**2. Theorising sociology of agriculture**

The development of new critical thinking in society generally and also within the social sciences from the late 1960s gradually influenced US rural and agricultural sociology (Buttel et al., 1990) which is regarded by Buttel (2001) as a paradigm shift into the new sociology of agriculture. New, mainly exogenous studies, started to appropriate (new) theoretical tools in their studies. The already established researchers in the field began to apply tools from social development and peasant studies (Goodman & Redclift, 1981; 1988; de Janvry, 1981) to the "fortuitous rediscovery" (Buttel's, 2001:166) of a large classical literature in the political economy and anthropology of agriculture. New, non-rural sociologists entered the arena contributing to this important turn. In 1978, these scholars published four pioneering papers (Friedmann, 1978a; 1978b; Mann and Dickinson, 1978; Newby, 1978). Buttel reports that these works opened a "whole new vistas in the sociological analysis of agriculture through the application of Marxist theory" (Buttel et al., 1990:77). The new political economical thinkers appeared as a neo-Marxist movement, repeating the classical questions: Why does family farming exist: When will it disappear due to the capitalistic forces dominating the rest of society? The 1978 papers built upon political economy approaches, basing their analysis on a rediscovery of the classical theoretical contributions from Marx and Weber but also upon less known theoretical work by Lenin, Kautsky and Chayanov (Buttel et al., 1990; Blekesaune, 1996b). The following section summarises the essence of these classics.

In his work *Kapital* (1867) Karl Marx predicted that capitalism would develop within agriculture following the same pattern as industry. Technological development and organisation of work would favour large enterprises (Blekesaune, 1996b). The system would be based on feudalism, with capitalist tenant farmers and proletarian workers of the land. In the new sociology of agriculture, different interpretations of Marx's theory were launched. Friedmann (1978a; 1978b) and Mann and Dickson (1978) used Marx's argument to ask why the particularities of agriculture as a production sector meant that agriculture experienced

combine farming with off-farm work. Part-time farming is a stable strategy on farms that need off-farm income, due to inadequate income from full time farming (Blekesaune, 1996a:49). While pluriactivity, or part-time farming, can be seen as a strategy or movement away from farming, pluriactivity might also be a factor that keeps people on the land, reduces the decline in numbers of farms and strengthens the basis of local services (Kinsella

In this chapter, household strategy is used as the unit of analysis to help understand the general process of agricultural change. The argument of a survival or adaptation strategy in farming is built on a model including reproduction of capital like investments in the farm, share of family income derived from the farm and household members adaptation to the labour market outside the farm. Those households that may sustain in the future are those that are able to increase production on their farms (Blekesaune, 1996a:50). In this chapter farmers' adaptations are explored and with that the future prospects of family farming; What is the reality of family farming in Norway?; Who are the family farmers?; How do the farmers view the future? Will they continue to develop their farms?; The chapter bases its analysis on empirical survey data of Norwegian farmers collected in 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008

The development of new critical thinking in society generally and also within the social sciences from the late 1960s gradually influenced US rural and agricultural sociology (Buttel et al., 1990) which is regarded by Buttel (2001) as a paradigm shift into the new sociology of agriculture. New, mainly exogenous studies, started to appropriate (new) theoretical tools in their studies. The already established researchers in the field began to apply tools from social development and peasant studies (Goodman & Redclift, 1981; 1988; de Janvry, 1981) to the "fortuitous rediscovery" (Buttel's, 2001:166) of a large classical literature in the political economy and anthropology of agriculture. New, non-rural sociologists entered the arena contributing to this important turn. In 1978, these scholars published four pioneering papers (Friedmann, 1978a; 1978b; Mann and Dickinson, 1978; Newby, 1978). Buttel reports that these works opened a "whole new vistas in the sociological analysis of agriculture through the application of Marxist theory" (Buttel et al., 1990:77). The new political economical thinkers appeared as a neo-Marxist movement, repeating the classical questions: Why does family farming exist: When will it disappear due to the capitalistic forces dominating the rest of society? The 1978 papers built upon political economy approaches, basing their analysis on a rediscovery of the classical theoretical contributions from Marx and Weber but also upon less known theoretical work by Lenin, Kautsky and Chayanov (Buttel et al., 1990; Blekesaune, 1996b). The following section summarises the essence of

In his work *Kapital* (1867) Karl Marx predicted that capitalism would develop within agriculture following the same pattern as industry. Technological development and organisation of work would favour large enterprises (Blekesaune, 1996b). The system would be based on feudalism, with capitalist tenant farmers and proletarian workers of the land. In the new sociology of agriculture, different interpretations of Marx's theory were launched. Friedmann (1978a; 1978b) and Mann and Dickson (1978) used Marx's argument to ask why the particularities of agriculture as a production sector meant that agriculture experienced

et al., 2000).

and 2010.

these classics.

**2. Theorising sociology of agriculture** 

slower and more uneven capitalist development than other branches of industry. Newby (1978) and later de Janvry (1980) and Friedland, Barton and Thomas (1981) argued that capitalist development in Western agriculture will continue (Buttel et al., 1990:79-80). That Marx's predictions were not fulfilled could be, according to Newby (1983), Marx's inappropriate case study, England, where the present agricultural feudal structure collapsed for the benefit of family farming. Blekesaune (1996b) adds to this that farmers also no longer needed to produce a surplus or ground rent and as such could compete with capitalist enterprises.

Max Weber, in his book *The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism* (1904), developed a wider concept of capitalism connected to the rationalisation of society. In Weber's work, capitalisation occurs when production is divided from the household economy to bring about greater efficiency of production. This is an interesting scenario for theorising the family farm, where the household and production are intrinsically linked, presenting a special case in terms of modern conceptualisations of capitalist production under increasingly neoliberal forms of governance. In *Die Verhältnisse der Landarbeiter im ostelbischen Deutschland* (1892), Weber compared the agricultural conditions on two sides of the river Elbe (see Blekesaune, 1996b). From this work, he concluded that the commercialisation of agriculture would eventually lead to the increasing use of wage earning workers, and over time, conditions would worsen for land workers due to bad contracts and so forth. However, he added that the value of being an independent farmer would overcome some of the economic concerns, and this could keep people in farming. Critics of Weber's explanations refer to a proletarian false consciousness as a reason for such expressions (e.g. Mann, 1990). Previous research do however support a Weberian suspicion that there is much more than economic rationality that keeps people in farming, particularly as economically, farming is not always profitable (Bjørkhaug, 2006). Many farmers value the independent lifestyle of farming and often cite this as a motivation for staying in farming, despite low economic return for goods produced on the farm.

Drawing upon the Marxist tradition, some prominent figures developed theories on the political economy of agriculture. In the late 19th century Russia, Lenin shared Marx's concern about the elimination of family farming in e.g. *The Development of Capitalism in Russia* (Lenin, 1899)*.* Based on analysis of American agricultural census data between 1900 and 1910 Lenin (1915*)*, found an occurring dualism in agriculture. That is, that the capitalist prospered on behalf of the proletarians. In Russia, Lenin identified three strata among the peasantry: The Kulaks, who were the richer group, the middle peasants and on the bottom of the hierarchy, the poor peasants. Lenin argued that this structure was polarising into a dualistic structure: The Kulaks into a rural bourgeoisie hiring wage labourers and the poor peasants becoming the rural proletariat.

Another important classic who contributed to the new sociology of agriculture was Karl Kautsky who also was influenced by Marx. In his major work on agriculture, *Die Agrarfrage (*1899), Kautsky did not find support for the hypothesis that family farming would be out phased. Kautsky therefore questioned the existence of a tendency towards a large-scale wage labour production in the Western Europe. Instead, he found that family farming was increasing its influence in German agriculture, and he changed his question to *why*. Kautsky argued that the development of a more industrialised form of agriculture, coupled with the availability of cheap grain for import, made European peasants change their production into

Exploring the Sociology of Agriculture:

agriculture, but have not been shown to have developed.

ability to compete with capitalistic farming.

either exit farming or engage in minimal levels of production.

Family Farmers in Norway – Future or Past Food Producers? 287

huge differences exist between productions. From Buttel's (1983) references to the US farming systems, Munton and Marsden (1991) tested out the dualist thesis on British Agriculture. They suggest in their conclusions that the thesis is too structuralistic, paying inadequate attention to the range of responses found among farming households. A series of detailed interviews in different areas revealed diversity in social, economic and local strategies rather than a dualism. Blekesaune (1996a:14) joins the sceptics by claiming that the hypothesis of a "disappearing middle" has doubtful empirical support. The relevance of bimodal predictions is also called into question when Blekesaune (op cit.) argues that the pluriactive farm structure allows families to avoid proletarisation through a series of strategies, either through allocating their work and capital on the farm, or outside. Predictions of a disappearing middle are frequently returning as a diagnosis of Norwegian

Scholars from the 'survival school' had an alternative view with an emphasis on "how the non-commodification of farm labour and intergenerational transfer of land, together with the reciprocal exchange of resources between family farms, enabled [farmers] to outcompete corporate farms and persist over time" (Johnsen, 2004:421). Friedmann (1978a; 1978b; 1980) and Mann and Dickinson (1978) and Mann (1990) developed theories of how family farming could resist capitalistic production, forming the dominant position of agricultural sociology at the time. This position has been conceptualised as a hybrid of neo-Marxist peasant studies and Chayanovianism (see Buttel, 2001:168). Two differing arguments formed this branch of research: One that argued that peasantries and family farms performed important functions for capital such as producing cheap food; being a refuge for surplus labour; and ensuring the legitimacy of corporate capitalism. The other stressed the comparative advantages of family farming on behalf of capitalism, such as not needing profit for production (Buttel op. cit). Blekesaune (1996b) adds that the availability of agricultural technology to most farmers reveals another presumption of the farming family's

In an analysis of Norwegian family farming under capitalism, Almås (1984) applied a modernised Marxist model developed by Djurfeldt (1981) to discuss when and why family farming resists capitalism. By adjusting Djurfeldt's model, farm gross income is divided in a series of components that are outlined for understanding both the decline and survival of the family farm system in Norway. The elements of the analysis are composed of; 1) A consumption fund that can be supplemented by wage income; 2) The possibility of the reproduction of one's own capital, meaning maintenance of farm buildings, animals, fields and equipment; 3) Enlarged reproduction of own capital to keep up with growing farm size and number of animals and new technology; 4) Instalment of loans used to buy the means of production (such as machinery) and raw materials if 3 and 4 fail; and finally 5) Interest on loans (Almås, 1984:122). According to Almås (op cit.) farms that cannot reproduce on an enlarged scale and keep up with the development will drop out. Survival for these will only be short term, as long as they can accept a small income or supplement the household with off-farm wages or consume their own capital. Almås predicts that these, sooner or later, will

It is argued that some key events have slowed the pace of an economic downturn for Norwegian farmers, thus postponing, or averting, the predicted demise of the family farm. In the 1960's, Norwegian agricultural policy aimed for a stable family farm through planned

cattle, dairy and crops, which were well suited to small-scale farming. Capitalists did invest in the processing industry, leaving the middle peasants with clear fields in agricultural production (ERA, 2007). The success of this was partly built on the argument that land was a non-reproducible means of production; partly that most agricultural inputs and products were still non-commodities at that time and finally; that farmers could exploit their own labour for the survival of the status of being an independent farmer (Blekesaune 1996b). Kautsky was a dedicated Marxist, but through this work, contributed with an alternative account of capitalist transformation.

Finally, Chayanov argued with his *Theory of Peasant Economy* (1986) (a series of texts published between 1909 and 1929)*,* that farm production and size depended upon the farming families need for consumption. When farming was carried out for the family only, Chayanov claimed that factors like wages and economic surpluses were irrelevant. Reproduction of the family and farm was a sufficient goal. The needs of the family would be reflected by the size of production. The value of reproduction was so high that family farmers would pay a higher price for farmland than capitalist investors. Through his work, Chayanov represented a principle challenge to Lenin's work. Chayanov's work showed that Lenin's statistical analysis did not reveal an irreversible class polarisation and argued that the Russian peasantry could play an important role in a future socialist society. Peasants should therefore rather be helped to prosper and modernise as individual farmers through the establishment of cooperatives, and should not be seen as enemies of the Russian proletariat (ERA, 2007).

Much is to be learnt from these classics. Through the rediscovery of these theories, intense debates on the future of family farming was again on the agenda from the late 1970s until the 1990's, in America (as summarised by Buttel et al., 1990), in the UK (Newby, 1983) as well as other advanced capitalist countries like in Norway (Almås, 1984) and Sweden (Djurfeldt, 1981).

The explanation following the revitalisation of classical theories has, by Johnsen (2004:420), been roughly united in two schools of thought, conceptualised as a *subsumption-* and a *survival-*school of family farming. Subscribers to the 'subsumption school' argued that "the inevitable and irreversible penetration of capitalist relations, wherein agricultural production would become increasingly integrated in wider circuits of industrial and finance capital, would lead to the extinction of family farming" (Johnsen, 2004:420). This conceptualisation represents the neo-Leninist strand of the new sociology of agriculture (see e.g. Newby, 1980; Friedland et al., 1981; de Janvry, 1981). The aim of these studies was to illustrate the formation of the economic relationship between agricultural capitalists and rural workers. According to Buttel (2001), the neo-Leninist branch was never the dominant position within the new agricultural sociology.

The development of a dualistic farming structure has also been described as the emergence of a bimodal structure characterised by increasing dominance (in size and number) of extremely large farm units on the one hand and extremely small farm units on the other (Buttel, 1983). Another component of this development is the marginalisation and rapid disappearance of medium sized farms, the "disappearing middle". However, as Buttel (1983:104) notes, "...this is an empirical trend rather than a completed process" of a decrease of the "middle" of full-time, medium sized, independent family farms. Buttel also adds that

cattle, dairy and crops, which were well suited to small-scale farming. Capitalists did invest in the processing industry, leaving the middle peasants with clear fields in agricultural production (ERA, 2007). The success of this was partly built on the argument that land was a non-reproducible means of production; partly that most agricultural inputs and products were still non-commodities at that time and finally; that farmers could exploit their own labour for the survival of the status of being an independent farmer (Blekesaune 1996b). Kautsky was a dedicated Marxist, but through this work, contributed with an alternative

Finally, Chayanov argued with his *Theory of Peasant Economy* (1986) (a series of texts published between 1909 and 1929)*,* that farm production and size depended upon the farming families need for consumption. When farming was carried out for the family only, Chayanov claimed that factors like wages and economic surpluses were irrelevant. Reproduction of the family and farm was a sufficient goal. The needs of the family would be reflected by the size of production. The value of reproduction was so high that family farmers would pay a higher price for farmland than capitalist investors. Through his work, Chayanov represented a principle challenge to Lenin's work. Chayanov's work showed that Lenin's statistical analysis did not reveal an irreversible class polarisation and argued that the Russian peasantry could play an important role in a future socialist society. Peasants should therefore rather be helped to prosper and modernise as individual farmers through the establishment of cooperatives, and should not be seen as enemies of the Russian

Much is to be learnt from these classics. Through the rediscovery of these theories, intense debates on the future of family farming was again on the agenda from the late 1970s until the 1990's, in America (as summarised by Buttel et al., 1990), in the UK (Newby, 1983) as well as other advanced capitalist countries like in Norway (Almås, 1984) and Sweden

The explanation following the revitalisation of classical theories has, by Johnsen (2004:420), been roughly united in two schools of thought, conceptualised as a *subsumption-* and a *survival-*school of family farming. Subscribers to the 'subsumption school' argued that "the inevitable and irreversible penetration of capitalist relations, wherein agricultural production would become increasingly integrated in wider circuits of industrial and finance capital, would lead to the extinction of family farming" (Johnsen, 2004:420). This conceptualisation represents the neo-Leninist strand of the new sociology of agriculture (see e.g. Newby, 1980; Friedland et al., 1981; de Janvry, 1981). The aim of these studies was to illustrate the formation of the economic relationship between agricultural capitalists and rural workers. According to Buttel (2001), the neo-Leninist branch was never the dominant

The development of a dualistic farming structure has also been described as the emergence of a bimodal structure characterised by increasing dominance (in size and number) of extremely large farm units on the one hand and extremely small farm units on the other (Buttel, 1983). Another component of this development is the marginalisation and rapid disappearance of medium sized farms, the "disappearing middle". However, as Buttel (1983:104) notes, "...this is an empirical trend rather than a completed process" of a decrease of the "middle" of full-time, medium sized, independent family farms. Buttel also adds that

account of capitalist transformation.

proletariat (ERA, 2007).

position within the new agricultural sociology.

(Djurfeldt, 1981).

huge differences exist between productions. From Buttel's (1983) references to the US farming systems, Munton and Marsden (1991) tested out the dualist thesis on British Agriculture. They suggest in their conclusions that the thesis is too structuralistic, paying inadequate attention to the range of responses found among farming households. A series of detailed interviews in different areas revealed diversity in social, economic and local strategies rather than a dualism. Blekesaune (1996a:14) joins the sceptics by claiming that the hypothesis of a "disappearing middle" has doubtful empirical support. The relevance of bimodal predictions is also called into question when Blekesaune (op cit.) argues that the pluriactive farm structure allows families to avoid proletarisation through a series of strategies, either through allocating their work and capital on the farm, or outside. Predictions of a disappearing middle are frequently returning as a diagnosis of Norwegian agriculture, but have not been shown to have developed.

Scholars from the 'survival school' had an alternative view with an emphasis on "how the non-commodification of farm labour and intergenerational transfer of land, together with the reciprocal exchange of resources between family farms, enabled [farmers] to outcompete corporate farms and persist over time" (Johnsen, 2004:421). Friedmann (1978a; 1978b; 1980) and Mann and Dickinson (1978) and Mann (1990) developed theories of how family farming could resist capitalistic production, forming the dominant position of agricultural sociology at the time. This position has been conceptualised as a hybrid of neo-Marxist peasant studies and Chayanovianism (see Buttel, 2001:168). Two differing arguments formed this branch of research: One that argued that peasantries and family farms performed important functions for capital such as producing cheap food; being a refuge for surplus labour; and ensuring the legitimacy of corporate capitalism. The other stressed the comparative advantages of family farming on behalf of capitalism, such as not needing profit for production (Buttel op. cit). Blekesaune (1996b) adds that the availability of agricultural technology to most farmers reveals another presumption of the farming family's ability to compete with capitalistic farming.

In an analysis of Norwegian family farming under capitalism, Almås (1984) applied a modernised Marxist model developed by Djurfeldt (1981) to discuss when and why family farming resists capitalism. By adjusting Djurfeldt's model, farm gross income is divided in a series of components that are outlined for understanding both the decline and survival of the family farm system in Norway. The elements of the analysis are composed of; 1) A consumption fund that can be supplemented by wage income; 2) The possibility of the reproduction of one's own capital, meaning maintenance of farm buildings, animals, fields and equipment; 3) Enlarged reproduction of own capital to keep up with growing farm size and number of animals and new technology; 4) Instalment of loans used to buy the means of production (such as machinery) and raw materials if 3 and 4 fail; and finally 5) Interest on loans (Almås, 1984:122). According to Almås (op cit.) farms that cannot reproduce on an enlarged scale and keep up with the development will drop out. Survival for these will only be short term, as long as they can accept a small income or supplement the household with off-farm wages or consume their own capital. Almås predicts that these, sooner or later, will either exit farming or engage in minimal levels of production.

It is argued that some key events have slowed the pace of an economic downturn for Norwegian farmers, thus postponing, or averting, the predicted demise of the family farm. In the 1960's, Norwegian agricultural policy aimed for a stable family farm through planned

Exploring the Sociology of Agriculture:

environmental decline (Olsson & Rønningen, 1999).

farm household (Meert et al., 2005).

Family Farmers in Norway – Future or Past Food Producers? 289

Due to economic support through policy arrangements, Norwegian farmers have not been as vulnerable to market changes. Economic viability has been more closely linked to ability to change commensurate with changing policies, particularly those influencing on direct payments from the state to the farm and on prizes on farm commodities and activities (Bjørkhaug, 2007). In Norway, changing conditions have also meant that commodities and services have moved out of the households, thus creating new employment and market opportunities. Higher educational levels, coupled with the centralisation of people into cities, have enticed a number of people away from agriculture since the 1960s (Almås, 1983; 2004). As many less efficient farmers exit the industry or the farm lacks successors, vacant land offers the remaining farmers new opportunities to buy or lease more land to increase their own production. Through economies of scale, this created better opportunities for those remaining in business. However, those properties that were not enrolled into new patterns of production by neighbouring farms are said to have been subject to

Many choose to live on the farm even though production has ended. It is however those who have remained in farming, keeping up the production, that is the focus of this chapter. In the literature, a number of different concepts have been applied to explain why farmers remain in farming despite reduced profitability in farming over time. One popular conceptualisation has been the "survival strategy". Surviving has both negative and positive connotations. According to Redclift (1986:220): "To survive in rural society under advanced capitalism (…) usually means accommodating structural changes rather than resisting them. If people resist too long, they risk not surviving". A diverse range of options can be applied to try to keep up farm production; adjust the production to the market, work harder, 'tighten belts', become pluriactive and engage in off-farm work (Lawrence, 1987). Pluriactivity describes the situation where farmers combine farm work with other work, or

Increasing the level of off-farm income has become integral to the welfare of farm households in Norway and most other European countries (Eikeland, 1999; Jervell & Løyland, 1998). Some farmers have established tourism or other leisure industries in relation to their property (Loureiro & Jervell, 2005). Refining farm produce, for example, making cheese instead of selling raw milk is another way to add value to traditional farm products. Opportunities to adapt or adjust are not, however, always equally distributed and are also linked to the availability of different sources of capital (both social and economic) within the

Traditional farming, in combination with forestry, fishing and/or hunting, has been a common strategy of adaptation among many farmers in Norway (Flø, 1998). These activities have been the mainstay of the traditional family farm structure (Jervell, 1999:113). This has been particularly important for Norway, with its climatic variations and short growing seasons. Traditional farming activities are most intense in spring and summer. Autumn and winter activities includes fishing, hunting and work in forestry (based on property rights connected the farm) or as hired labour by forestry companies. In this sense, farming in Norway has always had an adaptive element. Today, these multiple resources still offer opportunities to diversify the farm income and enable the family farm structure to adapt to new economic imperatives. As such, policies are developed to support such adaptations. These include e.g. payments for preserving cultural landscapes, managing

diversify the farm work, to increase household income (see e.g. Eikeland, 1999).

national policies (Almås, 1984; 1994). Taking the market into consideration, Norwegian agriculture was to be protected. Political welfare issues took over the agenda in the 1970's and the rationalisation of the farming sector was no longer a goal. To secure the social status of the farmers, in a market were prices were falling and many farmers were forced to leave, the political goal was to equal the farm incomes to that of industry workers. This goal never materialised, but gave farmers substantial welfare gains (Almås, 1994). It also opened a short period of optimism and growth in Norwegian agricultural production (Almås, 1984; 2004; Blekesaune & Almås, 2002). This might although have been more beneficial for the larger farms as they were able to grow and increase their influence (Almås, 1984). In 1984, Almås concluded that over time, part-time farming replaces full-time farming in Norway . Several studies later showed how part-time farming has developed as a sustainable format of structural adjustment over time (e.g. Bjørkhaug & Blekesaune, 2008; Blekesaune, 1996a). It has been not been shown that part-time farming replaces family farming due to definitional differences, but rather that family farming currently is dependent on off-farm income, as is the continuation of family farming in Norway.

#### **2.1 The continuing domination of the family farm**

Predictions of family farm extinction in advanced capitalist countries have so far not been fulfilled, largely as we have not yet seen a discontinuation of the family farm structure. However, even if it is argued that family farming as an *institution* has survived, the number of farming households has declined. In Norway, a major part of the agricultural population has been forced to look for other ways of making a living since the 1950's. Table 1 shows the reduction of farm units in Norway between 1969 and 2010. 107 289 farms have closed down production in the period.


Source: Statistcs Norway (2011).

Table 1. Number of farm units with a minimum of 0.5 hectares agricultural area in use between 1969 and 2009.

As local conditions for agricultural production may have changed for the worse, family farmers have been confronted with the decision of whether to try to *stay* in farming or whether to *leave*. There might be different reasons for leaving farming; economic, social or environmental reasons, or a combination of these (Gray & Lawrence, 2001). The cost-prize squeeze of agriculture has arguably forced a lot of farmers to exit the industry. Economists have predicted that the current neo-liberal global market conditions will squeeze out 'bad' producers, particular where the nation state does not intervene with protectionist policies. This rural restructuring is often seen as a cleansing process, whereby farmers are making autonomous decisions in reaction to market forces (Gray & Lawrence, 2001:53). However, an actor-oriented perspective would question the usefulness of such a simplistic causal relationship between profitability and the propensity to remain in farming, as other factors also impact upon landholders decisions to remain in farming. For example; values, traditions, self-esteem and identity also inform social actors' decision-making (Share, Campbell and Lawrence, 1991).

national policies (Almås, 1984; 1994). Taking the market into consideration, Norwegian agriculture was to be protected. Political welfare issues took over the agenda in the 1970's and the rationalisation of the farming sector was no longer a goal. To secure the social status of the farmers, in a market were prices were falling and many farmers were forced to leave, the political goal was to equal the farm incomes to that of industry workers. This goal never materialised, but gave farmers substantial welfare gains (Almås, 1994). It also opened a short period of optimism and growth in Norwegian agricultural production (Almås, 1984; 2004; Blekesaune & Almås, 2002). This might although have been more beneficial for the larger farms as they were able to grow and increase their influence (Almås, 1984). In 1984, Almås concluded that over time, part-time farming replaces full-time farming in Norway . Several studies later showed how part-time farming has developed as a sustainable format of structural adjustment over time (e.g. Bjørkhaug & Blekesaune, 2008; Blekesaune, 1996a). It has been not been shown that part-time farming replaces family farming due to definitional differences, but rather that family farming currently is dependent on off-farm income, as is

Predictions of family farm extinction in advanced capitalist countries have so far not been fulfilled, largely as we have not yet seen a discontinuation of the family farm structure. However, even if it is argued that family farming as an *institution* has survived, the number of farming households has declined. In Norway, a major part of the agricultural population has been forced to look for other ways of making a living since the 1950's. Table 1 shows the reduction of farm units in Norway between 1969 and 2010. 107 289 farms have closed down

Year 1969 1979 1989 1999 2009 Farm units 154977 125302 99382 70740 47688

Table 1. Number of farm units with a minimum of 0.5 hectares agricultural area in use

As local conditions for agricultural production may have changed for the worse, family farmers have been confronted with the decision of whether to try to *stay* in farming or whether to *leave*. There might be different reasons for leaving farming; economic, social or environmental reasons, or a combination of these (Gray & Lawrence, 2001). The cost-prize squeeze of agriculture has arguably forced a lot of farmers to exit the industry. Economists have predicted that the current neo-liberal global market conditions will squeeze out 'bad' producers, particular where the nation state does not intervene with protectionist policies. This rural restructuring is often seen as a cleansing process, whereby farmers are making autonomous decisions in reaction to market forces (Gray & Lawrence, 2001:53). However, an actor-oriented perspective would question the usefulness of such a simplistic causal relationship between profitability and the propensity to remain in farming, as other factors also impact upon landholders decisions to remain in farming. For example; values, traditions, self-esteem and identity also inform social actors' decision-making (Share,

the continuation of family farming in Norway.

production in the period.

Source: Statistcs Norway (2011).

Campbell and Lawrence, 1991).

between 1969 and 2009.

**2.1 The continuing domination of the family farm** 

Due to economic support through policy arrangements, Norwegian farmers have not been as vulnerable to market changes. Economic viability has been more closely linked to ability to change commensurate with changing policies, particularly those influencing on direct payments from the state to the farm and on prizes on farm commodities and activities (Bjørkhaug, 2007). In Norway, changing conditions have also meant that commodities and services have moved out of the households, thus creating new employment and market opportunities. Higher educational levels, coupled with the centralisation of people into cities, have enticed a number of people away from agriculture since the 1960s (Almås, 1983; 2004). As many less efficient farmers exit the industry or the farm lacks successors, vacant land offers the remaining farmers new opportunities to buy or lease more land to increase their own production. Through economies of scale, this created better opportunities for those remaining in business. However, those properties that were not enrolled into new patterns of production by neighbouring farms are said to have been subject to environmental decline (Olsson & Rønningen, 1999).

Many choose to live on the farm even though production has ended. It is however those who have remained in farming, keeping up the production, that is the focus of this chapter. In the literature, a number of different concepts have been applied to explain why farmers remain in farming despite reduced profitability in farming over time. One popular conceptualisation has been the "survival strategy". Surviving has both negative and positive connotations. According to Redclift (1986:220): "To survive in rural society under advanced capitalism (…) usually means accommodating structural changes rather than resisting them. If people resist too long, they risk not surviving". A diverse range of options can be applied to try to keep up farm production; adjust the production to the market, work harder, 'tighten belts', become pluriactive and engage in off-farm work (Lawrence, 1987). Pluriactivity describes the situation where farmers combine farm work with other work, or diversify the farm work, to increase household income (see e.g. Eikeland, 1999).

Increasing the level of off-farm income has become integral to the welfare of farm households in Norway and most other European countries (Eikeland, 1999; Jervell & Løyland, 1998). Some farmers have established tourism or other leisure industries in relation to their property (Loureiro & Jervell, 2005). Refining farm produce, for example, making cheese instead of selling raw milk is another way to add value to traditional farm products. Opportunities to adapt or adjust are not, however, always equally distributed and are also linked to the availability of different sources of capital (both social and economic) within the farm household (Meert et al., 2005).

Traditional farming, in combination with forestry, fishing and/or hunting, has been a common strategy of adaptation among many farmers in Norway (Flø, 1998). These activities have been the mainstay of the traditional family farm structure (Jervell, 1999:113). This has been particularly important for Norway, with its climatic variations and short growing seasons. Traditional farming activities are most intense in spring and summer. Autumn and winter activities includes fishing, hunting and work in forestry (based on property rights connected the farm) or as hired labour by forestry companies. In this sense, farming in Norway has always had an adaptive element. Today, these multiple resources still offer opportunities to diversify the farm income and enable the family farm structure to adapt to new economic imperatives. As such, policies are developed to support such adaptations. These include e.g. payments for preserving cultural landscapes, managing

Exploring the Sociology of Agriculture:

period studied in this chapter.

88 12

51 49

was not included in the 2002 survey.

Men Women

Partner involvement

farmers.

Under 50 years Over 50 years

Source: Trend-data

Family Farmers in Norway – Future or Past Food Producers? 291

analysed and found representative for Norwegian farmers at the time of measurement (Logstein, 2010; Rye & Storstad, 2002; Rye & Storstad, 2004; Vik, 2008; Vik & Rye, 2006).

Table 3 reveals some of the characteristics of the farmer and family adaptations in the time

Table 3 show that the gender pattern has been relatively stable throughout the decade. It starts at 12 percent women farmers (head of farm) in 2002 and end at 14 percent in 2010. It is of interest to note that women heirs gained equal rights to inherit farms in 1974. Before that it was the first born boy who had the first right to inherit. A more balanced gender

> 86 14

> 45 55

83 80 80 78 84

88 12

47 53 86 14

43 57

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

87 13

33 67

Farmer identity 59 59 60 57 55

Family successor missing 58 61 60 62

Age distributions are difficult to interpret from table 3. It seems like 2004 had an overrepresentation of higher aged farmers. It is still a pattern that indicates that the farming population is getting older, and with that an indication of little recruitment of young

Fewer farmers affiliate with farmer as their occupational identity throughout the decade measured. This can be explained by the fact that more and more farmers work off farm. At the same time, partner (wife/husband/spouses) is participating in farming activities (above 80 percent except in 2008). Views on potential successors of the farm within family are more optimistic in 2010 (62 percent expecting family members to succeed) than in 2004 (58 percent). "Do not know" takes up a majority of the remaining percentages. This question

In the first part of the forthcoming analysis data are used to map changes in the structure of Norwegian farming across the first decade of the 21st century. Both objective criteria's like changes in farm size and income are discussed against farmers subjective opinions of the economic situation and how this affects their will to invest in- and develop their farm. The second part of the analysis is carried out on the latest survey from 2010. Bi- and multivariate technics are used to understand where the future of Norwegian farming might be heading. A linear regression model is used to identify which types of farms and farmers that will invest in their farm in the near future. In this model both characteristics of the farm like size

Table 3. Some characteristics of farmers and farm adaptations. Percentages.

distribution is wanted, but at the time being it seems to have stabilised.

the farm forest or support for starting new enterprises in relation to the farm resources etc. This is connected to both the possibilities of deriving added value from farm resources, but also acknowledging the multifunctional outputs of farm activities for the greater public good.

Various renditions of farming can be understood as adaptations only when farms are too small to supply fulltime employment or adequate income (Jervell, 1999). However, today an essential amount of income comes from wage labour outside of farming on most farms. This is, however, a result of a long, ongoing process. Wage income from off-farm work has exceeded farm income on the average Norwegian farm since the 1980's (Jervell and Løyland, 1998). During the same period, the average working hours on Norwegian farms increased (Bjørkhaug & Blekesaune, 2008). This decreasing value of farm work occurred due to changes in agricultural subsidies and commodity prices, but also as a result of more women working longer hours off the farm. Women's increased participation in the off-farm labour market is described as one of the most important structural changes in Norwegian farm households (Blekesaune, 1996a). New relations have also created new opportunities for exploiting rural resources and niches, such as local handicraft, baking or refining other farm produce (Eikeland, 1999). But, family farming has changed from an activity that occupied the family towards one that provides job opportunities for only a few.
