The family farm in a flat world implications for farm household data collection l.jpg
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 24

The Family Farm in a Flat World: Implications for Farm Household Data Collection PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 125 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

The Family Farm in a Flat World: Implications for Farm Household Data Collection. Mary Ahearn, Krijn Poppe, Cristina Salvioni, Koen Boone, and Aide Roest Presentation at FAO, Wye-Rome Meeting, 11-12 June 2009. Towards improvement in the Handbook. Development of an integrated framework

Download Presentation

The Family Farm in a Flat World: Implications for Farm Household Data Collection

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


The family farm in a flat world implications for farm household data collection l.jpg

The Family Farm in a Flat World: Implications for Farm Household Data Collection

Mary Ahearn, Krijn Poppe, Cristina Salvioni, Koen Boone, and Aide Roest

Presentation at FAO, Wye-Rome Meeting,

11-12 June 2009


Towards improvement in the handbook l.jpg

Towards improvement in the Handbook

  • Development of an integrated framework

  • Explicit recognition of changing structure and cross-country differences

  • Data implications of emerging issues


Integration l.jpg

Integration

  • Firms and households are basic economic units and basic focus of economic analysis

  • A flat world means these units are able to adjust rapidly

  • Current frameworks are frameworks for ways to develop indicators, not frameworks for

    • how economic units behave and

    • the implication of those behaviors for things societies care about: in our case rural development and agriculture


Go back a step l.jpg

Go back a step

  • Once an integrated framework which links agricultural and rural development to each other and the rest of the world…

  • Then the indicator frameworks can follow

  • The integrated framework, if appropriately general, will provide the basis of future indicator development


Turning to agriculture l.jpg

Turning to agriculture

  • Is it unique?

  • Why is it unique?

  • Differences in structure across countries are large and therefore require indicators that are disaggregated

    • This was recognized in the Handbook

    • But, was it recognized that the disaggregation should be based on a consistent structure? Why is that not possible?


Some recommendations l.jpg

Some Recommendations

  • Indicators of well-being should be accompanied by indicators of structure

  • The Handbook should debate and recommend an inclusive definition of all farms

  • Focus on household indicators for family farms, but include indicators for nonfamily farms. What is a nonfamily farm?

  • Develop a data collection system that allows for a continually changing farm and household structure


Us examples of the need to change approaches to respond to real world changes l.jpg

US examples of the need to change approaches to respond to real world changes

  • Household income

  • Contracting

  • Corporate farming


Slide8 l.jpg

Compare this storyline on “Per capita disposable personal income of farm and nonfarm residents, 1934-83” …

Source: USDA, ERS. Economic Indicators of the Farm Sector: Income and Balance Sheet Statistics, 1983. ECIFS3-3, Sept. 1984.


Slide9 l.jpg

Compare this storyline on “Per capita disposable personal income of farm and nonfarm residents, 1934-83” …

Source: USDA, ERS. Economic Indicators of the Farm Sector: Income and Balance Sheet Statistics, 1983. ECIFS3-3, Sept. 1984.


Slide10 l.jpg

…to this storyline: “Average farm operator household income by source compared to all U.S. household income, 1988-2009f”

d


Consideration of the structure of farms eu and us l.jpg

Consideration of the Structure of farms: EU and US

  • Two dimensions of structure: size and off-farm work

  • Farm definition

  • Size definition

  • Compare the size distribution in 2007

    • Dynamics are missing

  • Compare changes, 1997-2007

  • Compare off-farm work, 1987-1997-2007


Slide12 l.jpg

Background to interpreting the comparative size distributions

US

EU

NL

IT

Source: For EU, FFS. For US, ARMS.


Slide13 l.jpg

Figure 1. Size distribution of holdings, U.S. and EU-15, 1997-2007

(Size classes defined by hectares)

Percent of holdings

56

54

34

26

24

24

22

22

21

18

17

16

13

12

11

10

6

5

5

3

EU

U.S.

Sources: For U.S., ARMS. For EU, FFS.


Slide14 l.jpg

Figure 2. Size distribution of holdings, U.S. and EU-15,

excluding small holdings, 1997-2007

(Size classes defined by hectares)

Percent of holdings

55

48

38

30

28

27

26

25

23

20

19

18

14

12

10

7

E.U.

U.S.

Source: For U.S., ARMS. For EU, FFS.


Slide15 l.jpg

Figure 3. Size distribution of holdings, Netherlands and Italy,

1997-2007

(Size classes defined by hectares)

Percent of holdings

76

73

43

34

32

28

27

18

14

12

12

12

6

4

3

2

1

1

1

1

Italy

Netherlands

Source: FFS.


Slide16 l.jpg

Figure 4. Size distribution of holdings, Netherlands and Italy,

excluding small holdings, 1997-2007

(Size classes defined by hectares)

Percent of holdings

76

60

50

46

45

40

20

17

17

9

6

5

4

3

3

1

Italy

Netherlands

Source: FFS.


Slide17 l.jpg

Figure 5. Size distribution of holdings, U.S. and EU-15, 1997-2007

(Size classes defined by ESU)

Percent of holdings

34

31

28

27

24

19

17

17

16

15

13

13

12

12

11

11

9

9

9

10

8

8

8

7

7

7

7

6

5

3

EU

U.S.

Sources: For U.S., ARMS. For EU, FFS.


Slide18 l.jpg

Figure 6. Size distribution of holdings, U.S. and EU-15,

excluding small holdings, 1997-2007

(Size classes defined by ESU)

Percent of holdings

30

28

26

24

24

24

23

23

23

22

20

19

18

17

16

15

15

15

9

6

E.U.

U.S.

Source: For U.S., ARMS. For EU, FFS.


Slide19 l.jpg

Figure 7. Size distribution of holdings, Netherlands and Italy,

1997-2007

(Size classes defined by hectares)

Percent of holdings

46

35

34

30

30

25

21

19

17

17

17

14

12

12

11

10

10

9

9

7

5

3

2

1

1

1

Italy

Netherlands

Source: FFS. Note: No farms had <2 hectares in NL.


Slide20 l.jpg

Figure 8. Size distribution of holdings, Netherlands and Italy,

excluding small holdings, 1997-2007

(Size classes defined by hectares)

Percent of holdings

42

39

36

31

31

27

26

25

21

20

17

17

12

12

10

10

9

7

5

3

Italy

Netherlands

Source: FFS.


Slide21 l.jpg

Figure 9. Share of farms engaged in pluriactivity, US and EU-15, 2007

Percent

71

55

48

48

47

43

42

38

32

31

28

28

25

25

23

19

16

Sources: For U.S., Census of Ag. For EU, FFS.


Slide22 l.jpg

Figure 10. Structural characteristics by farm size, U.S., 2007

Farms with =>100 ESU’s are 10% of farms, 45% of hectares, and 81% of production.

Percent of farms

92

79

70

54

48

48

26

23

16

6

Source: 2007 ARMS.


Slide23 l.jpg

Figure 11. Multifunctionality activities by farm size, U.S., 2007

Farms with =>100 ESU’s are 10% of farms, 45% of hectares, and 81% of production.

Percent of farms

24

15

6

4

3

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

<1

Source: 2007 ARMS.


Emerging issues l.jpg

Emerging issues

  • Accountability—new policy environment

  • Most critical issues extend beyond ag and rural areas—underscores the need for an integrated framework

  • Farm household issues: Measuring size (SO), Dynamics, Data collection from very large operations, Nontraditional business and production practices, Multifunctionality activities. MF varies by farm size.


  • Login