Archives
Dilemmas and Decisions Over on or Off-Farm Work
John Fairweather
Associate Professor, Commerce Division, Lincoln University, New Zealand
Keywords
pluriactivity, New Zealand, gender, decision making
Article Text
Introduction
Farms in New Zealand and Australia now have men and women who work away from the farm in ways that parallel urban families, with multiple income earners and dual-career couples. The rural literature recognises this development by reporting levels of off-farm work and by developing the concept of pluriactivity, as it arose from its European setting and has been applied to studies of rural society in Australasia. This article seeks to make a modest contribution to our understanding of pluriactivity by specifying precisely the reasons given by farm men and women in the South Island, New Zealand, for working on or off farm. The results reported here support those perspectives that emphasise the non-economic factors involved in decisions about working on or off the farm, and they deepen our understanding of pluriactivity.
Significant pluriactivity in New Zealand
Pluriactivity refers to the multiple work activities on or off farm pursued by farm men and women (Le Heron, 1991). The literature covers levels of pluriactivity and factors that influence its nature, although the latter focus is more common in the international literature. In New Zealand there have been a number of specific studies of pluriactivity (Benediktsson et al, 1990; Le Heron et al 1991; Byers, 1993; Taylor & Little, 1995) and more generally focused research that includes pluriactivity (Walton, 1991; Wilson, 1992; Shaw, 1993). Le Heron et al (1991) collates results from surveys of apple and dairying commodity chains and from Benediktsson et al's (1990) research on sheep/beef farms. The results showed that about one half of farm households surveyed were pluriactive.
While pluriactivity was common it did not preclude involvement in farm work, with high levels recorded for both farm men and women who were pluriactive in all three farm types (apples; dairy; sheep/beef). Some data was available on the primary reasons for pluriactivity and showed, typically for sheep/beef farms, that personal reasons (using skills and personal satisfaction) were cited as often as economic reasons. Pluriactivity was found to be permanent and households could be divided into those that were farm work-oriented and those more regularly involved in pluriactivity. Finally, pluriactivity was found to make a marginal contribution to household income overall, but in some cases provided over 60% of total net farm income. Off-farm earnings tended to be under the control of the income earner and used to support household expenditure rather than directly support the farm business.
In a study of 75 Northland farms Byers (1993) found that over half were pluriactive. Women predominated in pluriactivity, with their involvement strongly influenced by education and stage in life cycle. Men's pluriactivity was either via full-time professional employment or in casual or seasonal employment.
Recent research on off-farm work in three areas of the South Island (Taylor & Little, 1995) has confirmed and extended New Zealand research to date. It made use of 1991 census data for the Oxford, Ashburton and Gore areas. Off-farm employment was measured at a rate of 37%: where one or both members of the household declared that their principal occupation was farming. For New Zealand as a whole the rate was the same. Women working off-farm were in full-time employment in 66% of all cases New Zealand wide. Interview data based on 20 subjects who worked off-farm for each area showed the importance of the nursing and teaching professions for farm women. These occupations were attractive because they are available on a part-time basis or with timing that is compatible with having responsibility for school-aged children. The women were well qualified, having tertiary qualifications at two times the rate for the farm men. Men working off farm typically worked in the agricultural sector. Results confirmed that off-farm income typically was used for household expenditure or extras, but that the income level was judged by the subjects to be very important and, further, that it protected the farm's equity and/or allowed farm income to be used for development. Off-farm work was important for personal reasons: providing employment; social contact; an outlet; or intellectual challenge. Farm women working off-farm still did most of the housework and some of the farm work and maintained their involvement in community activities.
To sum up this New Zealand empirical work, we can see that the rate of pluriactivity ranges from 30-50%. The variation may reflect different ways of measurement but, in any case, the rate would have to be judged as very significant. Those involved were typically women, working in permanent or full-time employment, who used their income for household expenditure. There are varied interpretations of the significance of the income: for some it is seen as ancillary to farm income, while for others it is very important in allowing farm income to be used for development rather than household expenditure.
At the least, it is accurate to see pluriactivity as a reflection of changing roles of women, in particular, the growing participation of farm women in the labour force, as documented in census data by Press & Newell (1994). This is part of the changing social, as well as economic, context of contemporary farms (Le Heron, 1991). Further, the level of pluriactivity to 1991, as reported in census data and farm surveys (Benediktsson et al, 1990; Le Heron et al, 1991) has been influenced by economic pressures on farm incomes since 1985. In the 1990s, while these pressures have diminished to some extent, pluriactivity remains an important part of New Zealand farming.
The multiple factors involved in motivating off-farm employment are reflected in the research findings about motivation: earlier surveys and more recent interview-based studies report that both personal and economic reasons are important motivations. But our understanding of the motivation for off-farm employment in New Zealand remains cursory. Some of the literature recognises that it is inappropriate to merely report the different motivations for off-farm work when in practice people may make a decision to work off farm for a combination of reasons. To date, none of the studies specifically addresses the on and off-farm work decision-making process in detail. It is this aspect of the topic that the current article addresses directly, after first reviewing the international literature to see what light it can throw on this topic[1].
Do farm factors or market forces influence the work decision?
Since 1991 there has been an increase in research focused on understanding the decision to seek off-farm work in First World countries. Prior to 1991 the off-farm work decision was the subject of research in Third World countries only, despite the general interest in off-farm work and pluriactivity in Europe and America during the 1980s. Apparently this has formed the basis for later research on the specific issue of the decision process. The present literature illustrates a wide variety of approaches to the issue of farm work decision-making and its manifestation in either farm or off-farm work. There are macro approaches that emphasise the broad economic or social context of the farm and the farm operator and/or spouse, and micro approaches that emphasise farm and/or farmer characteristics. Some researchers examine both approaches simultaneously. The following review uses research from a variety of countries using a variety of methods to develop an understanding of the factors affecting the off-farm work decision. Measures of the extent of off-farm work among these farm households are not the focus of this review. Micro variables are examined first.
One theme of the research results is that the work decision, presumably by both farm men and women, is more responsive to the off-farm work wage level than the on-farm wage level (Corsi, 1993; Thornton, 1994). This means that farm men and women give attention to the off-farm wage rate when deciding to pursue off-farm work while on-farm work is motivated by preference for farm work. This result is not surprising given that on-farm work typically is not remunerated by a wage, and is usually done for other than financial reasons. In contrast, off- farm work is typically paid work motivated by financial reasons; hence there is greater interest in the wage rate. This general point is developed by Corsi (1993) who concluded that the primary goal of the French farm family is reaching a minimum income and, given the preference for farm work, it is primarily on the farm that households try to reach the minimum level. Rejected is the idea that there is a perfect labour market and that farmers are indifferent to farm and off- farm work. Similarly, Streeter and Saupe (1986) in a study of Mississippi and Tennessee farmers, confirm that farmers have a preference for on-farm work and that the non-monetary benefits of farming have a significant effect on the off-farm work decision.
While there may be preference for farm work, there are many studies showing significant levels of off-farm work, and the farm characteristics that are associated with or encourage it. For example, Weersink (1991) found in a study of Ontario pig producers that high debt-to-equity ratios, small farm size or low number of years farming were associated with higher levels of off- farm employment. Presumably, in those cases where the farm did not produce adequate levels of income and where there were opportunities for off-farm work, there was more interest in seeking off-farm work. But this observation is not universal because a study of low income farm families in the US (Reddy & Finders, 1988) found that members of these families were less likely to work off-farm. Further, factors other than debt-to-equity level are associated with off- farm work, and Pfaffermayr et al (1991) concluded that farm size, education and expected wages influenced the off-farm work decision.
Not only do farm characteristics play a role in the off-farm work decision, but family characteristics play a role. Thus, many researchers note that age, education, family size and composition influence the off-farm work decision. For example, Mantino et al (1993), in a study of Italian farm households, found that demographic characteristics of the family, in particular the ratio of farm resources to the number of consumers and the status of the family life cycle, played a significant part in the allocation of labour, as theorised historically by Chayanov. Lass et al (1989), in a study of 159 Massachusetts farm households, concluded that family characteristics determined the number of hours worked off farm by the spouse. Reddy and Finders (1988) confirm that off-farm work participation is influenced by farmers' education and age.
Other researchers emphasise cultural rather than family characteristics. Shucksmith and Cecora (1993), in a study of Scottish farmers from 1987 to 1991, emphasised that the farm household's ‘disposition-to-act' was the key factor in the off-farm work decision, reflecting the effects of socialisation and interaction on conditioning to act in a certain way. They developed these concepts in the context of Bordieu's theory of ‘habitus' and argued that this culture was more important than the labour market.
The above review illustrates a variety of micro variables relating to the farm, farm men and women and the farm family that may influence the off-farm work decision. The results of the research generally fit with the accepted notions of the nature of the farm family in modern societies. However, other factors play a role in the off-farm work decision, and many researchers emphasise macro variables, in particular the workings of the labour market.
Typical of an economic approach is Corsi (1991) who used aggregated data from selected Italian provinces, including farm, farmer and macro variables, to conclude that local labour markets were important factors in determining off-farm work decisions. Similarly, Callan and Van Soest (1993) studied Irish farm women to show that the role of wages was central in the choice between off-farm employment and non participation. A related approach is to examine proximity to urban areas for any linkage to the labour market. Le Clere (1991) compared off-farm earnings in metro and non-metro regions in the US to find that farm family members had significantly higher earnings in metro areas. The study supported the view that off-farm work decisions were influenced by the availability of off-farm work. Finally, Arnalte et al (1993) in a study of life cycle and labour allocation in eastern Spain found that non-farm job opportunities and the flexibility of the farming system were related to the level of off-farm work.
The international literature shows two general approaches to the study of off-farm work. One approach focuses on micro variables and emphasises farm and farmer characteristics. This research typically elucidates farmers' views on wage rates, preferences for farm work and the farm characteristics that impinge on off-farm work decision-making. The other approach focuses on the labour market and how wages rates or job availability, for example, influences the off-farm work decision. These two approaches are not necessarily contradictory but are different sides of a common process.
Two studies (Corsi, 1993; Mantino, 1993) explicitly address the issue of whether micro or macro variables are significant in the allocation of labour and both come down in favour of family and farm variables. In my opinion, debate over the priority of either micro or macro variables misses the point that farm men and women are in an interaction with their economic and social environment, so both sets of factors have a role in any understanding of off-farm work decision- making and the manifestation of that decision-making in labour markets. It may well be possible for aggregated data to show that labour markets are important factors in off-farm work decisions, even though farmer studies show that farmers themselves emphasise non-market factors. Their behaviour, despite the non-market motivation, may be consistent with the operation of a market.
However, whilst both macro and micro variables can inform research on farm work decision- making, they do not directly focus on decision-making as defined and experienced by farm men and women themselves. Further, they undervalue changing cultural preferences, deriving from the women's liberation movement and other secular trends that have led to growing participation of women in paid employment and have led to changing bases of women's identity. Nor does research based on variables specify exactly how these contextual factors manifest in decision-making. To address this lack of specific attention to farm work decision-making in both the New Zealand and international research, this article presents results of research on farm women and men's decisions about farm and off-farm work.
The ethnographic decision tree method
Fairweather and Gilmour (1992) reported the results of a mail survey of a random sample of sheep and beef farms in two counties in the South Island of New Zealand and compared them with an earlier 1986 survey. The 1992 report sought to describe and explain farmers' responses to the agricultural restructuring in the late 1980s by comparing the results of the two surveys. Respondents to the 1992 survey were invited to provide their names, addresses and telephone numbers if they were willing to be contacted for interviewing in order to learn more about their situation. Of the 238 replies (50% response rate) there were 104 (or 44%) who provided their contact details. In effect this group is a small random sample, probably biased towards those who feel a greater disposition to communicate with outsiders. However, it is unlikely that this attitude is related in any way with their farm work decisions - there was never any suggestion that the topic was to be the subject of follow-up interviews.
Both surveys included full and part-time farmers in order to gauge the responses to restructuring across all farm types. However, it is likely that part-time farmers would be more likely to work off-farm and inclusion of these farms would swing the focus away from the farm work decision-making on full-time farms, where the decision-making dynamics should be visible in sharpest relief. The focus here is on full-time farms and only full-time farmers were interviewed.
From all of the respondents to the 1992 survey there were 172 full-time farmers with 62 people (36%) working off farm, of whom about one third (37%) were men and two thirds (63%) were women. For the 85 full-time farmers giving a name and address there were 12 men and 19 women working off farm giving similar percentages as above (39% and 61% respectively). These men and women were on 22 farms (9% of all respondents) and these farms, plus some others (having no reported off-farm work) were the focus of the study reported here.
The results of interviewing showed that the survey results were not an accurate reflection of the off-farm work situation in 1992. Some respondents said in 1992 that they had someone working off farm when they did not, and some said that they did not have someone working off farm when they did. Further, some farmers declined to be interviewed. Thus in this research there were 15 farms with someone working off the farm in 1992, and 12 without anyone working off, making a sample of 27 farms that included 51 people. Since 1992 there were changes in number for each of these two groups but the net result was the same distribution. In effect there were two non-random and contrasting groups suitable for the main purpose of this research, which was to be to improve our understanding of farm work decision-making.
Interviews were conducted on the farms during December 1994 and January and February 1995. Interviews were recorded manually and by tape recorder. They were conducted using exploratory questions which gave the farm men and women free rein to present their views on the reasons for the work that they did. While the focus was on paid employment and farm work, voluntary work was not excluded from discussion. A check list of questions was used towards the end of the interview. Topics generally included in the interview were: work and motivation, family structure, adequacy of farm income, purpose of off-farm income, childcare availability and work activity of neighbours.
Interviews not only focused on the present situation but on past work and work anticipated in the future (although these cases were few in number and are not reported here). Generally, the interviews were straightforward and typically ranged over the key questions rather than carefully following the checklist of questions. Farm men and women were interviewed together, although occasionally one person predominated if the other person was busy with other work, and in some instances there was only one person interviewed (because the spouse was unavailable or because the subject was not married).
The ethnographic decision tree modelling approach, as described by Glandwin (1989), was used to develop a decision tree that accurately reflected the decisions and constraints involved in the decision of farm men and women to work on or off farm. This method has been used for research on farmers' decision-making regarding tree planting (Fairweather, 1992) and adoption of new sheep breeds (Jangu, 1993).
Ethnographic decision tree modelling seeks to develop a complete decision tree comprising a series of connecting decision criteria. The decision criteria are discrete questions the answers to which are either true of false for any particular subject. The tree must allow each subject to move downwards through a series of criteria to an outcome which is true for that subject. In addition the tree must combine criteria for all subjects in a logical way. The tree thus tells why a particular outcome is achieved because the outcome is preceded by a set of criteria relevant to particular subjects.
Criteria are not imposed by the researcher but are derived carefully from analysis of the open- ended interviews. The interview data must be carefully examined to learn what criteria lie behind the subject's decision-making, and then these criteria are gradually integrated into a complete decision tree. The completed tree is predictive of outcomes once decision criteria are known, that is, for anyone with a certain set of criteria the tree will predict what that person's decision outcome is, in advance of actually knowing what they will do. Decision trees thus represent a logical structure that underlies the decision process.
Reasons and constraints affecting farm work decisions
Figure 1 displays the main part of the decision tree derived from interviewing the 51 people on 27 farms. At the top of the figure are the two options under consideration, namely: work off-farm or work on-farm. Each numbered decision criterion divides the cases according to whether or not it is true for them. Working down the tree specifies a pathway that is true for a particular subject and that identifies the reasons and constraints involved in either working on-farm or working off-farm. The outcomes are identified in boxes, some of which include minor qualifications. Some outcomes include ‘unless' conditions to highlight constraints which, if applicable, mean that the outcome does not occur despite the motivation for it. Finally, the tree counts the numbers of cases involved and identifies where men (M) and women (F) occur in the tree. Dashes after the letter refer to past work situations that were different from the current situation.
Figure 1. Decision Tree Model for Reasons to Work On or Off Farm
The tree as a whole shows that off-farm work is motivated either by economic necessity (the right-hand side), though certain qualifiers apply, or by other reasons (the left-hand side) including criteria 2, 3 and 4. Criterion 1 asks about the adequacy of farm income as defined by the subjects, and is a key decision point. Someone may live on a farm which provides adequate income but be motivated to work off-farm because they seek an independent career (criterion 2), like the extras (criterion 3), or their work meets a social need (criterion 4). If any one of these reasons is the predominant factor in their thinking it will lead to off-farm work, provided certain conditions are met, and there are 21 cases for whom these reasons apply. For those 25 cases who judge their farms as not providing adequate income and go down the right-hand side of the tree, they need not necessarily seek off-farm work. They may have sold land (criterion 5) and are either involved in voluntary work (criterion 6) or are retired on their now smaller farm (criterion 7). Those three cases who have sold land, and for whom criteria 6 and 7 do not apply, or those 20 cases who have not sold land, may be constrained by being fully committed to farm work (criterion 8). If criterion 8 applies then they will work on-farm and there are four such cases leaving 19 cases from the right hand side of the tree who would work off-farm. This group combines with the 21 cases from the left hand side of the tree who would work off-farm to make a total of 40 cases who would work off-farm.
Figure 1 shows that people who work on-farm are either on farms that provide adequate income and there is no reason leading them to work off-farm (27 cases), or they are on farms that do not provide adequate income but are constrained to work on-farm because of farm commitments (four cases) making a subtotal of 31 cases. (Included in these two groups are people on the 12 farms selected for study where there was no reported off-farm work.) For these 31 cases the tree shows that there are eight cases who do occasional contracting or consulting (criterion 9) and four cases who have an outside interest that earns income (criterion 10), making 12 cases who work off-farm in a minor capacity.
Figure 2 shows the remainder of the tree considering all those cases that would work off-farm and shows the constraints that, if applicable, mean they do not work off-farm even if they want to. The key issue is responsibility for children (criterion 11) and, if it applies, what is done in response. There are nine cases for whom responsibility for children is a key factor. For four of these nine cases their career is completely on hold (criterion 12) while they care for their children. One case on this left-hand side of the tree is able to find childcare (criterion 13), and two cases are able to work part time (criterion 14). Thus there are three cases who work off- farm even though they have young children needing care. Finally, there are two cases who work on-farm by establishing non-traditional work or business on their farm so they can care for children and earn an income independently of the farm.
Figure 2. Decision Tree Model of Constraints Affecting the Work Decision
The right hand side of the tree in Figure 2 identifies other less frequent constraints that, if applicable, prevent working off-farm. For example, parents may need care (criterion 15), time is wanted with children (criterion 16), work is unavailable (criterion 17) or a non-traditional work or business is developed on-farm (criterion 18). There is only one case for each of the first three of these constraints and only two for the fourth; together they reflect the experience of five women who, as a result of the constraint, work on-farm even though they would like to work off- farm.
Finally, Figure 2 shows some qualifying information about all of the cases who do work off-farm. There are 15 cases who anticipate working off-farm indefinitely, that is, as a career, and 14 cases who do not anticipate working off-farm indefinitely. Of these latter cases there are seven who expect they will be responsible for children and will work on-farm and start or expand a family, and seven who will work on-farm and return to farm or domestic work.
The results show the patterns of decision-making for different classes of subjects. In addition to showing the total numbers of cases at each part of the tree, they also show male and female cases and past work situations. While there were 51 subjects interviewed there were an additional 23 cases based on past work situations bring the overall total to 74 cases. Focusing on the gender differences, the decision tree data show that it is typically women who seek-off-farm work even when farm income is adequate. That is, the three reasons covered in criteria 2 to 4 were all given by women. It is typically men among those whose farm income is inadequate and who are fully committed to their farm (criterion 8). Further, it is typically women who have responsibility for children (criterion 11) and women for whom other constraints apply (criteria 15 to 18). Of course, there are many women (33 cases) in the first place who would work off-farm unless a constraint applies and only seven men. None of these men are constrained from working off-farm, and they divide fairly evenly at criterion 19.
Of the 23 additional cases derived from including past work situations there were 18 for women and five for men. This indicates that farm women have had a wider experience of different work situations, typically related to their dual roles as income earner and mother with primary responsibility for children.
Interview data also qualified some of the patterns illustrated by the decision tree. Off-farm income gained by women was used typically for household expenditures, children's clothing and schooling, and lifestyle expenditure including holidays as identified in criterion 3. These expenditures were typical also for those cases identified in criterion 2, who worked to achieve an independent career. During interviews the issue of use of income was explored and there were no cases currently where the income was used to reduce the farm mortgage, although there were two cases in the past where the off-farm income had been used for this purpose.
General comments on the decision tree
Patterns described here reflect a deep division among rural families: some are pluriactive, others are not and some of these latter farmers do not approve of it. For many farmers the principle role of the farm woman is as parent or as a key contributor to the farm business. This is possibly truer of large farms, where there is so much activity, including a key coordination role played by woman, that there is little scope for working off-farm. Some of these farmers (men and women) would see off-farm work as counter-productive and even disloyal. Some of the farm women interviewed mentioned the difficulty in finding sympathetic babysitters. Closely related to this perhaps more traditional farm orientation is the emphasis given by some of the subjects to the farm woman's role as primary carer for children, and the potential social problems deriving from school children who do not have a mother regularly at home when needed.
A number of specific comments can be made about the decision tree itself. Criterion 1 covers the issue of the adequacy of the farm income, and this is left for the subjects to decide. It is a subjective decision, true for each case at a given time, and does not reflect an objective assessment made by an observer. Thus, a level of income that members of one farm family may judge as adequate may not be judged adequate by others. The decision here is influenced by stage in the life course: a young farmer may need a new house or have retiring parents to fund and these pressures may make an otherwise reasonable farm income inadequate. Older farm men and women may prefer that their children have a boarding school education and this can amount to a significant sum that the farm drawings must provide. A rough estimate of the cost for three children is $250,000. The decision here is also influenced by farm profitability and it would be reasonable to expect different assessments at different times. When farm profitability declines there would be more cases going down the right-hand side of the tree.
The tree also reflects the dynamics associated with changes in the number and ages of children. Criterion 11, covering responsibility for children, clearly changes in its impact as children age and go to school. By the time children reach high school age it is easier for farm men and women to meet the responsibilities of off-farm work.
Criterion 8 identifies a number of farmers who judge that their income is inadequate but are fully committed to their farm and cannot work off the farm. This is a dilemma for farmers whose farms are small or who are experiencing low profits: they would like to have off-farm income but do not necessarily have the time to earn it. They realise that time away from the farm will inevitably result in decreased performance and decreased profitability. This may be a product of the largely sheep farming land use in the study area: sheep management may be more time consuming than other land uses. Some of the male farmers in this situation are not quite as pressed as the remainder because they have a spouse who can work off-farm and they could answer affirmatively to criterion 8 knowing that someone else can earn off-farm income. In this study there were two of the four men fully committed to the farm who had a spouse working off-farm.
The early development of the decision tree included some criteria that were expected to be important but for which no cases were found to apply. These criteria were omitted in the final tree, but their absence tells us something about farm work decision-making. For example, amongst those farmers going down the right-hand side of the tree because they judged their farm income to be inadequate, there were no cases of selling all land and retiring. In only one case had someone sold the farm, but this was not for retirement but to pursue other business interests in the absence of sons interested in farming. Presumably some farmers in the study area had chosen the retirement option and this criterion merits consideration in the full explanation of farm work decision-making which covers every possible case. The absence of any of these cases suggests that it is a less frequent option and not one that bears on the heart of the decision tree.
Further, to overcome the constraints of being responsible for children (criterion 11) no-one mentioned that their spouse (husbands in this study) was available for childcare to allow time for off-farm work, even though examples were found where the husband helped with childcare. Again, there may be some such cases in the study area but they were not common otherwise they would have occurred in this sample, which included nearly all farms in the original survey that had someone working off-farm. The absence of this criterion confirms that the prevailing cultural norm is for female responsibility for children.
A possible weakness in the tree is the assessment made by subjects of the availability of off-farm work and their reasons for not working. Many factors affect this decision. They may not have qualifications or the available work may be further away than they want to commute. These considerations may have led them to either work on-farm or establish a non-traditional business on-farm. Emphasis on these reasons may obscure the key role of lack of work. That is, the reasons given may be rationalisations for not being able to find work because of lack of qualifications. While this may have occurred in a few cases, if it were widespread then someone would have mentioned it, especially since there were 12 farms in the sample with no-one working off-farm. In the absence of lack of work being mentioned, the results indicate that work unavailability is not a major problem.
Another weakness of the tree is that it has to take the predominant reason for a decision for each case when in fact there may be combinations of reasons. For example, one subject said that her work was 60% for personal reasons and 40% for financial reasons. Similarly, there are subjects who go down the right-hand side of the tree because farm income is inadequate but who are motivated to work because of their interest in a career, independence or for extras. In such cases the main reason is accurately expressed by the tree but it fails to record, on a case-by-case basis, the particular subtle combinations of reasons. In a typical example of this lack of precise specification the farm income was inadequate, the farm man was a contractor and this activity covered the shortfall in income, leaving the farm woman to work primarily to get away from the farm. However, in most cases the tree adequately reflects the actual situation for each subject.
Despite some minor weaknesses of the decision tree it still usefully reflects the work decisions of farm men and women. We learn from the tree that while lack of farm income can, but not necessarily, motivate off-farm work there are three other reasons involved, even when farm incomes are adequate. These other reasons were given by farm women and have obvious parallels to urban families. To a large extent the results reflect the changing roles of women in contemporary society and the rise in multiple income earning and dual career couples. The pattern is for women to develop off-farm careers or work for extras and for most of the men to pursue farm careers. Not included in the study were cases where the farm woman pursued a farm career as seriously as the farm man and these would be on farms where no-one worked off- farm. While there may be such cases in the study area none occurred in this sample and there is a reason for expecting the number to be low. Typically, women marry a farmer whose career is in farming and it is difficult for farm women to parallel this ambition and take an equal role in the farm business, in large part because it is the already existing male role. Examples of daughters inheriting farms are very rare. Further, there may be cases where the farm might not have the scope to employ a career woman in full-time capacity. Thus, it is easier for farm women to seek a career elsewhere both in social terms, to avoid role conflict derived from the possible challenge perceived by the already existing (male) career farmer, and in economic terms, as there is likely to be more money in working off-farm.
Despite distinctive careers being pursued there is considerable overlapping of work roles. In many cases where a woman worked off-farm, she also helped on-farm especially at times of peak work loads. Similarly, women working off-farm were able to have their husbands care for children, typically when they could adjust farm work accordingly and by doing those farm tasks that would allow for watching over children or actually involving them in some way.
This study of farm work decision-making also highlights another factor in the farm work decision, namely, the lack of significance of hired labour. The tree does not include directly any consideration of the role and position of hired farm labour, and this derives from the point made above. The issue of employing farm labour versus employing the farm woman does not feature in the farm work decision process because the motivation for work in many cases is based on an independent career or earning extras which, while the farm income is adequate, cannot easily be purchased using farm income. Further, on many farms there is little or no hired labour anyway. Thus, the results here concur with Le Heron et al (1991) who argued that there was no strong connection between hired labour and household labour adjustment.
The importance of career, satisfaction or self-esteem independent of the farm, also explains why farm women who have taken up off-farm work to help farm finances when profits were low have persisted with the work when profitability improved. Their work provided important sources of satisfaction which sustained their interest in maintaining employment.
The decision tree highlights the constraints that impinge on work decisions. The presence of constraints to working only on-farm shows that the male career does not preclude at least some off-farm work, although these jobs occur fairly close at hand and typically relate to primary production. These jobs are ancillary to the farm career. The significant constraint to off-farm work is responsibility for children and this applies to women. This is a feature of farm work decision-making that is noted in the literature when reference is made to family composition, family size, or life course and their influence on off-farm work decision-making. Clearly, responsibility for children is an important factor and one that, if applicable, must be very influential regardless of the wage rate, or economic factors beyond the farm. In fact, wage rates were not mentioned by the farm men and women in this research: typically, jobs were available at appropriate wages or were available but too distant to be accessible. The results lend support to those in the international literature who argue that farm and family variables are more important than labour market variables in influencing the rate of off-farm work.
Conclusion
Generally, the results reported here support the view that social and cultural factors are important in influencing farm work decision-making. The results are consistent with the New Zealand research and its contribution to understanding farm work decision-making, but the decision tree specifies in more detail how reasons combine with the farm financial situation to lead to outcomes that are influenced by specific constraints. Further, it expresses the reasons in terms, and with an intrinsic logic, that farm men and women would find to be true and relevant to their situation. It shows the crucial role of responsibility for children and the occurrence of other constraints that thwart intention. Off-farm work, in the New Zealand context at least, is predominantly a female phenomenon and hence the family situation and stage in the life course exert an important influence. Clearly then, women have the more difficult time when making decisions about work when compared to men. They are subject to powerful constraints and have more roles to fulfill than men in often isolated situations where absence of services such as childcare can have significant effects.
The results of this research support the use of the term pluriactivity, rather than off-farm work, to describe the multiple job options pursued by farm families, especially in those cases where the income earned off-farm is regular and significant. Clearly, the farm in New Zealand is a site for a wide range of work activities typically pursued by women. This article has somewhat awkwardly used the notions of on-farm and off-farm work not because pluriactivity is inappropriate but because the focus has been on decision-making within the context of pluriactivity.
Both the earlier New Zealand research and the results of this study report the changing role of farm women, at least on some farms. This reflects the changing role of women in society generally. However, the manifestation of this broader phenomenon on-farms raises some questions about the nature of family farm adaptation to pressures and changes in capitalist society. Theoretical positions on the nature, status and future of the family farm refer to adaptations that encourage survival. Perhaps the changing role of women, and the attendant increase in income for the farm, typically spent on the household, is at least one way that family farms adapt to financial pressure. This role may increase in significance in future as pluriactivity is more widely accepted among the farm community and as more women move to achieve some level of financial independence. One consequence of these developments would be a growing separation of the farm business from the family: farm men would pursue their farm careers within the farm business, not having to meet so many, if indeed any, household costs. Women would work off-farm.
The interpretation of this development is not so clear. It could be seen as an undermining of family farming, through a separation of household labour from the farm business, leaving the farm man with or without a paid employee. In such circumstances it may be easier in accounting terms to identify the farm net profit as the farm man's salary/wage plus return on capital invested, rather than a return to the farm man plus household labour.
Alternatively, these developments could be seen as a further example of the flexibility of the farm family in exploiting opportunities that facilitate survival, albeit in different form. Pluriactive farm women still contribute to farm work. Further, while farm men and women work in separate spheres they are still connected by virtue of family ties and these may have priority over business activities that may be separated.
Finally, the research reported here provides a needed focus to the farm work decision and attendant constraints and furthers our understanding of farm work decision-making and pluriactivity. It complements the available literature and highlights how social factors influence the decisions made about working on or off-farm. The decision tree shows the sequential nature of decision-making highlights the key criteria and shows how constraints prevent actions. Future research of this type could explore some questions relating to the decision tree. For example, there is the issue of the decision-making for women who choose a career on-farm, or the possible effect of distance from work where decision-making may reflect the trade-offs involved in commuting time. Research could be directed at testing this decision tree with another group from the same population or moving beyond the largely sheep/beef farmers studied here to examine other farm types. Another issue is the link between off-farm income and farm income and the affect of off-farm income on the farm business.
Acknowledgements
Funding for this project was provided by MAF Policy, Wellington, New Zealand.
[1] While pluriactivity is the appropriate word to describe the work activity of people living on farms it is not suited to this study of reasons for working on farm or off farm, where we need to refer specifically to work or employment either on the farm or away from the farm.
References
Arnalte, E, V Estruch, C Munoz-Samora, J Ulizarna & J Cecora. 1993. 'Life-cycle and labour allocation in Spanish farm family households: Empirical results for Mediterranean areas'. In J Cecora (ed) Economic behaviour of family households in an international context-resource income and allocation in urban and rural, in farm and nonfarm households. Publication no 295. Bonn: Society for Agricultural Policy Research and Rural Sociology.
Benediktsson, K, S Manning, W Moran & B Anderson. 1990. Participation of Raglan County farm households in the labour force. Occasional Paper 27, Department of Geography: University of Auckland.
Benjamin, C, A Corsi & H Guyomard. 1994. 'Labour decisions of French agricultural households'. Cahiers d'Economic et Sociologie Rurales. 30.
Byers, J. 1993. Pluriactivity on NZ farms. MA thesis (Geography), University of Auckland.
Callan, T & A van Soest. 1993. 'Female labour supply in farm households: farm and off-farm participation'. The Economic and Social Review 24.
Corsi, A. 1991. 'Farm households, economic environment and the determinants of part-time farming'. Rivista di Economia Agraria 46.
Corsi, A. 1993. 'Pluriactivity: the determinants of agricultural households' choices'. Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales 26.
Fairweather, J. 1992. A tree model for Hawkes Bay farmers' tree planting decisions. Research Report No 215. Canterbury: Lincoln University, Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit.
Fairweather, J & S Gilmour 1993. Farming in Hurunui and Clutha Counties. Research Report No.219. Canterbury: Lincoln University, Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit.
Gladwin, C. 1989. Ethnographic Decision Tree Modelling. Newbury Park: Sage.
Jangu, N. 1993. A model of farmers' decisions to adopt the new sheep breeds. MAgrSci thesis (Farm and Horticultural Management), Lincoln University.
Lass, D & C Gempesaw. 1992. 'The supply of off-farm labor: a random coefficients approach'. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74.
Lass, D, J Findeis & M Hallberg. 1989. 'Off-farm employment decisions by Massachusetts farm households'. Northwestern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 18.
Le Clere, F. 1991. 'The effects of metropolitan residence on the off-farm earnings of farm families in the United States'. Rural Sociology 56.
Le Heron, R. 1991. 'Perspectives on pluriactivity'. In M Alston (ed) Family farming: Australia and New Zealand. Wagga Wagga: Charles Sturt University, Centre for Rural Social Research.
Le Heron, R, T Johnston & S Bowler. 1991. 'Pluriactivity in New Zealand's agro-commodity chains'. In J Fairweather (ed) Proceedings of the Rural Economy and Society Section of the Sociological Association of Aotearoa (NZ). Discussion Paper No 129 Canterbury: Lincoln University, Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit.
Mantino, F, M Marini & J Cecora. 1993. 'Resource allocation in Italian farm households'. In J Cecora (ed) Economic behaviour of family households in an international context-resource income and allocation in urban and rural, in farm and nonfarm households. Publication no 295. Bonn: Society for Agricultural Policy Research and Rural Sociology.
Pfaffermayr, M, C Weiss & C Sweimuller. 1991. 'Farming income, market wages and off-farm labour supply'. Arbeitspapier No 9108. Linz: Johannes Kepler University.
Press D & J Newell. 1994. New Zealand regional and rural diversity part 2: Rural change 1986-1991. MAF Policy Technical Paper 94/14 Wellington: MAF.
Reddy, V & J Findeis. 1988. 'Determinants of off-farm labour force participation: implications for low income families'. North Central Journal of Agricultural Economics 10.
Schulman, M, P Garrett & B Newman. 1989. 'Differentiation and survival among North Carolina smallholders: an empirical perspective on the Lenin-Chayanov debate'. Journal of Peasant Studies 16.
Shucksmith, M & J Cecora. 1993. 'Structural situations and dispositions-to-act of farm households in Upland Scotland'. In J Cecora (ed) Economic behaviour of family households in an international context resource income and allocation in urban and rural, in farm and nonfarm households. Publication no 295. Bonn: Society for Agricultural Policy Research and Rural Sociology.
Streeter, D & W Saupe. 1986. Nonmonetary considerations in farm operator labor allocations. No.86-28. Cornell University: AE Research, Department of Agricultural Economics.
Taylor, N & H Little. 1995. Means of survival: A study of off-farm employment. Christchurch: Taylor Baines Associates PO Box 8620.
Thornton, J. 1994. 'Estimating the choice behaviour of self-employed business proprietors: an application to dairy farmers'. Southern Economic Journal 60.
Weersink, A. 1991. Off-farm labour decisions by Ontario swine producers. Working paper University of Guelph: Ontario.
eContent Home