279

OCCUPATIONAL IMMOBlLlTY OF SMALL FARMERS

Ruth GIsson University of Cambridge

The small farmer may be reluctant to leave farming because his present income is adequate, he foresees diflculties in finding a satis- factory alternative or he has a strong preference for remaining in his present occupation. A survey carried out during 1967 among occupiers of small full-time farms in the Fens and HertJordshire investigated causes of occupational immobility. Barriers to mobility beyond the farmer's control, like advanced age and lack of alternatives, were particularly important in the Fens. Younger farmers and those with a nonyarm upbringing valued the intangible benefts of farming more highly. Contrary to expectations, farmers with a higher opportunity cost, through location, age and experience, showed stronger attachment to their present job. Since those who could change their occupation will not and those who would change cannot, there seems little prospect of encouraging small farmers to leave farming before they reach retiring age.

Although many small farmers today are earning no more than an agricultural worker's wage, as a group they are reluctant to move out of farming. In his well-known study, Bellerby(') suggested a number of reasons why the "farmers' incentive income ratio" should remain consistently below 100, distinguishing between the causes of income disparity and the factors which encourage farmers to accept the apparently unfavourable ratio. In view of the redirection of Govern- ment policy on farm incomes and the recent introduction of the retirement grant, this is an appropriate time to look again at the problem of the low occu- pational mobility of small farmers. The distinction Ekllerby makes is a useful one and could lead to a reconsideration of the whole retirement policy. If farmers prepared to change their occupation are unable to do so, measures might be necessary to overcome the obstacles to mobility. If, on the other hand, they willingly forego a certain amount of income in order to continue enjoying their accustomed way of life, financial incentives to give up farming are not likely to be effective.

A survey has recently been camed out jointly by the N.A.A.S. and Cambridge University among small farmers in two parts of East Anglia, with the aim of discovering the objections to outward mobility. A random sample of 150 holdings, estimated from the June Census of 1966 to be in the range of 275 to 600 standard man-days, was screened by the District Advisory Officers and holdings known to be outside the category of small full-time farms, such as hobby farms or multiple holdings, were excluded. The remaining farmers were contacted and 104 successfully interviewed. The original sample consisted of one in five of the small full-time holdings in Hertfordshire and one in twenty from the Isle of Ely and the Holland division of Lincolnshim. A number in both Hertfotdshire and

280 RUTH GASSON

the Fens were statutory smallholdings. Farms visited in Hertfordshire averaged I10 acres and those in the Fens, 33 acres, the sample average being 67 acres.

These two areas were purposely chosen for their dissimilarity. In the Fens, a highly-fertile and intensivelycultivated area of predominantly cash-arable farming, agriculture is easily the most important industry. Livestock con- tributes more to farm output in Hertfordshire, and whilst this county is less noted for its agriculture, it has a p a t variety of other industries. It can be taken to represent any area within the sphere of influence of a large city, where the majority of the population is employed in towns, so that urban values and styles of living will be widespread. The Fens are not readily accessible to any large industrial centre, except possibly Peterborough, and most of the people live and work on farms. This represents the other extreme, a largely self-contained agricultural population. It would have been valuable to compare the attitudes of thcse two groups with those of farmers in an area remote from towns, where farming was less prosperous.

Small farmers might object to changing their occupation for three main reasons. They might feel it would not be in their financial interest to move, they might be unable to find a satisfactory alternative or they might prefer to remain in farming regardless of economic considerations.

Farmers who hive M) finlmciil incenthe to move Farmers would have little reason for moving if they were making a good income at present, or supplementing the farm income from other sources; if they thought the cost of living would be much higher elsewhere; or if they could not withdraw their capital from farming.

No financial data were collected in the survey. While it was clear that some of the co-operators were making a good income from farming alone, most of these individuals were found to have expanded the business from the small farm category into the “commercial” range. Others, and particularly the younger and newer entrants to farming. were taking steps to expand and were optimistic that they would soon see an improvement in their returns. About a third of the sample were able to supplement their income from farming but in only twelve cases was it estimated that the other occupation absorbed more than half their time or yielded more income than the farm. The other work was often related to farming; for example 17 farmers spent part of their time in agricultural con- tracting. A larger proportion of the Hertfordshire farmers had another job and this was less often linked with farming, which reflects the greater opportunities for employment in the more urbanised area. (Appendix Table I) .

It has been suggested that the cost of living on a farm is sufficiently low to offset higher earnings in another job. The belief that this is so might serve to deter farmers from moving, whether or not it is in fact the case. Respondents in the survey thought they were better off on the farm because some food and other supplies were home-produced, certain items were chargeable against Income Tax and styles of living on a farm were las exacting than elsewhere. With increasing specialisation, less food can be obtained from the holding but two-thirds of the farmers still thought food was cheaper and three- quarters that housing was cheaper than in other occupations. More of the older farmers and those from the Fens thought that various items of household expenditure would be considerably higher if they moved out of farming. Younger and Hertfordshire farmers, likely to have tastes similar to those of their urban contemporaries, were more inclined to think there would be no difference in costs, and therefore would have less to lose by changing their occupation.

OCCUPATlONAL lMMOBlLlTY OF S M A L L FARMERS 28 I

Finally, farmers would not benefit by moving if they were unable to salvage the capital invested in the farm: this could deter some tenant farmers, but owner-occupiers stand to make a considerable capital gain. Large arable farmers in both survey areas are keen to buy additional holdings for amalgamation, and in the Home Counties there is also the strong demand for part-time farms. Thus the smaller farmer is shielded to a certain extent from the pressures on farm income.

DUflculties in &ding another occupation kllerby suggested that if farmers believe they have not the necessary skills to compete in the labour market, this will colour their views on the acceptable ratio of farm to non-farm incomes. Although it is true that a farmer, and particularly a small working farmer, has to be a Jack of all Trades, it has been pointed out by Nalson(*) that much of his expertise will be relevant to farming as it is practised in his own locality and may not be transferable. A farm worker, on the other hand, is skilled at performing certain tasks and can more easily apply this experience elsewhere.

A farmer's age, education, training and experience may all influence a potential employer. Farmers tend to be above the average age for the male working population and smaller farmers to be older still. The average age in this survey was 50 years compared with 47 years for all farmers in the 1951 Census of Population and 52 for occupiers of part-time holdings in Ashton and Cracknell's

Nearly half those in the present sample were over 50 and nearly two- thirds over 45. Employers are usually not anxious to train a man for a completely unfamiliar type of work after his middle-forties, so the alternatives would be mainly restricted to unskilled or routine jobs, unlikely to give scope, responsi- bilities or satisfactions comparable with farming. The farmers themselves would be unwilling to make the adjustment to a new way of life any later than this.

Most farmers in the survey had received only the necessary minimum amount of general education, two-thirds completing it at the local village school and threequarters leaving at or before the age of 14. Only one in ten had had any formal training in agriculture, at a college or farm institute or as a farm pupil, and this corresponded with the findings of Chapman(') and Sheppardcs) in earlier studies. Surprisingly few farmers had had any experience of work outside agriculture. Many had been brought up on farms and had started their careers during the 1920s and 19%. when there was little alternative but to stay on the farm at home. Two-thirds of the respondents had never had any occupation but farming and 30 had never been employed off their present holding. Of the 36 with experience of other work, only 24 had held the same job for more than two years, and their occupations had been primarily among the manual trades. Thus limited education, training and experience and advancing age restrict the range of alternatives open to these farmers. In view of these factors and the lack of incentives to move, less than half the respondents thought they would stand to gain financially by changing their occupations, and more than a quarter that they would lose by it. Naturally, those with some experience of other work were rather more optimistic about their alternative earnings.

All these barriers to occupational mobility were more marked for the Fen farmen (Appendix Tables 2 to 6). In addition, the opportunities for finding other work would be much poorer in the Fens and these farmers were generally less optimistic than those in Hertfordshire about their relative earnings in another job. Obstacles to mobility imposed on the farmer are therefore likely to be more severe in isolated rural areas than in areas dominated by towns.

282 RUTH GASSON

Ref- for f&g U 8 W 8 y Of ufe Apart from the bamers to mobility and doubts as to whether a move would be beneficial, the farmer’s own inclinations may be firmly against moving. It is often suggested that farmers willingly sacrifice income to remain in farming and this was apparently true of a number in the survey. Personal and local ties contributed to this disinclination to move. Two-thirds of the sample were them- selves sons of farmers and for most of them, the majority of close relatives were also in the agricultural industry. Half had been brought up in the parish where they now lived and 27 of them never remembered living anywhere but on their present farm. Once again, the Fen farmers showed stronger ties than those in Hertfordshire. As it would be more difficult for a Fen farmer to change his occupation without moving out of the area. the tendency towards lower potential mobility for those in the more rural areas is reinforced.

In order to assess the attachment to farming as a way of life, the respondents were asked to rank in order of importance five attributes which represent values in being a farmer and similarly for other sets representing unfavourable aspects of fanning and the advantages and disadvantages of being employed in another occupation. Overall rankings were obtained for each question and comparisons made between the responses of different groups of farmers. The values presented and their overall scores are given in Appendix Table 7.

Farmers as a whole ranked the intangible aspects of their way of life above material considerations. In&pendence, sarisfaction, an open-air life and variety in the work were placed before the chance of moking a capital gain. On the debit side, low income was thought to be a serious disadvantage in being a farmer but it was less important than worry, risk and uncertainty. Physical discomforts of the farmer’s work were of little account, while less worry, higher income, shorter hours and regular holidays were the main attractions of other employment.

Consistent differences in the response to these questions were found to be associated with the farmer’s age and background. While the variables were usually placed in the same order by each group, those with a shorter association with farming tended to place more emphasis on the intangible attractions of the job. For example, older farmers and those reared on farms appreciated their work objectively for its variety and out-of-doors aspects whilst those with shorter experience were more attracted by the subjective elements of independence and challenge. This latter group thought the loss of independence and less satisfaction in the work would be severe drawbacks to giving up farming, while the older and farm-reared groups were more concerned with the risk of becoming unemployed or the threat of being involved in labour disputes, should they take another job. In comparison with the newcomers, the established farmers laid much more stress on low incomes and worry, risk and uncertainty in farming.

Mnsares 01 potential mobility For a number of the co-operators in this survey, any change of occupation was clearly out of the question. Only 6 respondents of the 104 had seriously considered the possibility of giving up farming before the age of 60 and taking another job. Since they could not be expected to show meaningful responses to an unfamiliar situation, an indirect approach was used to gain insight into their potential for mobility. While few of them considered moving out of agriculture, many had had the opportunity at some time to move to a larger farm. The respondents were therefore asked, “If you had the chance to move to a larger farm, which of the following considerations would stop you from moving?’ Ten possible deterrents to making an advantageous move were suggested and the greater the number of reasons the farmer gave for not moving. the lower was his potential mobility.

OCCUPATIONAL IMMOBILITY OF SMALL FARMERS 283

On average, five of the ten conditions were seen as unfavourable to a move, whilst one farmer in four gave all ten conditions as deterrents, showing that he would be unwilling to move under any circumstances.

Age has a strong influence on the attitude towards moving. Older farmers were disinclined to make any changes in their way of life whereas younger farmers, with a capacity for many years’ hard work, were more ambitious. As Table I shows, the turning-point came at about the age of 50, after which they were progressively less disposed to move. Farmers in their late forties. however, showed a propensity to advance. It might be that this group of farmers were well-established and had a secure base from which to expand, while younger farmers with heavier family responsibilities had perhaps not accumulated enough to allow them to move. Some of the farmers in the 40 to 50 age range, too, had sons ready to join them and were therefore keen to enlarge the business.

Table 1 Age of farmers and potential mobility between farms

AVERAGE AVERAGE NUMBER OF NUMBER OF

AGE DETERRENTS AGE DETERRENTS ( Y W ) TO MOVING ( Y U W TO WOVINO

under 30 I . 3 51-55 5.6 31-35 I .8 5 M 7.3 3- 3-6 6 1 - 6 5 8.8 4 1 4 5 3.2 over 65 9.4 46-50 2.6

All fanmn 4.8

The types of conditions causing farmers to reject the chance of moving to a larger farm give a further indication of the possible causes of occupational immobility. Respondents were understandably opposed to moving to a different type of farm and, as expected, were cautious about taking on a large debt. While these can be regarded as rational business decisions, personal considerations soon enter the picture. Nearly half the farmers would be deterred from moving if this entailed living in an inferior farmhouse or leaving the neighbourhood. Conditions implying more trouble or work for the farmer, as suggested by working longer hours or having more office-work, were less important. The older farmers were easily deterred from moving on any grounds, but took particularly strong objection to leaving their present houses, moving away from the district and living in a less-accessible place. Younger farmers were less concerned with these personal ties or having more work, but with less experience or financial security they were relatively more cautious about moving to a different type of farm or having to borrow money (Appendix Table 8).

Following this indirect assessment of farmers’ potential mobility, they were asked, “If you had to decide again. would you still have chosen to farm?’ Two- thirds of the respondents said they would make the same decision again and only 22 were dissatisfied in retrospect, the rest being undecided. Moreover, 29 of those expressing satisfaction with their way of life also thought they might have been earning more in a different occupation, as Table 2 shows. This confirms the suggestion that some farmers willingly sacrifice a certain amount of income in order to remain in farming.

It was anticipated that the farmers with a high opportunity cost would feel more dissatisfied with the level of incomes and future prospects for small holdings whilst those with low transfer earnings and little incentive to move would not feel “relative deprivation” to the same extent. Judging from the response,

284 RUTH GASSON

Betta 29 14 43 Slav IS 9 24 Wonc 21 6 27 Not st.ted 3 7 10 All rumen 68 36 I 0 4

however, the revem appears to be the case, and farmers with a better chance of finding other employment would be more likely to choose to farm again. As seen in Table 3, farmers who were younger, from non-farming families, from Hertfordshire and with experience of other work all showed a higher degree of satisfaction with farming than those who were older, from a farming background, from the Fens and lacking experience in other work, respectively. Two other factors contributing to satisfaction with farming were the farmers' progress in expanding the farm business and their willingness to move to a larger farm. In each case the more progressive farmers showed more satisfaction with their career. T8bk 3 F8- h h a h g 8 f 8 r O d S Wtlf.ehioa dtb f8tdtig

PERCENTAGE3 OF FARMEW H A V I N G STATED CHARACreRUrICS WHO WOULD CHOOSE TO FARM AGAIN :-

PERCENT P U CENT

AGE EXPERIENCE OF OTHR WORK

under 40 91 Some 16 40-5 I 63 Nom 67 over 50 65

FAMILY BACKGROUND PROGRESS WITH FARM BUSlNE.U

Whitecollar 94 Some 87 Mlnual 76 None 63 Farm 62

LOCAnON ?OTENTIAL MOlllLllY BGTwTrN FARMS H a t fordshire 92

81 68 M d u m

L O W 61

Fens 56 Hi@

(In order to eliminate any effects of interdependence between the variables, two-way comparisons were made with each pair of factors, controlling the other five factors in turn. Very few comparisons gave results opposite from those predicted).

conclusions The great majority of the small farmers in the survey rejected the idea of giving up farming to take another job. For some, factors such as age and lack of experience of other work formed the main bamers to mobility. This situation was more common in the isolated, predominantly agricultural area. Other farmers with a higher opportunity cost and often with larger household incomes, typically living in more urbanised areas, placed a high value on the non-material advantages of the farming way of life. As a broad generalisation, it appears that small farmers who could move out of fanning will not, whilst those who would move cannot.

OCCUPATlONAL IMMOBILITY OF SMALL FARMERS 285

Three possible explanations are offered. One suggestion is that the farmers felt obliged to justify their actions. Those who had more recently made a conscious choice of a farming career, that is the younger farmers and those with experience or opportunities for entering other occupations, might feel bound to express satisfaction with their decision. Older farmers, many of whom had had the occupation of farming thrust upon them, would tend to be more cautious of admitting to any satisfaction.

Another interpretation is that progress of any sort is encouraging. Newcomers to farming and those keen to expand the scale of their business or move to a larger farm may be willing to sacrifice present income since they are optimistic about their future earnings. On the other hand, the older farmers whose businesses have been static for years are probably not as well off in real terms as they were a decade or more ago. Consequently they may feel deprived relative to their own previous position, and would tend to express this by blaming the industry.

Thirdly, there may be individuals with drive and business skill who would make a success of any enterprise and others doomed to a lifelong struggle. The former may be satisfied to remain in agriculture; although the latter are likely to be dissatisfied in their present occupation, they would probably do no better elsewhere.

On this evidence, there would seem to be little prospect for improving farm structure by offering grants to farmers willing to change their occupation. Those most likely to k attracted by financial incentives have little chance of finding a suitable alternative job, whilst those best able to make a success in another field hold the farming life in highest esteem. I t is suggested instead that more effort should be directed towards the elderly retiring farmer and to the new entrant, to accelerate the natural outflow and restrict the inflow of small farmers to the industry.

I. 2. 3 .

4.

5 .

Bellcrby, .I. R.: Agriculrrtrc and Indusrry Rclarivc Income, Macmillan. 1956. N a h . J. S.: Mobiliry ofF'rm Amilirs. Manchater University Pms 1968. Chapter 8. Ashton. J. and Crscknell. B. E: "Agricultural holdings and farm business structure in England and Wales". loirrnal of Agricultural Economics. XIV (4) December. 1961. Chapman D. ct a l . : Agriculfrtral Informarion and the Farmer. The Social Survey. Central Office of Information. 1944. Shcpprd. D.: A Survey Amongsr Grossland Furmcrs, The Social Survey. C.O.I.. 1960.

H

286 RUTH GASSON

Appendl. Tabk 1 Supplca#rbry l~llccl d lacome d suncy farmers

NUMBER OF FARMERS SOURCE OF X O M E FENS HERIFORDSHIILB TOTAL

Own businus related to fuming 10 12 22 Farm work 3 - 3 Omr businas unrelated to fanning - 2 2 Non-farm work 2 2 4 Private mans or pension - 3 3 AII farmers with suppkmcntuy income IS 19. 34 Total number of farmers 59 45 104

26-35 3 16 36-45 27 40 4 6 4 5 31 20 s6-65 34 18 over 6S 5 6 All fumen 100 100'

Appmdix Tabk 3 Age b v h g school d m t y fanners

PLll CENT OF FARMElu AGE LEAWNO SCHOOL FENS HUTFORDSHIRE

under 14 24 3 14 67 44 IS 7 32

16 or over 2 21 All farmers 100 100'

Appendir TaMe 4 Type of scbod M atteodcd by survey fumm

PFA CENT OF FARMER3 TYPL OF SCHOOL mu HEITTO-

Local villape/elemmtary 8 1 28 Townlseondary modern 14 28 Grammu 5 14

30 Public/boarding - All farmers 100 loo'

Hertfordshirt farmers differ significantly from Fen farmers at the 1 per cent level of chi- square.

OCCUPATIONAL IMMOBILITY OF SMALL FARMERS

Appendix Tnbk 5 Forum1 training in qrkdtme for m e y f m

287

NUMBER OF FARMERS TYPE OF TRAINING FENS HERIFORDSHIN!

1 univasity - Agricultural colkge/farm institute 1 6

2 Farm pupil - All farmcn with formal training 1 9 Total number of farmen 59 45

.Appendix Tnbk 6 Survey farmers’ experience of otkr work

FENS H€RTFORDMIRE ALLFARMERS

Farmers with experience of non-farm work 19 15 34

aualifications I 6 7 Farmers without such experience but with farming

All farmers with potential for other work 20 21 41 Total number of farmers 59 45 104

Appendix Table 7 F.rmers’ evaluntiaa of tbcir occupation

PERCENTAGE SCORE

(a) Whor ore the greorest odvanragcs in being a former ? independence open-air life and satisfaction with the work variety in the work challenge and risk chance of capital gain

(b) Whor ow rhe worst drowbocks in bring o former ? worry, risk and uncertainty low income long hours of work being tied to the farm working outdoors in bad weather

29 29 23 14 5

29 27 16 I5 13

(c) Whot ure rlir greoresr orrrucrions in being on employer ? less worry 29 higher income 29 shorter hours and regular holidays 26 more companionship 13 working indoors 3

(d) Whor ore rhr worst disodvonrugrs in k i n f an employre? IOU of independence 31 Icu satisfaction in the work 23 being involved in labour disputes I8 risk of unemployment 17 Iowa status 1 1

288 R U M GASSON

Appcadl.TabIe8 Apcdhn~~.Iddctcnart~tolnobilitJ

PER CENT DrmuBD BY CONDlllONS CONDITIONS WHICH MIGHT D e T n FARMER PMbQRS PAIYLIW Au FROM MOMNO TO W O U FARM UNDER 50 O V R 50 FARMERS

Merent type of farm Borrowing a large sum Inferior farmhow Moving from the district Working longer hours Having more otfice-work Having to anploy (more) hboUr Different type of land Living further from shops Having a form sale AU facton

59 36 21

13 73 76

68 54 50

24 73 47 27 67 46 29 64 46 21 64 45 22 71 45 25 13 44 2o 62 40 30 69. 48

Hatfordshire farmen differ s i g n i h t l y from Fen farmen at the 1 per cent level of Chi square.