Farm household survival strategies and diversification on marginal farms

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2004.08.007Get rights and content

Abstract

On marginal farms, and in agriculture in general, sustainability is largely guaranteed by a broad range of survival strategies, closely interlinked and embedded in the household structure of typical family farms. This paper reports results of a socio-economic study carried out among Belgian farmers, focusing specifically on the opportunities offered by different forms of diversification. Analyses from in-depth interviews indicate the possible role of new activities in the survival of many farms. The curative potential of this strategy is, however, strongly conditioned by the availability of capital within the household. Therefore, off-farm employment is often the most accessible strategy, not only for the survival of the household, but also for supplementing the income necessary to maintain the farm activities.

Introduction

In Western European agriculture, poverty among farmers appears to be a chronic problem. Since the Second World War, farm incomes have lagged behind average incomes. In recent years, more attention has been paid to household incomes, in particular in Belgium and the Netherlands, where family farms predominate. A Dutch study (Van Everdingen et al., 1999) demonstrated that 23% of farm households had income below an ‘objective’ poverty threshold of € 20,000 (a threshold based on the income required by a couple without children). In Belgium, Van Hecke (2001, p. 251) found as many as 31% of farm households falling below an annual agricultural income of € 20,000. Notwithstanding the difficulty of establishing a suitable threshold for the measurement of ‘genuine’ poverty (which has a clear subjective component), these studies show that at least a significant proportion of farm households face structural and chronic income problems.

Two different main causes of farm household poverty can be distinguished:

  • farms that are too small, or whose structure is insufficiently adjusted to modern standards and techniques;

  • farms encountering difficulties because of poor financial management and/or the accumulation of debts.

The research on which this article is based (Bourgeois et al, 2001) focused mainly upon the first group of farms (which in general have a smaller Standard Gross Margin (SGM) than the second group), without a priori excluding the occurrence of debt problems on these farms. The reason for this is that these farms are forced to search for survival strategies, because the income-generating potential of their business is too low or too weak.

The research dealt with different strategies developed by the farmer and his/her household to prevent or alleviate the situation of insufficient household income. Within this context, it focused on the link between survival strategies and diversification on the farms concerned. Diversification, pluri-activity and multifunctionality are promoted by agricultural policies as possible survival strategies for farmers. In the literature, diversification has been extensively studied and presented as a possible solution for extending the farming income basis. Most studies, such as those by Edmond et al. (1993), Bateman and Ray (1994), Eikeland and Lie (1999), Evans and Ilbery (1993), Ilbery and Bowler (1993) and Walford (2003) provide evidence of different types of diversification on farms, and study the resistance factors for diversification and the push-and-pull factors explaining it. Few studies, however, focus on whether these diversification mechanisms are used on marginal farms as survival strategies. Ilbery (1991), Ilbery et al. (1996) and Ilbery and Kneafsey (1998) ask whether diversification can be used as an adjustment strategy to cope with a changed context for farming, but these studies do not really explore whether diversification strategies are used by farmers who have financial problems or other difficulties. Because we think it is important to understand why marginal farms do or do not diversify, and whether diversification is a real option for such farms, this research concentrates on the use of diversification strategies on such marginal farms.

This paper is organised as follows. In Section 2, the theoretical framework of the research is discussed. In Section 3 the methodological approach is explained. As an analysis of survival strategies also includes a study of informal economic practices, both qualitative and quantitative methods are combined. Section 4 describes some basic features of the respondent households and farms, while Section 5 largely focuses on the different survival strategies and pathways developed by farmers. Section 6 discusses more explicitly whether the survival strategies allow the farmer and his/her household to diversify their farming activities. Finally, some conclusions are formulated.

Section snippets

Survival strategies and farm diversification: a theoretical framework

The research for this paper rests on two theoretical pillars: survival strategies and modes of economic integration on the one hand, and farm diversification and development pathways on the other. Bringing these concepts together permits a more comprehensive understanding of diversification strategies on marginal farms.

The socio-spatial context: four rural regions in Flanders

The empirical research for this paper was conducted in four rural/semi-rural regions of Flanders, the Dutch-speaking northern part of Belgium (see Fig. 2). The regions were selected on the basis of one simple criterion: the proportion of small farms in the total SGM of a region. More precisely, three regions were selected in which at least 17.5% of the professional agricultural holdings had an SGM below €20,000 in 1997 (Pajottenland, South-East of Flanders and Hageland), while the remaining

Basic features of households and farms

A thorough discussion and interpretation of the empirical results requires a clear understanding of some basic features of households and farms, encompassing the farmers in the context of their households, and the farmers’ relationship with their farms.

The importance of redistributive and reciprocal strategies

When all non-market strategies are considered, and taking into account the current economic situations of the farm households (corresponding with the groups introduced in Table 3), there is a remarkable difference in the nature of the strategies used.

Continuously problematic’ households and households ‘in regression’ were generally characterised by the use of redistributional mechanisms. Strategies enhancing their integration into the market sphere often failed, and strategies in the sphere of

A broad variety of diversification strategies

Table 4 shows that one form of structural diversification (strategy 3) or another can be found on 22 out of the 49 farms analysed. It is clearly the most popular pathway among the farmers interviewed (ranging from direct on-farm sales to the renting of parking space for caravans) and in eight cases is the main strategy to maintain income. If all forms of diversification are considered (development pathways 1–4), diversification is the main strategy in 24 of the 45 cases. If the broader notion

Conclusions

The continuous increase in the scale of farms, and the growing importance of innovative technologies in a competitive market, has left an important group of farmers dealing with structural arrears that they will rarely be able to surmount. A wide variety of survival strategies within the farm households is being used to cope with financial problems and poverty.

The group of farms characterised as ‘continuously problematic’ or ‘in regression’ relies heavily on redistribution mechanisms to keep

Acknowledgements

The research on which this paper is based was commissioned by the Koning Boudewijnstichting/Fondation Roi Baudouin, and we would like to thank its officers and the members of the steering committee for helpful comments and insights at various stages of the research (http://www.kbs-frb.be). We further acknowledge the input given by two anonymous referees on an earlier version of this paper and of Dominique Moran to correct our English.

References (39)

  • N. Evans et al.

    The pluriactivity, part-time farming and farm diversification debate

    Environment and Planning A

    (1993)
  • M. Greenacre et al.

    Correspondence Analysis in the Social Sciences

    (1994)
  • D. Harvey

    Social Justice and the City

    (1973)
  • R.E. Heimlich et al.

    Agricultural adaptation to urbanizationfarm types and agricultural sustainability in US metropolitan areas

  • B. Ilbery

    Farm diversification as an adjustment strategy on the urban fringe of the West Midlands

    Journal of Rural Studies

    (1991)
  • Ilbery, B., 1992. State assisted farm diversification in the United Kingdom. In: Bowler, I.R., Bryant, C.R., Nellis,...
  • Ilbery, B., 2001. Alternative farm enterprises on the urban fringe: evidence from the UK. Paper Presented on the...
  • B. Ilbery et al.

    The farm diversification grant schemeadoption and no-adoption in England and Wales

    Environment and Planning C

    (1993)
  • B. Ilbery et al.

    Agricultural adjustment and business diversification by farm households

    Geography

    (1996)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text