**4. Structural change in Norwegian agriculture**

It was mentioned above that a large number of farm units have gone out of production since 1989, and also before that. In 2011 less than one third of 1969 farms are left as independent production units. Figure 1 shows that the number of farms in the largest size group is growing, while the number of small and medium size farms is decreasing. The curves do however stabilise at the end of the scale. Figure 1 does not indicate a disappearing middle (Buttel, 1983).

Source: Statistics Norway 2011.

Figure 2 below show a slightly different pattern than the pattern found in figure 1. Large size farms are still increasing, and represent same number of farmers as in the smallest size group. This figure does however measure total area cultivated by the farm. Farm land and farm units have been protected by a particular land/inheritance act (The allodial law). Figure 1 and 2 then indicate that the structure of property has levelled out (due to lack of sales) while medium size farms have been able to grow their farmed area on leased land (from units going out of production).

According to Statistics Norway (2011), average income from farming has grown substantially in the 2000s. It is dairy and animal husbandly (cattle, pork and poultry (not sheep)) that derive most income from farming. Trend-data indicates that this is true for the highest income groups that are growing. Trend-data do however also show that the group of farmers with little or no income is also growing.

Fig. 1. Property structure development among active farms. Farm size.

Source: Trend-data.

and production is included, in addition to characteristics of the farmer him- or herself and their views of the future (optimism/pessimism) and prospects of succession. Operationalisation of the variables used is commented on consecutively as they appear in

It was mentioned above that a large number of farm units have gone out of production since 1989, and also before that. In 2011 less than one third of 1969 farms are left as independent production units. Figure 1 shows that the number of farms in the largest size group is growing, while the number of small and medium size farms is decreasing. The curves do however stabilise at the end of the scale. Figure 1 does not indicate a disappearing middle

the forthcoming analysis.

Source: Statistics Norway 2011.

(from units going out of production).

of farmers with little or no income is also growing.

Fig. 1. Property structure development among active farms. Farm size.

Figure 2 below show a slightly different pattern than the pattern found in figure 1. Large size farms are still increasing, and represent same number of farmers as in the smallest size group. This figure does however measure total area cultivated by the farm. Farm land and farm units have been protected by a particular land/inheritance act (The allodial law). Figure 1 and 2 then indicate that the structure of property has levelled out (due to lack of sales) while medium size farms have been able to grow their farmed area on leased land

According to Statistics Norway (2011), average income from farming has grown substantially in the 2000s. It is dairy and animal husbandly (cattle, pork and poultry (not sheep)) that derive most income from farming. Trend-data indicates that this is true for the highest income groups that are growing. Trend-data do however also show that the group

(Buttel, 1983).

**4. Structural change in Norwegian agriculture** 

Fig. 2. Farming structure change. Farm size.

Source: Trend-data.

Fig. 3. Income from farming.

Many farmers also feel that the economic situation has become better during the last decade. Figure 4 show that both the number of those experiencing positive economic change and those experiencing no change is increasing on behalf of those who experience negative change (from 68 to 42 percent).

Figure 5 shows expected change the next five years. A remarkable drop in those expecting negative change was measured in 2008, and similarly a rise in the number of those expecting a positive change. This picked up rising food prices globally and shows an immediate effect of that. Prices on the world market did fall – but later rose again. Expected direct returns to

Exploring the Sociology of Agriculture:

Source. Trend-data.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Source: Trend-data.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Fig. 6. Share of household income from farming activities.

Fig. 7. Will to invest in farming (buildings, machinery and land).

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Family Farmers in Norway – Future or Past Food Producers? 295

increased their income opportunities (according to Statistics Norway) this is levelled out by rise in other incomes and/or in amount of income generating activities off-farm. It is the group of farming households that rely on 75-100 percent of their income from farming that lose. A growing amount of farmers in the 0-25 percent groups is alarming for the future of Norwegian farming. Figure 7 below show changes in farmers will to invest in their farm buildings, machinery and equipment and in new productive land across the last decade.

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

0-25 25-50 50-75 75-100

Buildings Machinery

Land

farmers did however not appear and we see that the curve has changed in 2010. Still, positives and negatives have changed during the decade, disadvantaging pessimism.

Source: Trend-data.

Fig. 4. Economic result from farming returns over the last five years. 2002-2010.

Source: Trend-data.

Fig. 5. Expectations of economic results from farming over the next five years. 2002 - 2010.

Statistics Norway (2011) show that farmers total income has grown even more than farm income. One must then keep in mind that this income is not from farming activities but also from off-farm sources of income.

Figure 6 shows that the group of farmers with little or no income from farming (compared to other income) is increasing. In 2010 1 out of 2 Norwegian farmers collected more than 75 percent of their household income from off-farm sources. In a situation where farmers have increased their income opportunities (according to Statistics Norway) this is levelled out by rise in other incomes and/or in amount of income generating activities off-farm. It is the group of farming households that rely on 75-100 percent of their income from farming that lose. A growing amount of farmers in the 0-25 percent groups is alarming for the future of Norwegian farming. Figure 7 below show changes in farmers will to invest in their farm buildings, machinery and equipment and in new productive land across the last decade.

Source. Trend-data.

294 Sociological Landscape – Theories, Realities and Trends

farmers did however not appear and we see that the curve has changed in 2010. Still,

Negative change

Positive change

Negative change

Positive change

No change

No change

positives and negatives have changed during the decade, disadvantaging pessimism.

Fig. 4. Economic result from farming returns over the last five years. 2002-2010.

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Fig. 5. Expectations of economic results from farming over the next five years. 2002 - 2010.

Statistics Norway (2011) show that farmers total income has grown even more than farm income. One must then keep in mind that this income is not from farming activities but also

Figure 6 shows that the group of farmers with little or no income from farming (compared to other income) is increasing. In 2010 1 out of 2 Norwegian farmers collected more than 75 percent of their household income from off-farm sources. In a situation where farmers have

Source: Trend-data.

Source: Trend-data.

from off-farm sources of income.

Fig. 6. Share of household income from farming activities.

Source: Trend-data.

Fig. 7. Will to invest in farming (buildings, machinery and land).

Exploring the Sociology of Agriculture:

1 (optimistic) 0 and -1 (pessimistic).

commented below.

this question.

**Model Summary: R Square .301 Sig. .000** 

Constant: Dairy

Family Farmers in Norway – Future or Past Food Producers? 297

analysis the lowest average score on will to invest. The difference between the two models is

Optimism related to whether farmers believe future farm income will be improved is included in the model due to its potential effect on will to invest. The variable is coded from

Another variable possibly influencing on the will to invest is the prospect of a future family successor. In the model this variable is coded into a dummy variable were value 1 indicates a family successor and 0 is no family successor or farmer does not know. 63 percent believe a family member will succeed the farm. In bivariate analysis those who have successors are significantly more interested in investing in their farm than those who have no successor. Farmer characteristics are included in the model. Farmer's gender is coded as 1 man and 0 woman. There is no significant difference between men and women in bivariate analysis of

Finally education is included in the analysis. Like several of the variables above, an ordinal level variable was recoded into real average years of education in all school categories. The

**B t Sig.** 

Age is a linear. The variable is found to behave linear in the analysis.

The results of the regression models are shown in table 5 and 6 below.

**Constant** 1.524 8.837 .000 **Area in use** .001 6.557 .000 **Husbandry** -.104 -1.821 .069 **Grain** -.115 -1.672 .095 **Horticulture** -.042 -.389 .697 **Forestry** -.144 -.985 .325 **Other** -.075 -.568 .570 **Income from farming** 6.452E-7 3.084 .002 **Economic optimism** .382 12.292 .000 **Men** .032 .497 .619 **Age** -.024 -11.046 .000 **Education** .012 1.572 .116 **Family successor** .170 3.632 .000

Table 5. Linear regression model. Dependent variable: Will to invest in farm I.

variable varies from 9 years to 20 years of eduction.

Figure 7 shows that will to invest most possibly also were affected by the increased optimism after the global food and price fluctuations in 2007 and 2008. Will to invest in buildings and machinery (equipment/technology) is still higher in 2010 than 2002. Fewer consider increasing the size of productive land.

A farm cannot be maintained without any investments (Almås, 1984). History has also shown that structural change in agriculture is based on a model where fewer farms means that remaining farms need to increase in size and production to uphold domestic production when number of mouths to feed is stable or increasing.

Continued supply of Norwegian food depends on those farmers that will develop their farm. The following analysis aims to reveal in which groups or on wich types of farms continuation of family farming and Norwegian food production will take place.
