ROLES OF WOMEN ON FARMS: A PILOT STUDY

RuthLCasson* Wye College (University of London)t

Official statistics do not reveal the nature of the contribution which farmers’ wives make to the farm labour force. On the basis of a pilot study, [hree roles f o r women on farms were identified. Main distinguishing features were division of labour between husband and wife, frequency of manual work, responsibility f o r farm enterprises. participation in formal organisations and approach to housework. Home-centred farm housewives only work on the farm occasionally, working farmwives assist their husbands regularly while women farmers lhreaten male s[aIus by doing “man’s” work. Reasons f o r women playing one role rather than another are discussed. Trends in agriculture suggest [hat the farmer’s wife’s contri- bution to the farm business will become still more significant in future.

“The concept oJ ‘the Jorrrier ond his wi/e’so oJien used by oXricultirrol einrioiiiic.r i s Jur frorii haviny uniwrtul ~ ~ o l i d i t . ~ ” (A.clih.v, 1953: 97).

1. Official Statistics Agricultural economists studying farm businesses tend to set up stereotypes such as “the farmer and his family” or “farmer’s plus wife’s labour.” Rarely, i t seems, d o they stop to consider the meaning of these concepts. This paper attempts to penetrate the faqade by considering some of the roles which women play on farms nowadays.

How important is the contribution of farmers’ wives to the farm labour force nationally? O n this question the Agricultural Census has been extremely reticent. Until 1976 the occupier of an agricultural holding completing the labour section of his June Return form was instructed to “exclude the wives of farmers, partners and directors, even though the wives themselves may be partners or directors”. Attempts have been made elsewhere to estimate the work done by farmers’ wives. While between 80 and 90 per cent of male farmers in this country are married, not all wives a re willing, able or expected to work on the farm. The 1975 EEC Farm Structure Survey estimated that the spouse of the occupier helped on 59 per

* The writer wishes to thank the Women’s Farm and Garden Association for supporting the research project on which this paper is based, the Economic Development Committee for Agriculture for permission 1 0 use data from the national sufvey of the farm labour force, the Social Science Research Council Survey Archive for providing tapes of the Agriculture EDC data and an anonymous Editorial Consultant for comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

t Countryside Planning Unit, Wye College, Ashford, Kent TN2S 5AH.

12 RUTH CASSON

cent of full time holdings in England and Wales (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, 1976). The Economic Development Committee for Agriculture concluded that 52 per cent of farmers on full time holdings were assisted by their wives who contributed 17 hours a week on average throughout the year (Agriculture EDC, 1972). (Comparable figures for the United States in 1964 were 43 per cent of farmers and 20 hours a week (Huffman, 1976).) Farmers’ wives supplied 5 or 6 per cent of the total hours worked on farms in England and Wales in 197011 (Sparrow, 1972; Britton and Hill, 1975). These results together with local surveys carried out by Ashby (1953), Hine and Gregory (1972) and Newby and colleagues (1978) suggest that between half and two-thirds of all farmers’ wives in this country do some manual work on the farm while up to three-quarters are involved in the farm business in a manual, managerial or administrative capacity.

While the Agricultural Census does not record the sex of farmers, the last Population Census reported nearly 25,000 female farmers, farm managers and market gardeners in England and Wales in 1971 (Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, 1976). This is broadly in line with Harrison’s estimate that 20,000 farm business principals in England in 1969 were women (Harrison, 1975). He puts the proportion of female farmers at 9 per cent, the Population Census at 11 per cent while in the EEC as a whole, women represent 10 per cent of farmers.

How many female farmers are sole operators, how many farm actively in partnership with others and how many, accorded the legal status of partner or director for tax purposes, are farmers in name only? Official statistics shed little light on the question. Acording to Harrison (1Y75: p.22), only about I per cent of all farmers were principals “in their own right as it were, and their husbands were not farmers”. Other sources put the proportion of female sole or principal farmers nearer 3 per cent (Agriculture EDC, 1972; MAFF, 1976). None of these sources reveals how many women farming in partnership with their husbands are active and how many only nominal farmers.

Women can be farmers as well as farmers’ wives.

2. The Concept of “Role” Part of the problem with official labour statistics is that labels like “farmer, partner or director” or “spouse assisting with farm work”, which are in any case very broad categories, shed little light on the activities of those so described. In this journal Errington (1980) has argued the case for classifying farm occupations according to tasks undertaken rather than relying on job titles which are often misleading. Logically one might go further and adopt role as the unit of analysis for, as the author of a recent COPA paper on European women farmers pointed out, “As the role of women working and living in the agricultural sector is not well defined, the statistics logically do not draw up a clear picture of the situation” (Tazza, 1979).

“Role” means more than a j o b title or even the sum of activities undertaken by a person pursuing an occupation. A person who performs a role is like an actor who steps into a part with all its associated actions, responsibilities and relationships. One who takes up the role of farmer, for example, engages in characteristic activities and assumes responsibilities such as “good stewardship of the land”. As a farmer he enters into previously defined relationships with other groups like farm workers or the National Farmers’ Union.

An actor is not left to play his dramatic role in a vacuum. While there may be room for individual interpretation, he has to observe cues, lines and stage directions. So in real life, a person playing a role models his behaviour on the performance of others, seeks instruction, accepts advice, judges from the reactions of others whether his performance is acceptable. Guidelines for role performance are “role expectations” or “norms”. Those who d o not conform to the prevailing norms are subjected to social sanctions which a re intended to bring them into line. Sanctions vary in severity from the merest hint of reproach to outright criticism, ridicule or even ostracism.

Role expectations may vary from one economic, social or cultural setting to another. Nevertheless, in any given context, social pressures to conform impose a certain regularity on role behaviour. Therefore by observing the behaviour of individuals in an occupation it should be possible to identify whole constellations of tasks, responsibilities and relationships which amount to ideal role types. This paper describes three such role types for women on farms and goes on to consider some of the implications for the industry.

3. Farm Survey-Sampling and Approach

lnformation on farm women’s roles was gathered during a pilot survey in 1979. Aims of the survey included documenting activities of farm women and collecting background information which might account for variations in roles. Since subjects were to be interviewed in depth, no attempt was made to draw a random sample, contacts being made on the basis of personal acquaintance or recommendation. The sample was not representative, being biased towards large farms, women active in farming and women with agricultural qualifications. The strength of the approach lay in the quality of the response, the wealth of information and depth of insight i t provided on farm women’s roles.

All but three were or had been married to farmers or farm managers, the exceptions being two farmers whose husbands were not farming and one retired farmer who had never married. Although respondents shared a common bond of farming, in most other respects such as age, background, education, training and previous work experience, the sample was extremely varied. Enterprises included dairying, extensive and intensive livestock units, cereals, fruit, hops and vegetable crops.

The sample included forty-four women from the south of England.

Farm size ranged from under 5 to over 200 hectares.

4. Three Ideal Role Types

The forty-four respondents approximated to one of three ideal role types which will be called “farm housewife”, “working farmwife” and “woman farmer”. Main distinguishing features were frequency of manual work on the farm, responsibility for a farm enterprise, division of labour between spouses, participation in formal organisations and attitude to housework.

The first ideal type, farm housewge, accounted for twenty women in the sample. In this group, division of labour and interest between husband and wife is marked; The woman does not work regularly on the farm and is not responsible for any farm enterprise, although she is expected to be available in emergencies and to lend a hand a t busy times like haymaking and harvest. Rounding up straying livestock, bottle feeding lambs and watching the grain drier were typical duties for farm housewives in the survey.

It is his farm, her farmhouse.

14 RUTH CASSON

Only eight of the farm housewives interviewed were business principals. Being somewhat remote from day-to-day events on the farm, they had little control over short term management decisions, although they felt they would be consulted on matters with longer term implications. Most believed they would have a say, but not the last word, on major policy issues such as land transactions or succession. Farm housewives are often responsible for the farm accounts and invariably expected to answer the telephone, see callers and run errands.

Nearly all respondents said that domestic and family tasks absorbed the greater part of their time and all agreed that this was their most important responsibility. Far from viewing housework as an imposition, however, they tend to make an art of it. More than half the farm housewives baked their own bread, for instance. Any surplus time and energy is channelled into off-farm activities, sometimes gainful but more often voluntary. Farm housewives in the sample belonged to 3.4 formal organisations on average, one being active in nine organisations. Notably these women support the Women’s Institute and community services organisations such as the parish council, Parent Teachers’ Assocation and Women’s Voluntary Service.

The farmwife spends part of every day working manually on the farm, possibly more time than she spends in the house. She probably prefers farm work to housework, too. She and her husband make a good team, working together for much of the time but with a clear division of labour. Typically she feeds calves and he drives the tractor; The working farmwife’s place is to assist her husband and she is rarely put in charge of a farm enterprise. Control rests with the man who makes day-to- day decisions affecting them both, although major policy decisions are likely to be shared. The wife may be a legal partner in the business, as were half of those interviewed. Like the farm housewife, she may be responsible for farm accounts and will certainly answer the telephone and see callers.

Although working farmwives in the sample tried to keep household chores to a minimum, at least half would have preferred less to do. Half were involved in farm based enterprises such as farm gate sales or farmhouse accommodation, which may be the modern counterpart to the traditional farmwife’s poultry flock or farmhouse cheese enterprise. Domestic help was rarely employed, however. Women in this group are less likely than farm housewives to join voluntary organisations, six of the ten interviewed belonging to none.

Fourteen women farmers were identified, eight farming actively in partnership with husbands and six farming alone because they were single or widowed or their husbands were not farmers. Like working farmwives they work regularly on the farm, possibly spending more hours outside than in. Most women farmers interviewed regarded farming as their most time consuming, most important and most enjoyable occupation. Unlike the working farmwife, however, the woman farmer does not merely assist her husband but has some clearly defined responsibility of her own. Several respondents managed beef units, for example, and some also ran farm based enterprises such as pick-and-pay. Further, tasks undertaken by women farmers need not be those regarded as “suitable” for women; one respondent was in charge of baling, another for farm building repairs. All but one was a business principal and most had at least equal responsibility with

The farm housewife is a home centred person.

Ten respondents fitted the description of working furmwife.

he repairs fences but she fetches hammer and nails.

their partners for long term policy decisions. Compared with the others, women farmers had greater influence over short and medium term management decisions.

Turning to the farmhouse, half the women farmers interviewed objected to housework but they were more likely than the others to employ domestic help. The woman farmer is nearly as ready as the farm housewife to support formal associations. Typically, though, she belongs to the National Farmers’ Union or a farming discussion group rather than the Women’s Institute. Table 1 illustrates some salient features of the three role types as revealed in the pilot survey.

Table 1 Women’s involvement in Ihe farm business by role lype

Responsibility /or major policy decisions:

eniirely or mainly woman’s shared equally with others mainly others’ bur woman consulted entirely others’

Woman a business principal Woman not a business principal

Farm Working wo IN on house wiJe JarmwiJe Jurmer -

6 10 4

- 6 3 I

5 5 4

8 5 13 12 5 I

Woman personally responsible for: whole farm - major enterprise (eg beef unit) minor enterprise (eg farmhouse poultry) 5 no enterprise I S

-

Woman works on farm: regularly occasionally never

Number in sample

3 15 2

20

8 2 6

6

-

7 L

- -

8 2 -

10

I 1 2 I

14

This threefold classification of roles, derived from a small sample, provided a useful framework for analysing data gathered in the pilot survey. This is not to deny that better schemes may be developed when more data become available or that different versions might prove more appropriate in other settings. For instance Pearson (1979) produced the following classification of farm women’s roles in southern Colorado:

-independent producers who manage farms or ranches largely by themselves

-agricultur-al partners who share all aspects of work, responsibility and decision making with husbands

--agricultural helpers who only participate in farm work at busy times when extra help is needed and

--farm homemakers who contribute to farm production only indirectly by preparing meals and running errands for those who work in the fields.

Craig (1979) recognised these roles types in Australia and added a fifth category, the matriarch who manages a farm but does not contribute any labour.

5. Towards an Explanation of Variations in Roles What causes women on farms to adopt one role pattern rather than another? Results of the pilot study suggest that farm housewives and

16 RUTH GASSON

working farmwives both conform to traditional role expectations, socio- economic status discriminating between them. Women farmers, on the other hand, play a non-traditional role.

Size of farm business goes a long way to account for role differences between working farmwives and farm housewives. Farms in the sample where the woman was a working farmwife averaged only 36 hectares. None of these farms employed regular non-family labour and half the farmers had only their wives to help them. Working regularly on the farm, these women felt competent to advise on major decisions. With manual work and possibly farm based enterprises to cope with as well as the family, working farmwives had little time left for voluntary organisations.

Farms where the woman played the farm housewife role averaged 92 hectares. At least one man was employed on all but three, so wives were only needed occasionally. Being somewhat out of touch with daily farm events, they were unable to contribute as much to management decisions. Instead they concentrated their energies on children, homes and gardens. Any surplus creative ability was directed away from the farm to the local community, welfare work and women’s organisations.

The tendency for the wife’s involvement in the farm to decline as size of farm increases has been documented frequently. In the Agriculture EDC survey, for instance, the proportion of wives doing farm work fell from 71 per cent on farms without regular workers to 43 per cent on farms with five men or more. Britton and Hill (1975) calculated from Farm Management Survey data that the wife’s contribution peaked in the 400 to 500 standard man day group and declined to negligible proportions on farms of over 2,000 standard man days. Similar patterns have been described for Denmark (Mbrkeberg, 1978), British Columbia (Sawer, 1973) and Wisconsin (Wilkening and Bharadwaj, 1968).

Two other socio-economic variables appear to reinforce the differences in roles expected of farm housewives and working farmwives. One is the woman’s social background. Working farmwives tend to come from working class families where, i t is suggested, the idea of a woman doing routine farm work would not be unacceptable. Most working farmwives in the sample had had manual jobs before marriage. By contrast farm housewives are likely to come from rural middle class families where, perhaps, ideas about “suitable” work for women might be more rigid. It could be argued, too, that participation in formal associations, so characteristic of the farm housewife, is essentially a middle class trait.

The husband’s position at marriage, another reflection of socio-economic status, could also affect the woman’s role in the business. If a woman marries a man who is already an established farmer, her scope for sharing in the running of the farm will probably be less than if husband and wife start farming together after marriage.

Most husbands of working farmwives and farm housewives in the sample came from farming backgrounds and a majority had succeeded to family farms. With a small farm, usually only one son can inherit and not before the father retires or dies. Working farmwives in the sample had mostly married younger sons or sons who would not inherit a farm for some years. Only three had married established farmers, as Table 2 shows. Consequently, most of these couples embarked on farming after marriage and the wife was as much involved in the venture as the husband. The larger the parental farm, the greater the probability that

K O I . ~ ~ ot HOMLN ON I AKMS: A PILO-I. s r u w 17

sons wanting to farm can be established in farming before the father dies or retires. Twelve of the twenty farm housewives in the sample had married men who were already farm business principals (Table 2) and therefore accustomed to making decisions without a wife’s help. Where the husband was in partnership with parents or brothers, the new wife had to tread very warily. Young wives in this situations had the least influence over farm business decisions.

Table 2 Respondents’ means of entry lo farming

Women acquired siaius in farming by:

Farm Working Woman house wife farm wife farmer

- marrying an established farmer 10 3 marrying successor to a family farm 2 2 I couple buying or renting farm after after marriage 5 husband obtaining manager’s post after marriage 3

4

1 inheritance or other means, independent - of marriage - Husband from farming family 15 9 Husband not from farming family 5 I

Eleven of the fourteen women playing the non-traditional role of woman farmer had decided on a farming career before meeting their future husbands. Eight had been to agricultural college and all eleven had worked on farms before they married. Agricultural training and farming experience were not usual among more traditional farmers’ wives. Six women farmers were farmers’ daughters and none of them had brothers. It is possible that as children they had been brought up to help father on the farm rather than mother in the house. Six women, including most of these “substitute sons”, had inherited or acquired farms of their own independent of marriage (Table 2 ) . If a wife brings the farm or most of the capital to a marriage, she might well be expected to exercise more control over it than her husband.

A farm background was not sufficient to explain why some women played the farmer role, for eight of them were not from farming families. They were mostly city-born daughters of business or professional men. Their parents encouraged them to choose careers and they attended the kind of school which, before the 1944 Education Act, fostered career aspirations in girls. In this they probably differed from most of their contemporaries who were brought up to see marriage as the ultimate goal of a‘woman.

This section has suggested that a woman’s role is influenced by such variables as size of farm business and social origins of spouses. This is not to imply that a woman is necessarily tied to the same role all her life. Other milestones in the family cycle, such as sons coming home to work, might edge a working farmwife into the farm housewife role. Although the pilot study produced little evidence of women changing roles, further research with a more representative sample could throw new light on the dynamics of role determination.

Widowhood might push a woman into the role of farmer.

6. Population Frequencies Over the country as a whole, working farmwives, associated with family farms employing n o outside labour, are likely to be the largest group. Over three- quarters of the agricultural holdings in Britain today are without full time

18 RUTH GASSON

hired workers, nearly half the farmers and spouses being on holdings where they provide at least 80 per cent of the labour (Britton, 1979). Data from the Agriculture EDC survey reveal that working wives are typical of small, full time dairy farms, farms in the western half of England and in Wales, farms where husbands spend most of their time in manual work. Britton and Hill (1975) confirm that wives make the greatest labour contribution on small dairy farms.

According to the Agriculture E D C study, wives are least likely to d o manual work on very large arable farms, those employing five or more workers and farms in the eastern counties. If the husband is a farm manager or if he spends much of his time in managerial rather than manual work, his wife is unlikely to work regularly on the farm. These conditions add up to the woman playing the role of farm housewife.

Women farmers a re probably the smallest group, if only because few women choose a farming career independent of marriage. The Agriculture E D C data suggest that farms run by women are smaller than men’s farms and employ fewer workers. Women farmers are relatively numerous in south east England, Wales and the south west and quite rare in the eastern counties. Women farmers tend to specialise in horticulture, dairying or breeding pedigree livestock and to eschew large scale arable farming.

This pilot study, based on a small and unrepresentative sample, has uncovered an aspect of farming business which, though far reaching in its implications, has been neglected by agricultural economists. It points to the need for a more comprehensive study of the contribution which farmers’ wives make to agriculture. A wider survey might bring to light significant variations in the woman’s role related to such variables as source of capital, tenure and stage of family cycle, t o mention but three. It would be useful to test for regional differences as well, to determine whether there are cultural variations in female role expectations exerting an influence independent of the effects of farm size and type.

7. Trends and Implications Post-war trends in British agriculture have tended to increase women’s participation in farm work. Mechanisation has reduced the need for physical strength in many operations while “the drift from the land” has left many farmers mainly dependent on their wives for help with farm tasks. Growing size and complexity of farm businesses has increased the need for accurate farm records and accounts, activities in which wives are often involved. (Nearly half the women interviewed had sole reponsibility for farm accounts .)

Looking to the future, the pace of farm mechanisation and the rate of outflow of hired labour may slacken in the 1980s but the demand for farm records, physical a n d financial planning and controls will increase steadily (Nix, 1980). Thus the woman’s role as farm secretary is likely to gain significance. The pilot survey showed, too, that most farmers consult their wives over major issues such as obtaining finance or development plans. Soaring land prices and high interest rates must underline the need for informed decision making. All this suggests that farm women could benefit from training in farm business management. A number of respondents in the survey had experience of office work and others were hoping to learn book-keeping or typing, but only a few recognised a need for courses in financial management and control.

K O l . t \ OF WOMEN O N FARMS: A PILOT STUDY 19

Some individuals who provide services to agriculture also need educating about the woman’s role. It is common for a woman trying to transact farm business, being fobbed off because the agent insists on dealing with the male partner. The pilot survey found instances, too, of women farmers not being taken seriously by their political organisation, the National Farmers’ Union. Wives are welcomed at social functions but not expected to voice opinions a t business meetings.

Turning t o manual work, most farmers expect their wives to help on the farm at least occasionally. Demands a re likely to increase as the hired labour force shrinks. Socialisation of women, even those reared on farms, tends to neglect skills which would be valuable to a farmer’s wife, such as carpentry and mechanical engineering. More encouragement might therefore be given to farmers’ wives to attend training courses in order t o acquire farm skills. Several respondents felt they would benefit from machinery courses, a sensible suggestion since it is often the farmer’s wife who is sent to collect a spare machine part in an emergency.

A hardening of the cost-price squeeze, which has been predicted for British agriculture in the 1980s (Nix, 1980) could result in a growth of multiple job holding among farm families. Women farmers and working farmwives might well respond by developing lucrative farm-based enterprises or by releasing husbands for off-farm employment. Farm housewives, unaccustomed to regular farm work, might contribute more by taking off- farm jobs themselves. (The pilot survey found that 17 out of 20 farm housewives had trained for careers, mainly as teachers, nurses or secretaries.) Relevant considerations here include the marketable skills of spouses, jobs available and transport.

Changing values of society also have implications for the farm woman’s role. Women’s liberation has come to mean freedom for women to be employed outside the home. Now that half the married women in Britain go out to work, those who stay at home are beginning to appear deviant. Some farm housewives in the survey wanted off-farm jobs but were prevented by the fact that husbands expected them to be available on the farm when needed. Voluntary activities serve6 a valuable function for these women, offering a means of self-expression and a source of status independent of marriage, without demanding rigid hours. For how long, though, will intelligent women be content with substitute careers?

Women’s liberation is likely to mean fewer women content with traditional, subordinate roles in farming, more determined to become farmers. These women risk opposition on all sides. Society expects women to have jobs nowadays, i t is true, but not in occupations which threaten the status of men. On a farm a woman may undertake “suitable” work but not “masculine” tasks like marketing livestock, ploughing or driving a combine. For a woman to d o these things well undermines the traditional authority of men. Nearly all the women farmers interviewed had bitter experiences of discrimination directed against them for presuming to compete in a man’s world.

Like most working wives in Britain today, the woman farmer is faced with dual role expectations. As a farmer she will be judged by the yardstick of full time male farmers, regardless of her additional responsibilities in the home. Equally as a woman she is judged against the full time farm housewife, irrespective of her farm commitments. In the pilot survey there was a subtle inference that a woman was allowed to “indulge” in farming so long as the family did not suffer in a n y way. Farming has to be treated as an

20 KUTH (;ASSON

additional role rather than an alternative to the more traditional wife-mother role. Moreover, housework and childcare a re areas in which British women are investing more, not less, time and emotional energy. Despite the increase in domestic technology, housework hours have increased this century because standards have risen. Although having children occupies less of a woman’s life today, rearing children has become more complex and demanding (Oakley, 1979). Without a re-evaluation of the woman’s role in the home, therefore, little real progress can be made towards liberation for women.

References Agriculture EDC. (1972). Agricullural Manpower in Englund ond M’ules. HMSO. Ashby. A. W.. (1953). “The farmer in business’’, J. Proc.. ugric.. €con. Soc., 10. 91 - 126. Britton, D. K . and Hil l, B., (1975). Size and €fficienc,v in Fanning. Farnborough. Saxon Hou\e:

Britton, D. K . , (1979). Age Siruoure oJ Farmers in UK. 1975. Unpublished papcr. Craig, R. A., (1979). “Down on the farm: role conflicls of Australian farm women”. Papcr

presenred ar national conference on The kl’onian in Coftn/rv A us/rolra Looks d hrud. McMillan Rural Studies Centre. Victoria.

Errington. A,, (1980). ”Occupational classification in British agriculture“, J. qqric. EuJi f . ,

Harrison, A,. (1975). Farmers and Farm Birsines5es in €nglond. University of Readinp.

Hine. R . C. and Gregory, G. N. F., (1972). A 9ud.v of /he Lubour Force on SI I IU/ / Furiiu.

Huffrnan, W. E., (1976). “The value o f the productive time of farm wives: Iowa. North

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ( 1976). €€C Sun3e.r. on /he S/rirc,/ure ujdyric~irl~urirl

Mprkeberg, H. (1978). ‘(Working conditions of women married to \elf-employed farmer\".

Newby, H. Bell, C. Rose, D. and Saunden. P. (1978). f‘ropw/.r, /’u/rr.vu/rv/~r uiitl P o w r

Nix, J.. l(979). “British agriculture into the 1980s”. J. K. ugric.. SOC. .. 140. 43 - SO.

102 - 105.

31, 73 - 81.

Department of Agricultural Economics and Management, Miscellaneour Studv 62.

University of Nottingham, Department of Agricultural Economics.

Carolina, and Oklahoma”. A I I I , J. ugric. €con., 5 8 , 836 - 841.

Holdings. (1975): England and Wules. Government Statistical Serrice.

Sociol Rur., 18, 95 - 106.

Hutchinson University Library, 67 - 72.

Oakley, A.. (1979). “The failure of the movemeni for women’\ equality”. ,”\.’ei~, .%Kw/.I. 23 Augusi, 392 - 394.

Office of Popularion Censuses and Survey?. (1976).

Pearson, J . , (1979). “Note on female farmer\”. Rurol .%C’iO/O,~J. 11. 189 ~ 200. Sawer, B. J., (1973).

and adoption decisions”. Rirral Sociolog.v, 30. 412 - 426. Sparrow, T. D., (1972). “The use of agricultural manpower”. J. u,yrrc. Lob. S u . . 1 . 3 - 10. Tazza, A., ( 1979). The U‘orkin,s and Living Conrli/ions oJ /lie Efrropeun CC’oiiien I uriiiivi.

COPA. Brussels. Wilkening, E. A. and Bharadwaj. L . K . , (1968). “Aspiration\ and tar!, inrolrement a \ relatcd to

decision making among farm husbands and wives”. Rirrul Sociulox!, 33, 30 - 45.

Econonrrc A c , / i r r / ~ Tuhlec Ceii.cirf. lY71 G r e a Brirain, Par/ 11. HMSO.

“Predictions 01’ the farm wife’\ involiement i n general nianapcmcr~i