Yhteistoiminta maanviljelijöiden välillä

Authors

• Kauko Honkala Institutet för samhällsforskning Åbo Akademi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.23986/afsci.71713

Abstract

This empirical study was made in an above-average agricultural municipality in South Finland by interviewing 200 farmers, selected at random from the municipality census list. Table 1 shows the arable areas of the sample farms, and the ages of the farmers. The subject matter of the study is cooperation between farmers. Table 2 shows the forms of cooperation and the number of farmers participating in each form. On the basis of the data on cooperation, a variable called cooperativeness is formed. In the analysis this variable is correlated to several other variables in order to establish the difference between cooperating and noncooperating farmers. The arable area of the farm does not correlate strongly with cooperativeness (Table 3). Medium-sized farms are admittedly in the middle group in cooperativeness, while the largest farms either cooperate very intensively or not at all. Smallholders seem to exchange work, but on larger farms cooperation is more often connected with machines (Table 4). The younger the farmer the more cooperative he is, this being so especially with machines (Tables 5—6). Cooperation is not associated with the degree of mechanization of the farm, but a farmer’s innovativeness is slightly correlated to his cooperativeness, especially in the highest group (Table 7). The cooperative farmers have an average of 2.2 partners in exchange of labour, 2.1 partners in exchange of machinery, and 2.3 partners in co-ownership of machinery. Table 8 shows the arable areas of interviewees cross-tabulated with that of partners. It appears that in every farm-size class a farmer may have a partner, but cooperation on the other hand tends to exist between two farms of about the same size. Operators of large farms and younger farmers tend to have relatives as partners (Tables 9—10). The attitudes of the farmers towards agriculture in general were ascertained by asking whether they would prefer to change over to non-agricultural work, whether they intended to continue farming until the age of 65, and whether they preferred that their sons should choose a non-agricultural occupation (Tables 11—13). The farmers’ attitudes towards agriculture are not in general related to his cooperativeness. Only in Table 13 is there a nearly significant correlation statistically of the most intensively cooperating farmers preferring a non-agricultural profession for their sons. Cooperation between farmers seems to be somewhat fortuitous. Over half of the farmers stated that cooperation was, to start with, intended to be only provisional. Nevertheless the farmers seem quite satisfied with their present way of cooperation. Of the 154 cooperating farmers 79 do not list any disadvantages, while 75 farmers mention some negative points in cooperation. In regard to the future, it is hoped to intensify the exchange of machinery and to stop the exchange of labour. To find out the farmers’ attitudes towards an intensification of the cooperation, a fictive case of close cooperation was presented. Table 16 shows the distribution of the attitudes, and Table 17 the distribution as related to cooperativeness. It appears that an increase in the positiveness of the attitudes is positively related to the intensity of present cooperation. Willingness to participate in intensive cooperation as presented in the fictive case likewise increases with the cooperativeness of the farmer (Table 18). However, when cooperation begins to resemble collectivism the opinions of the farmers turn strongly negative (Table 19). Cooperation between farmers is necessitated by economic considerations, yet favourable economic conditions do not automatically lead to a frictionless functioning of the cooperating group. More important by far are the personal characteristics of the group members, i.e. their view on cooperation and their willingness to conform to written stipulations and the unwritten norms of their specific cooperation group.