• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Role Models and Farm Development Options: A Comparison of Seven Swiss Farm Families*

Posted on: Tuesday, 5 July 2005, 12:00 CDT

INTRODUCTION

With the framework of agricultural policy that has changed dramatically since the 1990s including the introduction of direct payments and the enforcement of various agrarian reforms (Agricultural Policy 2002 and 2007), a high degree of flexibility has been required of Swiss farm families. The previous price- and sales-supported policy has been replaced by a policy aiming at economically, ecologically, and socially sustainable agriculture. On the one hand, this means ensuring more market proximity and competition in the agricultural sector; on the other, it entails environmentally sound production techniques that are compensated by direct payments (without the complete compensation of price decreases). This new framework has altered the room for manoeuvre of farming families considerably, thereby creating new challenges. Farming families must increasingly consider their family farms to be agricultural enterprises managed according to the principles of economic efficiency. Furthermore, they must fulfil certain ecological criteria. Because of these transformations, many farming families must reconsider their situations and farming practices and devise a new orientation to farming.

Switzerland is characterised by grassland. About 62% of all farms carry out pasture farming with cows, sheeps, and goats. Only few of the farms are pure tillage (7%), fruit growing or viticultural farms (8%), or gardening (2%). The remaining farms are mixed farms (18%) with animals as well as cereals, fruits, or vegetables. Most of the farms are owned and operated by families. On a full-time farm, a farm family manages on average an agricultural area of 20 hectares. In the last years, however, agricultural change is proceeding. Between 1996 and 2002, 15% of the farms have been abandoned. There is a tendency for less intensive agriculture and especially organic farming has gained importance. Today about 10% of the farms are organic farms. Also the Swiss agriculture educational system is situated in a phase of reform. In the early 1990s, about 2500 young people made the agricultural basic training (two years); today there are less than 1400. About 4% of the Swiss population live in an agricultural household. In Switzerland, two fifth of the active surface is in mountain areas, but only one sixth of the population (Swiss Farmers' Union, 2002).

This study concentrates on illustrating the action orientations of Swiss fanning families and farm development strategies. In particular, it focuses on the social structures within the family that lead to certain decision-making patterns and action structures. Moreover, it will attempt to analyse the effects of these developments with regard to options for economic development. From an economic point of view, a farming family might have different options for development. However, these choices do not always prove to be compatible with the individual's concept of family life. Therefore, the author also asks what "moral" laws, rules, and values the farming families adhere to and how these can affect the long- term orientation and development of a farm. Basically, the hope is to understand how farming families perceive and live their lives.

METHODS

In order to illustrate the complex interrelation between families and farms, individual case studies were conducted. There are various scientific concepts concerning and approaches to individual case studies. For this study, a reconstructive approach based on the theory of social action, namely the method of case reconstruction (Hildenbrand, 1999), was employed. The method of case reconstruction is based on the dialectic of the general and the particular. The general represents the objective possibilities for action of a case (a family). The particular comprises the choices the family makes with regard to these possibilities (Oevermann, 1991).

These choices are not random, but produce and reproduce the social order of the family, thereby forming a pattern specific to the individual case and the family's decision-making process. Such a pattern is also referred to as case structure. Consequently, the main task of case reconstruction consists of identifying and describing case structures (through case analysis). The case structure is described in form of a hypothesis (i.e., case structure hypothesis), because the reconstruction process of a case structure is based on the development and verification of hypotheses and this process-just like social reality-is open (Hildenbrand, 1999). Therefore, within the scope of this study, the investigator refrained from deriving issues and hypotheses from a theoretical model or supplying empirical proof. Instead, theories on the action orientation of farm families are derived from empirical studies (in- depth interviews using a genogram approach to gather information about the history of the family and the farm). The case reconstruction method can identify structural problems, but is not suitable to show the quantitative occurrence of the problems. To investigate the occurrence, it would be necessary to carry out a survey.

The context in which the farming family acts forms an important basis for generalisation when defining case structure hypotheses. According to Hildenbrand et al. (1992; also see Hennon and Hildenbrand in this Special Issue), one must distinguish amongst four structural levels. First, one must take into account the action and decision-making of the farm families within the context of the general social structure and prevailing value systems as well as the economic and agricultural structures. second, regional particularities (e.g., the natural environment and the economic area; the local social life and traditional patterns), must be taken into account when analysing the actions of farming families. Third, the decisions and actions taken must be brought into context with the structure of the farm. Fourth, they must also be brought into context with the subjective action orientations of the farming family as well as its biography. Only if all these factors are taken into consideration will one be able to determine the actual room for action as well as the objective choices available. It is on the basis of the decisions made that one can determine whether a decision is to be considered the rule or whether it is a choice specific to the family examined.

The comparison of possibilities and reality helps to determine the particulars of a case. Especially, behaviour that is not the rule feeds the case structure and helps to define a case structure hypothesis that can be verified in interviews and differentiated prior to the formulation of a theory. For the study reported here, using the case reconstruction method the author has to date been able to investigate the decision-making history of seven farming families. To protect their privacy, their names and some other details have been changed in this article.

In principle, it is possible to develop a theory on the basis of one single case because case reconstruction takes into account the general as well as the particular. Nevertheless, the theory to be developed will be more significant if the cases used to develop the theory are systematically contrasted in minimum and maximum comparisons (Hildenbrand, 1999; Strauss, 1991). By means of contrasting (theoretical sampling), the theory is constantly checked and case structure hypotheses are formulated. Based on the structure hypotheses thus derived, a contrasting case is looked for next. case contrasting continues in this way until it is possible to develop types. In this case, the two types of role models-rigid and flexible. This provides a distance from the theoretical starting position and enables theories to be formulated on the basis of data (grounded theory). Consequently, research is not a linear process but a circular one, only coming to an end when it appears that the data gathered will not yield any new knowledge. In this study, contrasting primarily took place at the social level (education, interests, activities and traditional, and/or socialising backgrounds). Contrasts involving the farm structure (position, type, and buildings) receded into the background and could be derived from the social contrasting. The research process is outlined in Figure 1.

The analysis of specific choices (genogram analysis) and the result of it (case structure hypothesis of the family) are documented in a case monograph that is not part of this article. Likewise, the actual genograms and family and farm portraits are not included due to space limitations. These are available from the author upon request. This article deals with the results of the study and is concentrated on the cross-linking/comparison of the cases that guided to the general thesis: Impact of role models within the farm families on farm development options.

First, a summary of the case reconstruction, the role model, and the development options for each of the seven cases are presented. Next, the question concerning which consequences the different role models of the presented families have for farm-family business, is pursued. Finally, a discussion of how new role models within \the family can increase the flexibility of the family on the farm and thus their prospects for the future, is presented.

FIGURE 1

Research Design

ROLE MODELS AND FARM DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

The Bieri Family (Case 1)

Case Reconstruction

The family investigated is much like a survival community, one having withstanding potential. In this very traditionalistic environment, the process of modernisation has only recently set in and only to a certain extent. There are two reasons for this: the region is very Catholic and it is very isolated. This is a family adhering to traditional action patterns. In other words, the basic principles by which the family lives and that make their lives worth living have not changed and have been adapted to modernisation requirements only marginally. Amongst others, the family accepts the given situation as their fate and has maintained a patriarchal family structure. The latter is demonstrated towards the rest of the world, even if it has proven to be difficult to maintain within the family. The family lacks the awareness of need for modernisation on the farm level. There is no actual farm concept. Production is carried out according to traditional subsistence practices. Background information for this family is shown in Table 1.

Role Model for the Bieri Family

The roles in the Bieri family are clearly fixed. The husband is in charge of running the farm, the wife of the household and family, helping on the farm as required. The wife's farm work is not remunerated. This is the role model that exists in family artisan or commercial firms. Mr. Bieri has a part-time job clearing snow for the municipality in wintertime, which follows the traditional action pattern, as in Swiss farming it is mostly the husband and not the wife who does paid work outside agriculture (Rossier, 1992). The children find it difficult to see themselves as distinct from family and farm, and the four girls are being given a genderspecific education in typical female occupations to prepare them for their subsequent household roles as wives, mothers, and possibly farmers' wives. The weight of family expectation falls on the youngest and only son to carry on the farm.

Development Options for the Bieri Family

The Bieris seem to have virtually no development options. The family has low educational capital and moves solely in a farming milieu. The development options are also limited by the fact that the son alone is considered as a potential farm successor. However, this mountain farm family can keep its farm going thanks to direct payments and a modest lifestyle. It would probably only feel the need for different action if underlying conditions were to worsen or if there were a family crisis such as death, illness, or the like. One possibility would be for the family to merge the farm with the brothers' neighbouring farms. In view of the age gap of eleven years between Mr. and Mrs. Bieri, though, Franz will probably lease his farm to Maria on reaching the age of 65, to enable the family to continue receiving direct payments. This interim solution could postpone the decision about the unresolved succession issue. Other development options are out of the question. This family's traditional action orientation excludes options such as intensification or specialisation, for example in suckler farming (if farm milk collections were to stop) or a switch to exclusive goat or sheep husbandry with direct sales. Mr. Bieri is a passionate goat breeder, but has neither the interest nor the requisite economic or agricultural knowledge to hold his own professionally on the market, although with her training his wife has the home economics knowledge needed to process the products. A previous attempt at agrotourism failed. The option of converting to organic farming would not fit the traditional farm family concept. There is no question of Mrs. Bieri taking paid non-agricultural work instead of Mr. Bieri, because this would assume the redistribution of household and farming roles and would be inconsistent with their traditional understanding of their roles.

The Eggimann Family (Case 2)

Case Reconstruction

Because of its concentration in the farming milieu, the family has little potential for innovation. The family finds itself caught between farmers' action patterns and changes with regard to general social modernisation and individualisation. This has a somewhat paralysing effect on the family and slows down development even further. Ideas with regard to changes come from outside, that is to say from advisors (renovation) or from the family doctor (finding the farmer's ill mother a place in a nursing home instead of caring for her at home). The women of this family make more active lifestyle choices than the men. However, they still assume traditional roles (mother, wife, housewife). The wife has accepted the role assigned to her and has left management of the farm to her husband. In order to make up for this, she furthered her education outside the field of agriculture and became active in politics. Her interests are increasingly concentrated in this field. This family places fairly high importance on education. However, because the interests of the family members are practically all focused on agriculture, education is not used as an opportunity to leave the field of agriculture. see Table 1 for characteristics of the Eggimann family.

Role Model for the Eggimann Family

The Eggimann role model is traditional. Yet, Mrs. Eggimann has created her own political and honorary sphere of action outside the farm. Mr. Eggimann and the two sons thus concentrate on the farm, while Mrs. Eggimann is primarily responsible for the household and family. The training of apprentices in farm household life (e.g., how to keep a rural household including gardening and tending for small animals like chickens) underlines Mrs. Eggimann's traditional role as a farmer's wife. Husband and wife therefore fulfil conventional farm role expectations. Their daughters provide farm labour, but there is no question of them taking over the farm. Their claims to the farm are satisfied by their further education. Nonetheless, even the daughters are strongly rooted in the farm milieu. The Eggimanns' relatively high internal educational potential in the succeeding generation is limited almost exclusively to agriculture (one agronomist, two master diplomas, and possibly a future farmer's wife). In this family there is also a certain amount of internal family rivalry over farm succession, firstly because there are two in line of succession and secondly because farm transfer traditionally takes place on marriage. Members of the Eggimann family have always married within the farming milieu, and the family's high expectations in this respect may have made it difficult for the sons to find wives. Living together in a multi- generational household also leaves little space for the children to develop their individual talents arid see themselves as distinct from farming. Role sharing within the family shows little flexibility.

Table 1

Background Information for Cases 1-3

Development Options for the Eggimann Family

The Eggimanns have various development options, mainly in the field of agricultural production. A change in the production structure of the farm can be expected once the decision on farm succession has been made or when one of the potential successors to the farm finds a partner and marries. These changes will not, however, depart from the current traditional farm concept. That is, unless the future partners of the two potential successors introduce new elements to the farm family and bring about a reorientation, for the interests of both sons lie exclusively in the field of production technology, one being primarily interested in arable farming and working with machines, the other in milk production. The female family members' interests in the service field or in animal husbandry schemes have no place in the existing farm concept because succession is patrilinear. However, joint operation of the farm by the sons is an option in combination with additional non-farming income. This farm cannot provide a livelihood for two families. The family constellation and rivalry currently prevent farm development. One option, that of making the eldest daughter heir to the farm, is out of the question. Her education and interests would provide the requisite entrepreneurial know-how and innovative potential to make the farm competitive. She would be eligible to inherit the farm, especially as her life partner also has an agricultural training. However, the traditional farming role model precludes such development options when sons stand to succeed to the farm. In Norway, for example, the daughter, as the eldest child, would automatically occupy the role of potential successor (Haugen and Brandth, 1994).

The Schoch Family (Case 3)

Case Reconstruction

The male line of inheritance on the paternal side exhibits a general organisational weakness and an active life organisation is not recognised. This affects the farm-operating concept that is not adapted to the size of the farm. The agricultural production was enlarged when putting together the two farms (8 to 38 hectares), but without changing the business or ecological concepts. The family invests into agriculture, but there is no realisation of innovation. On the maternal side, the women play an important role, which manifests itself in the relationship of the couple and the matrilinear transmission of the farm. The wife inherited one farm and the husband another. In the relationship of the managing couple the important role of the wife is weakened however by the disparity in age and due to the couple living neither on the mother's nor the father's family farm. The couple's relationship is characterised by competitive tension due the unusual situation of ownership (Mrs. Schoch owns her own land and \animals). The classical gender roles are broken open. She is officially also a farm manager. This unusual role of the wife is however not completely lived. See Table 1 for family characteristics.

Role Model for the Schoch Family

Role sharing in the Schoch family conforms to the traditional farming pattern, although the wife's family background would conceivably make for a more individual and flexible allocation of roles in the household and on the farm. Mrs. Schoch comes from a family in which women are dominant and succession is matrilinear. As farm successor, Mrs. Schoch is continuing a family pattern and strengthening it inasmuch as her mother at one time was also the successor to the farm, used to run the farm virtually without her husband, but left the role of official farm manager to him. Mrs. Schoch herself did not enter the male domain completely after the farm was transferred, because work sharing followed the traditional pattern of farmer and farmer's wife. Female dominance is also less marked because of the managing couple's age difference and the fact that the family lives neither on the mother's nor the father's family farm (neolocality). In addition, following her marriage Mrs. Schoch never questioned her role as farmer's wife and accepted her brother as potential successor to the farm (as the oldest son, her brother was the potential successor; however before taking over, he had no more interest in farming and thus Susanne was the successor). In times of crisis, Mr. Schoch has the necessary willingness and flexibility to do certain household tasks. Mrs. Schoch might lack the agricultural knowledge for production decisions at the farm level, but she has decisionmaking skills for management tasks and financial interests.

The daughters have both adopted professions in male domains, although neither chose an agricultural training. The son is still at school. The farm succession has not yet been clarified, but the management couple do not exclude a daughter taking over. Role sharing within the family is rigidly established, but husband and wife are starting to show changed role understanding, possibly due in part to the competitive situation on the farm. Nevertheless, in the educational sphere the children are given their own space, even if this is not fully compatible with the parents' farm-role expectations. This is a traditional farming role model, but with an individual approach and a trend towards change and flexibility in the next generation.

Development Options for the Schoch Family

The farm concept and competitive family relationship severely limit the Schochs' farm development options. The farm, even though it has grown considerably, is still managed along small-farm lines. The livestock side is too much for the couple managing the farm, as evidenced, amongst other things, by the fact that a lot of money is regularly spent on outside help. The family is reluctant to innovate, both in mechanising the farm (the last in the region to introduce milking machines) and in production (does not belong to a farm machinery cooperative, changed late to integrated production, only boards horses at customers ' request). Options such as switching to organic farming or participating in animal welfare schemes are rejected out of risk considerations. There is a general absence of opt-out opportunities, as the education of the managing couple has been biased towards agriculture and home economics and is not refreshed. Likewise, they are not adequately trained for farm specialisation. Here again, the family constellation and a certain degree of internal fatttily rivalry inhibit reorientation and development commensurate with the size of the farm. The nature of the family restricts development potential, so opportunities to develop the farm remain unexploited. There will probably be no reorientation until the next generation. The farm succession is open. In this family it is not out of the question that one of the daughters will take over the farm, as the son shows little interest and is developing his educational potential in other directions. In view of the age gap of 12 years between Mr. and Mrs. Schoch, Theo will possibly lease his farm to Susanne on reaching the age of 65, assuming the succession has not been decided by then and the family does not opt to do without direct payments. An improvement in the current competitive situation could bring about the formation of a simple company between spouses. It is not impossible that even a farm of this size could have no future because neither the role model nor the farm concept can keep up with the requirements of the times.

The Plss Family (Case 4)

Case Reconstruction

Wolfgang's grandfather ascended socially by his marriage to a woman (previously married and having a son) who inherited a farm. He was, however, not socialised as a farmer. The deviated pattern of farm heritage-a male child from the grandmother's second marriage took over the farm-was an indicator that woman dominance in the next generation could not be maintained. After a large part of the farm was sold due to highway construction, Wolfgang's father moved the family from the region to a new farm. This can be understood as forced normalisation, as the family could free itself from the stigma of "wrongly" inherited farm. The family is characterised by innovation potential. The father and uncle as well as the present manager (Wolfgang) show it in their intensification and modernisation efforts, but also in the admission of new branches of production. With the choice of Ruth as his partner, Wolfgang anchored himself socially in the village, which can be regarded as an individual achievement. The wife brings a lot of human capital into the relationship. As a farmer's daughter she is familiar with farming. After the early death of her mother she took care of her younger sister and her father. Also the occupation choice of the children shows individualistic tendencies. As the oldest son makes training in a subject other than agriculture, the family deviates from the local farm succession pattern and gives room for individual solutions. Despite the strong individualism in the family, the traditional pattern operates in crisis situations. Thus, the present manager took over the position after the death of the designed farm successor, his twin brother. The individualism is lived by inclusion of the traditional. The family is characterised by an action rationality, which is used to accomplish crisis. The family has a well working life practice. See Table 2 for family information.

Role Model for the Plss Family

The Plss family role model is rooted in rural custom, but at the same time open to change in a business context. Role sharing within the family does not conform to the traditional farming role model inasmuch as the wife has not only introduced a new line of business (agrotourism) but also assumed responsibility for it, and the men help out as necessary. The early death of her mother when she was young gave Mrs. Plss a great sense of responsibility and autonomy of action. Unlike Mrs. Schoch (case 3), Mrs. Plss does not aspire to the status and role of farm manageress, and her husband's primary role is as manager of the two combined farm enterprises (Mrs. Plss inherited from her father 9 and Mr. Plss from his father 13 hectares of land; they have since extended to 31 hectares). The role of farmer's wife is extended by that of branch manageress of the agrotourism business that is part of the total farm enterprise. The business line introduced by Mrs. Plss meant that roles had to be renegotiated amongst family members. The men's willingness to alternate between the spheres of production and service provision is not the rule in farm families. There are continued expectations of farm continuity. At present, the elder son is being groomed for succession. He is employed fulltime on the farm, but in view of his parents' age, farm transfer is not yet urgent. The younger son is receiving a technical training closely allied to agriculture. If need be he could also step in as successor to the farm. The daughters would not be considered as successors. Both daughters work in education, are married, and live away from home.

Development Options for the Plss Family

Family cooperation and flexible role sharing in agrotourism have opened up new development opportunities to family and farm, free from underlying political conditions. The wife has brought the family both a farm and innovative potential. However, traditional patterns still come into play in crisis situations. Mr. Plss safeguarded family farm continuity by filling the shoes of his deceased brother. Farm succession is also doubly ensured in the next generation. The family has a strong action rationality. In times of crisis it combines innovation and tradition and is good at making things work in practical life.

However, future farm development also depends on the designated successor finding the right partner with the necessary commitment to and interest in the customer-orientated sale of agricultural products and services. Nor is it so easy to pass agrotourism from one generation to the next, as it is often abandoned when the farm is transferred (Giraud, 2001). The flexibility and action orientation that the family has shown, however, would lead to the conclusion that they could even cope with this kind of family crisis (i.e., successor not finding a partner interested in agrotourism) because the family's development potential does not lie solely in agricultural production and individuation potential is being used.

The Glauser Family (Case 5)

Case Reconstruction

The interests of the family are not focussed on farm management, but on sports as the common family enterprise. The farmer is convinced that due to his biography and his personal experiences (early loss of his father, mother always wished to leave th\e field of agriculture), he is predisposed to practice agriculture only insofar as he finds pleasure in doing so. This explains the bad economic standing of the farm that, for two generations already, has had to make room for other interests of the farmers. The current farmer avoids making the necessary decisions with regard to the farm until he is forced to do so by outside pressure. He then makes his decisions too rapidly, which leads to his endangering the basis of existence of the farm. Consequently, the children are not able to keep their life distinct from family and farm. Without their help, the farm could no longer be operated. Only sporting activities allow the four sons to escape from the farming milieu, realising their father's dreams. The new political framework demanding the modernisation of the farm and agricultural production techniques has proven to be too demanding for the farmer to cope with. He has reached the limits of his operational capacities and is not open- minded about innovations. Table 2 contains the Glauser family information.

Table 2

Background Information for Cases 4-6 Plss Family

Role Model for the Glauser Family

Role sharing in the Glauser family is strictly divided between husband and wife. Mr. Glauser is responsible for agriculture and farm; Mrs. Glauser has been a housewife and mother since the children were old enough to replace her on the farm. Mrs. Glauser deliberately fostered this allocation of roles within the family. She sees herself as a "born housewife and mother". The wife's family had a business background largely identical to the farming milieu (wife and children help in the business, expectation of business takeover), yet partnership and family solely define Mrs. Glauser's commitment to and interest in agriculture. Sport is the family's joint enterprise. Both Mr. and Mrs. Glauser are involved. The parents support that their sporting achievements distance the children from farming, even though this works against the interests of the farm. Farming is practised according to the "pleasure principle", hence the poor economic state of the farm, which takes second place to the non-farming interests of the current farm manager (in the father's case it used to be livestock dealing). The farm manager eschews business decisions and adopts a wait-and-see attitude. There is an expectation in the air that one of the four boys will take over the farm.

Development Options for the Glauser Family

The Glausers have little development potential, either inside or outside agriculture. The Glauser family is strongly family- orientated and places the family's sporting interests above those of the farm. Role sharing within the family is rigid. The wife distances herself from the farm-family principle of role sharing (the woman helping on the farm), and restricts her field of activity to household and family. However, this action pattern is not compatible with farming requirements. To maintain this farm, two things are necessary: the farm manager's further business training and the wife's involvement in the farm. It would, if necessary, be conceivable for Mrs. Glaser to bring in extra earnings to maintain the status quo. However, the family has virtually no chance of leaving agriculture as Mr. Glauser is not qualified in any other field and Mrs. Glauser has not practised her trade for a long time. Farm succession is^open because none of the four sons has been declared successor. The family places other family interests above those of the farm. Nor does the family action pattern match the farm labour requirement. If none of the sons wants to take over, the farm will probably be wound up when the farm manager reaches retirement age. The family's financial situation (farm debt) militates against the option of leaving agriculture early, as loan repayments and capital gains tax have to be taken into account.

The Burckhardt Family (Case 6)

Case Reconstruction

The maternal and paternal lines show parallels; both fathers of the couple married a woman from the neighbouring country. The families exhibit a potential of individualism. This manifests itself by the marriage of women from other regions and by the individualistic occupation choice. The activity of the wife as a barmaid, which is exotic in the village context, refers likewise to an individualistic potential. The wife brings a large potential into the family. Her non-agricultural activity can be explained also with her sense of responsibility. She brings in money that was put in former times into the farm and today used for the training of the children and vacations. The husband is characterised by risk joyfulness in the farm and open for innovations. Both the woman and the man have their own range. She helps in the summer on the farm, but does not go into the stable. The partnership can be considered one of solidarity. They live for the current generation and permit the individual career aspirations of the children. The farm is adapted to the family concept. There is no family tradition in agriculture, the rural roots are not strongly embodied, and the women, who come from outside the region, open new possibilities. See Table 2.

Role Model for the Burckhardt Family

The Burckhardts have an individual role model with flexible role sharing. The socio-cultural gender roles are not simply assigned within the family; they are negotiated individually in line with interest and ability. The couple need a relationship of tolerance and mutual trust if work sharing is to function (husband 100% on the farm, wife 60% away from home and household). Although she has absolutely no interest in farming, Mrs. Burckhardt is willing to help out with the hay harvest on the farm in summer, but draws the line at working with "animals. She limits housework to essentials. Holidays and leisure play a relatively important role. Mrs. Burckhardt has the necessary freedom within the family to do her paid job. She makes a substantial contribution to the family income, with the money initially being used on farm buildings and the farmhouse, whereas today it goes towards holidays and leisure or the children's education. Her job often requires Mrs. Burckhardt to be away overnight and sometimes for several days. On such occasions, Mr. Burckhardt takes her place in the household and looks after the children. This role sharing means that both partners have their own spheres of activity consistent with their respective interests and abilities. The Burckhardt partnership is one of solidarity. The farm forms the basis of the family livelihood, but is not the sole focus of action orientation. The couple also make time for themselves and the children.

The women in the Burckhardt family are from other regions and in the last two generations have not come from farming circles. They bring individualisation potential and tend to leave agriculture. Farm continuity is not a priority for the Burckhardts and is not mandatory. It is up to the three children to decide whether they want to work in farming at a later date. All the children are in secondary education, so they may wish to enter a non-agricultural profession. The Burckhardts live for the present generation and farm continuity is secondary.

Development Options for the Burckhardt Family

The Burckhardts do not have much agricultural development potential. For one thing, the husband's indifference to innovation and the wife's lack of interest in farming prevent farm specialisation. At present the farm is being supported by Mrs. Burckhardt's day job, made possible thanks to flexible role sharing. The family's labour requirements on the farm, in the household, and in paid non-agricultural work are offset by flexible role sharing within the family, thus preventing either of the partners being overburdened with work.

The next generation might possibly give up the family farm. Mr. Burckhardt's education means that he does not have many escape options. His sole educational potential is in agriculture, as are his interests. On the other hand, the children's education is clearly designed to get out of farming. There are, therefore, prospects for development within the family. It would be conceivable for one son to carry on the farm part-time at a later date. Other options point to increasing cooperation with the neighbours (i.e., a joint business) or even merging the farm with a neighbouring farm.

The Meierhofer Family (Case 7)

Case Reconstruction

The family combines two elements, education and agriculture. This leads to a discrepancy, because educational level of the family goes beyond the requirements of the farm. The family has the possibility to leave the field of agriculture thanks to their education. They do not, however, make use of this potential, but prefer to remain on the farm. This misrealisation is compensated by the fact that the farmer married a woman without an agricultural background. While not having agriculture know-how, she is, however, highly motivated to work on the farm. This helps to ensure a well-balanced ration between knowledge potential and farm requirements. In this family the motivation line is shifted onto the women. The women are the driving and innovative forces for preservation and development of the agricultural enterprise. The men usually follow the drive of the women. The great-grandmother engaged herself for the operating enlargement, the mother is considerably involved in the introduction of new branches on the farm (fruit and pig husbandry), and the wife secures by her commitment and interests the existence of the farm by providing the present farm manager a supplementary income. Without non-family workers, they engage themselves for the expansion and innovation in the farm-family business. The Meierhofer's background information is in Table 3.

Role Model for the Meierhofer Family

The Meierhofers have an individual role model with flexible role sharing. Roles w\ithin the family are negotiated on an interest and ability basis. The role model is able to cover individual as well as family and business needs and adapts to new circumstances. A process of negotiation takes place within the family. After his marriage, Mr. Meierhofer expected that he would have to stop working away from home, although he valued his second job as a balance to the farm and a source of income, and that Mrs. Meierhofer would continue in her profession. But Mrs. Meierhofer gave up the work for which she was qualified and worked on the farm full time. She found a new professional challenge in agriculture, was paid for her work, and did not have to lose her previous financial and social independence. Mr. Meierhofer kept his second job and managed the farm, for which he is ideally qualified. He also works on the farm, but does not do much in the house. The couple could envisage employing someone to do the housework if Mrs. Meierhofer were unable to cope with the workload. Under no circumstances will she give up working on the farm. Role sharing which involves the woman taking on the role of farm employee is certainly not the rule, but it opens up new possibilities for the farm and covers the couple's individual interests and abilities. The family lives and plans for its own generation. At present there are no expectations of farm continuity.

Development Options for the Meierhofer Family

In the Meierhofer family there are favourable development options for both farm and family, as Mr. and Mrs. Meierhofer have educational qualifications providing a safe way out of agriculture or educational capital for possible specialisation on the farm. There is environmental awareness, as manifested by the switch to organic farming. Farm continuity is not a major issue. Plans are made for the current farming generation. The interests of individual family members and the interests of the farm are well balanced. The family has many routes open because the role model is an individual one and role sharing is flexible. The farm development strategy is expansionary and innovative. One development option could be for the husband to give up his second job if the change to organic farming presents him with enough of a new challenge and he does not need his additional earnings for risk hedging or investment. However, this development option has to be examined from a role model aspect, because it would possibly destroy the balance between the requirements of individuals and farm.

TABLE 3

Background Information for Case 7 Meierhofer Family

CONCLUSION

The organisation of the family farm according to the principle of flexible role distribution between women and men is not yet a matter of course in farming. Role models in farming are often rigid, based on allocated roles for women and men. This rigid role distribution restricts the necessary flexibility of family farms and limits their options for development (see Figure 2). A "family structural change" of the type described in the case of the Plss and Meierhofer families (Cases 4 and 7) can help farming families more effectively meet the increased demands made upon agriculture by society. Their decision patterns and action orientations differ from the traditional farming concepts. There is a re-orientation in family and farm. The two farming families integrate interests and abilities of the women into their operational development strategies. For the Meierhofer family, this includes the range of animals and technology; for the Plss family, it is the agrotourism service. A new labour organisation accompanies the realisation of new operating concepts in these families. The organisation patterns are based on the dissolution of rigid role ascriptions on the farm. The Meierhofer family is characterised by a growth strategy and specialisation in organic farming, while the Plss family is characterised by the offer of services such as agrotourism and direct marketing. These sorts of businesses offer the family a future existence in agriculture.

The action orientations of the families Bieri, Eggimann and Schoch in family and farm are traditionally aligned (Cases 1, 2 and 3). Outdated farming action patterns inhibit an adequate operational development and leave to the families little scope for new action orientations. The families follow traditional role division patterns and the action orientations of these families exclusively proceed in agriculture. The action orientation of the Glauser and Burckhardt families (Cases 5 and 6) goes beyond agriculture, even if this acts against the operational requirements of the farm. The farm-family business is one-sided, adapted to the family and not able to meet agrarian requirements. This might, however, introduce a socially acceptable exit from agriculture in the next generation as new options are opened outside of agriculture and the action orientation of the family does not compellingly follow the farming tradition.

These individual case studies do not suggest how widespread flexible role models are in agriculture. The importance of a study of this type is, however, that it allows theses on structural problems in agriculture to be proposed and extrapolated into the future.

The changing role of women brings with it changes in the male role. Whether women leave farming or remain in it has consequences for the farm and its development options. Strategies in the service sector, such as direct marketing or agrotourism, are unlikely to succeed without the co-operation of the whole family. Then again, women (and men) who earn additional income from gainful employment outside farming help to hedge against risks at times of crisis and enable women to move into professional roles, with their own social and financial independence.

The size of the farm alone cannot guarantee the family's livelihood or the continuity of the farm. Nor is education by itself a measure of the economic success of a farm business; today's fanning family business has to be innovative and depends on the creativity and motivation of the individual family members. The family farm is a family team, made up of individuals with different traits of character, abilities, and interests. The individual roles within the team therefore need to be negotiated as part of a process within the family and the appropriate responsibilities and skills assigned to each. New role models within the family can increase the flexibility of the farming family on the family farm and thus their prospects for the future.

FIGURE 2 Influence of Role Models on Operational Development

The present study aims to investigate the decision patterns and action orientations of seven farm families regarding the development of their farm. The results led to the hypothesis that the development strategies in farm-family businesses strongly depend on the lived role model. Farm families with a role model in which the roles within the family are rigidly allocated concentrate on traditional agricultural production, as it used to be, and show distance from innovations. Farm families with a flexible role model (the roles within the family are negotiated according to interests and abilities and the potentials of women are integrated and honoured) behave future-oriented. These farm families either constantly develop themselves, tackling the challenges of technical, economic, and ecological developments in the agrarian sector,.or come to a successive withdrawal from agriculture.

* This is a revised version of a paper presented at the Sixth IFSA European Symposium, Farming and Rural Systems Research and Extension, Vila Real, Portugal, April 4-7, 2004.

REFERENCES

Giraud, C.

2001 Carrire dans l'accueil marchand, identit fminine et cyle de vie. [Career in Commercial Reception, Female Identity and Cycle of Life]. Paper presented at the XIX European Congress on Rural Sociology, Dijon, France, 3-7 September.

Haugen, M. S., and B. Brandth

1994 "Gender differences in modern agriculture: The case of female farmers in Norway." Gender and Society 8: 206-229.

Hildenbrand, B., K. F. Bohler, W. Jahn, and R. Schmitt

1992 Bauernfamilien im Modernisierungsproze [Farm Families in the Modernisation Process]. Frankfurt, DE: Campus.

Hildenbrand, B.

1999 Fallrekonstruktive Familienforschung. Qualitative Sozialforschung [Case Reconstruction in Family Research. Qualitative Social Research]. Opladen, DE: Leske + Budrich.

Oevermann, U.

1991 "Genetischer Strukturalismus und das sozialwissenschaftliche Problem der Erklrung der Entstehung des Neuen [Genetic Structuralism and the Sociological Problem of Explaining the Emergence of New Forms]." Pp. 267-336 in S. Muller-Doohm (ed.), Jenseits der Utopie [Beyond Utopia]. Frankfurt am Main, DE: Suhrkamp.

Rossier, R.

1992 Schweizer Buerinnen. Ihre Arbeit im Betrieb [Swiss Farming Women. Their Work on the farm]. Tnikon, CH: Swiss Federal Research Station for Agricultural Economics and Engineering (FAT).

Strauss, A. L.

1991 Grundlagen qualitativer Sozialforschung. Datenanalyse und Theoriebildung in der empirischen soziologischen Forschung [Bases of Qualitative Social Research. Data Analysis and Theory Building in Empirical Sociological Research]. Mnchen, DE: Fink Verlag.

Swiss Farmers' Union

2002 Statistische Erhebungen und Schtzungen ber Landwirtschaf tund Ernhrung 2002 [Statistical Census and Estimations on Agriculture and Food 2002]. Brugg, CH: Schweizerischer Bauernverband.

** Agroscope FAT Tanikon, Swiss Federal Research Station for Agricultural Economics and Engineering, Tanikon, CH - 8356 Ettenhausen, Switzerland. Email: ruth.rossier@fat.admin.ch

Copyright University of Calgary, Department of Sociology Summer 2005

Source: Journal of Comparative Family Studies

More News in this Category