THE DETERMINANTS OF CLASS. POSITION IN THE CHANGING STRUCTURE OF AGRICULTURE Thesis for the Degree of M. A. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY MARK LANCELLE 1977 LIBRARY ' Michégen Stew ' Univcmit)’ My Io? p,bigg;3:7/ ABSTRACT THE DETERMINANTS OF CLASS POSITION IN THE CHANGING STRUCTURE OF AGRICULTURE By Mark Lancelle Major structural changes in agricultural production have been developing over time which have resulted in a greater proportion of farms characterized by higher degrees of differentiation between ownership, management, and labor. The problem addressed in this paper was that of identifying the major determinants of attaining ownership of the type of farm likely to dominate production for some time into the future, the owner-managed, nonmanager-worked farm. Elements of three general areas of opportunity were examined: access to land, family resources, and skills. It was concluded: that most members of the farm workforce were recruited from farm backgrounds; that having farmowning parents was a necessary, but not sufficient condition for attaining ownership; that only the wealthiest, highest status, farmowning families are likely to determine ownership of farms in the future, primarily through the transfer of family wealth; and that a larger proportion of the rural farm population is likely to be structurally immobile. THE DETERMINANTS OF CLASS POSITION IN THE CHANGING STRUCTURE OF AGRICULTURE By a .1 C, H\\\S C Mark\Lancelle A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Sociology I977 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many thanks to Dick Rodefeld, my committee chairman, friend, and advisor. His encouragement, advice, and assistance helped make this project a pleasurable learning experience. I'm also grateful to Drs. Fred Buttel and Rick Hill for their thoughtful advice and criticism. Olivia Mejorado lent some valuable technical assistance, and her typewriter. Finally, thanks to my fellow grad students here at MSU. They didn't add much to the substance of my thesis, but they kept me loose while I was working on it. 11' TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ....... l A Structural Definition of Farm Types ........ . . . . 2 The Historical Situation: Small Farms With Low Levels of Differentiation ............ 3 Changes in the Structure of Agriculture: Number of Farms, Farm Size, and Levels of Differentiation . . . . 6 Implications ........................ 16 The Problem ......................... 17 CHAPTER II A REVIEW OF PAST RESEARCH AND THE SUGGESTED HYPOTHESES 22 A Review of Relevant Literature ............... 22 The Agricultural Ladder ................. 22 The Depression and Tenancy ............... 25 The Relations Between Farm Ownership and Social Background ................ 26 Summary ......................... 34 Advantages and Limitations of Past Research ......... 35 Conceptualizing Components of a Structure of Opportunities Determining Access to Farm Ownership . . . . 37 Hypotheses Concerning the Determinants of Opportunities for Attaining Farm Ownership ........ 38 Access to Land ..................... 39 Access to Family Resources ............... 39 Access to Skills .................... 39 Other Correlates .................... 39 The Potential Implications of These Hypotheses ........ 40 CHAPTER III THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY AND THE METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM ..... . . 42 Scope and Level of Generality ................ 42 Selection of the Sample of Farms and Respondents ....... 43 Operationalizing the Components of the Opportunity Structure 45 Access to Land ..................... 45 Access to Family Resources ............... 46 Access to Skills .................... 47 Other Correlates .................... 47 Mode of Analysis ....................... 48 CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND ANALYSIS . . . . .......... Assessing the Impact of Each Category of Opportunities . . . The Influence of Differential Access to Land . . . . The Influence of Access to Family Resources . . . The Influence of the Acquisition of Skills ..... Other Influences .................. Evaluating the Hypotheses ................ Access to Land ................... Access to Family Resources ............. Access to Skills .................. Other Correlates .................. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .............. A Summary of the Results ................. Conclusions ....................... The Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Further Research ........... APPENDIX A SELECTED QUESTIONS FROM THE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE . . APPENDIX B ADDITIONAL TABLES WITH AGE CONTROLS ....... BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................ iv Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table I0 II I2 I3 l4 LIST OF TABLES Number of Farms and Average Farm Sizes, l900-I97O . . . . Numbers and Percentages of Farms and Farm Acreage By Size ......... Farm Numbers and Sales, and Percentages of the Total Number of Farms and Total Sales By Farm Sales Class Number of Farms and Total Acreage By Level of Management-Ownership Differentiation Number of Farm Wageworkers, and Percentage Change in Numbers By Days Worked, 1963-l973 ....... Farm Numbers, Percentage of Total Farms and Total Sales By Level of Management-Labor Differentiation Number of Farms and Percentage of Sales By Level of Differentiation ..... Area of Residence of Respondents and Their Wives Before Age Fifteen, By Tenure Status Number of Years Respondents Resided Within the County and the Community, By Tenure Status Father's Tenure Status at Three Points in Time, By Respondent's Tenure Status Father's Tenure Status at the Time the Respondent First Entered the Work Force . Father's Tenure Status at the Time of the Survey or When He Retired and the Present Ownership of His Farm Father's Occupation at the Time the Respondent First Entered the Work Force . Father's Farm Size at Two Points in Time, By Respondent's Tenure Status V I3 I4 I5 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table I5 I6 I7 I8 I9 20 2T 22 23 Parents' Educational Attainment, By Respondent's Tenure Status . . . .......... The Number and Percentage of Respondents Receiving Each of Eight Types of Parental Assistance, By Tenure Status ....... Level of Education, By Tenure Status, By Age Categories .......... Mean Number of Years for Each of Six Types of Agricultural Training and Education, By Tenure Status ..... Age, By Tenure Status ................ Father's Tenure Status at Two Points in Time, and the Present Ownership of His Farm, By Respondent's Tenure, By Respondent's Age . . . . Father's Farm Size When the Respondent First Entered the Work Force, By Respondent's Tenure Status, By Age . . Father's Farm Size Now, or When He Retired, By Respondent's Tenure Status, By Age Father's Education, By Respondent's Tenure Status, By Age .......... vi Page 57 58 59 60 6T 83 84 84 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Major structural changes have occurred within agriculture in the recent past. While there is general recognition of the fact that the number of farms has declined greatly and the average farm size has increased since about I935, the significance of these changes has been the subject of some disagreement. One of the bases for the disagree- ment has concerned the relative status of the family owned and operated farm within the structure of agricultural production. This has gener- ally been labeled the "corporate farm - family farm“ debate. Some propose that the increase in average farm size and decrease in number of farms indicate that the status of the family farm is declining significantly as absentee, nonfarm interests come to control a greater proportion of agricultural land. Others maintain that the changes in farm numbers and size are due primarily to the increased efficiency of family owned farms. They maintain that farms owned and operated by individuals or families continue to dominate. They also point to the small percentages of farms and total acreage controlled by nonfarm corporations to support their position. Another approach can be identified which bases the study of Changing farm types not upon changes in nominal ownership patterns, Iflrt upon changes in the "farm as a production system" (Rodefeld, l974: PP- 39-109). Four basic factors of agricultural production are identified: land, capital, management, and labor. Farm structural types are defined by the degree to which the ownership and/or provi- sion of these factors is differentiated within the farm as a system of production. The statuses which an individual occupies within the structure are also defined by the ownership and/or provision of these factors. This approach therefore provides a conceptual framework which subsumes the issues of concern to those who engage in the "corporate farm - family farm“ debate. The objective of this study is to identify some of the major determinants of who is most likely to attain ownership of the types of farms most likely to dominate agricultural production in the future. Because the study concerns both changes in farm type and the differen- tial status attainment of individuals within farm organizational structures, we will approach it by considering the structural changes which have occurred in the farm as a production system. A Structural Definition of Farm Types Four basic status positions can be identified which are directly associated with each of the four basic factors of production necessary for the functioning of a farm as a production unit (Rodefeld, 1974: pp. 56-70). The four positions serve to define the organizational structure of the farm. They are: landowner, capital owner, manager, and laborer. An individual, or family, may assume one or more of these positions on a farm and perform the functions associated with each. The degree to which these four statuses are differentiated be- tween non-related individuals on any particular farm determines the definition of the farm type (Rodefeld, I974: pp. 85-98). Four basic farm types will be identified for the purposes of this study. In all ca 3 es but one it will be assumed that ownership of the land implies ownership of most of the nonland capital. The three remaining posi- t1’ oris will be abbreviated as follows: ownership (0), management (M), 1 a bar (L). Farms range from the least differentiated type on which a maj ority of the role requirements for all of the status positions are DY‘O vided by one individual or family, to the most highly differentiated type of farm on which each role is performed by a different individual. The first type (O-M-L) is the one most commonly referred to as the "family farm," on which most of the management and labor are pro- V 1' ded. by the owner-operator and his family. The second (O-M/L), is the type of farm on which the owner also manages the day-to-day activities, While a majority of the labor is provided by hired workers. This type i 8 often considered to be a family-type farm, but it is generally 1 arger than the average farm of the first type. The third type of farm ( O/M-L) has been conmonly referred to as a "tenant farm," on which an i hdividual operator and his family provide a majority of day-to-day management and labor, while the land is owned by someone else. On this type of farm, a majority of nonland capital may be owned by the tenant rather than the landowner. The fourth type (O/M/L) might be considered " 1 arge scale industrial type farms" (Rodefeld and Wilkening, l97l), on Whi ch a majority of the management is provided by other hired workers, a S is a majority of the physical labor, while the land and capital are 6‘ llbsentee owned. The Historical Situation: Small Farms With Low Levels of Differentiation Historically, agriculture in the United States has been dominated by relatively small, dispersed farms with low levels of differentiation. Farms have traditionally been owned by individuals or families who also provided a majority of both the day-to-day management and physical labor (O-M-L). There are exceptions. The significance of much larger, more highly differentiated farms has been greater in the southern and western areas of the U.S. This is due primarily to historical settlement patterns, and to the types of commodity production which have dominated. However, the overall significance of farms character- ized by a high degree of differentiation between ownership, management, and labor (O/M/L) has been smalI, both in terms of numbers of farms and total acres of land (Moyer, 1969), although the average size of these farms is much larger than the average sized family farm. Tenant farms (O/M-L) accounted for 42 percent of all farms and 32 percent of all farm acres in 1935 (Moyer, 1969). Their signifi- cance as a proportion of all farms has declined greatly since that time. In 1964, they accounted for only 17 percent of the farms and 13 percent of the land (Moyer, 1969), figures which, because of Census definitions, include more highly differentiated farms of the O/M/L type. Historically, the Upper Midwest has been characterized by low rates of tenancy relative to other areas of the country. A number of conditions have contributed to the maintenance of the relatively small, family-type farm (Rodefeld, 1974: pp. 110—210; Rodefeld, 1975). Historical settlement patterns were conditioned to a great extent by the policies of the Federal government related to the sale of unsettled land. These policies generally served to restrict the size of farms to that which was necessary to provide a family with the necessary means of support, although they were inconsistent and allowed the accumulation of large holdings in some areas (Gates, I941). Large quantities of cheap land provided for low purchase prices for farms large enough to support a family. Farming for a long time was very labor intensive, with few opportunities for replacing labor with capital. This served to place limits on the amount of land one family could operate. Also, costs of nonland resources were low, while rela- tively high wages could be obtained throughout the settlement period, allowing many the opportunity to acquire necessary capital. Finally, incentives for the penetration of nonfarm capital have not been great. The rate of return on investment has not been high enough to compensate for the risks associated with farm production. These conditions encouraged the maintenance of small sized farms with a generally low degree of ownership-management differentiation. There were also incentives to keep management-labor differentia- tion low. Incentives which served to keep farms small in size also served to make labor requirements small and make hired labor unnecessary on most family-operated farms outside the South and West. High labor costs encouraged the manager and his family to work the farm, while discouraging nonmanager worked types. As mechanization developed, labor productivity increased to an extent which allowed managers to account for even more of the labor requirements. The nonroutine nature of farm work served to reduce work force efficiency. The dispersed pattern of ownership of small farms served to make it difficult and costly to assemble the large tracts of land which might require hired labor to operate. Biological, climatological, and economic uncertain- ties and risks have not encouraged the nonfarm investment which would be more likely to rely on hired labor. Changes in the Structure of Agriculture: Number of Farms, Farm Size, and Levels of Differentiation The number of farms reached a peak in 1935 at 6.8 million. However, by 1970 the number of farms had been reduced to 2.7 million. Within the same time period, the average farm size increased from 157 acres to 387 acres (Moyer, 1969). An explanation for these changes can be based upon a number of related developments which have occurred since I935. The size of the farm population and the demand for land increased while the supply of farmland declined. This resulted in Table 1: Numbers of Farms and Average Farm Sizes, l9OO-l97OI Year Number of Farms Average Farm Size 1900 5.74 million 146 acres 1910 6.36 million l38 acres 1920 6.52 million 147 acres 1930 6.55 million 151 acres 1940 6.35 million 167 acres 1950 5.65 million 213 acres 1960 3.96 million 297 acres 1970 2.66 million 387 acres increasing land values. The adoption of technological innovations, particularly mechanization, increased output per worker and unit of land and contributed to profit increases. More financially stable farmers could then afford to expand their holdings in order to more fully take advantage of increased mechanization. The increased sub- :Stitution of labor by capital, combined with the costs of new technology, 'The figures were derived from the Census of Agriculture, and were re- ported in Ball and Heady (1972). rising land values, and increased farm size have increased the purchase price of farms and have made them increasingly inaccessible to indi- viduals unaided financially. At the same time, incentives for the investment of nonfarm capital in land ownership and nonland farm resources have increased. Govern- ment programs have served to reduce the risks associated with price fluctuations. Production risks have been reduced to a great extent by technological innovations. Although the risk reductions have served to increase the probability of profit and greater return on invested capital, of greater importance to nonfarm interests is the fact that rising land values have made investment in land attractive in terms of capital gains, and the fact that laws provide tax shelters for those who invest in land (Raup, 1973; Sundquist and Guither, 1973). The advantages associated with vertically integrated enterprises, which control the production, processing, and marketing aspects of the agricultural industry, have encouraged agribusiness and other corporations to invest in land and nonland resources (see, for example, Barnes and Casalino, 1972). What these incentives for the investment of nonfarm capital imply is that changes may be occurring which will increase the level of ownership-management differentiation. There are reasons to expect that the number of large farms with a high level of differentiation between management and labor will increase (Rodefeld, 1975). Many of the historical restraints on the development of these farm types have been reduced for the following reasons: larger farms are better able to generate the capital necessary to aggregate larger portions of land; many of the risks involved in long-term capital investment have been reduced through technological innovation and government price stabilization programs; specialization and mechanization have routinized much of the farm work and have made labor more efficient; large farms may be able to compete more successfully for labor. Certain economies of size can be taken advan- tage of including: access to technology and credit; buying and selling economies; and spreading costs and risks. Attempts to achieve power equalization with large, highly concentrated suppliers and processors may contribute to increasing size and differentiation. Presently, changes can be observed which indicate that farm types with higher levels of differentiation are of increasing importance, both as a proportion of the total number of farms and for the proportion of total sales for which they account. It has been indicated above that size and level of differentiation are highly associated. While size may not be considered a direct indicator of level of differentia- tion, it is reasonable to expect that an increase in one implies an increase in the other. Tables 2 and 3 indicate the increasing importance of the largest segment of farms. Farms exceeding 1000 acres in size have increased in absolute number and as a proportion of the total number of farms. Their increased importance is revealed even more Clearly by examining the change in proportion of total farm acres for which they have accounted. Their significance can be seen to be increasing in all four major re- gions, suggesting that their influence is increasing even in those areas where they have not been of great importance historically. The number of farms with sales exceeding $100,000 have also been increa- sing absolutely and relatively. Their proportion of total sales reveals more clearly their increasing stature. Again, their importance is shown to be increasing in all geographic areas but one. Table 2: Number of Farms (x1000) Farms less than 1000 acres Farms larger than 1000 acres Total Acres in Farms #(xlOO0,000)# Farms less than 1000 acres Farms larger than 1000 acres Total Percentage of Total by Farms Over 1000 acres Number of Farms Acreage Northeast Northcentral South West I Figures have been derived from the 1930-1969 Censuses of Agriculture, 8I 6295 7I3 277 990 USN-4 N «b-DNNV -' 00000010 w and are reported in Rodefeld (1975). I01 6102 699 366 1065 a NN-fi co moonwa- NU‘I-DOOO 0'1 Year 1950 1959 5267 3569 121 136 5388 3705 668 568 495 555 1163 1123 2.3 3.7 42.6 49.4 3.3 5.3 20.6 25.5 36.1 43.4 82.3 86.8 Numbers and Percentages of Farms and Farm Acreage By Size1 ISI 2730 485 578 I063 IO Table 3: Farm Numbers and Sales, and Percentages of the Total Number of Farms and Total Sales by Farm Sales Class] Year Number of Farms (x1000) 1959 1964 1969 with less than $100,000 in sales 3685 3125 2678 with more than $100,000 in sales 20 31 52 TotaI 3705 3I56 2730 Total Sales of Farms (x $1 billion) with less than $100,000 in sales 25.6 26.8 30.3 with more than $100,000 in sales 5.0 8.5 15.3 Total 30.6 35.3 45.6 Percentage of Total by Farms with More Than $100,000 in Sales Number .5 1.0 1.9 Sales 16.3 24.2 33.6 Region Lake States 3.5 7.6 13.1 Appalachia 5.0 9.1 15.8 Corn Belt 5.4 9.4 18.9 Southeast 23.8 35.7 33.4 Mountain 28.4 39.5 54.0 Pacific 44.7 59.3 66.3 \ 'The 1959 and 1964 figures were obtained from Nikolitch (1970), the 1 969 figures from the Census of Agriculture. All are reported in Rodefeld, 1975. II There are more direct indications that the level of ownership- |11anagement differentiation is increasing. Table 4 distinguishes between ‘ffarms which are fully owned by the manager, those partly owned, and ‘t:hose on which none of the land is owned by the manager. Although a ciexfline in number of farms in each category between 1935 and 1964 is r~egistered, the proportionate decreases are more significant. Farms ‘vvith a low level of differentiation (100% manager—owned) declined in r1umber by 42 percent from 1950 to 1964, while those of the inter- 111ediate level decreased by only 5 percent. Farms with high levels of ciifferentiation decreased by 61 percent, but this category includes t>oth hired-manager farms and tenant farms. Hired-manager farms decreased tsy only 10 percent, while tenant farms declined by 61 percent (Rodefeld, 1 975). The patterns of change from 1950 to 1964 in acres of land opera— ted reveal an even greater difference. Farms with the lowest levels of differentiation decreased by 24 percent, farms intermediately differentiated increased their acres owned by 14 percent and acres r~ented by 44 percent. Highly differentiated farms declined by 19 I)ercent. However, farms with hired managers increased their acreage txy 6 percent, while tenant-operated farms declined by 32 percent. the percentages of total land operated reveal the same differences. the percentage of total land not owned by the manager increased from <11.8 percent in 1954 to 45.7 percent in 1964. Increasing management-labor differentiation is also indicated. IIt appears that the proportion of commercial farms employing hired “laborers is increasing and that the hired work force is generally t>ecoming more dominated by fulltime workers, while seasonal workers 12 Table 4: Number of Farms and Total Acreage By Level of Management-Ownership Differentiation Level of Differentiation ng_ Intermediate High acreage acreage Year number acreage number owned rented number acreage 1935 3.2 391 .69 132 134 2.95 280 1950 3.1 419 .83 250 173 1.42 397 1954 2.7 397 .87 278 195 1.12 290 1959 2.1 349 .83 279 219 .75 277 1964 1.8 319 .79 284 249 .56 258 (Percentage of Total) 1935 47.1 37.1 10.1 12.5 12.7 42.8 37.7 1950 57.4 36.2 15.3 21.6 14.9 27.2 27.4 1954 57.4 34.2 18.2 23.9 16.8 24.4 25.0 1959 57.1 30.9 22.5 25.4 19.5 20.4 24.1 1964 57.6 28.7 24.8 25.6 22.4 17.6 23.3 I The numbers of farms and the acreage figures are reported in millions. Farms classed as those with low levels of differentiation are those on which 100% of the land is owned by the operator (O-M-L and O-M/L). Intermediate level farms are those partly owned (1%-99%) by the opera- tor (O-M-L and O-M/L). Highly differentiated farms are those on which none of the land is owned by the operator. These include tenant farms (O/M-L) and hired manager farms (O/M/L). Figures are derived from Moyer (1969) and are reported in Rodefeld (1975). 13 decline in proportion. From 1959 to 1969, the percentage of all commercial farms reporting expenditures for labor increased from 74 percent to 80 percent, and the percentage of commercial farms repor- ting the presence of workers employed for more than 150 days increased from 12.5 percent to 14.3 percent (Rodefeld, 1975). All tenure categories reported increases in the average number of workers per commercial farm (Moyer, 1969). Table 5: Number of Farm Wageworkers and Percentage Change in Numbers by Days Worked, 1963-1973 1 Number of Wageworkers (x1000) Days of Farm Year Percentage Change Wagework in Year 1963 1968 1973 1963-68 1968-73 1-24 1735 1299 1085 -21.7 -l6.5 25-149 1163 1039 918 -lO.7 -ll.6 150-249 309 256 247 -17.1 -3.5 250+ 390 324 421 -l6.9 23.0 Total 3597 2919 2671 -18.8 -8.5 Table 5 indicates that the hired work force composition is changing toward an increased proportion of fulltime workers (250 days or more). The percentage decline in numbers of workers decreases as the number of days worked increases. McElroy (1974) in reviewing figures from 1968 to 1973 revealed a similar finding. His figures indicate a one percent increase in total worker numbers, with workers employed 150 days or more per year increasing their percentage of the total from 20 percent to 22 percent, and with workers employed less than 75 days per year as the only category to experience decline. They also show that the total man-days of work done by hired workers 1 This table was reported in Rodefeld (1975). The figures were ob- tained from Bowles and Sellers (1965), and McElroy (1969, 1974). 14 increased 9.4 percent during that period and that the percentage increases were greatest for those who worked more than 150 days per year. Table 6: Farm Numbers, Percentage of Total Farms and Total Sales By Level of Management-Labor Differentiation 1 Level of Percentage of Total Percentage of Differentiation Farm Numbers (x1000) Number of Farms Total Sales 1959 1964 1969 1959 1964 1969 1954 1964 1969 Manager worked 3530 2996 2580 95.5 95.1 94.4 70 65 62 Nonmgr. worked 165 154 146 4.5 4.9 5.6 30 35 38 TotaI 3695 3150 2726 Table 6 indicates that those farms on which over one-half of the labor was not provided by the manager and his family increased as a proportion of total farms from 1959 to 1969. Their proportion of total sales increased by an even larger percentage. Nikolitch (1972: p.9) also indicates that the nonmanager worked farms increased their percentage of total sales in every geographic area during this time period. Finally, Rodefeld (1975) compiled the figures reported in Table 7 which are divided essentially according to the four basic farm types which were defined earlier. Changes from 1959 to 1964 indicate that "tenant-type" farms constitute the only category which is declining as a proportion of the total. Farms with the lowest level of differen- tiation (O-M-L), while increasing as a proportion of the total number of farms, registered a decrease in the proportion of total sales for which they could account. The two types with the highest levels of 1 The figures in this table were computed by Nikolitch (1972: p.4). The 1969 figures are not available, and are therefore est1mated. 15 Adm.a ”mumpv vammuom ”mogsom F o.op “.0 o.— n. umxcoz cmmmcmsco: ”commcws cmczovcmpcoz «.mm m.mm o.m w.m umxcoz commemEco: ”ummmcme gmczoucmA m.m_ m.m~ m.oF m.mp umxcoz cmmmcms ”ummmcws cwczoucmpcoz m.m¢ F.om o.mm o.mn umxcoz cmmmcme ”cmmmcme cmczoucmb mmpmm Go & magma we & m.mm m.m_ mmomm Nomom ~.¢F- ompm mmom Peach o._¢ m.m~ Npmm «mom P.mm mm mm A4\z\ov nmxcoz commcmsco: ”ummmcms Lmczoncmpcoz o._¢ w.mm m_mm NONA N.NF- mm_ mm, 54\z-ov uaxcoz Laoecescoc uuammcag cmezoucas “.mm _.m- Numm Nme N.NN- Pmm Fm“ A4-z\ov cmxcoz Lounges ”ummmcms cmczovcmpcoz m.ww m.P_ mNNNF ammmp m._P- mnqm wowm “4-2-0V umxcoz cmmmcms ”vwmmcms cwczoucmA gene can. mmcmzu ¢©m_ mmmp mmcmco ammF mmm_ cowpmwpcmcwmmwo Pmcspuchm mmcmcu .poa .uoa .pua Go maxh new Fm>m4 Aco___we _m xv mmme Aooopxq magma we LmnE:z Fcowpmwpcmcmmwwo $0 Fm>m4 mm mmpmm $0 wmmpcmucma ucm mace; yo Lamazz ”m wynmh I6 differentiation (O-M/L and O/M/L) increased their percentages of total farms and their proportions of total sales. Implications The figures cited above indicate that although farms with the lowest levels of differentiation (O-M-L) continue to dominate in terms of total number of farms, their proportion of total sales has been declining. These farms did not account for a majority of total farm land or total sales in 1964 despite their numerical superiority. Large scale farms (those with more than 1000 acres and/or more than $100,000 in sales) have been growing in absolute and relative numbers and sales. Nonmanager worked farms are increasing in proportion of total number and total sales, relative to manager worked farms. The greatest rates of increase in number and sales were registered by the farm type characterized by the highest differentiation between ownership, management, and labor (O/M/L). There is no reason to expect that the conditions and forces which have encouraged these trends toward higher degrees of differenti- ation will lessen in importance. Rising costs, technological change, and competition from nonfarm interests are some of the major forces which are likely to discourage the entrance of young prospective farmers unaided by family resources and to encourage the trend toward larger, more highly differentiated farms. Given the dominance of manager-worked farms and the relatively small influence of absentee owned farms at present, we would expect that owner-managed farms will continue to dominate farm production for some time into the future. Their sizeS will continue to increase and they are likely to come to rely on hired labor to a far greater degree. The total number of 17 farms is likely to decrease with the least differentiated family-type farms (O-M-L) making up a decreasing proportion and the most highly differentiated (O/M/L) increasing their proportion of the total. This period of change can be considered a transitory phase. Ultimately, if the forces contributing to the tendencies toward a higher degree of concentration in land ownership and increased differen- tiation of the labor force are not negated, the logical development of these forces will most likely result in a relatively stable structure. This structure would be characterized by a very small number of very large landholdings, most likely absentee-owned, and with high levels of differentiation between ownership, management, and labor. The Problem It has already been stated that, by assuming the continuation of present trends, it can be expected that farms will continue to decrease in number, increase in size, and be composed of a lesser proportion of the least differentiated, traditional family-type farms and a greater proportion of more highly differentiated farms. These trends lead one to expect that landowning managers will continue to dominate production for some indefinite period of time, while management- labor differentiation increases, until a more final, stable state is reached. A change in the relative importance of farm types is logically related to Changes in the occupational composition (according to the definition of the statuses occupied) and class structure. Each farm type is defined by the degree of differentiation between the various statuses defining the structure of the production system. Change toward more highly differentiated farm types will result in a 18 decline in number and proportion of land owning managers, while the proportion of nonmanaging owners and hired managers increase. An increasing proportion of the physical labor will be done by hired workers with no management functions, and management responsibilities are likely to become more differentiated from physical labor. In the long run, the class structure will be characterized by a relatively small number of large land owners, with hired workers fulfilling all of the management and physical labor functions. The changing occupational structure of agriculture carries with it implications for the individual, family, and community within the rural sector in addition to wider, societal-level implications. Land tenure can be considered the basis for a whole system of social relations in the rural sector. How it determines the work process, division of labor, and the allocation of decision-making power affects all levels of rural society. At the individual level, the trends imply a further denial of opportunities for obtaining positions in the productive process which allow the degree of freedom and control which owning a farm provides. The wealth and status accorded the landowning, relatively independent farmer will be accessible to fewer people.’ Increased division and differentiation of labor may result in an increased level of alienation for the increasing proportion of the work forte constituted of hired laborers (Rushing, 1972). The family's class position (according to owning and nonowning farm occupations) has been shown to be related to the family's struc— ture, general economic status, and level of involvement in the community (Rodefeld and Wilkening, 1971; Rodefeld, 1974: pp. 263-297; McMillan, 1944a; Schuler, 1938b). Generally, those in lower class positions 19 have had higher rates of occupational and residential instability, lower incomes and levels of wealth, and less involvement in the community. A farm workforce comprised of a larger proportion of nonowning, hired labor implies a generally lower standard of living for a larger proportion of the rural population. A decline in numbers of a farm workforce made up of an increasing proportion of hired labor will result in changes in rural communities. Community compositional characteristics, such as level of education and level of income, are likely to be affected. Changes in the popula- tion structure are likely to be reflected in the age distributions, fertility rates, dependency ratios, and rates of out-migration in rural communities. Equally important is the fact that the institu- tional infrastructure of rural communities has historically been based upon small-scale, dispersed family owned and operated farms. Rural areas have been characterized by small, dispersed businesses, schools, churches, and other enterprises. The livelihoods of a large proportion of the nonfarm rural inhabitants has been dependent upon servicing family farmers and marketing their produce. A declining farm population with a higher percentage of hired labor obviously will have detrimental effects on those rural institutions. Past research has supported this proposition (Goldschmidt, 1968; Raup, 1970; Rodefeld, 1970). At a broader level, we can perceive a more sharply defined class structure with the increasing concentration of land, nonland capital, and other resources under the control of fewer owners, and the increa- sing proportion of hired labor. An increasingly capital intensive mode of agricultural production will result in even fewer employment opportunities and may serve to further aggravate unemployment problems 20 in the rural sector, and increase the flow of out-migration from rural areas. Increased efficiency, in terms of per unit costs, has long provided the economic rationale for arguing in favor of large- scale, capital intensive agricultural production. It is argued that these savings will be passed on and provide the consumer with cheaper food. However, the presumed advantages of economies of size in agricultural production have been questioned, not only in terms of per unit cost, but also in terms of management, energy efficiency, natural resource utilization, and the potential market power of large, integrated firms (Raup, 1969, 1973; Madden and Partenheimer, 1972; Clark, 1975). Trends toward larger farms with more complex divisions of labor and structural differentiation have been identified. If rational alternatives to the potentially detrimental consequences of this process are to be developed, a fuller understanding of the causes of the change process must be gained. A key area of concern for those who wish to understand the dynamics of the process and its implications for the future must center upon the determinants of differential opportunities for the attainment of farm ownership. Some of the more specific problems which can be addressed are: the identification of those aspects of an individual's social backgroUnd that are most likely to determine the opportunities he has for attaining farm ownership; to what extent a rural farm background as a youth influences the opportunities; to what extent the family-of-origin's class position determines the prospective farmer's opportunities; the extent to which nonfarm capital is penetrating the rural farm sector. 21 This paper will be addressed to the problem of identifying the determinants of farm ownership. We are most concerned with identifying the determinants most likely to influence differential opportunities into the future. Since present trends indicate that for some time into the future owner-managed farms of larger size are likely to dominate, the focus of our study will center on those farms which are at present among the largest owner-managed farms. A sample of those owners will then be compared to a sample of hired laborers on highly differentiated farms. Because of the historical dominance of owner-managed farms in the Midwest, it was thought that a sample drawn from the state Of Wisconsin would provide a good insight into the change process. If we are able to identify the determinants of ownership of some of the largest farms at present, and we assume that present trends will continue, we may be able to logically predict the determinants of farm ownership in the future. By doing so, we will essentially be identi- fying some of the major determinants of the trend toward increased concentration of ownership and increased differentiation of the farm work force. Chapter II A REVIEW OF PAST RESEARCH AND THE SUGGESTED HYPOTHESES A Review of Relevant Literature Unfortunately, little empirical sociological research has been done concerning this issue since the 1940's, despite the dramatic changes which have occurred since then. Perhaps an increasing propor— tion of owner4operatorship, as compared to tenancy, after World War II alleviated much of the concern for understanding the land tenure process which was generated in response to the high tenancy rates of the 1930's. Perhaps combined with an uncritical acceptance of the presumed advantages of economies of size for society as a whole, a general attitude prevailed which refused to recognize the increasing concentration of land ownership and changing structure of agriculture as problems with which sociologists should be concerned. Regardless of the reasons, it is necessary to rely mainly on research done in the first half of this century for insights into the situation through empirical research. The Agricultural Ladder Much of the earliest research work done on the process of attaining farm ownership was derived from the "agricultural ladder'I conceptual model. Spillman (1918) is usually credited with first I developing the model. It consisted of four basic phases of land tenure which generally described the process of attaining farm ownership. 22 23 The individual began by working on his parents' farm without wages, accumulating experience and a knowledge of farm practices. Next, the individual was expected to assume a position as a hired laborer on another farm, saving enough capital in this phase to allow him to proceed to the next phase, tenancy on a farm which he operated but did not own. (By accumulating enough capital as a tenant farmer, the individual was expeCted to finally obtain the encumbered ownership of his own farm. Each phase of tenure implies a step upward in wealth and status, with a final qualitative change when one attained unencum- bered ownership. Later research resulted in an expansion of the model to include phases of wage labor on the home farm, in other rural occupations, and in urban occupations (Wehrwein, 1931). Occupational histories were then examined to determine which phases were used most by owners on their way up the ladder.1 The model was based on two assumptions. First, that access to land was available to all those who cho$e to attempt to attain farm ownership. The second assumption was that wages would be high enough, and return to the operator of a tenant farm great enough, to allow those in the intermediate phases the opportunity to save enough to eventually buy a farm. However, the model was developed at a time when the number Of farms was increasing, sizes had not yet been greatly affected by the influence of mechanization, and farm incomes were quite favorable compared to nonfarm incomes. Since that time, farms have become larger and fewer in number, capital requirements have risen A review of some of the more important agricultural ladder research is provided by Carl F. Wehrwein, "An Analysis of Agr1cu1tural Ladder Research," Journal of Land Economics, 1958, vol. 34, pp. 329-37. 24 tremendously while incomes have not kept pace. A logical basis for the two assumptions can no longer be established. PaUl S. Taylor (1943), in his historical analysis of the changing status of the "hired hand" in U.S. agriculture, concluded then that this occupation could no longer provide the opportunities it once did for accumulating the capital necessary for upward mobility through the agricultural status hierarchy. His conclusion might have been generalized to wage labor in general. Other research indicated that over time intermediate rungs were becoming less important in favor of direct movement from home farm work to farm owner through family transfer arrangements (Wehrwein, 1931; Tetreau, 1931; Barlowe and Timmons, 1950; Harris, 1950; ParSons and Waples, 1945). The model was also criticized for its lack of explanatory power. This became eSpecially evident to those who were concerned with the rising rate of tenancy. Lawanda Fenlason Cox (1944) criticized the research generated from this model for lacking an historical perspective which might allow one to discover an explanation for rising tenancy rates. The model also failed to account for downward mobility and for reasons why some could not attain ownership and remained in lower statUs positions. The agricultural ladder model was based on the assumption that individual performance, and not social conditions, was the primary determinant of one's status. It was primarily a description of the steps which one night use to attain farm ownership. Therefore, most of this research was of little help in explaining differences between owners and nonowners as groups, and the obstacles to nonowners which prevented their attainment of farm ownership. Some of the research 25 done within the context of the agricultural ladder model has been useful, since it was directed toward a specific step, tenancy, and then attempted to explain differences between owners and the nonowning tenants (Von Tungeln, 1927; Wehrwein, 1928, 1930, 1931; Tetreau, 1931; Barlowe and Timmons, 1950). The Depression and Tenangy The early Depression years were characterized by an increasing proportion of tenant-operated farms. An increase in concern with the social conditions associated with this tendency was manifested within the political sphere in a number of ways, but there are indications that this concern was not reflected to as great a degree among social science researchers. The Social Science Research Council (1933) and Joseph Ackerman (1941) provide reviews of the research done on tenancy up until 1940. Their findings indicate that although the amount of research had increased greatly, topics such as land ownership and transfer, labor as part of the tenure system, and the social implica- tions of the U.S. tenure system received relatively little attention. In the Midwest, the North-Central Regional Committee on Land Tenure Research (1944) considered the trend toward increased tenancy and proposed a series of policy recommendations. They were based upon those aspects of land tenure they considered most important for ensuring adequate income and security for family farmers. Their recommendations were based on a rural, populist ideology which was reflected in their assertion that legal rights to exploit the land owned in any way must be tempered with education and, if necessary, laws to ensure a “permanent agriculture" and strong, stable, rural communi- ties. Many were focused upon measures designed to encourage dispersed 26 family farm holdings and maintaining continuity on the home farm, including: controlling farmland prices, credit terms, and market fluctuations; graduated land taxes to discourage large-scale absentee ownership; measures to discourage nonfarm corporations from invest- ment in farmland; and the improvement and wider development of father- son operating agreements and transfer arrangements. Otis Durant Duncan (1940) recognized the need for research on farm tenancy as a sociological phenomenon. He proposed fifteen hypotheses which he hoped would lead to further research on explaining the relation between the tenure system and social organization in general. The areas which he emphasized include the relations between tenancy and: status differentials, social mobility, ownership patterns, population structure, preservation of family holdings, the man/land ratio, work organization, community organization, and general stan- dards of living. The Relations Between Farm Ownership and Social Background Another body of literature, while not completely distinct from the agricultural ladder studies, emphasized the relations between a number of social and cultural variables and the individual's opportu- nity to acquire ownership. A tendency toward this type of research seems to have evolved as it became more generally recognized that prime farmland was limited, land values were rising, the number of farms was declining, farm sizes were increasing, capital requirements were rising, and despite the fact that the possibilities of raising needed capital through wage work and tenancy were very limited, the percentage of farms owned by the operator was increasing. The study of land tenure was broadened to include the potential influence of 27 social background on the opportunities for an individual to attain farm ownership. Obviously family resources and their transfer were becoming increasingly important in this respect. Several studies have indicated that a high degree of occupational transmission exists between generations within the farm sector (Tetreau, 1931; Anderson, 1930, 1935, 1941). It was measured both in terms of the percentage of farm families with one or both sets of parents as farmers, and as the percentage of sons of farmers who enter farming. Hill and Christensen (1942), in a study of Wisconsin farm families, added another dimension to occupational transmission by concluding that boys raised in farm families of low socioeconomic status entered farming occupations to a much lower degree than did boys from farm families of relatively high socioeconomic status. Another aspect of a farmer's background which has been shown to be associated with his ownership status is his history of residential stability. A number of studies (Galpin and Hoag, 1919; Anderson, 1930, 1935; Wehrwein, 1930; Tetreau, 1940; McMillan, 1944a; McMillan and Duncan, 1945; Salter, 1943) have shown that farm owners possessed a much higher degree of residential stability throughout their lives. Those owners benefitting from inheritance and those who purchased farms both were likely to have been raised on farms and were likely to have remained in the home community near the home farm. Rohwer (1950) con- cluded that familism was related to both security on the land and residential stability.1 Rohwer measured familism in farming according to the following criteria: 1) Operator's starting farming through family arrangements. 2) Working together of the family in regular farming activities. 3) Siblings' choice of the occupation of farming. 4) Continuity of the family on a home farm. 5) Family policy favoring business cooperation within the family. 28 One of the primary determinants of the ownership status of farmers identified was the tenure status of their parents. As early as 1919, Galpin and Hoag (1919) discovered in a study of a southern Wisconsin community that intergenerational transfer of farm ownership, within families determined to a very great extent the opportunities available for ownership within the community. Tetreau (1931) and Salter (1943) found very high proportions of the owners in their studies had inherited all, or part, of their farms. VonTungeln (1927) and Wehrwein (1931) found high proportions of tenants related to their landlords, thus implying eventual transfer of ownership from owning parents in many cases. Tetreau (1931) found owners very likely to have owning parents and grandparents, while tenants were likely to have nonowning parents and grandparents. McMillan (1943, 1944a, 1944b; ' McMillan and Mason, 1945; McMillan and Duncan, 1945) found in his series. of studies in Oklahoma that the tenure status of those in farming occupations was highly related to the tenure status of their parents. Rohwer (1950) found familism to be significantly related to security on the land. He also found that the tenure status of parents was closely, but not significantly related to ownership status. The literature cited above obviously emphasized the importance of inheritance and other forms of family assistance to the opportunity for a young farmer with landowning parents to obtain ownership of a farm. Other studies have focused upon specific aspects of this process. Gibson and Walrath (1947) reviewed the many forms family assistance may assume, its impbrtance, its functions, and some of the problems facing the beneficiaries. The problems include excessive subdivision requiring one heir to buy out the others, and the fact that this has 29 contributed to the flow of wealth from rural to urban areas. Tetreau (1940), Bradford (1954), and Salter (1943) point Out that inheritance often does not provide a prospective owner free and clear ownership and that overcoming enoumberance becomes a critical problem for young farmers despite family assistance. The importance of family assistance in determining the tenure status and general socioeconomic status of a farmer is mediated by a number of characteristics of his family of origin, including: family size or number of siblings; number of brothers; and position in the birth order. McMillan (1943) indicates that although ownership status is highly related to parents' tenure status, the majority of an owner's offspring still do not acquire ownership. This implies that in most instances the son who does assume ownership of his parents' farm must buy from his siblings their shares of the inheritance and assume a large debt. Anderson (1941) found that as the number of sons in a farm family increased, the proportion of families in which at least one son entered a farming occupation increased, but the propor- tion of sons in farming remained fairly constant. He also found that the oldest son was most likely to enter a farm occupation, while the' youngest was next most likely. He explained this by pointing out that the oldest was most likely to be needed as his father's helper on the farm, while the youngest was most likely to reach working age at a time nearer his father's retirement. Hill and Christensen (1942) found that the greater the number of sons in a family, the greater the proportion which would enter nonfarm occupations and move from the area. However, Rohwer (1950) found the number of siblings and security on the land not to be highly related. 30 The size of the parents' farm obviously determines the impor- tance of inheritanCe to a degree. VonTungeln (1927) presumed that the ability to transfer ownership of a farm was based upon the ability of the farm to support two families temporarily. He therefore proposed that family size and farm size had to be balanced to the extent that adequate income could be generated for both. Long (1950) came to a similar conclusion. Salter (1943) found that most of the unencumbered owner-operators who had acquired their farms within the family had parents who could leave them enough land for a profitable enterprise, and who still had enough land or Capital left for other heirs. The marital status of the farmer and the age at which he marries may influence his opportunities for assuming ownership. McMillan (1944b) found that the influence of the ownership status of a wife's parents was equal to that of the husband's parents in determining their socioeconomic status, and that marriages tended to be highly endoga- mous with respect to the parents' tenure status. Other studies (McMillan, 1944a; McMillan and Mason, 1945; McMillan and Duncan, 1945) show a tendency for owners to have been married at slightly older ages than nonowners. However, the difference was not shown to be significant and the influence of age at marriage may have been lessened as the importance of inheritance rose. Past research has indicated rather large differences between the average ages of owners and nonowners. Within the context of the agri- cultural ladder model, each progressive Step toward ownership implied an older age. The individual was required to spend a certain amount of time in each phase accumulating the capital necessary for advancement. Related to these studies is research which revealed the fact that large 31 proportions of tenants were related to the owners of the farm (Parsons and Waples, 1945; VonTungeln, 1927; Barlowe and Timmons, 1950; Salter, 1943). It indicated that tenants had the tendency to rent at a young age, allowing the relative to maintain ownership until death or retire- ment:"Tenants unrelated to owners tended to be older and were likely to remain nonowners. Other studies have indicated that the proportion of farmers who owned farms increased with average age (McMillan and Duncan, 1945; Tim- mons and Barlowe, 1949). McMillan (1943) found that hired laborers left home to work at a younger average age than farmowners. In a later study (1944a), he found that nonowning former owners had acquired their first farms at a younger average age than those who remained owners. Closely related to residential background and family economic status are the formal educational level and occupational experience of farmers. Anderson (1930) found that his sample of farm owners had shifted to and from other occupations very little during their life- times. Salter (1943) found that tenants unrelated to the owners of their farms tended to have much more diverse occupational histories than owner-operators or those tenants on farms owned by relatives. Rohwer (1950) found familism to be signjficantly related to both security on the land and stable occupational histories, including the least farm and nonfarm wage work. Tetreau (1931) found owners to have been less dependent on wage work throughout their OCCUpational careers than tenants were, and that those who had worked for a wage tended to be in higher status occupations. They had also occupied fewer farms during their career as farmers. Barlowe and Timmons (1950) 32 found nonfarm labor to be of increasing importance for those not in line for inheritance. McMillan (1944b) found that nonowners had been significantly more reliant upon nonfarm income than were owners. McMillan in some of his studies (McMillan, 1943, 1944a; McMillan and Mason, 1945; McMillan and Duncan, 1945) found no significant rela- tionship between ownership status and level of formal education, although he detected a tendency for owners to be a bit more highly educated. However, his study of the relationship between parents' tenure status and the socioeconomic status of farmers (1944b), does indicate a significant difference between the educational levels of owners and nonowners, with a higher proportion of owners having completed eight or more grades of school. Further, he shows that farmers with owning parents have significantly higher educational levels than those with nonowning parents and that a significantly larger proportion of owners have owning parents. McMillan and Mason (1945) suggest that education may be of increasing importance as competition for the land increases. The tenure status of the farmer at the time he first left the family and entered the fulltime workforce has been shown to be signifi- cantly related to his status throughout his earning life (McMillan, 1943; McMillan and Duncan, 1945; McMillan and Mason, 1945). This is obviously related to the parents' tenure status and the importance of inheritance and other forms of family assistance, in that a higher proportion of owners have been whown to proceed directly from working on the home farm to ownership (Parsons and Waples, 1945; Barlowe and Timmons, 1950. McMillan (1944a) studied differences between owners and nonowners who had at one time owned a farm in order to determine which factors 33 best explained a fall in tenure status for those who once owned. He found owners to have been significantly older than nonowners when the first farm was acquired. He also found that a significantly smaller proportion of the owners had acquired their first farm during the agri- cultural depression years between 1917 and 1922. Owners had had a significantly smaller debt per farm value ratio than nonowners for their first farms. He also indicated that owners had a significantly smaller average number of children. McMillan (1944b) supported the findings concerning equity and number of children. Salter (1943) also pointed out the extent of encumbered ownership and the associated hazards. McMillan (1944a) also considered the differing socioeconomic status of owners and former owners. It leads one to assume that it was very unlikely that nonowners could once again attain ownership. Other factors considered in these studies include: type of production; religion; and nationality. Wehrwein (1931) found that a township characterized by a low tenancy rate was dominated almost entirely by dairying. The high tenancy township had more beef and corn production though dairying was most important. McMillan (1944a, 1944b) found owners more likely to be producing wheat, nonowners more cotton. McMillan and Duncan (1945) found livestock production to be most highly associated with ownership, cotton the least. Hill and Christensen (1942) found Catholics to be leaving farm occupations in slightly higher proportions than Lutherans, among third generation Germans of equal economic status. They also found Scanda- navians to be more occupationally mobile than Germans, among Lutherans of equal economic status. However, Rohwer (1950) found no significant relationship between familism and religion or nationality. 34 Summary From a review of the most important research done concerning social conditions influencing the land tenure status of our farm popu- lation, we can detect a difference in emphasis over time. Up until the 1930's attempts to explain the attainment of ownership generally conformed to the agricultural ladder model of mobility with its impli- cit assumption of equal opportunities for all men to attain farm ownership. By progressing, more or less, through stages of unpaid family labor, wage labor, and tenancy, any individual could obtain the necessary skills and the necessary capital required to own and operate a farm. However, as structural changes in our society developed through- out the twentieth century, the explanatory power of this model was shown to be very limited. Research showed that an increasing propor- tion of farm owners were skipping the intermediate phases of wage labor and tenancy. Movement directly from unpaid family laborer to ownership with the aid of inheritance and other forms of family assistance was assuming an increasingly important role. Rising rates of tenancy through the 1930's instigated research into the differences between tenants, sharecroppers, other nonowners in farm occupations and farm owners. Explanations for these differences continued to be of concern to some researchers even after the economy stabilized. Despite an increasing proportion of owner-operators among the farm population, the number of farms began to decline, farm sizes increased, and capital requirements rose as land values increased along with the importance of mechanization. 35 Research through the 1940's and into the 1950's revealed the increasing importance of family assistance to young farmers in helping them attain ownership. A prospective owner from a farm owning family had not only the benefit of gaining farm experience at home, but also that of access to the land owned by his parents, and the benefit of being relieved of accumulating a large portion of the capital requirements. It became increasingly difficult for sons of nonowning parents to accumulate the capital necessary for the purchase of farm- land and equipment. Intra-family transfer of farmland and competition from nonfarm interests limited the accessibility of land. The sons of non-landowning parents could probably not, in most cases, benefit from the management experience which a young man on his father's farm could acquire. It was shown that parents' tenure status and general economic status determined to a great extent the opportunities for a prospec- tive owner to achieve his goal. This influence was shown to be mediated by a number of factors, some based in the family-of-origin, some in the families of the respondents. These findings will serve to provide the basic structure of our approach to the present study of the. determinants of farm ownership. Advantages and Limitations of Past Research The literature reviewed constitutes a portion of the most impor- tant research addressed to a topic which has not received a great deal of attention by sociologists in the recent past. Much of the research attempted to explain differential opportunities for attaining ownership, some were concerned with broader trends and policy implications. Those concerned with explaining the process of attaining farm ownership 36 broadened the analysis from a consideration of individual movement through a structure of opportunities assumed to be relatively static, to an approach which considered the influence of more general social conditions on differential opportunities. Scope ranged from small- scale comparisions of townships to broad overviews of land tenure in the Midwest. Some of the later studies employed statistical tech- niques which allowed finer distinctions of the relative importance of the determinants. For these reasons, past research has provided some basic guidelines for present research. Despite the insights this past research has provided, its applicability to present studies may be quite limited. Most often, the problem addressed in this past research was determining the causes of increased tenancy rates by comparing samples of owner-operators and nonowning tenants. Tenancy as an organizational form is defined by a structure in which management, labor, and much of the nonland capital are provided by the family operating the farm, while ownership of most or all of the land is vested in another concern. Changes in the organizational structure of agriculture since World War II have been identified which indicate that tenancy rates have beeh declining, and that owner-manged farms continue to dominate agricultural production in the Midwest. If trends toward increasing farm size and the increased differentiation of the major factors of production continue within this context, the nonowning farm occupations which assume increasing importance are those of the hired manager and hired laborer. In addition, the problems associated with rising capital requirements have become more extreme. Whether or not the determinants identified in past research continue to be the best indicators of opportunities for 37 attaining ownership can only be considered an empirical question. The relative influence of these variables may have changed in response to structural changes which have occurred since then. Conceptualizing Components of a Structure of Opportunities DeterminianAccess to Farm Ownership The literature has indicated a number of variables which have been associated with land tenure status. We might conceive of these variables as elements of three broader categories which constitute a structure encompassing many of the primary determinants of an indivi- dual's opportunity for attaining farm ownership status. The three broader categories include: access to land; access to family resources; and access to skills. The tenure status of an individual's parents has been indicated as a primary determinant of his access to land. It has become increa- singly difficult for individuals to accumulate the capital necessary for purchasing a farm large enough to provide an adequate income. Land values have risen to the point where the cost of a farm makes it available only to those individuals who have been able to accumulate a large amount of capital in high status occupations outside of farming, to those who assume a large debt (if credit is available on reasonable terms), and to those who acquire ownership of their parents' farm on favorable terms. If married, the tenure status of the parents of the prospective farmer's wife may influence to some degree the indi- vidual's access to land. Closely related to the first category is the general pool of family resources available to a prospective farmer. A prospective farmer from a family of relatively high economic status may be 38 relieved of many of the difficulties of acquiring the capital necessary to assume the status of farm owner. This applies particularly to those from farmowning families, where the size of the farm and its producti- vity determine to a great extent the amount of resources available. Obviously, a key variable is the provision of family assistance, through inheritance or other forms. Access to family resources is also mediated by the influence of the number of siblings in the family-of—origin, especially the number of brothers, and the individual's position in the birth order. The third basic structural category consists of the determinants of an access to the knowledge and skills necessary for one engaged in agricultural production. Work on a home farm as a child and young adult can provide a prospective farmer with a great deal of practical experience in the management and operation of a farm. This experience may grant him an advantage over others raised in a nonfarm environment. The level of formal education may be assuming greater importance as farmers have come to rely upon a more complex technology and more scientific farming methods. In addition, formal agricultural education can provide further advantages for prospective farmers. Hypotheses Concerning the Determinants of Opportunities for Attaining_Farm Ownership The literature suggests a number of hypotheses which will serve as a guide for our present research. Inconsistencies with past research findings may suggest that the relative importance of the determinants involved has changed in relation to the changes in the organizational structure of agriculture. The general proposition that an individual's opportunities for attaining farm ownership will be determined in large 39 part by his access to land, family resources, and skills most probably still holds, although the importance of elements within each structural category may have Changed. The following hypotheses will be tested: Access to Land 1) Most of those presently engaged in farm occupations, and their wives, were born and raised in rural areas and had fathers who farmed. 2) Ownership status will be positively related to residential sta— bility within the present community. - 3) Ownership status will be positively related to the tenure status of the parents. If married, the ownership status of the farmer is also expected to be positively related to the tenure status of the wife's parents. 4) Ownership will be positively related to the respondent's tenure status at the time he entered the workforce for the first time. Access to Family Resources 1) Ownership status will be positively related to the general socio- economic status of the parents. If married, the ownership status of the farmer is also expected to be positively related to the general socioeconomic status of the wife's parents. 2) Ownership status will be negatively related to the size of the family-of-origin, particularly the number of brothers a farmer has. 3) Ownership status will be positively related to receiving family assistance. 4) Ownership status will be related to the family cycle, if the farmer is from a farmowning family. a) Owners are more likely to be the oldest or youngest son in the family in order to be in the best position for assuming . management and ownership of the home farm. b) Nonowners are likely to occupy an intermediate position in the birth order, which lessens the likelihood that they will assume control of the home farm. Access to Skills Ownership will be positively related to level of education. Other Correlates 1) Ownership status is positively correlated with age. 40 a) Owners will have an older average age than nonowners. b) Nonowners leave the home to work at younger ages. 2) Ownership status is related to occupational stability. a) Owners will have had a smaller number of jobs and less wage work, particularly in nonfarm jobs. b) Nonowners will have worked at a larger number of jobs, including more nonfarm jobs. There are some indications that religion and nationality deter- mine to some extent the likelihood that farm youth remain in agri- cultural occupations. However, Rohwer (1950) found them to be insignificant influences, and we might expect that their influence has become less important as time has passed. The Potential Implications of These Hypotheses These hypotheses suggest that as tendencies toward larger farm sizes, rising land values, and rising capital requirements manifested themselves since World War II, wage work and tenancy no longer allowed one to advance to ownership of a farm large enough to function as a viable economic unit. It seems that all segments of the farm workforce are descended primarily from families in which the father had a farm occupation, but it appears that those from wealthier families which rank high in socioeconomic status have a distinct advantage over those whose fathers were in lower status positions. An increasing proportion of owners seem to have benefitted from inheritance. Those with more limited family resources seem less likely to attain ownership. These developments are combined with the tendency toward incorporation of farm enterprises, with its inherent advantages of access to capital and transfer of wealth. This suggests that agricultural production will become a more closed system with increased concentration of wealth 41 in the hands of those families who have historically been able to accumulate land and wealth, and who now possess advantages for increa- sing their holdings. Chapter III THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY AND THE METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM Scope and Level of Generality Agriculture in the Upper Midwest has historically been dominated by dispersed, relatively small family farms with low levels of differen- tiation. Wisconsin agriculture, in particular, has been dominated by a type of production, dairying, which has been particularly conducive to maintaining small operating units (see, for example, Sundquist and Guither, 1973). This state has also been characterized by relatively low tenancy rates historically. Yet even in this state, the average farm size has increased greatly in the recent past, from 149 acres in 1954 to 181 acres in 1969. By choosing an area of study where family owned and managed farms dominate, and yet where the average farm size has been steadily increasing, a better insight may be gained into the process of land ownership concentration and structural differentiation. The problem has been defined as one which requires an attempt to identify the determinants of the ownership of the types of farms which are likely to dominate for some time into the future. Previously it was determined that, based upon an analysis of trends in changing farm types, owner-managed farms of steadily increasing size and with per- haps more reliance on hired labor would dominate farm production for some time. Therefore, the universe of farms which became relevant to this study was that which included the largest owner-managed farms with the highest levels of differentiation. 42 43 The method employed to get a representative sample of these types of farms was one which required the assumption that many of them would also be incorporated. The sample was selected from a list which enumerated all corporations engaged primarily in agricultural production during 1967 and 1968. As the following section indicates, this selection process yielded a sample of farms constituted primarily of owner-managed and part-owner-managed farms which employed enough hired labor to yield an adequate sample with which to compare the owners. These two groups were then used to test the generality of past research findings concerning the determinants of farm ownership. This study is essentially cross-sectional, the data having been collected in 1970. However, the purpose of the study is not to merely describe the determinants of the opportunities for farm ownership up to that point. By selecting a purposive sample of very atypical farms at that time, it is hoped that the conditions which are identified as being among the determinants of the ability to attain ownership of those farms will aid us in determining what the major antecedants of farm ownership are likely to be in the future. The results of this study are not intended to be generalized to all farms existing now or at that time, but rather to the types of farms which are likely to increase in importance in the future. The study is an attempt to focus upon one aspect of a major trend in farm type change with the purpose of being better able to explain the underlying causes of the trend. Selection of the Sample of Farms and Respondents The data for this study was collected as part of a study of Wisconsin incorporated farms conducted in 1970 at the University of 44 Wisconsin.1 The initial list of corporations upon which the study was based was obtained from a review of all Wisconsin corporate tax returns for the years 1967 and 1968. Approximately 884 corporations were identified which appeared to have been engaged in agricultural production. Questionnaires were sent to an officer, owner, or agent of each of these corporations. Based upon the information provided by those responding, it was determined that 529 firms were producing primarily agricultural products.2 The final selection of 266 from which the sample was drawn resulted from excluding tenant-operated farms, farms with sales below $10,000 (because of the desire to deal only with commercial operations), cranberry and fruit farms (which depend on seasonal workers, who were not included because interviewing was done in the Spring), and fur farms (because they are atypical and because of the presumed difficulty of separating processing from production workers). One hundred and thirty-two farms were randomly selected from this final selection of 266. I The study was conducted by E.A. Wilkening and Richard D. Rodefeld and was supported by the Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station, Project no. 6019. Descriptive characteristics of these farms and of the owners, managers, and hired workers can be obtained in the following publications: Rodefeld, R.D. and E.A. Wilkening, Wisconsin Incorporated Farms I: Types, Characteristics, and Trends, and Wilkening, E.A. and R.D. Rodefeld, Wisconsin Incorporated Farms 11: Characteristics of Resident Owners, Hired Managers, and Hired Workers, Madison: University of Wisconsin, Department of Rural Sociology, December, 1971. 2 Seven hundred-eighty responded to the questionaire. Of these, 187 claimed to not have any agricultural income, 46 rented all of their land to others, and 75 were involved in nontraditional or nonagricultural production. Four hundred and seventy-two responded and were qualified. In addition, 57 of the 104 nonresponses were allocated to the qualified group, based upon the proportion of those responding who were qualified. 45 Intensive interviews were then conducted and completed on 110 of the 132 farms.1 Interviews were conducted with the principal manager on each of these farms. Eighty-three of these were also owners. Nine- teen were full owners. Sixty-four were part owners, with varying percentages of total corporate stock. Twenty-seven were nonowning hired managers. Since two-fifths of the farms had no regular hired workers, one of every three hired workers on the remaining farms was selected for interview, up to a maximum of three on any one farm. A total of seventy hired workers were interviewed. For this study, the nonowning hired managers and hired workers have been combined into one group of nonowners, because the primary focus of this study centers upon differential access to ownership, not status distinctions within the nonowning, hired labor sector of the work force. Interviews were conducted in order to obtain information on the personal characteris- tics, family characteristics, and economic characteristics of the respondents, and their educational and occupational backgrounds. Operationalizing the Components of the Opportunity Structure1 Access to Land 1) In order to determine the type of environment in which the respondent and his wife were raised, the respondent was asked to classify his and his wife's residences before they reached age 15 according to either of five categories: farm; rural nonfarm; a village of less than 2500 people; a town ranging in size from 2500 to 10,000 1 Six of the 22 uncompleted interviews resulted from refusals to respond. The remainder were not completed because of insufficient interviewing time. 2 The specific questions asked of the respondents are included in Appendix A. 46 people; a city with more than 10,000 people. 2) Residential stability was determined by asking the respondent how many years he had lived in both the county and community in which he resided at the time of the study. He was asked for the number of years he had lived and worked on the farm on which he was located. He was also asked for the number of years he had lived and worked on the farm on which he was located. He was also asked for the number of relatives he had who lived in the same community, and for the number ' who lived within thirty miles of his residence. 3) The respondent was asked to give his father's first occupation, his occupation at the time the respondent entered the work force, and his occupation at the time of the study, or when he retired. If any of those were farm occupations, the respondent was asked for the tenure status of his father at that point, owner or nonowner. The respondent was also asked if his father owned a farm at the time of the survey, or when he retired. If so, the respondent was asked if the farm was still in the family, and if he presently occupied that farm. The occupation and tenure status of the wife's father at the time of the respondent's marriage was also ascertained. 4) The respondent was asked for the type Of occupation in which he engaged when he first entered the workforce as a fulltime worker. Access to Family Resources 1) The respondent was asked for the occupation of his father at the three times mentioned under no. 3, above. Occupations were ranked according to the Reiss (1961) standards. If the father was a farm- owner, the size of the farm was determined. The same questions were asked concerning the wife's father. The respondent was also asked for 47 the educational levels attained by his father and mother. 2) The respondent was asked for the number of siblings he had, and for the number of brothers. 3) A series of questions was asked in order to determine the influence of family assistance. Eight categories of assistance were identified and respondents were asked whether or not they had received each type of assistance. An index composed of the number of "yes" responses was then determined. 4) The respondent was asked for the number of older brothers he had, which, when compared to the total number of brothers allows one to determine whether the respondent is the youngest or oldest brother in the family. Access to Skills Respondents were asked how many years of formal education they had received. In addition, each was asked how many years of each of the following types of agricultural education he had received: 4H; high school vocational agriculture; adult farmers' classes; veterans' training; agricultural short courses; agricultural college. The num- ber of years of each type were then totaled to provide an index of formal agricultural training. Other Correlates 1) All respondents were asked their present ages and ages at the time they started their first fulltime jobs. 2) Respondents were asked for the total number of jobs and farms at which they had worked. They were also asked if they had ever worked fulltime at a nonfarm job and, if so, how many such jobs they had had. 48 Owners were asked if they had ever worked as a fulltime farm laborer, and all were asked for the number of farms on which they were fulltime farmworkers. Laborers were asked if they had ever owned a farm. Mode of Analysis The determinants identified in the above hypotheses are consi- dered independent variables, with ownership status considered a dicho- tomous dependent variable. For independent variables measured at the nominal level, crosstabulation and chi-square statistics will be used to interpret the results. Phi (d) and Cramer's V will be used as indi- cators of the strength of the relationships. For those independent variables measured at the interval level, Pearson Product-Moment correlatidn coefficients were computed. The dependent variable was coded "O" for a nonowner, and I'1" for an owner in order to allow these computations. For correlating ordinal level occupational scales with ownership status, occupations were ranked and assigned a number in ascending order. Pearson Product-Moment correlation coefficients were then computed. Chapter IV RESULTS AND ANALYSIS Previously it had been established that trends can be observed which indicate that the organizational structure of agriculture has been changing and that farmland ownership is becoming more highly concentrated. The structural types of farms likely to dominate agri- cultural production for some time into the future were identified as those which continue to be owner-managed, but with the type character- ized by management-labor differentiation likely to assume increasing importance. The problem identified was that of establishing which elements of an individual's social background are most likely to determine the attainment of ownership of these types of farms. Previous research has suggested a number of hypotheses concer- ning the conditions which are likely to determine differential opportu- nities for acquiring ownership of a farm. While the insights provided by past research are limited due to the time at which most of it was conducted, those hypotheses served to provide the basic structure for the present study. The previous chapter described how the essential elements of these hypotheses have been operationalized for this study, and how they have been combined with a methodological approach which attempts to address the problem in a way which will allow us to better understand the underlying dynamics of the trends in structural change. 49 50 This chapter will review the findings of this study for each of the components which have been identified as conditioning the opportu- nities for attaining farm ownership. The approach will be one which addresses each of the hypotheses identified previously. The results will be compared to the hypothesized relationships and explanations for any discrepancies will be attempted. Assessing the Impact of Each Category of Opportunities The Influence of Differential Access to Land As expected, most of those in farm occupations were raised on farms as youths (Table 8). Nearly equal percentages of owners (80.7%) and nonowners (81.4%) were raised in a farm environment and very small Table 8: Area of Residence of Respondents and Their Wives Before Age Fifteen, by Tenure Status Respondent Wife Area of Residence nonowner owner nonowner owner Farm 79 (81.4%) 67 (80.7%) 55 (69.6%) 35 (46.1%) Rural Nonfarm 3 3.1%) l ( 1.2%) l ( 1.3%) 3 ( 3.9%) Village 6 6.2%) 6 ( 7.2%) 6 ( 7.6%) 7 ( 9.2%) Town 4 ( 4.1%) 6 ( 7.2%) 10 (12.7%) 10 (13.2%) City 5 ( 5.2%) 3 ( 3.6%) 7 I 8.9%) 21 (27.6%) v=.100 V=.284 x2=12.47 p<.014 percentages in both categories were raised in cities. Nearly 78 percent of the fathers of present owners and approximately 72 percent of the fathers of present nonowners were in farm occupations at the time respondents entered the workforce for the first time (Table 11). The wives of married respondents did not conform to expectations. Much lower proportions of them came from farm backgrounds, particularly 51 the proportion of wives of owners. A significant relationship can be identified which suggests that the wives of owners are more likely to have been raised in a nonfarm environment than are wives of nonowners. The hypothesized relationship between residential stability and ownership was supported in this study. Table 9 indicates strong relationships between ownership and both the number of years lived Table 9: Number of Years Respondents Resided Within the County and the Community, by Tenure Status Residence Number Within the Community Within the County of Years nonowner owner nonowner owner 0-5 24 (24.7%) 7 ( 8.4%) 18 (18. 6%) 3 ( 3.6%) 6-10 17 (17.5%) 5 ( 6.0%) l3 (l3. 4%) 4 ( 4.8%) ll-15 10 (10.3%) 3 ( 3.6%) 7( 7. 2%) l ( 1.2%) 16-25 13 (13.4%) 10 (12.0%) 15 (15. 5%) 7 ( 8.4%) 26-35 16 (16.5%) 19 (22.9%) 15 (15.5%) 19 (22.9%) 36-50 12 (12.4%) 29 (34.9%) 20 (20.6%) 35 (42.2%) over 50 5 ( 5.2%) 10 (12.0%) (9.3%) 14 (16.9%) n 97 83 97 83 V .395 .392 within the community and the number of years lived within the county. Nearly 70 percent of the owners had lived within the community for over 25 years, 82 percent had lived in the county for at least 25 years. Comparable figures for nonowners were 34 percent and 45 percent, respectively. Approximately 42 percent of the nonowners had resided within their present community for 10 years or less, compared with about 14 percent of the owners. A fairly strong, positive relationship was also found between ownership and the number of years an individual lived and worked on the farm on which he was located 52 at the time of the study (V=.53l, n=180). Using the number of relatives as an indicator of residential stability did not provide conclusive results. The number of adult relatives living within thirty miles of the respondent's residence was found to be positively correlated with ownership (r=.l46, n=179), but the number of relatives within the community was found to be slightly negatively correlated with ownership (r=-.O4, n=154). However, the first correlation was significant at the .026 level, while the second was significant at only the .292 level. Residential background and stability may help explain differential opportunities for farm ownership to some extent by indicating that long-time community residents have readier access to land resources that become available within that community. However, it is difficult to directly link these two variables without including the effects of intervening conditions. Therefore, we will again refer to this area when discussing differential access to skills, and it will be linked to the following discussion of the family-of-origin's tenure status. A condition closely related to residential background is the father's tenure status. It has already been established that very high percentages of both owners and nonowners had fathers in farm occupa- tions. In previous sections it was observed that inheritance and family assistance are likely to determine to some extent the differen— tial opportunities for attaining farm ownership. One of the strongest relationships indicated in previous research was the correlation of tenure status with that of a farmer's father's tenure status. The hypothesized relationship is largely supported by the present findings. 53 Table 10 portrays the varying percentages of fathers of the respondents who owned or partly owned a farm at three different points in their careers. Large differences can be observed between fathers of owners and those of nonowners at all three times. The strength of the Table 10: Father's Tenure Status at Three Points in Time, by Respondent's Tenure Status Respondent's Tenure Status Percent of Fathers Owning Farms nonowner owner n at the time he first entered the workforce 30.9 43.2 175 at the time the respondent first entered the workforce 46.7 74.0 167 at the time of the survey, or when the father retired 45.4 78.0 179 relationship increases at each point. Of particular interest are the large differences observed at the time the respondent entered the work- force when 74 percent of present owners' fathers owned a farm compared to 46.7 percent 0f the fathers of nonowners, and at the time of the survey or when the father retired, when 78 percent of owners' fathers owned a farm compared to 45.4 percent of the fathers of nonowners. The importance of this difference is magnified in Table 12, which indicates that in 91 percent of the cases where a present owner had a farmowning father, that farm remained under the ownership of a family member. Of that 91 percent, 78 percent were operated by the farmowning respondent. In the case of present nonowners, only 59 percent of the fathers' farms remained in the family. Only 1 non- owning respondent (4 percent) occupied the same farm which was owned by his father. 54 The tenure status of the fathers of respondents' wives was not found to be highly correlated with present ownership status. This may be expected due to the fact that a tendency was revealed which indicated Table 11: Father's Tenure Status at the Time the Respondent First Entered the Work Force Respondent's Tenure Status Father's Tenure Status nonowner owner Nonowner 48 (53.3%) 20 (26.0%) farm occupation 23 (25.6%) 3 ( 3.9%) nonfarm occupation 25 (27.8%) 17 (22.1%) Owner 42 (46.7%) 57 (74.0%) Total 90 77 ¢=.277 X2=12.85 p<.001 n=l67 that wives of farmowners are more likely to come from nonfarm back— grounds than are those of nonowners. However, even by including only those fathers who were engaged in farm occupations, no significant relationship could be identified. Table 12: Father's Tenure Status at the Time of the Survey or When He Retired and the Present Ownership of His Farm Respondent's Status Father's Status nonowner owner ¢ Nonowner 53 18 Owner 44 64 .333 (n=179) farm owned by family member 26 58 .373 (n=108) same farm occupied by respondent l 45 .685 (n= 84) 55 A strong relationship between the individual's beginning tenure status and his status at the time of the study could not be identi- fied (d=.182). Although 120 of the 179 respondents to this question indicated that they had begun their careers in a farm occupation, only 11 had begun as farmowners. Nine of these are present owners and 2 are presently nonowners. The Influence of Access to Family Resources When the occupations of all fathers at the time respondents entered their first fulltime job were ranked according to the Reiss standards, their occupational statuses were found to be significantly related to the ownership status of the respondents (r=.224, p<.002, n=l67). An even stronger relationship was identified between ownership and father's occupation at the time of the survey or when the father Table 13: Father's Occupation at the Time the Respondent First Entered the Workforce Respondent's Tenure Status Father's Occupation nonowner owner BIue Collar 16 (17.8%) 8 (10.4%) Lower White Collar 5 ( 5. 6%) l ( 1.3%) Upper White Collar 4 ( 4.4%) 8 (10.4%) Total Nonfarm 25 (27.8 8%) 17 (22.1%) Farm Laborer 5 ( 5.6%) 0 Farm Manager 18 (20.0%) 3 ( 3.9%) Farm Owner 42 (46.7%) 57 (74.0%) Total Farm 65 (72.2%) 60 (77.9%) retired (r=.248, p<.OOl, n=177). The wife's father's occupational status was not found to be highly related to the respondent's ownership status (r=.096). 56 The occupational status of those fathers in farm occupations has already been shown to be related to the respondents' ownership status. By selecting only those respondents with farmowning fathers, a signifi- cant relationship between the size of a father's farm and ownership status was demonstrated. The relationship was shown to be significant for the father's farm size at the time the respondent entered the work- force (r=.216, p<.016, n=99). An even stronger relationship was detec- ted between the father's farm size at the time of the survey or when Table 14: Father's Farm Size at Two Points in Time, by Respondent's Tenure Status At Time of Now, or When Respondent's lst Job Father Retired Father's Farm Size (acres)_, nonowner owner nonowner owner 0-50 2 ( 3.2) 3 ( 5.2) 2 ( 3.4) l ( 1.7) 51-150 30 (47.6) .17 (29.3) 26 (44.8) 13 (22.0) 151-200 15 (23.8) 15 (25.9) 15 (25.9) 8 (13.6) 201-300 8 (12.7) 7 (12.1) 7 (12.1) 9 (15.3) 301-500 4 ( 6.3) 10 (17.2) 4 ( 6.9) 14 (23.7) over 500 4 ( 6.3) 6 (10.3) 4 ( 6.9) 14 (23.7) Totals ‘ 53 100% 58 100% 58 100% 59 100% Average size 233.5 267.6 254.1 403.7 he retired and ownership (r=.36l, p<.OOl, n=lOO). The number of acres on a farmowning father-in-law's farm was not found to be positively related to ownership. In fact, the relationship was found to be nega- tive (r=-.292, n=53). The occupational status of only those fathers who were in nonfarm occupations was also related to ownership. A strongly positive relationship was indicated for both the father's occupation at the time the respondent started his first fulltime 57 job (r=.290, p<.031, n=42), and the father's occupation at the time of the survey or when he retired (r=.256, p<.O32, n=53). Table 15: Parents' Educational Attainment, by Respondent's Tenure Status Respondent's Tenure Status Parents' Education nonowner owner Father 8th grade or less 69 (81.2%) 53 (67.1%) 9th to 12th grade 13 (15.3%) 13 (16.5%) College 3 ( 3.5%) 13 (16.5%) Total 85 79 Mother 8th grade or less 46 (54.1%) 45 (54.9%) 9th to 12th grade 33 (38.8%) 28 (34.1%) College 6 ( 7.1%) 9 (11.0%) TotaI 85 82 The educational attainment of the respondent's father was found to be positively related to ownership (r=.l63, p<.Ol8, n=l64). No significant relationship could be identified between ownership and the mother's education. Table 15 displays the distributions and reveals that perhaps the most significant difference exiSts within the college education category of the fathers, where 16.5 percent of the owners' fathers are shown to have had some college education compared to only 3.5 percent of nonowners' fathers. A negative correlation was found to exist between ownership and the total number of siblings a respondent had (r=-.235, p<.OOl, n=180). A weaker, but still significant, negative correlation existed between ownership and the number of brothers (r=-.l62, p<.015, n=180). The mean for the number of siblings of the nonowners was 5.1, compared to 3.7 for owners (t=-3.29, p<.OOl). The mean number of brothers for 58 nonowners was 2.6 and for owners, 2.0 (t=-2.20, p<.029). The hypothe- sized relationship between ownership and family size was thus supported. Table 16: The Number and Percentage of Respondents Receiving Each of Eight Types of Parental Assistance, by Tenure Status nonowner gwggp Parental Help - number ,percent number ,percent m.d. getting a job or locating a farm 25 26.6 38 47.5 getting a loan or mortgage 17 18.1 32 40.0 with work, job, farm chores 26 27.7 40 50.0 with gifts, money, financial assistance 36 38.3 36 45.0 with child care 33 35.9 46 59.0 10 on special occasions 42 45.2 45 57.7 in education l 1.1 3 3.9 other 1 1.0 5 6.0 Scores on the family assistance index were found to be highly, and positively, correlated with ownership (r=.308, p<.001, n=l78). Table 16 displays the number and percentage of each group who had re- ceived each of the eight types of parental assistance specified. It indicates the extent to which owners rely, or have relied, on assis- tance from parents and the large differences in benefits received between owners and nonowners. Furthermore, the correlation between the assistance index and the number of siblings in the respondent's family was found to be negative ( =-.268, p<.001, n=l78). The respondent's position in the birth order of his family was not shown to be related to ownership (V=.O69). The correlation between 59 the year a respondent's father retired and the year the respondent first entered a fulltime job was high for both groups, as would na- turally be expected. But the correlation was a bit stronger for owners (r=.77) than for nonowners (r=.7l), suggesting that owners may have had a slight advantage in this respect. The Influence of the Acquisition of Skills The increasing complexity of farming methods and techniques would seem to grant certain advantages to those who were able to acquire the highest levels of education, both general and agricultural training. Table 17: Level of Education, by Tenure Status, by Age Categories Age Under 35 35-49 Over 50 Level of Education nonowner owner nonowner owner nonowner owner Less than 0 O O 1 3 4 8th grade . ( 3.0%) ( 9.4%) (12.1%) Eighth 4 0 l6 2 14 I 6 grade (15.4%) (41.0%) ( 6.1%) (43.8%) (18.2%) High School, ' Some High 19 8 l7 l7 9 12 School (73.1%) (50.0%) (43.6%) (51.5%) (28.1%) (36.4%) College, 3 8 6 l3 6 11 Some College (11.5%) (50.0%) (15.4%) (39,4%) (18.8%) (33.3%) Totals 26 100% 16 100% 39 100% 33 100% 32 100% 33 100% V .460 .442 .284 It has become increasingly difficult for farm youth to acquire all of the skills needed to operate a farm by merely learning the techniques applied by his father on the home farm. A relationship between a 60 father's education and ownership has already been identified. As expected, the level of formal education of the respondents was found to be significantly related to ownership (r=.277, p<.001, n=179). The results in Table 17 suggest not only that formal education is a major determinant of farm ownership, but also that it has become increasingly important in the recent past. The relation between owner- ship and education is shown to strengthen as age decreases, with increasing proportions of owners having benefitted from college. Table 18: Mean Number of Years for Each of Six Types of Agricultural Training and Education, by Tenure Status Mean Number of Years1 Type of Training nonowner owner 4H 1.23 (95) 1.41 (74) High School Vo-Ag .91 (96) 1.18 (83) Adult Farmer Classes 1.15 (97) .65 (83) Veterans Training .12 (96) .01 (83) Agricultural Short Courses .23 (97 .17 (82) Agricultural College .24 (97) .80 (82)* Other .03 (95) .O4 (83) Total 2.82 (93) 5.20 (82)* I The sample size is indicated within parentheses. * indicates that the difference in means is significant at the .01 level. Also highly related to ownership was the total number of years spent in various types of agricultural training (r=.220, p<.002, n=175). Table 18 allows one to examine the differences in mean number of years for each group in each of seven different categories of agricultural training. Although the differences are not significant, except for one category, the overall mean difference is quite significant. The 61 table again illustrates the growing importance of college education in determining the ability to acquire ownership of a farm. Other Influences Contrary to the findings of past research, the difference between the two groups in mean ages was not found to be significant. Table 19 indicates that the nonowners are more heavily represented in the "under 30" category. The relatively small differences in percentages of the Table 19: Age, by Tenure Status Tenure Status nonowner owner Age number ,percent number (percent Under 30 20 20.6 8 9.7 30-44 34 35.1 29 35.4 45-54 24 24.7 21 25.6 Over 55 19 19.6 24 29.3 Totals 97 100%' 82 100% Mean Aqe 42.82 45.76 totals indicate that, despite the possibility that some of the non- owners in the youngest age category may yet attain ownership, the distribution among age categories would not change to an extent which would make age a significant factor in determining the attainment of farm ownership. A fairly strong, positive relationship was found between a respondent's age when he first entered a fulltime job and ownership (r=.128, p<.043, n=180). This supports the hypothesis that those who are nonowners are likely to have left home at earlier ages. Part of 62 the difference may be due to the lesser probability that nonowners would have been able to benefit from family assistance. The fact that owners generally possess a higher level of education may also explain their later entrance into the workforce. OwnerShip status was shown to be significantly related to the total number of jobs and farms at which the respondent worked. The correlation is negative (r=-.245, p