Extending working lives: what it means for farmers

Posted on 10th May 2017 by RCS Admin

Sally Shortall, Duke of Northumberland Professor of Rural Economy, considers the challenges facing older farmers.

Farming has always been a different type of occupation. It is not one for which you train and then enter the labour market in the usual way. To be a farmer you must have access to land, and this is usually acquired through inheritance, either of a farm or a tenancy. Farmers have never really acknowledged a retirement age in the same way as other occupations; in 2015, 34% of farmers in the UK were aged 65 or older.

Why do farmers continue working late in life? It is a trend that is sometimes seen as a structural problem for the industry, and it is also a highly physical occupation that makes heavy demands on older workers. New entrants are desirable, being seen as being more innovative and making the agricultural industry more productive and efficient. Many European countries have tried to tackle the age imbalance by promoting schemes for farm retirement and for encouraging new entrants.

Yet such approaches meet with limited success. One reason that I and others have found in our research is that men, and it is mostly men, see farming as a key source of their identity. Being “a farmer” is of considerable social, as well as economic, significance. This is true for many occupations, and it is what makes retirement tricky, but it is particularly complex for farmers. Farming forms their identity amongst their peers and in the wider community. To be a farmer is an expression of masculinity. Men will have inherited the farm from their father and will want to pass it on to their son. Giving up the job can seem to threaten manhood.

Retirement from farming is also more complex because it is not just an occupation, it is also an asset. Passing on the farm means passing on the land and, potentially, the farm house. Will the retiring couple move from their home? Research I recently conducted in Scotland suggests that there is poor succession planning amongst intergenerational farm families. Some inheriting couples did not know how much of the asset would be theirs, and how much would be shared with the son’s siblings. There is a reluctance to discuss these issues for fear of seeming to be grabbing the parents’ asset. The British Isles are peculiar in Europe, in that it is possible to leave the entire asset to one child. The rest of Europe is governed by the Napoleonic Code of Law which makes this impossible. Different legal arrangements exist across Europe governing land transfer, but cultural norms and practices play an important role. In Denmark, for example the heir must buy the farm from the parents, and the assets of the parents are split amongst all siblings after death. It is more difficult in the UK, where the income of the retiring farmer after passing on the farm is not so clear. Farmers may have made pension provisions, but they do not necessarily have the same retirement assets as other retirees.

The situation is even more complex for tenant farmers. One farmer I interviewed in Scotland had no heir, so the tenancy would not be passed on. He said he wanted to stop farming but he could not, because he would lose his house. This man was in his early seventies and quite frail. How to ease the retirement process for tenant farms is a pressing social issue requiring attention from policymakers.

Farm safety is another, particularly stubborn problem that is difficult to resolve, one that I and colleagues in the James Hutton Institute in Scotland are currently researching. Safety is a vital concern to the whole agricultural industry, and it raises particular issues for older farm men and women. Traditional practices on the farm, even he way the farm yard is laid out, has typically presumed strength and brawn. This raises obvious safety issues for women and also for older farmers.

From a policy and research perspective, it seems to me, there are three pressing questions that need attention if the issue of farmers with extended working lives is to be addressed. First, a robust campaign to promote and facilitate succession planning is badly needed. There is an awkward reluctance to discuss the transfer of assets within the family and this must be addressed to ensure a stress free transition to retirement. Second, the situation of tenant farmers who lose their homes on retirement needs attention. There are people working in the industry who would like to retire but keep on working for fear of losing their house. Third, the question of planning the farmyard needs consideration. I am interested in this question from a gender perspective too. It is no longer the case that physical strength and brawn are needed to manage the farmyard. I am keen to work with agricultural machinery producers to consider the type of equipment that would allow women and older farmers to farm in a safer way.

Brexit looms: what about rural policy?

Posted on 8th May 2017 by RCS Admin

Sally Shortall is the Duke of Northumberland Chair of Rural Economy

Mark Shucksmith is the Director of the Newcastle University Institute for Social Renewal and a Centre for Rural Economy Associate

Brexit will have significant effects on rural areas of the UK – the loss of EU funds will not only require new thinking in relation to agricultural and environmental policy but also for broader rural businesses, communities and services. What national policies for each of the devolved territories should replace these after Brexit? Could this offer an opportunity to introduce better rural policies, suited to 21st Century rural potentials and challenges?

Newcastle University’s Centre for Rural Economy recently launched its report ‘AfterBrexit: 10 key questions for rural policy’ in Westminster on April 27th, 2017. CRE’s research addresses many aspects of rural economies and societies; food, farming, housing, poverty, gender, employment, the environment, rural community development, rural businesses and services. Our staff seek to inform policy and practice relating to all aspects of rural life. So far, public debate about Brexit has tended to focus primarily on issues relating to agriculture and the environment, however, neglecting these other elements of rural economies and societies.

Rural policies in England have been ripe for reform for many years. Brexit could offer an unforeseen opportunity to rethink policy approaches. The Common Agricultural Policy will no longer apply, the Single Farm Payment and rural development funding such as LEADER will be swept away. Much is yet uncertain. Questions must be posed about what should replace the CAP. But these questions should extend beyond agriculture to consider how the needs of rural communities should be supported in order to give them the best chance of thriving and playing their full part in the future of the UK. Here are some examples of the key questions we raise in our paper:

How can we draw on our experience of European programmes and the successes of the Local Enterprise Partnerships and Rural Growth Networks, and on the valuable evidence we already have (including evaluations of Defra’s Rural Development Programme for England) to inform immediate actions in the wake of Brexit?
Is it more beneficial to embed rural policymaking across all government departments or are rural interests met more effectively when a single department is tasked with leading on this?
Does Brexit offer an opportunity to be more experimental in supporting different, more wide-ranging partnerships that could drive rural development?
What part could neighbourhood plans play in identifying potential sites for affordable housing and should landowners be incentivised to release land for this purpose?

At the event, an invited panel of people made short presentations, followed by a lively and informative debate with an extremely knowledgeable audience. The CRE’s Fran Rowe presented some aspects of our paper, emphasising the potential of the rural economy. Richard Quallington offered insights from ACRE’s perspective, focusing in particular on rural housing and the contribution of voluntary and community organisations. He proposed five priorities for post-Brexit rural policy: reinstatement of a rural housing target; recognition of a rural premium; investment in connectivity; support for rural businesses; and investment in VCSEs. Martin Worner spoke from his experience as a successful rural entrepreneur, highlighting issues of people, premises and training. John Varley also discussed business and give some examples from his work with Clinton Devon Estates of successful strategies for the rural economy to thrive. Tamara Hooper offered a RICS perspective on what should be priorities for negotiations around the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

The ensuing discussion was lively, well-informed and good humoured. People wondered about the governance of rural policy going forward at both national and local levels, and how these might be integrated vertically and horizontally. Who should be in charge of rural policy? Questions were asked too about what would replace LEADER and what should it look like. The argument was cogently made that some of the earlier LEADER programmes that focused on capacity building were very creative and in many countries helped all rural communities to take advantage of economic and social opportunities. Without this focus on capacity building, we run the risk of increasing inequalities between and within rural communities. Questions were also asked about the trade aspects of Brexit and, in the event of ‘no deal’ with the EU what would be the effects of tariffs not only on farms but on rural businesses in general?

The future is uncertain. Newcastle University and the Centre for Rural Economy take seriously our responsibility to inform public debate. We work closely with stakeholder groups, policy makers, and business, to provide independent analysis and always try to ensure that our research is accessible to those who need it. In this era of fake news and post truths, it is particularly important to remember our public responsibility as academics. We hope that with our short report and this event in Westminster we have helped to start an informed public debate about post-Brexit rural policy which others will now continue. As John Varley said, Brexit could be a disaster or an opportunity for rural areas: we must do our best to ensure it is an opportunity for rural economies and societies to thrive in these turbulent times.

Our ‘post-truth’ world and unconscious gender bias: an example from the Financial Times

Posted on 23rd March 2017 by RCS Admin

Sally Shortall is the Duke of Northumberland Professor of Rural Economy, in Newcastle University’s Centre for Rural Economy. In our blog she shares some thoughts about gender bias in a 'post truth' world.

I have long considered my enjoyment of the weekend Financial Times as something of a guilty pleasure. My friends tend to associate the paper with right wing capitalist sentiments. I have always found the quality of the economic analysis and international news coverage excellent. In particular I enjoy the Life and Arts section to which many academics contribute on political, historical and sociological matters. I am heartened by, and often quote Noam Chomsky, who has also lauded the Financial Times for the quality of its international news coverage.

At the moment I am immersed in a project for the Scottish Government, looking at the role of women in agriculture. I have been all over Scotland interviewing women and men about women’s role in agriculture, in farming organisations, and considering cultural practices that impact on gender roles on the farm. I have studied this question now for more than two decades, and I am struck by the huge strides in gender equality, combined with continuing unconscious gender bias, and outright sexism. I am analysing the data right now, so constantly thinking about these questions. The other question I have researched in recent years is how knowledge gains legitimacy. Who decides what the truth is? We now have phrases like ‘post-truth’. Different versions of the truth vie to be seen as the correct one. This question, as we all know, is particularly pertinent in the current climate.

So it was with delight that I picked up the Financial Times recently, and saw that Tim Harford had an excellent article asking what we can do to champion the truth. He presents the problem nicely. It is in the interest of some groups to manipulate facts, and he gives the example of the tobacco industry going back to the 1950s. Tim Harford presents some of the ‘problems’ with facts: they are boring, people can feel threatened by the truth, and an untruth can beat off a complicated set of facts by being easier to understand and remember. He reports that several studies have shown that repeating a false claim, even in the context of debunking that claim, can make it stick. Our memories fade, and we remember only the myth, because the myth was constantly repeated. Tim Harford argues that one way to try and combat this problem is to nurture scientific curiosity. A group of prestigious social scientists has carried out research that shows those who are curious about the truth, and are motivated to seek it out and look beyond the repetition of a false claim, are those most likely to be persuaded by facts.

This was the first article I read on that Saturday, and I then turned to the main section of the paper. I was struck by the headline on the front page that stated ‘Tesco boss fears white men on boards are “endangered”’. There was a further report on page eleven, with a title that repeats ‘Tesco chairman claims white men “endangered”’. The caption on that article reads: ‘women from ethnic minority backgrounds are in a “propitious period” Tesco’s John Allan said’. Three headlines then: men are threatened and women from ethnic minorities have the advantage. The text, for those who did read it, notes that John Allan is one of eight white men on a board of eleven. Tesco appointed half of the board slots it filled in 2016 with women, which meant that they went from having one woman on the board in 2015 to three in 2016, slightly more than 25%. The article reports that management experts do not agree with Mr Allan’s rosy assessment of UK board diversity. The article says that women account for only 29 per cent of directors appointed in the UK last year, the lowest proportion since 2012. Why then do these articles lead with false claims from Mr Allan? Tim Harford shows that the myth is remembered because it is constantly repeated. This is what has happened here – the false claim is repeated three times, and only to those who read the whole article will the counter-argument be clear. Tim Harford could have used this article as an example for his piece in the magazine.

There are two issues that concern me here. One is the constant repetition of a myth around John Allan’s statement. This is particularly troubling when a different section of the paper has an excellent article about the dangers of this type of presentation of reality. The second is the subliminal message which is, at best, an example of unconscious gender bias; there are no barriers for women, it is ‘in fact’ white men who are under threat.

Rural proofing: magic bullet or rural vote-catcher?

Posted on 15th March 2017 by RCS Admin

Sally Shortall is the Duke of Northumberland Professor of Rural Economy, in Newcastle University’s Centre for Rural Economy. In our latest blog she looks at the issue of rural proofing.

We all know that living in the countryside may mean having to travel further to access shops, schools, GP surgeries and hospitals, while some services available in urban areas are simply unobtainable. Communities may complain that they are overlooked and individuals sometimes feel isolated. Rural proofing is intended to address these kinds of inequalities but is it really the magic bullet that will solve everyone’s problems?

The UK Government defines the process thus: “Rural proofing is integral to the policy making cycle. It requires us to make sure that the needs and interests of rural people, communities and businesses in England are properly considered. This applies to the development and implementation of all policies and programmes. For central government, rural proofing means assessing policy options to be sure we get the fairest solutions in rural areas.”

What could be better or more desirable than ensuring fairness all round when you are designing policies? But like most things in life, the reality is much more complicated. The questions we should be asking seem simple: what is rural, who is disadvantaged and what are the problems policies need to address? Unfortunately this is seldom the starting point for policymaking.

In my career as a social scientist working in rural studies I have spent a lot of time looking at the ways in which governments try to design and implement policies that are “fair” to both urban and rural communities. It is a challenge that faces governments worldwide and rural proofing seems to offer a useful tool. But too easily it becomes an all-purpose mallet to be applied without precision across cultures and circumstances. In some instances it seems to miss the mark completely.

In 2015 I was able to spend a month in Monash University in Melbourne to do research on rural proofingthere and to have discussions and provide a briefing paper and presentations about it about it for policy makers. I quickly realised that their thinking about “rural” focused on what the Australians refer to as “the country”. It is a term that has a pleasant old world sound to it, a nod to European roots. But it fails to take into account the truly remote outback which is home to indigenous Australians or to consider the very real disadvantages they experience. In Australia – as in the UK – how you define “rural” is highly politicised.

Rural proofing as a concept originated with the English Rural White Paper in 2000. My colleagues here in the Centre for Rural Economy have long been concerned with rural proofing, and Jane Atterton wrote in 2008that the concept needed to be reviewed. Since then more critical questions have been asked, by the House of Commons in 2009 and the OECD in 2011. It is an English concept, and applying it more widely is always destined to be problematic. But even in England such a blanket approach often feels inappropriate. In a recent Lords debate Lord Beith (formerly an MP for a rural constituency himself) argued in favour of rural proofing and observed “Surely we cannot allow ourselves to stumble into a situation where you have to be well off to live in the countryside”. Given the discrepancy between house prices in city and countryside, living in a rural area in England is already well beyond the pockets of many people. Indeed, England is an anomaly in having a countryside that represents aspiration more often than it does deprivation. Of course you will find some disadvantaged communities and individuals there, but can rural proofing address such specific needs? Can it truly ensure that elusive “fairness”?

Scotland has always been more wary of rural proofing, arguing for a much more targeted approach via its Highland and Islands Council. Northern Ireland, on the other hand, is currently developing a guidance framework for rural proofing, very much following the English model, but related to its own Rural Needs Act. In work I am carrying out with colleagues at the Northern Ireland Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute for the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, we have highlighted concerns that such a blanket approach could result in unrealistic wish lists, regardless of practical and resource constraints. Providing “equitable” services cannot mean providing the same services in town and country. A small rural school or health provider may be popular locally but provide a poor service when measured against what is available in urban areas. If this is the case, local facilities should not automatically be protected via rural proofing, rather than being amalgamated in order to achieve improved services.

Rural areas are different from towns and cities and the needs of their residents are often different. But relying on rural proofing to address every rural problem will not ensure fairness. All too often it is a process implemented as a rural vote-catcher by governments as they approach election time. A more useful strategy would be to identify specific problems then design the policy to address those. If you do not know what needs fixing, how can you target an effective solution?

Entrepreneurship, farm diversification and origami

Posted on 23rd February 2017 by RCS Admin

Shingo Yoshida, a Japanese PhD student from the University of Tokyo has been surveying farmers in the UK and using some traditional Japanese crafts to improve his success rate.

I have been an academic visitor at CRE since last October and my research interest is entrepreneurship and farm diversification close to urban areas. In Japan farm diversification is an emerging topic, but there aren’t yet very many farmers who have diversified into new enterprises. So I was interested in entrepreneurial farmers in UK and wanted to carry out some research on this.

Since this is the first time I have visited a foreign country as a researcher, I was anxious about whether I could complete my questionnaire survey by myself. But I needn’t have worried. All my colleagues have welcome me warmly and given me lots of helpful advice. Moreover, not only CRE staff, but also other staff in the School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development have given up their time for me. Thanks to all the help I received, I was able to design the questionnaire in English despite my lack of research experience in the UK.

The most challenging task was to send 1,000 questionnaires out to farmers by post. Since everyone had told me “the rate of return will be low because your questionnaire is quite long for busy farmers to complete”, I made a special effort to interest them. My secret was the Japanese paper craft of ORIGAMI! In Japan, people make ORIGAMI to express our gratitude. So I spent three days and three nights making 1,000 ORIGAMI and enclosed one with each of the questionnaires. I think this was the key to the high return rate of over 20%.

The results from my research show that it is the entrepreneurship of farmers that promotes farm diversification. Furthermore, diversification into tourism, accommodation facilities and educational enterprises requires additional skills, such as a knowledge of customer relations and marketing. This means that farmers need to improve their generic skills if they want to diversify their farm businesses. This result is also helpful for Japanese agriculture in the future.

When I return to Japan, I’m planning to do the same kind of research. And some day, I would like to come back to Newcastle University to do some collaborative research with my wonderful colleagues here. Finally, I want to say how very much I appreciate Guy Garrod, my supervisor in CRE, inviting me here, to such a beautiful country.