**5.1 The sociology of family farming**

In this chapter farmers' adaptations in agriculture have been explored and with that the future prospects of Norwegian family farming. Through analysis of empirical data it has been documented that Norwegian farming has experienced major structural change and continues to face major challenges related to upholding farming on many units in the future. Still, there is a group of farmers that are interested in investing and developing their farms. This should not be under-communicated. These are still family farmers, many relying on expectations of a family successor to keep up their motivation for further investments.

Worrying about the future of family farming was a topic also 150 years ago. The old classical theories and thoughts were concerned with the possibility of sustaining agriculture in a capitalising and industrialising world. Marx predicted that small farmers would have to give up their farm to tenant farmers and consequently find themselves having their labour exploited as proletarian workers. Lenin was also expecting that capitalism would subsume the family farm as a structural phenomenon. Both Weber and Kautsky stated that farmers would adapt to this new situation and stay on the land despite the fact that the land did not give immediate financial rewards. The two major brands of the "new" sociology of agriculture of the late 1970s and 1980s diverged in their predictions of the future situation of family farming. The Marxist inspired branch of theorists expected that capitalist forces would hamper small farmer's ability to control the means of production – their land. In other versions capital interest would be able to control farmers through contracts or capitalisation of agricultural industries.

But Norwegian farming is still carried out on family farms. Why is this? Political economic theories of structural dominance by capitalist forces have failed to explain the patterns of Norwegian agriculture. Even though the number of farms has decreased dramatically, they are not replaced by large capitalist companies that own a lot of farms. Land on closed or abandoned farms is sold or, most often, rented out to neighbouring farmers.

It is tempting to explain the relative success of the family farming system in Norway with, for example, the protectionist policies of the Norwegian social democratic model securing Norwegian production against cheaper imported products. It can also be explained by Norwegian cooperatives, owned by the farmers themselves. Still, Norwegian agriculture is

Analysis of whom the future farmers in Norway might be, show that it is (relatively) younger farmers on the larger farms that are most interested in investing in their farms (the will to invest decreases with age). The willingness to invest in farming must be viewed in the contexts of the economic situation at the farm. High income from farming increases the willingness to invest. On the other hand, does high dependence on off-farm income take

Having family successors in sight strongly correlates with willingness to invest in the farm. This shows that "The Family Farm" has a very strong value in the Norwegian farming system. If not, one could expect that a market value of farm properties could encourage farmer's interest in developing their farms. Such market economic considerations do not seem to be widespread among Norwegian farmers. This is of course also limited by farm

In this chapter farmers' adaptations in agriculture have been explored and with that the future prospects of Norwegian family farming. Through analysis of empirical data it has been documented that Norwegian farming has experienced major structural change and continues to face major challenges related to upholding farming on many units in the future. Still, there is a group of farmers that are interested in investing and developing their farms. This should not be under-communicated. These are still family farmers, many relying on expectations of a family successor to keep up their motivation for further investments.

Worrying about the future of family farming was a topic also 150 years ago. The old classical theories and thoughts were concerned with the possibility of sustaining agriculture in a capitalising and industrialising world. Marx predicted that small farmers would have to give up their farm to tenant farmers and consequently find themselves having their labour exploited as proletarian workers. Lenin was also expecting that capitalism would subsume the family farm as a structural phenomenon. Both Weber and Kautsky stated that farmers would adapt to this new situation and stay on the land despite the fact that the land did not give immediate financial rewards. The two major brands of the "new" sociology of agriculture of the late 1970s and 1980s diverged in their predictions of the future situation of family farming. The Marxist inspired branch of theorists expected that capitalist forces would hamper small farmer's ability to control the means of production – their land. In other versions capital interest would be able to control farmers through contracts or

But Norwegian farming is still carried out on family farms. Why is this? Political economic theories of structural dominance by capitalist forces have failed to explain the patterns of Norwegian agriculture. Even though the number of farms has decreased dramatically, they are not replaced by large capitalist companies that own a lot of farms. Land on closed or

It is tempting to explain the relative success of the family farming system in Norway with, for example, the protectionist policies of the Norwegian social democratic model securing Norwegian production against cheaper imported products. It can also be explained by Norwegian cooperatives, owned by the farmers themselves. Still, Norwegian agriculture is

abandoned farms is sold or, most often, rented out to neighbouring farmers.

away the interest in farm investments.

**5.1 The sociology of family farming** 

capitalisation of agricultural industries.

property regulations.

also influenced and challenged by global trade agreements and other major changes that have taken place in industry over the past centuries.

Capitalism will not be the immediate future structure of Norwegian agriculture. Analysis in this chapter have shown that the family structure is strongly valued and one could use the explanatory force of Chayanov (1986) from his early text of the 20th century; "Reproduction of the family farm is a sufficient goal". Handing the farm over to a new generation of family members is a very strong incentive for investing in and developing Norwegian farms. There are however too many farmers giving up farming to conclude that economic returns are of no relevance.

But, when structural theories alone fail to explain the development of Norwegian family farming, answers should be sought within other theoretical tools. Branches of contemporary sociology have been more interested in trying to understand the interrelationship between structural opportunities and constraints and the actors will and ability to control their own choices, with modern classics such as Bourdieu and Giddens as frontiers. The former emphasising structure, while the latter the individual to a slightly stronger degree.

The structuring aspect of the farmers' reality is for many given through inheritance of the farm in kinship. Analyses in this chapter encourage a closer perspective on kinship relations in the continuation of farming. There is a strong connection between future prospects and prospects of a family successor. The family connection to farms as places and property has also previously been found to be a constraint for sales of farm properties, including those that have closed production (e.g. Flemsæter, 2009). Families keep the properties as a source of maintenance of traditions and emotions. Having future successors in sight encourage development of the farm as a productive unit also. It is however noteworthy that maintaining and developing farms for future successors are not necessarily taking place when the successor is ready to take over, rather it takes place when the transferor has entered agriculture and has started his or her own family reproduction. The choice and motivation for upgrading the farm is then more family oriented and lesser production oriented.

Another aspect of family farming is the economic aspect. The family farm organisation is a household economic model unlike a more capitalistic oriented business model. Historically Norwegian farms did not give sufficient income to the farming families. Household income was supplemented through other labour, either based on own resources in forest and outfields/waters or in income generating work off farm for both farmer and family members. Pluriactivity has been a stable strategy, and still is on many farms. The relative increase in off farm income is now working as a disincentive to invest in farming activities. Almås (1984) stated that survival of Norwegian family farming depends on reproduction of an enlarged scale of agricultural production to keep up with development. Being able to gain substantial economic returns are of crucial importance for being able to invest in the farm. But those should be earned from the farm. Analysis in this chapter has however shown that money from off-farm work will not be re-allocated to farming when off-farm income is dominating the structure of household income. In this perspective those farmers that eventually leave farming are not outcompeted by capitalistic production out of their control, but by their own adaptations to income generating activities outside the farm.

The sociology of agriculture must challenge the dichotomies of structural and actor oriented social science approaches to the study of agricultural restructuring, family farming, and

Exploring the Sociology of Agriculture:

(02.02.2007)

*Studies* 7/2:158-184.

*Peasant Studies* 6, 1:71-99.

*Ruralis,* 39 (1):100-116.

40/4:481-496.

*Market for Large-Scale Industry*.

Press.

20:545-586.

Press.

Family Farmers in Norway – Future or Past Food Producers? 303

Djurfeld, G. (1981). What Happened to the Agrarian Bourgeoisie and the Rural Proletariat

Eikeland. S. (1999). New Rural Pluriactivity? Household Strategies and Rural Renewal in

ERA (2007). *Classical Marxism and the Agrarian Question. Lenin on Peasant Differentiation.* 

Flemsæter, F. (2009). Geography, Law and the Emotions of Property. Property Enactment on Norwegian Smallholdings. PhD thesis NTNU, 2009:263. Trondheim: NTNU. Flø, B.E. (1998). *Institusjonelle ordningar retta mot forvaltning av rurale ressursar. Sikfisket i* 

Friedland, W. H. (1984). Commodity systems analysis: an approach to the sociology of

Friedland, W. H., A. E. Barton, and R. J. Thomas (1981). *Manufacturing Green Gold.* 

Friedmann, H. (1980). Household Production and the National Economy. *Journal of Peasant* 

Friedmann, H. (1978a). World Market, State and Family Farm: Social Bases of Household

Friedmann, H. (1978b). Simple Commodity Production and the National Economy. *Journal of* 

Goodman, D. E. and M. R. Redclift (1988). Problems in Analysing the Agrarian Transition in

Goodman, D. E. and M. R. Redclift (1981). *From Peasant to Proletarian.* New York: St. Martin's

Gray, I. and G. Lawrence (2001). *A Future for Regional Australia. Escaping Global Misfortune.*

Jervell, A. M. (1999) Changing Patterns of Family Farming and Pluriactivity, *Sociologia* 

Jervell, A. M. and J. Løyland (1998) Endringer i jordbrukshusholdenes inntekt utenfor

Johnsen, S. (2004). The redefinition of family farming: agricultural restructuring and farm adjustment in Waihemo, New Zealand. *Journal of Rural Studies* 20/4:419-3. Johnsen, S. (2003). Contingency Revealed: New Zealand Farmers' Experiences of

Kinsella, J. S. Wilson, F. de Jong and H. Renting, 2000. Pluriactivity as a livelihood strategy

Lawrence, G. (1987). *Capitalism and the Contryside. The Rural Crisis in Australia.* Sydney: Pluto

Lenin, V. (1915). *New Data on the Laws Governing the Development of Capitalism inAgriculture* 

Lenin, V. (1899) *The Development of Capitalism in Russia. The Process of the Formation of a Home* 

in Irish farm households and its role in rural development. Sociologia Ruralis,

*PART ONE—Capitalism and Agriculture in the United States of America.*  http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/newdev/5.htm (02.02.2007)

Europe. *Comparative Studies in Society and History* 30/4:784-791.

bruket 1986-96. *Landbruksøkonomisk Forum (LØF).* 4/98:63-75.

Agricultural Restructuring. *Sociologia Ruralis* 43/2:128-153. Kautsky, K. [1899] (1988). *The Agrarian Question*. London: Zwan Publications.

Production in an Era of Wage Labour. *Comparative studies in Society and History* 

agriculture. *Research in Rural Sociology and Development* 1:221-235.

http://www.era.anthropology.ac.uk/Era\_Resources/Era/Peasants/theory06.html

under Monopoly Capitalism? *Acta Sociologica* 24/3: 167-192.

*Femund.* R-4/98. Trondheim: Centre for Rural Research.

Norway. *Sociologia Ruralis* 39/3:359-376.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

farmer adaptation to be able to offer explanations on how structures influence on actors and groups differently, and how actors possess different interests in changing their current situation. Classical structural theories certainly have much to offer in understanding some parts of the political economy of agriculture. This study has however shown some of their shortcomings in relation to understanding the survival of the Norwegian family farm system.
