of land, labour and capital. These farms have been identified as the most likely ones to adjust in the changing policy and economic environment through the adoption of alternative farm activities. Their profile shows that, they engage in farming all the available resources that they own in order to sustain a given level of income, which is supplemented importantly by off-farm activities. Their mode of survival is inexorably linked to farming albeit in a form rather distinct from the other two types of farms identified here. The importance of farming as their main income generation activity prevents these farm households from exiting agriculture. So, they might seem unwilling to practice farming on a subsistence or self-sufficiency basis and become households of Type I. On the other hand, the amount of resources that they own and control do not seem sufficient for them to pursue productivist practices and adjust through enlargement and modernisation, i.e. become Type III of farm households. Adoption of alternative farming activities seems to be a suitable development pathway for farm households of Type II. The diversity observed within this type of farm households reflects differences in the farm characteristics and not in their production and reproduction pattern. Some of these farm households may be more readily able to take advantage of an alternative farming activity, particularly those which show signs of modernisation and use off-farm income to make improvements on the farm. This, however, does not impose any constraints upon the rest of the farms to follow a similar development pathway. Size, therefore, or other farm characteristics may point to an overwhelming diversity as far as structures are concerned but little affect the farm households’ survival strategies. Within this context, farms of different physical characteristics may pursue the adoption of alternative farm enterprises, that is pursuing the same or similar survival strategies. It is important, however, to stress that diversity within this type of farms is relevant to policy measures and the institutional framework underlying agricultural development, a topic not examined in this article. The potential ability of a typology approach to inform policy design and implementation through highlighting a set of forces for and against action should be noted. This coincides with the current focus of EU rural and regional development policy. Different incentives or a set of measures to eliminate different constraints (lack of information, technology, finance, etc.) are sought in the contemporary policy framework.
Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank D. Skuras for his invaluable comments and suggestions on an earlier
draft of this paper. We would also like to thank the anonymous referees for reading through and commenting on this paper.
References Barlas, Y., Damianos, D., Dimara, E., Kasimis, C., Skuras, D., 2001. Factors influencing the integration of alternative farm enterprises into the agro-food system. Rural Sociology, in press. Barlett, P.F., 1986. Part-time farming: saving the farm or saving the life-style? Rural Sociology 51 (3), 289–313. Batie, S., Taylor, D., 1991. Assessing the character of agricultural production systems: issues and implications. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 6 (4), 184–187. Bowler, I., 1992. ‘Sustainable agriculture’ as an alternative path of farm business development. In: Bowler, I.R., Bryant, C.R., Nellis, M.D. (Eds.), Contemporary Rural Systems in Transition. Agriculture and Environment. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 237–253. Bruckmeier, K., Grund, H., Symes, D., Jansen, A.J., 1994. Perspectives for environmentally sound agriculture in east Germany. In: Agricultural Restructuring and Rural Change in Europe. Wageningse Sociologische Studies No. 37, Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands. Buttel, F.H., 1980. Agriculture, environment and social change: some emergent issues. In: Buttel, F.H., Newby, H. (Eds.), The Rural Sociology of the Advanced Societies: Critical Perspectives. Croom Helm, London. Damianos, D., Clark, D., 1992. The definition of alternative farming systems. Working Paper 1, Alternative Farming Systems in the Lagging Regions of the EC, CAMAR (8001-CT91-0119). Damianos, D., Skuras, D., 1996a. Unconventional adjustment strategies for rural households in the less developed areas in Greece. Agricultural Economics 15, 61–72. Damianos, D., Skuras, D., 1996b. Farm business and the development of alternative farm enterprises: an empirical analysis in Greece. Journal of Rural Studies 12 (3), 273–283. Daouli, J., Daskalopoulou, I., 1998. Development of alternative structural policy scenarios and assessment of their economic effects: the case of Aitoloakarnania. Research Report, FAIR3FCT1554 Research project. Department of Economics, University of Patras, Patras, Greece. Dimara, E., Skuras, D., 1999. Importance and need for rural development instruments under the CAP: a survey of farmers’ attitudes in marginal areas of Greece. Journal of Agricultural Economics 50 (2), 304–315. Djurfeldt, G., 1996. Defining and operationalising family farming from a sociological perspective. Sociologia Ruralis 36 (3), 340–351. Djurfeldt, G., Waldenstrom, C., 1999. Mobility patterns of Swedish farming households. Journal of Rural Studies 15 (3), 331–344. Efstratoglou-Todoulou, S., 1990. Pluriactivity in different socioeconomic contexts: a test of the push–pull hypothesis in Greek farming. Journal of Rural Studies 6 (4), 407–413. Fairweather, J., 1999. Understanding how farmers choose between organic and conventional production: results from New Zealand and policy implications. Agriculture and Human Values 16, 51–63. Fairweather, J., Keating, N., 1990. Management styles of Canterbury farmers. Canterbury NZ: Lincoln University Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit, Research Report No. 205. Feder, G., 1980. Farm size, risk aversion and the adoption of new technology under uncertainty. Oxford Economic Papers 32, 263–283. Fisher, P., 1989. Barriers to the adoption of organic farming in Canterbury. M. Appl. Sci. Thesis. Centre for Resource Management, Lincoln College.
I. Daskalopoulou, A. Petrou / Journal of Rural Studies 18 (2002) 95–103 Fuller, A., 1990. From part-time farming to pluriactivity: a decade of change in rural Europe. Journal of Rural Studies 6 (4), 361–373. Gasson, R., 1988. Farm diversification and rural development. Journal of Agricultural Economics 39, 175–182. Gasson, R., Errington, A., 1993. The Farm Family Business. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Gillmor, D.A., McDonagh, P., Cawley, M., 1995. The adoption of alternative farming enterprises in Ireland’s less favoured areas. Paper Presented at the XVI Congress of the European Society for Rural Sociology, July 31–4 August, Prague, Czech Republic. Gladwin, C.H., 1989. Ethnographic Decision Tree Modeling. Sage, Newbury Park. Glitsos, N.P., 1988. Regional inequalities in Greece: demographic and economic features. Scientific Studies 27, KEPE, Athens (in Greek). Goodwin, B.K., Schroeder, T.C., 1994. Human capital, producer education programs, and the adoption of forward pricing methods. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76, 936–947. Hobbs, D.J., Beal, J.M., Bohlen, J.M., 1964. The relation of farm operator values and attitudes to their economic performance. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University, Department of Economics and Sociology, Rural Sociology Report No. 33. Just, R.E., Zilberman, D., 1983. Stochastic structure, farm size and technology adoption in developing agriculture. Oxford Economic Papers 35, 307–328. Kasimis, C., 1988. Forms of farmer’s employment and the structure of farm enterprises: the empirical dimension of the pluriactivity of farmers. Unpublished monograph submitted to the Foundation for Mediterranean Studies (in Greek). Kasimis, C., Papadopoulos, A.G., 1995. Productivist and survivalist farm strategies: studying the sustainability of Greek agriculture. Paper presented at the XVI Congress of the European Society for Rural Sociology, 31 JulyF4 August, Prague, Czech Republic. Kasimis, C., Papadopoulos, A.G., 1997. Family farming and capitalist development in Greek agriculture: a critical review of the literature. Sociologia Ruralis 37 (2), 209–227. Kimhi, A., 1994. Participation of farm owners in farm and off-farm work including the option of full-time off-farm work. Journal of Agricultural Economics 45, 232–238. Lockeritz, W., Madden, P., 1987. Midwestern organic farming: a ten year follow up. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 2 (2), 57–63. Louloudis, L., Martinos, N., Panagiotou, A., 1989. Patterns of agrarian change in east central Greece: the case of Anthili community. Sociologia Ruralis 29 (1), 49–66. Marsden, T., 1998. Beyond agriculture? Towards sustainable modernization. In: Redclift, M., Lekakis, J., Zanias, G.P. (Eds.), Agriculture and World Trade Liberalization: Socio-Environmental
103
Perspectives on the Common Agricultural Policy. CAB International, Wallingford UK. Marsden, T., Munton, R., Whatmore, S., Little, J., 1986. Towards a political economy of capitalist agriculture: a British perspective. International Journal of Urban and Rural Research 4, 498–521. Milder, P.J., Negrave, P.D., Schoney, R.A., 1991. Descriptive analysis of Saskatchewan organic producers. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 394 (II), 891–899. Moissidis, A., 1993. Family farming and valorization of productive resources: agricultural Bank of Greece, Athens (in Greek). National Statistical Service of Greece, 1991. Population census. National Statistical Service of Greece, 1993. Agricultural structures’ survey. Olsson, R., 1988. Management for success in modern agriculture. European Review of Agricultural Economics 15, 239–259. Padel, S., 1994. Adoption of organic farming as an example of the diffusion of an innovationFa literature review on the conversion to organic farming. Centre for Organic Husbandry and Agroecology Discussion Paper Series, 94/1. Redclift, N., Whatmore, S., 1990. Household, consumption and livelihood: ideologies and issues in rural research. In: Marsden, T., Lowe, P., Whatmore, S. (Eds.), Rural Restructuring. Global Processes and Their Responses. David Foulton Publications, Great Britain. Reis, J., Hespanha, P., Pives, A.R., Jacinto, R., 1990. How ‘rural’ is agricultural pluriactivity? Journal of Rural Studies 6 (4), 395–399. Salamon, S., Davis-Brown, K., 1986. Middle-range farmers persisting through the agricultural crisis. Rural Sociology 51, 503–512. Shucksmith, M., 1993. Farm household behavior and the transition to post-productivism. Journal of Agricultural Economics 44 (3), 466– 478. Stanworth, J., Curran, J., 1981. Growth in the small firm. In: Gorb, P., Dowell, P., Wilson, P. (Eds.), Small Business Perspectives. London Business School, Armstrong Publishing, London. Svensson, I., 1991. Governmental subsidy to organic farming 1989. A mail inquiry. Alternativ-Odling No. 7. Vail, D.J., 1982. Family farms in the web of community: exploring the rural political economy of the United States. Antipode 14 (3), 26– 38. van der Ploeg, J.D., 1993. Rural sociology and the new agrarian question. A perspective from the Netherlands. Sociologia Ruralis 33 (2), 240–260. Whatmore, S., Munton, R., Marsden, T., Little, J., 1987. Interpreting a relational typology of farm business in southern England. Sociologia Ruralis 27, 103–122. Willer, H., Gillmor, D.A., 1992. Organic agriculture in the Republic of Ireland. Irish Geography 25 (2), 149–159.