GOALS AND VALUES OF FARMERS

52 1

GOALS AND VALUES OF FARMERS

Ruth Gasson Cambridge University

Economic theory treats motivation as a parameter, explaining variation in economic behaviour in terms of availability of resources. This theory does not provide a wholly convincing account of farmers’ actions. It is suggested that a better understanding of motivation, taken in conjunction with information already available on material resources and constraints, could lead to a more adequate explanation and prediction of farmers’ economic behaviour. This paper explores the subject of goals and values in the farming occupation as one facet of motivation. Values may refer to instrumental, social, expressive or intrinsic aspects of farming and it is their ordering relative to one another which infuences farmers’ decisions in situations of choice. Pilot studies suggest that farmers have a predominantly intrinsic orientation to work, valuing the way of lge, independence and performance of work tasks above expressive, instrumental or social aspects of their occupation. Comparing value orientations of larger with smaller farmers illustrates some implications andpossible uses of this approach.

Economics as a behavioural science ‘If we want to know how or why a farmer acts in a certain way or how to induce him to act in a certain way, we have to enquire why men act, and especially why men act as they do when they live in the sort of social environment and general circumstances in which farmers live.’ (A. W. Ashby 1926).(l)

‘In this country we have progressed only a very little along the path which leads to the understanding of social conditions and human motives in farming.’ (S.,T. Moms 1964).(2)

The aim of this paper is to explore the subject of motivation of farmers, to discover what farmers really want from their occupation. Agricultural economists .sometimes ask this question but imply that they should not be expected to provide an answer. Farm management advisers, who need to be good psychologists, probably hold the key but their accumulated experience with individual clients is not often generalised and shared with a wider audience. This paper is seeking a systematic approach to the study of motivation in farming, drawing on the literature and techniques of sociology. By looking at farmers’ economic behaviour from a new angle, supplementing information gained by more orthodox means, a more complete understanding may be achieved. The paper does not pres-une to offer a balaaced pfriloaophical argument nor present a completed study but raises questions and suggests new directions for research in agn’cultural economics.

The famous dictum of the social psychologist Kurt Lewin(3) that ‘behaviour is a function of the person in his environment’ implies that behaviour depends on

522 RUTH GASSON

the interaction of two classes of variables, the person with goals and aspirations which direct his behaviour towards a desired end and his environment, as he perceives it, of resources and material constraints or means to attain a desired end. Orthodox economic theory treats the goal of behaviour as a parameter since production, exchange, investment and so on are assumed to be undertaken primarily, if not exclusively, in the attempt to maximise money gains, usually in the short run. ‘Although this goal is often challenged and qualified it remains firmly embedded in the sea of economic thought like the Rock of Gibraltar.’ With one class of variables treated as constant for purposes of analysis, the economist’s task is simplified considerably and he is able to manipulate resource variables, constructing elegant and complex models to explain and predict behaviour. The sophistication of these models may divert attention from the fact that they are built on an heroic assumption about human motivation and to this extent are removed from reality. The Director for Agricultural Economics of the United States Department of Agriculture(4) addressing the third World Congress of Rural Sociology suggested ‘It is natural for the highly trained social scientist, having focused on variables important to his discipline, having impounded all other variables in “other things equal” and having come up with clear-cut findings, to assume that the other variables will continue locked up as in his model, and the people should immediately move in the direction indicated by his research’.

Beyond postulating that his goal is profit maximisation and that he is rational, which implies that when confronted with alternatives he selects that course of action yielding largest profit, economic theory assumes nothing about the personality of economic man, who has been described as ‘a psychological caricature, deliberately drawn to facilitate speculation but condemned in advance to be a sketch of how creatures very differently endowed than human beings would behave’.@) Although psychologists would regard an individual with a single motive as most unusual, orthodox economic theory fails to recognise any goal other than profit maximisation. Yet even this proves inadequate as a prescription for economic behaviour.(G) Even the archetypal economic man, intent on maximising his income and oblivious to other goals would have to resolve certain dilemmas by reference to other criteria. He has to choose, for example, whether to attempt to maximise real or money income, cash income or income in kind, income before or after tax, present or future income. The latter depends on individual time preference and for a farmer this might be affected by immediacy of cash needs, whether he has a successor, the value he places on good husbandry. Similarly an individual farmer may strive for an assured income rather than maximum income with risk attached, his risk preference being coloured perhaps by family needs, his commitment to the farm business, the value placed on security. Maximum profits may also be avoided if illegal, unethical or unconventional means are necessary to attain them and individuals may vary in their willingness to flout convention or evade the law for personal ends. Simon(‘) suggested that since the real world is so complex and individuals cannot be expected to have perfect knowledge, the notion of maximising behaviour should be replaced by one of satisficing. Instead of pursuing the unique solution which would maximise profits, a purely mechanical choice, the individual would select from among available alternatives a solution satisfactory to himself, the choice depending on his subjective view of the situation and his scale of values.

Maximising behaviour for the entrepreneur need not coincide with the most profitable course for the business if he does not own it. Managers might advocate large expenditure to increase their own power or prestige rather than to enhance profitability of the firm. Farmers who own their land are often obliged to choose between conflicting economic goals; as farmers they may strive to increase

GOALS A N D VALUES OF FARMERS 523

current income while as landowners they may be more concerned to maximise capital appreciation. Many farmers have other occupations and business interests. Does profit maximisation for them refer to the farm, the other business, or the two in conjunction?

Economists have developed techniques for handling diverse economic goals; business theory accommodates time and risk preference, game theory allows firms to adapt their behaviour to that of other firms. Yet these approaches, still in the tradition of economics, focus on the way decisions are made rather than why they are made, goals being implicit rather than explicit. Little empirical work seems to have been done in this field although Thornton’s(*) study of farmers’ decision-making processes is a notable exception.

No motives are purely economic or non-economic, although some are more relevant than others for economic behaviour. Critics of economic theory have suggested other goals which might be studied in order to enrich understanding of economic behaviour and some would incorporate them in an economic framework. Bellerbycg) considered the many kinds of psychic income farmers might obtain from their occupation and estimated by how much each had reduced farmers’ incentive income ratio. Machlup(10) Blso thought of converting non-pecuniary rewards and costs of businessmen to money terms and including them, as it were, in the firm’s profit-and-loss account. Rather than maximising income, the entrepreneur might aim to maximise satisfaction within a given preference system. Machlup concluded, however, that this would be methodo- logically unsound. ‘If whatever a businessman does is explained by the principle of profit maximisation - because he does what he likes to do and he likes to do what maximises the sum of his pecuniary and non-pecuniary profits - the analysis acquires the character of a system of definitions and tautologies, and loses much of its value as an explanation of reality.’

Some economists, influenced no doubt by Freudian psychology, believe human motivation to be incapable of explanation. In Viner’s(11) view, human behaviour ‘is not under the constant and detailed guidance of careful and accurate hedonic calculations, but is the product of an unstable and unrational complex of reflex actions, impulses, instincts, habits, customs, fashions, and mob hysteria’. In a different vein, many economists contend that individuals in their economic roles actually follow the rubrics of economic theory very closely. The fact that businessmen do not often use economists’ concepts and jargon does not make economic explanations unrealistic or false. Orthodox theory is held to explain most of the variance in economic behaviour, psychological variables being regarded merely as minor random deviations from regularity which cancel one another in aggregate. If this is so, economic theory ought to be effective in predicting group behaviour although it might fall short in individual cases. Without empirical justification, however, there is no way of telling which deviations from economic norms are random and which purposive, operating in the same direction for all.(12)

The position taken here is that much of economic behaviour is rational and therefore subject to laws which may be understood. Rationality is dehed here as goal-directed behaviour, a wider meaning than that implied in economics. Some behaviour in the economic field is scarcely goal-directed in that it does not involve careful appraisal of alternatives but flows more or less automatically from fairly major decisions taken perhaps years before, even decisions taken by someone else.(13) Economic behaviour in this paper refers to choices made after ieflective thought, like decisions to invest, adopt new practices or change jobs, In a paper to this Society in 1958, Clarke and Simpson(l4) discussed motivation

in farming and while they regarded personal preferences, skills and attitudes as important, suggested that these were best handled as refinements of the general principles of economics. ‘When a rational solution to the profit maximisation

524 RUTH GASSON

problems of a farm can be established under simple basic circumstances - this is probably soon enough to turn attention to the numerous additional com- plexities encountered in practice.’ Here a more radical approach is suggested, namely to seek to explain on an empirical basis a wider spectrum of social behaviour in the economic sphere. Such a theory would need to incorporate behaviour as conditioned by technology, institutions, customs, habits of society and by cognition, perception, belief, goals and values of individual actors.(ls) This paper concentrates on goals and values, leaving aside questions of cultural and institutional constraints and differential perception and knowledge.

Theories have been compared to maps, each being intended for explanation and guidance. A road map contains information necessary for travelling but omits much that cartographers consider to be irrelevant for the motorist. Most places are connected by more than one road and the choice of route depends on factors like trai3ic volume, scenery and practicable speeds. So with theories, choice depends on their suitability for the purpose in hand.(l@ For the purpose of explaining farmers’ behaviour, economic theory is intellectually satisfying but not particularly convincing. Advisers in the Nuffield Devon Farm Project(’’) for instance, were of the opinion that ‘only rarely was the farmer’s main objective to maximise his income’. There is no guarantee that any alternative approach will prove more effective but it is hoped that a new perspective on some of the familiar problems in agricultural economics may deepen our understanding and that taking the two approaches together may contribute to a more rounded theory of behaviour.

Goals, values and behaviour Goals are defined as ends or states in which the individual desires to be or things he wishes to accomplish. Some goals are self-sufficient ends, others only instrumental to gaining more desired ends. A course of action may be viewed as the achievement over time of a connected series of goals where attainment of one satisfies an immediate need and also provides a stepping-stone to a more ultimate goal. Consider, for example, the action of a farmer buying more land. He may act in this way in order to :

satisfy his desire to own land increase the capital value of his holding expand the business to make room for a son increase output and thereby raise farm income improve access to other parts of the farm engage in a non-farming activity such as afforestation.

The same action might be undertaken in response to any one of several motives. Owning more land might be an end in itself or a means to a more distant end such as profit maximisation, family solidarity, convenience. Some goals are highly specific, others less so. Access to certain fields could only be improved by buying a particular piece of land whereas the goal of capital growth could be met by purchasing other land or even through other forms of investment. Goals vary between individuals and for the same person at different stages in his career. Buying a small holding might be a prudent move for the neighbouring farmer but for the young man from a non-farming background, the gamble of a lifetime. Studying goals, it is therefore necessary to define the situation fairly closely.

Values are a more permanent property of the individual, less liable to change with time and circumstances. A value is a conception of the desirable referring to any aspect of a situation, object or event that has a preferential implication of being good or bad, right or wrong. Values are felt to be justified by reason, moral or aesthetic judgements. Typical values include honesty, humanity, success, progress, freedom, democracy. Values are ends in themselves, pursued

GOALS AND VALUES OF FARMERS 525

for their own sake. They serve as standards influencing the selection from among available modes, means and ends of action.(l*) Unlike more concrete goals or needs, values are never entirely satisfied but continue to be desired after deprivation has been removed. A hungry person ceases to need food after a meal but a gourmet continues to desire food because it has a value for him. Since people continually strive to gratify values in order to repeat pleasurable experiences, values impose a certain regularity on behaviour.

Values are cultural products, held by all members of a social system. A minimum concensus on values is necessary for maintaining a viable social order. They are not inborn but learned, mainly in childhood, through social interaction with parents, teachers and peers. Values are relatively enduring but if they were completely immutable in later life the efforts of missionaries, prison governors, development economists and other crusading spirits would be doomed to failure.

Values do not exist in isolation but are organised in systems or value orientations. Since value orientations determine desired ends of behaviour and prescribe norms or socially acceptable means of attaining them, it follows that appreciation of value systems is necessary in order to predict behaviour. It is thought that most individuals subscribe to most of the dominant values most of the time, their behaviour being an expression of not one but all the value elements. To understand the siflcance of values for behaviour it is necessary to know where they stand relative to one another. Variations in the rank order of common value com- ponents, all of which may be present, cause value systems to differ between individuals and between sub-groups of society. (19) In other words, people desire to achieve all valued ends but in situations where these are mutually exclusive it is the relative ordering of values which determines how they decide to act. Knowledge that a particular farmer values leisure more than hard work or progress above maintenance of traditions would provide a broad indication of how he would decide to act in a variety of situations.

Techniques of studying valuedm) Since values are abstract criteria they can only be approached indirectly through observed behaviour or verbal responses. Past behaviour can be a reliable indicator of certain kinds of value preference, for example, through patterns of expenditure or use of leisure. I t is less satisfactory where behaviour is strongly influenced by situational factors. In parts of East Anglia, for example, the value farmers place on conservation might conceivably be gauged by numbers of trees planted or lengths of hedgerow removed per acre but in upland areas, planting trees might be impracticable and fields divided by stone walls. Since the final aim is to discover if value orientations make an independent contribution to behaviour, it is necessary to find measures of values not contaminated by behaviour and, particularly if comparisons are to be made between individuals, to avoid methods too dependent on resource situations.

Verbal measures of values include direct questions about how much of certain items is desired, ranking, rating or indicating agreement with statements embody- ing values, response to hypothetical questions involving choice, replies to open- ended questions about what is important or desirable and more esoteric methods like interpreting ambiguous pictures or ink blots. Success with methods using value-laden statements depends on their conveying to all respondents the meaning

, intended by the investigator. While ‘genuine thought’ is only likely to occur in situations which seem realistic to the respondent, there is a danger in making statements too specific, for then they can only be used with a narrow segment of the population. Mitchellczl) studying the relevance of specsed goals and values for adoption of improved practices by a dehed population of farmers, has tended to use statements which are quite specific to those circumstances. The

526 RUTH GASSON

present study is more exploratory and has relied on rather general statements of values which might apply in a broad range of farm situations.

The danger of relying on verbal indicators is not that value orientations are necessarily unstable but that their verbal expression may be. Value systems have been likened to onions; for each person a number of values, sometimes opposed, is integrated beneath the most pervasive values. The outer skin might represent values upheld by society and publically expressed for social approval, the next layer values held by members of the subgroup - fellow workers, the village, the farming community - but not necessarily repeated in the larger society. Beneath this might be values shared only with members of the family and deeper still those which the individual admits only to himself. Different layers might be relevant for different kinds of behaviour and different layers might be tapped if the respondent is interviewed alone, in the presence of his family or at work. Since the interviewer is himself a valuing person, his subjectivity may influence the outcome. Often respondents seek to please the interviewer by answering in what they believe to be an acceptable manner. This does not invalidate the response for superficial answers are still meaningful and individual variation in what is thought to be socially acceptable can be highly revealing.(22) Moreover, all values are socially learned and those which are first expressed only to gain approval tend to become internalised by the individual in time, so becoming potential motivating forces for behaviour.

Values in occupations Nearly sfty years ago Ashbyc2s classified motivations of farmers as:

desire of economic advantage or fear of economic need hope of reward or fear or punishment feeling of honour, striving for recognition or fear of shame need of occupation and pleasure of activity.

In empirical investigations of occupational values the themes of material gain, recognition and pleasurable activity constantly recur. Friedmann and Havighurstt24) asked people in a variety of occupations what meaning work had for them. Although some saw no meaning apart from earning a living or routine activity, many more in most occupations gave priority to extra-financial meanings such as service to others, prestige, self-respect, purposeful mental and physical activity, intrinsic enjoyment of work tasks and source of new experience. Morse and Weiss,(25) assuming that having a job serves other functions besides earning a living for most people, asked individuals in various jobs whether they thought they would continue to work if they inherited enough money to live comfortably. Most thought they would continue and gave positive reasons including enjoying the kind of work, being associated with people, keeping healthy and interested, gaining a feeling of self-respect and justifying one’s existence.

Herzberg and associates(26) analysed sixteen studies representing over eleven thousand employees in the United States and Britain, in which workers had ranked major job factors in order of importance. Security was consistently ranked highest with opportunity for advancement next. Wages typically appeared halfway down the list, a little higher than intrinsic and social aspects of the job, with working conditions last. Marsh and Stafford@’) asked a sample of professional people to indicate their degree of preference for certain work values. The resulting correlation matrix showed values falling into two clusters, an ‘acquisitive’ dimension covering earnings, pleasant surroundings, social status and leadership and a ‘professional‘ dimension with such values as creativity and originality, independence in doing work, freedom to select areas of research and opportunity to work with ideas. Rosenberg(28) asked students to grade a similar set of values according to their importance for a career and was able to define


three dimensions relating to external rewards, inter-personal relations and self- expression. Arranging dominant values in logical order to maximise coefficients of association between them gave a list as follows :

security money status and prestige working with people service to others using abilities and aptitudes being creative and original.

The following list represents dominant values likely to be associated with the farming occupation. For convenience these values are classified under four headings but it is not claimed that either the scheme of classification or the contents of the list are exhaustive. An instrumental orientation implies that farming is viewed as a means of obtaining income and security with pleasant working conditions. Farmers with a predominantly social orientation are farming for the sake of interpersonal relationships in work. Expressive values suggest that farming is a means of self-expression or personal fulfilment while an intrinsic orientation means that fanning is valued as an activity in its own right.

Instrumental - making maximum income making a satisfactory income safeguarding income for the future expanding the business providing congenial working conditions - hours, security, surroundings.

gaining recognition, prestige as a farmer belonging to the farming community continuing the family tradition working with other members of the family maintaining good relations with workers.

feeling pride of ownership gaining self-respect for doing a worthwhile job exercising special abilities and aptitudes chance to be creative and original meeting a challenge, achieving an objective, personal growth.

Social -

Expressive -

lntrinsic - 1 enjoyment of work tasks

preference for a healthy, outdoor, farming life purposeful activity, value in hard work independence - freedom from supervision and to organise time control in a variety of situations.

Although values are defined as self-sufficient ends, it is evident that some on this list are closer to goals and might serve as means to attain more desired ends. In some societies creativity or independence, for instance, might be the basis for ascribing status and might be pursued consciously to that end. In other situations, working with family members might be a means of ensuring income for the future and security in old age. Money might be an end in itself to a miser but is normally desired as a means for consumption, leisure, security, progress or prestige. Income may in fact have different meanings for different classes of society; for the economically deprived it may be vaIued chiefly as a means of security, in the middle classes for the prestige it confers and among the wealthy as a mark of achievement.

528 RUTH GASSON

Value orientations of farmers - a pilot study A pilot study has been carried out with the object of exploring the range of values relevant to the farming occupation. Information was gathered in various ways, from open-ended discussions to forced-choice questions. In the fist round, operators of small full-time businesses (275 to 600 standard man-days) in the eastern region were asked what they particularly liked and disliked about farming and what they thought they would miss most if they had to change their occupation. Independence (being one’s own boss or freedom to arrange and control work) was mentioned most frequently, followed by living in the country and enjoying an open-air life. Aspects of work itself such as variety and interest, being in control of a process from sowing to harvest came next while prospect of capital gain, making a good income and other instrumental aspects came low on the list (Table 1). A sample of SufFolk farmers with large farms was asked their reasons for farming and again independence, love of the land and the way of life and work itself were emphasised above social and instrumental aspects. Other Suffolk farmers were asked what was their idea of a successful farmer. Responses were mainly in terms of financial success but some stressed good husbandry (‘one who leaves the land better than he found it, not necessarily making most money nor spending most time sweeping the yard’) or social values (‘one who has always been on the land’ or ‘one who belongs in farming - best if he owned his land for a long time’). In the next round, operators of one hundred small farms in the Fens and

Hertfordshire were asked to rank sets of attributes representing values in farming. This demonstrated again the importance of independence and aspects of work itself. Ranking those aspects of farming which would be missed in another job, farmers once more placed a high value on independence and intrinsic aspects of work with little emphasis on instrumental (risk of unemployment) or social values (being involved in labour disputes, losing status) (Table 2). In the latest round, a hundred commercial farmers (operators of businesses

requiring more than 600 standard man days) in Cambridgeshire were asked three structured questions concerning values. They were asked to rate each of sixteen aspects of the farming occupation and twelve career attributes for a young person in terms of importance and to indicate which statement on a list of ten came nearest their idea of a ‘good’ farmer. In each case intrinsic values scored higher than expressive or instrumental, and social values had low priority. Farmers appeared to value doing the work they liked and being independent more than making a satisfactory or high income (Table 3). The majority would

Table 1 Sources of work satisfaction for operators of small farms1

NUMBER OF RESPONSES

~ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~~

Source of satisfaction Independence 95 Open-air, healthy way of life 60 Aspects of work itself 39 Challenge, gamble, chance to achieve 11 Income, chaw living 7 Chance of capital gaiu 5 Interaction with other farmers 3 Family tradition 2 Number of farmers 134

Differs significantly from random distribution (p < 0.001). This is a fresuency distribution of spontaneous responses and does not represent a value

orientation.


Table 2 Advantages in farming ranked by operators of small farms

MEAN RANK

Advantages of being a farmer Open-air life and satisfaction with work 2.05

Variety in work 2-75 Challenge, risk 3-65 Chance of capital gain 4-50

Number of farmers 100

Independence 2-12

Disadvantages in giving up farming Loss of independence Less satisfaction in work Being involved in labour disputes Risk of unemployment Lower status

1 a99 2.81 3.24 3 -42 3 -92

Number of farmers 91

Table 3 Importance of farming attributes to Cambridgeshire farmers . SCORB

Attributes of farming occupation Doing the work you like 174 Independence 145 Making a reasonable living in the present 135 Meeting a challenge, achieving an objective 129

110

93

Making as high an income as possible 86 Working close to home and family 84

84 Earning respect of workers 81 Following in the family tradition 76 W i g able to arrange hours of work 71 Job security 67 Belonging to the farming community 55

Mean score 99 Number of farmers 98

Leading a healthy, open-air life Expanding the business 100 Making sure of income for the future W i g creative 91

Self-respect for doing a worthwhile job

Differs siBnificantly from random distribution (p<O.OOl)

advise a youth to choose a career he would enjoy and to seek independence, variety and a healthy life (Table 4). Good prospects were regarded as more important than high income and many farmers considered leisure to be positively harmfd. Economic and social criteria for choosing a ‘good’ farmer were less significant than performance of the job itself (Table 5).

A number of sociologists(29) have illustrated the different approaches to work by members of different occupational groups. Persons in higher status jobs, professional and business men and craftsmen, have been shown to emphasise intrinsic meanings of work to a greater extent than unskilled workers, for whom work i’s primarily a means of earning a living. Thorns(a) has challenged this view, suggesting that work commitment among the middle classes in Britain today is largely instrumental to sustaining an acceptable middle-class way of life. Goldthorpe and as~ociates(3~) found a strongly instnunental approach to

530

Table 4 Importance of career attributes to Cambridgeshire farmers

SCORE

Most important for youth choosing a career Work he would enjoy 172 Chance to make his own decisions 104 Work providing variety 97 Healthy life 91 Good prospects for advancement 89 Security, little risk of unemployment 74 Working in pleasant surroundings 74 Chance to develop character 71 High income 58 Canying on the family tradition 56 Occupation well-regarded by others 45 Plenty of leisure time 19


Differs significantly from random distribution (p < 0.001)

Table 5 Cambridgeshire farmers' Criterion of a 'good' farmer

~ ~- ~

Good former is one who: produces best crops or livestock Leaves the land better than he found it Is progressive, uptodate , willing to experiment Is most satisfied with his life Cares most about the well-being of his workers Preserves the beauty of the English countryside Is making most money Owns his land Is not indebted Is wellatablished in the farming community

SCORE

124 114 92 82 54 43 42 34 27 21


Differs significantly from random distribution (p < 0.001)

Summary of value orientations of Cambridgeshire farmers MEAN SCORE

I"SIC EXPRESSNE INSTRUMENTAL SOCIAL

Fanning attributes 146 101 92 74 Career attributes for youth 116 71 63 51 Criteria of 'good' fanner 93 82 34 38

work by the Luton industrial workers they studied and concluded that workers on an assembly line would come near to maximising economic returns from their labour but would perhaps experience deprivation in relation to other aspects of work which they had devalued. As variants on this theme the authors suggested a bureaucratic orientation where work would imply service to an organisation in return for steadily increasing income, security and status. A soZidarity onenta- tion implies that besides its economic meaning, work would be valued as a group activity, such that economic returns might be sacrificed if maximising behaviour would offend group norms. Farmers might be described in these terms as having an infrinsic work orientation where performance of work tasks is valued for its

GOALS AND VALUES OF FARMERS 53 1

own sake and economic and social considerations are liable to be subordinated to intrinsic ends.

Motivation and life situation Do farmers develop distinctive value orientations because they are farmers or do they become farmers in response to particular value orientations? In other words, are value orientations logically prior to or dependent upon the individual’s life situation? The truth probably lies somewhere between, motivation having some affect upon but also being affected by the person’s environment. Certainly values exert some independent influence on behaviour. Blaikie(32) found that goal profiles of students choosing particular careers tended to be similar before they had actually experienced working in those occupations. Rosenberg(28) showed that, although some students expressed values which were incompatible with their occupational choice, over time there was a significant shift towards greater consistency, some abandoning choices not in keeping with their value systems and others modifying their values in anticipation of future occupational roles. Ingham(33) elaborating Goldthorpe’s propositions suggested that a wide range of orientations to work are not merely adaptations and reactions to given work situations but are partly brought to work, the workers selecting jobs appropriate to their prior value systems.

Those who have made a conscious decision to farm, coming to agriculture from other backgrounds, have evidently made value judgements in favour of this occupation. A great variety of motives besides seeking a livelihood prompt people to become farmers. Consider, for example, the part-time farmer who already has an assured income from another source. Some pursue primarily instrumental goals such as avoidance of estate duty, speculation on rising land values or hedging against inflation. Sometimes social values predominate, when for example a businessman seeks the status of a country landowner or wishes to provide a rural background for his children or to retain links with a particular farm. Some engage in farming activities for intrinsic enjoyment of the work and others see it as a means of self-fulfdment through creative activity or extending themselves to meet a challenge. The majority of full-time farmers are sons of farmers and in many cases no conscious career choice appears to have been made. Here it would be more plausfble to argue that values have been formed in response to the individual‘s environment, the son growing up in the expectation that he will follow in his father’s footsteps and unconsciously absorbing values appropriate to this calling. Yet there are also those sons who reject these values and decide to leave farming for other occupations more congenial to their personal value systems.

If value Orientations were purely reflections of the individual’s life situation the study of values would add nothing to explaining behaviour and if they were entirely independent, predicting a behavioural response to an external stimulus would demand prior knowledge of the personality of the individual. Inkeles(34) has argued the middle case, suggesting that to some extent man’s environment shapes his experience and through this his perception, attitudes and values. Within broad limits the same situational pressures, the same ‘framework for living’ will be experienced in similar ways and will generate similar responses by individuals. If this is the case, systematic variations in values could be found by studying objective characteristics of individuals. By subdividing them according to these characteristics, vaiiance in value orientations could be reduced.

Value orientations and size of farm business Many characteristics might prove to be associated with value orientations. A case could be made for including age, education, socio-economic status, length

8

532 RUTH GASSON

of farming experience, association with a particular farm, commitment to farming as a career, family size, stage in family life cycle, size and type of farm, income level, indebtedness, degree of urbanisation and so on. Dunford(35) has investigated a number of these characteristics in relation to farmers’ risk preference. Harrison(36) has demonstrated that the value farmers place on freedom from debt increases with age. Rural sociologists in the United Stated3’) have described characteristic orientations to work associated with different regions and types of farming. Data from the pilot study were analysed to see whether any meaningful variations in value orientations could be associated with size of farm business. Such a relationship might be a direct one or farm size might be a proxy for a more fundamental variable such as social class. In any case, such relationships would be cross-cut by a multiplicity of other variables like age and background.

Sociological theory suggests at least two possible forms of relationship between farm business size and values. One hypothesis is that farmers adapt to their situation and come to value its more favourable aspects while denying the importance of needs which are not gratified, so as to avoid frustration. Operators of large and prosperous farms may therefore tend to stress the importance of financial returns while those who are objectively less well off may emphasise instead intrinsic and expressive aspects.

The alternative hypothesis is that most value will be ascribed to unfulfilled needs. Katona(38) and Kak~el l (~~) among others have suggested that values in work could be structured in a manner analogous to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Briefly, Maslow(*) suggests that human needs can be visualised as a hierarchy starting with most basic physiological and safety needs and rising through needs for belonging or acceptance as a member of the group, needs for esteem, prestige, power and self-respect to needs for self-actualisation. Lower needs are thought to be prepotent and must be gratified before higher needs can emerge into consciousness and become motivating forces. An individual lacking everything, is obsessed with the need for survival but when released from this need he can begin to recognise and respond to higher goals. These in turn become less significant upon graacation and allow higher goals to become the main motive force. By analogy, farmers who are most economically deprived might value their occupation primarily as a means of subsistence and security and, being fully involved in making ends meet, will give little thought to social, expressive or intrinsic needs. Those who are financially secure may tend to disparage instrumental values but place most emphasis on recognition as a member of the farming community. Farmers who are both economically and socially established may attach greater importance to higher, expressive and instrumental values.

The first hypothesis seems more appropriate since it was the smaller farmers who tended to value intrinsic aspects of farming more highly while operators of medium and large farms placed greater emphasis on instrumental and social aspects. Among intrinsic attractions, independence was valued above all by those with smallest businesses (Table 6). Giles and Mills(41) also found that farm managers with smaller acreages or businesses valued ‘being one’s own boss’ more highly while managers of larger farms mentioned ‘variety in the work‘ and ‘an outdoor life’ more frequently. This value seems to discriminate best between farmers employing labour and those without, no difference being observed between those hiring few or many workers (Table 8). Employers are subject to more regulations and become in a sense dependent on their workers while self- employed farmers without regular hired labour may be slaves of their own farms but are not obliged to rely on other people.

The value ascribed to instrumental and social attributes of farming by commercial farmers in Cambridgeshire tended to increase with size of business, with


Table 6 Attractions of farming life suggested by East Anglian farmers, by size of farm business

SIZE OF FARM BUSINESS

PER CENT OF RFSPONSES ATllUBTJTE u ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 O O s m d s 6OOsmdsmmovmt

Independence Way of life, open-air, country life Aspects of work itself Challenge, risk, gamble Achievement, creativity Pride of ownership Self-respect Income, cheaper living Chance of capital gain Family tradition Interaction with other farmers

42.8 27-0 14.8 5.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 3 -2 2.3 0.9 1 -3

13-5 32.2

8 -5 1-7

11.8 3 -4 1 -7 6.8 5.1 8.5 6.8

All responses Number of responses Number of farmers

100.0 222 134

100.0 59 25

s m w y : Intrinsic 84.6 54.2 Expressive 7 *7 18.6 Instrumental 5.5 11.9 Social 2-2 15.3

Responses of small farmers differ significantly from large (p <0.001)

some decline in emphasis on intrinsic values. On the criterion of a good farmer, larger farmers were more likely to choose instrumental (making a high income, not indebted) or social values (belonging to the farming community, caring for the welfare of workers) while operators of smaller farms (600 to 900 smds) stressed intrinsic aspects like leaving the land better than you found it and preserving the countryside (Table 7). Breaking down these categories further it

Table 7 Cambridgeshire farmers’ criterion of ‘good’ farmer by farm size SIZE OF FARM BUSINESS

SMALLER MIDDLE LARGER SCORE

Good Farmer is one who: Produces best crops or livestock 42 36 46 Leaves the land better than he found it 40 41 33 Is progressive, up-to-date, experimental 23 37 32 Preserva the beauty of the countryside 21 11 11

~ Is most satisfied with his life 32 42 8 Is making most money 10 13 19 Owns his land 11 16 7 Is not indebted 6 7 14 Cares most about well-being of workers 13 17 24 Is wellestablished in farming community 6 3 12

Number of farmers 31 31 31

Intrinsic 32 31 31 Expressive 32 42 7 Instrumeny 9 12 13 Social 10 10 18

SWnmary:

Scores foi. small farmers d?kr s@fkantly from middle (p < 0-005) Scores for small farmers Mex si~@IcantIy from large (p < 0-001) Scores for middle farmers differ significantly from large (p c 0-001).

G

534 RUTH GASSON

Table 8 Importance of attributes of farming to Cambridgeshire farmers by size of farm business

SIZE OF FARM BUSDESS SMALLER LARGER

SCORE (smd 600-950) (smd 13%)

Doing the work you like Independence Leading a healthy, open-air life Meeting a challenge, achieving an objective Being creative Self-respect for doing a worthwhile job Making a reasonable living in the present Expanding the business Making sure of income for the future Making as high an income as possible Job security Being able to arrange your hours of work Working close to home and family Following in the family tradition Belonging to the farming community Earning respect of workers

Number of farmers Summary

Intrinsic Expressive Instrumental - income

Social - belonging conditions

prestige

76 58 43 36 34 34 61 30 32 28 20 24 45 32 19 26

70 58 48 67 48 35 48 58 37 40 31 29 18 27 25 39

38

59 35 38 22 39 23

38

59 50 46 33 23 32

Scores for smaller farmers differ significantly from larger (p c 0.01)

Responses in Tables 3,4,5,7 and 8 have been scored as foliows: Most important 3 Very important 2 Important 1 Not important -1 Not relevant or no reply 0

All significance tests were computed using Chi square.

appeared that smaller farmers placed a higher value on making a reasonable living while large farmers emphasised future income, maximising and particularly expansion of the business (Table 8). Among 'social' values it was the smaller farmers who put more emphasis on working close to home and family and following in the family tradition, values which suggest belonging to the immediate social group, while farmers with larger businesses valued esteem and respect of workers more highly, values which Maslow might regard as a later evolutionary trend.

Implications of the findings Results of the pilot study suggest that East Anglian farmers bring a strongly intrinsic orientation to work, instrumental values being rather Iess significant and social values least so. A more tentative conclusion is that farmers with larger businesses are more economically motivated, although expansion appears to be more salient than maximising present income. Smaller farmers put more stress on intrinsic aspects of work, particularly independence. The indications are vague and sometimes conflicting and a great deal more research must be done to establish whether these variations in value systems occur consistently. Perhaps

GOALS AND VALUES OF FARMERS 53 5

the fact that any differences have emerged is more significant at this early stage than that they are not always consistent or in the direction expected.

Supposing it can be established that to be operating a small farm, in conjunction perhaps with other farmer and farm characteristics, tends to produce a value orientation with a strong emphasis on independence, what might be the implications for economic behaviour ? Goldstein and Eichhorn(42) have suggested that independence, once necessary to ensure survival and success in farming, has become dysfunctional for ‘rational’ behaviour in the economist’s sense. It may discourage a farmer from borrowing money or hiring labour where economically justifiable. Success nowadays demands that farmers share their problems and accept advice rather than remaining staunchly independent. Farm adjust- ment schemes which offer a modest financial incentive to farmers to give up their present, highly valued way of life cannot be expected to arouse much response if many of those eligible are less concerned with maximising income than with making a satisfactory living in order to pursue pleasurable activities and be their own master. In Goldstein and Eichhorn’s study it was the more economically motivated farmers who retired earlier. Nor are social considerations likely to act as effective levers for change since smaller farmers seem to be less concerned with their status outside the family. Although co-operation is advocated in some quarters as the salvation of the small family farm, it may be that small farmers value independence too highly to relinquish control of an enterprise. Possibly farmers in the middle range, more conscious of the value of belonging to the farming community, will be more likely candidates while large business farmers may decide for or against joining a group on the basis of the difference it will make to their own profits.

To continue this line of enquiry, the next stage would be to predict how farmers with known value orientations will act under given resource situations and, observing their behaviour, to show to what extent the measures of value orientations are effective predictors. Some deeper appreciation of motivation, if taken in conjunction with the already extensive knowledge of resource constraints, should eventually lead to a better understanding and prediction of farmers’ behaviour.

Acknowledgements I am grateful to Boguslaw Galeski, Eugene Wilkening and Howard Newby, among others for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

References 1. Ashby, A. W. : ‘Human Motives in Farming’. Welsh Journal of Agriculture, Vol. 2, No. I.,

2. Morris, S. T.: ‘The Nuffield Devon Farm Project’. Journal of Agricultural Economics,

3. Lewin, K.: Field Theory in Social Science. Harper & Bros., New York, 1951, p. 25. 4. Paarlberg, D.: Public Policy and the Social Sciences. Address to third World Congress of

Rural Sociology, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1972. 5. MitcheN, W. C.: ‘Empirical Research and the Development of Economic sC;ence*.. In:

Economic Research and the Development of Economic Science and Public Policy, Nabonal Bureau of Economic Research, New York, pp. 16-17.

6. McGuire, J. W.: Theories of Business Behuviour. Rentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1964, see especially Chapter 4.

’ Katona, G.: PsycholJgi’cal Andysis of &cnomic Eeb-ciow. McGraw-Hill, New York,

I. Simon, H. A.: Models of Man: Social and Rational. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1957. pp. 196-206.

8. Thornton, D. S.: Decision Making in Farming, with Exploratory Investigations into the Decision Making ofpig Producers. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Reading, 1961.

1926 p. 5.

Vol. XVI, No. 2,1964, p. 207..

’

1951, pp. l9?-210.

536 RUTH GASSON

9.

10.

11.

12. 13.

14.

15.

16. 17. 18.

19.

20.

21.

22. 23. 24.

25.

Bellerby, J. R.: Agriculture and Indmtry Relative Income. Ma-, London, 1956. DD. 269-293. _ - Machlup, F.: Essays on Economic Semantics. M. H. Miller (ed). Prentice-Hall, Englewood cliffs. New Jersey, 1963, pp. 156-157. Viner, J. ‘T’heUtiKty Concept inValueTheory’. Journal ofPoliticaZEconomy, Vol. 33, NO. 4,

Katona, G.: Op. cit. 1-8. Ibid., pp. 49-57. Kivlin, J. E. and FIiegel, F. C.: ‘Orientation to Agriculture: a Factor Anslysis of Farmers’ Perceptions of New Practices’. Rural Sociology, Vol. 33, No. 2,1968, pp- 127-140. Clarke, G. B. and SimpSon, I. G.: ‘A Theoretical Approach to the Profit Maximisation Problems in Farm Management’. Journal of Agricultural Econom~cs, Vol. 13, No. 3,1959, pp. 250-251. Hayes, S. P., Jr.: ’Some Psychological Problems of Economics’. Psychological Bulletin,

McGOire, J. W. : Op. cit., Vol. 6, pp. 80 et seq. Morris, S . T.: Op. cit., p. 221. Kluckhobn, C. IC.: ‘Values and Value-Orientations in the Theory of Action’. In: T. Parsons and E. Shils (eds.) Towar& a General Zbeory ofdction. Harvard University Press, Carn- bridge, Mass., 1951, p. 395. Williams, R. M., Jr.: American Society: A Sociological Interpretation. 2nd. edn. A. Knopf, New York, 1960, pp. 399-404. Kluckhoh, F. R.: ‘Some Reflections on the Nature of Cultural Integration and Change’. In : E. A. Tiryakian (d) SociologicaZ Theory, Values and Sociocultural Change. Free Press of Glencoe, 1963, pp. 217-247.

1925, pp. 373-374.

Vol. 47, NO. 4,1950, pp. 289-330.

r P i -Trll

Wilkening, E. A.: ‘Techniques of Assessing Farm Family Values’. Rural Sociology, Vol. 19, NO. 1, 19% Up. 39-49. Mkchell-G. F.-C.: Application of a Likert-type Scale to the Measurement of the Degree of Farmers’ Subscriptions to Certain Goals or Values. University of Bristol Department of Economics (A~gidtural Economics), 1969, p. 8. Katona, G.: Op. cit., pp. 70-81. Ashby, A. W.: Op. cit., p. 12. Friedmann, E. A. and Havighurst, R. J.: The Meaning of Work and Retirement. University of Chicago Press, 1954. Morse, N. C. and Web, R. S.: “The Function and Meaning of Work and the Job’. American SociologicalReview, Vol. 20, No. 2,1955, pp. 191-198.

26. Hemberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R. 0. and Capwell, D. :Job Attitudes: Review of Research and Opinion. Psychological SMce of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1957, pp.

27. Marsh, J. F., Jr. and Stafford, F. P.: ‘The Effects of Values on Pecuniary Behavior: The Case of Academicians’. American Sociological Review, Vol. 32, No. 5,1967, pp. 740-754.

28. Rosenberg, M. Occupations and Values (with E. A. Suchman and R. K. Goldsen). Free Press of Glencoe, 1957, pp. 10-24.

29. See for example: Blamer, R.: ‘Work Satisfaction and Industrial Trendsk Modem Society’. In: W. Galenson and S. M. Lipset (eds.) Lobor and Trade Unionism: An Interdisciplinary Reader. John Wiley & Sons, London, 1960, pp. 339-360. Henberg, F., et al.: Op. at., pp. 51-70. Hyman, H. H.: ‘The Value Systems of Different Classes’. In: R. Bendix and S. M. Lipset (eds.) Clms, Status andpower. Free Press of Glencoe, 1953, pp. 426442. WiIkening, E. A. and Rdefdd, R D.: Job Satisfation of Owner -Mi ie r s , Hired Managers and Hired Workers as Related to F m , Social and Job Characteristics. Paper read at annual meeting of Rural Sociological Society, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1972.

30. Thorns, D. C.: ‘Work and Its Definition’. Sociological Review, Vol. 19, No. 4, 1971, pp. 554-555c.

3 1. Goldthorpe, J. H., Lockwood, D., Bechhofer, F. and Platt, J. : The merit Worker: Industrial Attitudes and Bekiour . Cambridge Umversity Press, 1968, see es@ally pp. 38-42.

37-50.

32. Blaikie, N. W. H.: ‘Towards a Theoretical Model for the Study of Occupational Choice’. Sociology, Vol. 5, No. 3,1971, pp. 313-333.

33. Ingham, G. K.: ‘Organisational Size, Orientation to Work and Industrial Behaviour’. Sociology, Vol. 1, No. 3,1967, pp. 246-252.

537 GOALS AND VALUES OF FARMERS

34. Inkeles, A.: 'Industrial Man: The Relation of Status to Experience, Perception, and Value'. AmericanJournalof Sociology,Vol. 66,No. 1 , 1 9 6 0 , ~ ~ . 1-31.

35. Dunford, W. J.: Uncertainty and the Farmer - An Introductory Survey of Some of the Efects of Risk and Uncertainty on the Farm Bminess. University of Bristol Department of Economics (Agricultural Economics) Report 126,1961.

36. Harrison, A.: The Fiincial Structure ofFarm Burinesses. University of Reading Department of Agricultural Economics and Management, Miscellaneo~~ Study 53, 1972, p. 4.

37. Taylor, C. C.: 'Farm People's Attitudes and Opinions'. In: E. A. Schuler and C. C. Taylor (eds.) Rural Life in the United States. A. Knopf, New York, 1949, pp. 495-509.

38. Katona, G.: Op. cit., pp. 204-210. 39. Katzell, R. A.: 'Personal Values, Job Satisfaction and Job Behavior'. In: H. Borow (ed.)

40. Maslow, A. H.: Motivation andpersonality. Harper & Bros., New York, 1954, pp. 80-106. 41. Gila, A. I(. and Mills, F. D. :More About Farm Managers. University of Reading Department

of Agricultural Economics and Management, Miscellaneous Study 49,1971, pp. 33,44. 42. Goldstein, B. and Eichhorn, R. L.: 'The Changing Protestant Ethic: Rural Patterns in Health

Work, and Leisure'. American SocioIogicalReview, Vol. 26,No. 4,1961, pp. 557-565.

Man in a Worldat Work. Houghton MiWin, Boston, 1964, pp. 341-363.

RCsum6 BUTS ET VALEURS DANS L'ACT.IVIl% DE L'EXPLOITANT AGRICOLE

Lrr thkorie kconomique traite la motivation comme un paramttre, expliquant la variation dims le comportement de l'gconomie en termes de disponibilitk des ressources. Cette thkorie ne fournit pas une information entikrement convaincante sur l'activitk des exploitants agricoles, Une meilleure cornprkhension de la motivation, utiliske en conjonction avec les donnkes dkjd disponibles sur les ressources et contraintes matkrielles, pourrait conduire, selon l'argument dkveloppi, ri des explications et prtvisions plus rigoureuses sur le comportement kconornique des agriculteurs. L'auteur analyse le th2me des but$ et valeurs dam le metier d'exploitant agricole comme un des aspects de la motivation. Les valeurs peuvent se rkfkrer ri des aspects professionnels, sociaux, express@ ou intrinstques de l'exploitation agricole et c'est I'ordre dans lequel elles sont plackes relativement les unes a m autres qui influence les dkcisions des agriculteurs dam les situations de choix. Les ktudespilotes convergent vers la conclusion selon laquelle les exploitants agricoles ont m e orientation intrinstque prkdominante vers le travail, plagant le .rtyle de vie, l'indkpendance et la qualitk des tciches qu'ils accomplissent au-dessus des aspects expressgs, contributgs ou sociaux de leur profession. La comparaison desorientations de valeur entre grandr et petits exploitants perrnet de souligner certaines des implications et des utilisations possibles de cette optique.

-

Znsammenfassung ZIELE UND WERTE DER FARMER

Die wirtschajitliche Theorie behandelt die Motivation als einen Parameter, der die VercTnderung im wirtschaftlichen Verhalten in Form von verfugbaren Ressourcen erki6rt. Diese Theorie liefert keine ganz iiberzargende Darstellung der Handlungen von Farmern. Es wird vorgeschlagen, dass ein bessereA Verstzindnis der Motivation, zusammen mit der Information, die schon iiber Materialressourcen unduber die notwendigen Folgerungen bestehen, zu einer angemesseren

53 8 DISCUSSION ON PAPEX’BY MISS R. GASSON

Erk1a”rung und Vorhersage der wirtschaftlichen Verhaltensweise von Farmern fiihren konnte. Dieser Artikel erforscht das Thema der Ziele und Werte in der Farmtitigkeit als einen Teil der Motivation. Werte konnen sich auf instrumentale, soziale, iussere oder innere Aspekte des Farmens beziehen, und PS ist ihre Anordung zueinander, die die Entscheidungen der Farmer in einer Entscheidungssituation beeinflussen. Grundstudien Iassen den Schluss m, dass Farmer eine hauptsdchlich innere Ausrichtung auf ihre Arbeit haben, wobei sie den Lebensstil, die Unabhciitgigkeit und die Awfuhrung ihrer Arbeitsaufgaben &her einschdtzen als dusserliche, instrumentale oder soziale Aspekte ihrer BescMfiigung. Der Vergleich der Wertorientierung zwischen grossen und kleinen Farmern veranschaulicht einige Folgerungen und mogliche An wendungen dieses Ansatzes.

DISCUSSION ON PAPER BY MISS RUTH GASSON

I. G. REID

May I congratulate Ruth Gasson on this intriguing exercise and contribute some supporting evidence? We subjected 70 farmers to a simple Herzberg analysis. By asking them what experiences in their farming had given them the most satisfaction during the past two years, and what experiences the most dissatisfaction. It emerged very clearly that they were basically ‘achievers’ and particularly of technical goals such as 2 tons of wheat per acre, or 1,200 gallons per cow. They were very frustrated when the potato harvester did not achieve the rate claimed by the manu- facturer. What gave them most dissatisfaction was their inability to handle the interpersonal relationships on their farms. We continued this exercise by making half the group play the role of ‘Management’, the other half the role of ‘Workers’ in a ‘Pay and Conditions’ negotiation for the mixed economy of a landed estate. Everybody forgot entirely what they had previously said gave them the greatest satisfaction, and they spent an abortive three hours arguing entirely in the instrumental field with no recognition at all that there are these social and intrinsic values. Is it any different from what happens in other industries?

MISS RUTH GASSON A number of studies in other occupations bear out Mr. Reid’s experience that people tend to recognise a great Variety of meanings in work for themselves but attribute only instrumental Values to others. Some have shown that while workers seek a wide range of goals in their occupations, their employers believe that higher wages will be sufficient to motivate them, not realising that workers too might strive for responsibility, achievement or control over the job.

W. H. LONG

1 was surprised that Miss Gasson made no reference to the intluence of the farmer’s wife on his decisions. She has approached this study entirely from the point of view of the farmer himself, but surely she would be the first to agree that many fanners’ actions are influenced by their wives, either before or since they married them. It is often said that you can tell whether it is the farmer or his wife who wears the trousers depending on whether the farm grows silage or not and this shows that the wife has an influence on the type of farming followed.

Obviously decisions farmers make will be influenced by their wives too but perhaps farmers tend to choose wives who already hold values similar to their own?

MISS R U M GASSON

J. T. HARLE I would have thought that the age of the farmer would have influenced his goals, and I wonder if Miss Gasson made any analysis by the age of farmers in her sample, in compiling Tables 2 and 3.

Yes, I have looked at age as one of the factors which might affect value orientations. Certain patterns emerged and it is interesting to speculate on the nature of thenlationship. Fanners mght hold certain value orientations because they are young, in which case they may change as they grow older to match the value systems of older fanners, or values might reflect particular experiences of that age group. Do young farmers approach work in a particular way because they

MISS R U M GASSON

DISCUSSION ON PAPER BY MISS R. GASSON 539

are young or because they were born in 1940? Are older farmers conservative because they are older or because they remember what it was like to be farming in the late 1920’s?

Look at Table 3. Although these figures might be useful relatively, is there danger in using them absolutely? Someone wanting to prove a point might do so by the way he groups these attributes. For example, if we add ‘making as high an income as possible’ and ‘making sure of income for the future’ into some term including both, the score beats ‘doing the work you like’ by a few points. We could then say that income a p v most important. But, ifwe wanted to emphasise independence, ‘doing the work you like’, independence’ and ‘being able to arrange hours of work‘ could also be added, and this would score well over 300. Of course, I’m not sure how these scores are derived, or to what extent ordinary arithmetic can be applied. But I see room for people to put subjective interpretations on this, depending on how they group attributes. Do you think this is a danger, and do you consciously have to avoid groupings that give the m w e r s you want?

I asked people to rate separately each of the work attributes and then scored each one individually according to the number of respondents who judged this to be very important, not important and so on. As this was not a ranking exercise, each score stands on its own. The summary scores for groups of values in Tables 5,7 and 8 are means. I think this covers Mr. Price’s point.

C. PRICE

MISS RUTH GASSON

J. D. SYKES

How far can one take the sort of survey Miss Gasson has been doing and use it in a wider field, particularly for national policy-making purposes? Clearly the present study is of considerable value to people concerned with problems of the individual farm business. In terms of its value for policy-making at the national level, it might be of more limited value.

There would appear to be some gap in the range of questions asked relating to motivation. Some producers might well be motivated by patriotic or fundamentalist considerations. It might be found that members of the older age groups hold strong views on the fundamental, national importance of agriculture and food production affecting their actions as farmers. If this were to be a factor of any significance, it would appear to require some modification of Miss Gasson’s conclusions and ranking of producers’ motivations.

MISS RUTH GASSON I would agree that the ‘back to the land’ movement, the strong emotional appeal of farming, was very important for many of those who came into agriculture just after the war. I wonder how important such feelings are today ?A few farmers in the pilot study suggested they were in farming because food production is such a vital and worthwhile activity when so many of the world’s population arc starving. Certainly such fundamentalist attitudes could be explored further.

L. NAPOLJTAN

It is some 5 years since the Select Committee on Agriculture drew attention to the need for more work into farmers’ motivations. Policy-makers in Whitehall often make their decisions on the basis of all too little knowledge about these motivations. Sometimes a new subsidy scheme is launched and fails, or a scheme is continued and the response from farmers is quite different from what was anticipated. For example, the Small Farmers’ Scheme started off quite well but the response to it was less than was assumed and, when it was extended, the take-up was small. On other occasions the supply response to changes in the guaranteed prices has been quite different from the expected response. Then there are the retirement schemes which have not been taken up as-much as one might have expected. In the Common Market situation structural reform is important. We need to know more about what motivates not only British farmers but also farmers on the Continent, and what kind of schemes are most likely to yield results quickly. Vast sums of money are involved and in the absence of more detailed knowledge, public resources can be mis-used in a way that none of us as economists would like to see.

MISS Rr)-nr GASSON

I agree that perhaps value orientations of farmers were not considered sufficiently before the ‘copper handshake’ scheme was launched. Part of the lack of response to the retirement scheme may be due to farmers wanting other things besides a minimum level of income. There are also, of course, structural factors which impede mobility out of farming. One study I carried out suggested that some small farmers who could easily have left for better paid non-farm jobs, remained in farming because they valued the job and the way of life very highly. Others were perfectly prepared to give up but were prevented by age or lack of expeFience from finding other jobs, or were tenants and had no say in the disposal of their holdings. Therefore it is important to study not only attitudes and values but also the way in which they interact with structural or environmental factors.

540 DISCUSSION ON PAPER BY MISS R. GASSON

J. J. MACGREGOR

Following on from Harwood Long’s marital speculations, I wonder why he should stop at the wifely auences affecting fanners’ motivations; the sue of the family might have been another explanation of behaviour and attitudes. Before the war I made a survey, near Exeter, of land tenure changes and this threw some light, as I remember it, on reasons for moving to other farms ; the results were published in Economicu around 1934.

”here is a great opportunity to understand the sociological and other reactions of farmers, on occasions of great traumatic events such as farming depressions or the sudden impact cf the E.E.C. agricultural policy because they have then to make new decisions and to take stock of more traditional attitudes. Ed*. Lorrain-Smith made an interesting study of farmers’ migra- tions during the economic depressions occurring at the end of the nineteenth century. He showed how they moved from the family farm areas of the north and west into areas where the traditional arable farming had been undermined and the ‘clean boot’ farmers did not - unlike the newcomers -have the desire for manual work or dairying. The Agricultural Economics Research Institute at Oxford published the study as Go East for a farm.

ANCRUM EVANS

I would like to ask Miss Gasson whether she has considered the situation which people get into when they do not know what to do; they literally stop thinking and will not face up to the fact that they have got to make a change or sort out how they could in fact continue to be farmers, possibly on a part-time basis; they want it all or nothing and cannot see that it is sometimes possible to take a salaried occupation in conjunction with what they are doing. They are emotionally involved and are not prepared to see any alternative.

Another aspect of the same problem is the large farmer faced with an insoluble tax situation who seems to be emotionally incapable of deciding what values he really has and what he is really going to do in the light of the fiscal circumstances with which he and his family are faced.

MISS R U M GASSON Thank you for drawing my attention to this important point. I have presented an over-simplified model of behaviour which suggests that a person holding certain values will act in a certain way, given the necessary resources. I had overlooked the possibility that some circumstances might prevent a person from taking any action or cause him to postpone making a decision.

C. S. BARNARD

In light of the challenge from sociologists and others as to the validity, for planning, of the assumptions of the theory of the h, it is a relief to note that many of the desirable farming attributes, listed in Table 3, can readily be embraced in current economic planning models. Taking the three highest rated attributes as examples. ‘Doing the work you like’ -as with many of the other attributes listed -is largely covered by the farmer remaining in his chosen occupation, so that alternative employment need not usually be considered when planning. In a general way - as with the next attribute ‘Independence’ - it also implies survival of the farmer in farming and here a maxi-min formulation would appear relevant. More specifically, any work preferences on the part of the farmer, such as a desire to keep pigs, can be directly included in models. ‘Making a reasonable living in the present’ could be handled by incorporating a minimum required level of annual consumption by the farm family. In short, economic models are capable of handling many of these non-profit-maximising goals.

I am glad to hear that Mr. Bamard is reassured but whilst, in the best of all possible worlds one could achieve all desired ends, in real life there could be occasions when economic and non- economic goals would be diametrically opposed. Profit maximising or economic security might, for instance, conflict with maintaining independence. In such a situation the farm planner would need to know the order of priorities his client attached to these contlicting ends.

I should like to make a few comments on this excellent paper from the viewpoint of a farm managerued adviser. First of all, any idea that may remain in the mind of anyone hearing or readingthispaprrthatf~planners~tomaximiSep~fi~regardfessmust bequicklydispelled. It would be mon valid to say that the aim is improvement, since there are always endless constraints to be taken into account - personal preferences, attitudes to risk and bprrowing, and so on. In fact, the concept of maximising profit regardless is virtually meaningless, fionly because of the factor of uncertainty and (enhanced by) continually changing circumstances.

A high proportion of farmers do aim for a maximum profit plan - or at least a high profit plan (in Monte Carlo planning terms). Furthermore, I think this applies to an increasing percentage of farmers, partly because of growing financial pressures and partly because of greater farm business know-how. Thus I still feel, despite this paper, that the economic principles embodied in

MISS R U M GASSON

J. S. NIX

DISCUSSION ON PAPER BY MISS R. GASSON 541

the theory of the firm are important in practical terms, although it is obviously essential that the many personal attitudes and the many decision criteria referred to in this paper should be taken into account in formulating plans, whether in a subjective or formalised manner. Without some theoretical framework we are left to make all decisions on an unsatisfactory ad hoc basis.

Finally, with references to Tables 1 to 3, I am not quiteclear whether the inference is that these results support the supposition that seeking at least a high income (ifnot the ‘maximum’) is only a relatively minor objective amongst farmers. If it is, then I feel this is not proven by such a s w e y with the questions asked as they were. There is bound to be confusion between means and a&, as the paper admits. It is necessary to distinguish between two alternative questions -whether a farmer has chosen to enter farming bemuse of high income prospects relative to other possible occupations, and whether, having chosen (or s~qply been claimed by) farming, he seeks as high an income as he can get, given various subjectwe constraints. Few farmers, probably, would admit to a good income as being one of their main objectives, partly because this would be to admit that incomes in farming are high relative to-those obtainable in alternative occupations, partly because this would seem a mercenary, unethrcal attitude, and partly because - as is said ia the paper - once incomes are adequate (and many in farming are) this aspect tends to be disparaged and thoughts turn to the ‘higher’ aspirations -even though many of these require a good income to achieve or at least to enjoy.

MISS RUTH GASSON

I would count you, Mr. Nix, among those advisers who do have a good appreciation of farmers’ objectives and motivation. I wonder whether all the econometricians who are concerned with various aspects of farmers’ behaviour are as perceptive in their approach.

You suggest it might not be socially acceptable for farmers to admit they wanted to maximise income. I tried to allow for this in one sense by including a variety of income goals in the list I offered them. Some respondents did admit to wanting the highest income possible. I expected differences between farmers would be more revealing than the overall response. As you pointed out, it seems possible that once incomes are adequate, this aspect may be disparaged and more emphasis placed on ‘higher’ aspirations. It seemed, however, that farmers making highest incomes continued to be the most concerned about income goals, the most anxious to maintain and if possible improve on their position and in particular to expand the business. Small farmers, for whom one would expect income to be a greater cause for anxiety, were less disposed to mention economic goals but were more interested in carrying on with a satisfying occupation.

PROFESSOR D. K BRITTON

I would like to ask how much Miss Gasson really believes that we ought to be trying to give quantitative asse.ssment to these non-income goals that have been mentioned. I am not sure how far she goes along with the statisticians who want to measure everything possible. But I imagine she is saying that if we recognise the importance of non-income goals then it is incumbent upon us to try to measure with what success individual farmers and perhaps British agriculture as a whole has achieved these goals. For example, we tend to think that we can judge whether a farmer has had a good year or a bad year by looking at his accounts and seeing what was the net profit or return on capital or whatever measure we use. Does she think we are now coming to the point when it is conceivable that we could add a little section to the F.M.S. in which there would be an opportunity to ask the farmer: apart from what is shown by receipts and expenditure figures, has it been a good year or a bad year? Have you been under any particular pressures? Have you been unpopulq because you e v e been burning straw? Have you had other worries of that kind? How well satsfied are you wth the year’s outcome? And moving on to the global level, I suppose most of us have become more and more convinced of the inadequacies of G.N.P. as a measure of society’s attainment of its goals. Possibly we ought to be thinking of some of the negative increments to the real social G.N.P. .as well as the positive ones we conventionally measure. Is it conceivable that we could have tune series of ‘normalised‘ farm income when we would add a plus or minus in each year for these non-income aspects? It would be particularly interesting to me to know whether Miss Gasson believes that on the whole the non-income satisfactions are positively correlated with income, so that we could assume that the last two or three years have been good years for farming m your sense of total satisfaction of multiple objecti-ks as well as in the Departmental Net Income sense.

MISS RUTH GASSON Other papers in this conference have implied that we, as agricultural economists, should now be looking beyond a narrow pnomic framework in assessing the performance of agriculture. You ask whether I think other satlsfactions are positively correlated with fann income. Lord Walston made an interesting comment recently that the larger the farm, the less, probably, were the fringe benefits enjoyed by the farmer. Operators of large farms cannot perhaps derive as much edoy- ment from farming activities because they spend less time on the farm, more in the office or on committees. Independence is a source of satisfaction and larger farmers appear to enjoy less of it. It seems that for farmers, independence means not only being your own master but also employing

542 DISCUSSlON ON PAPER BY MISS R. GASSON

no labour, for as soon as workers are employed, the farmer becomes subject to more regulations and has additional worries of labour turnover. Giles and Mills found that managers of smaller farms valued independence more than those with larger businesses. I suspect that many of the fringe benefits or extra-economic satisfactions in farming are negatively correlated with income.

A. K. GILES

I wonder if we could draw Ruth Gasson a little on the difEculties that she said she does not experience when talking to farmers. Most of us when we are collecting information from farmers are collecting facts about the e c i n g or the organisation of their business and these conversa- tions are relatively easy. If there IS an answer, even if they have to delve for it a little, we can usually get it. But ‘values and goals’ is an area that they may not have thought about very precisely and even if they have they may not find it easy to be articulate about it. If somebody came into my room and said ‘I want to talk to you about your goals and values’ they could be 1 ~ . for a fairly long and complicated, not to say embarrassing, conversation! I wonder what your experiences are in this respect and how you cope with the practical difliculties of this kind of conversation ?

MISS RUTH GASSON Surprisingly enough, although I anticipated problems, I have not found it difficult or embarrassing to question farmers about their values and goals. I believe people are. fundamentally very interested in themselves and are quite ready to talk if someone is willing to listen. Although they may not have formulated their thoughts before, they are usually prepared to answer questions. We all rely on the opinions of others to build up our self-concept; we need to know how others see us. Farmers seem to be no exception and I have found them ready to give honest answers because they are honestly interested in themselves.

H. WHITBY

Table 6 suggests that the challenge, risk and gamble of farming is more of an attraction to the small than to the large farmer, although it is not a major attribute. of either group. Nevertheless. the figures do perhaps reflect the position of modem fanning that the risk factor increases more than proportionately with scale, so that the quantities required for success on a large farm are different from those of the successful small farmer.

MISS RUTH GASSON I would not wish to read too much into the comparison between small and larger farmers in Table 6 because these were responses in an unstructured pilot study where the form of the questions was not always the same. Where I asked identical questions, Table 8 shows that ‘meeting a challenge and achieving an objective’ was rated much higher by larger farmers, as was ‘making as high an income as possible’, which again implies a certain risk. In general, I found farmers with small businesses less attracted to the idea of taking risks than those with larger farm. East Anglians, in any case, show strong non-confonnist tendencies so one would not expect them to be fond of gambling.

PROFESSOR G. P. WIBBERLEY

One area of concern that is stimulated by this study is the suggestion that the goals and values of larger farmers are different from those of smaller farmers. In practice, it looks as if larger farmers are rather more mercenary and exploitive of their farms and of the rural environment and this could well be serious now that technical and economic pressures make it so easy to tear the British countryside apart.

In some ways, Miss Gasson, your survey area was too much dominated by commercial agricultural considerations and is an area which is not particularly valued as m area of high environmental quality or an attraction for commuter retirement or second home use of individual properties and in the villages. I t would be interesting if you could continue this type of study into an area which has high landscape value, a whole mixture. of small and large farmers, many other strong interest and pressure groups arising out of strong urbanisation of the rural settlement pattern. It is the widening Merence in the attitudes of many groups towards the countryside, in which they work or live, that is proving very difficult in relation to harmonious rural planning.

Given the resources, I would be happy to do so. MISS RUTH GASSON

Documents

GOALS AND VALUES OF FARMERS