15
Research note / Note de recherche The stocks and flows of Canadian census farm operators, 1966-7* RAY BOLLMAN Statistics Canada ALLAN D. STEEVES Carleton University Les exploitants agricoles lors du recensement de 1966 et qui exergaient toujours cette activite en 1976 sont communkment appelks le groupe de base de tous les exploitants agricoles, par le recensement du Canada. 11s ne reprksentaient que 31 pour cent de tous les exploitants agricoles recensks qui sont entrCs, sortis ou sont demeurCs dans l’agricul- ture au cours de la pCriode (total des exploitants agricoles). En fait, 45 pour cent de tous les exploitants agricoles recensks au Canada avaient quittC cette profession en 1976 tandis que 24 pour cent y sont entrCs depuis 1966. Ces chiffres tCnoignent des entrees et sorties importantes qui se produisent dans le secteur agricole. On a kvaluC ces entrCes et sorties dans le cadre des activitCs agricoles ’B temps partiel’ et ’de loisir’ lorsque ces der- nikres reprksentaient un moyen d’entrer et de sortir de l’agriculture B plein temps; on a conclu que cela ne constituait pas un facteur important B cet Cgard. On pense plut8t que le mombre de jours de travail hors ferme et la valeur totale du capital agricole constituent des faaeurs beaucoup plus marques pour ce qui est de 1’entrCe et de la sortie. L’article discute brikement des implications analytiques et empiriques de ces rksultats pour les reherches B venir. Census farm operators who were continuous farmers in the 1966 to 1976 period consti- tuted only 31 per cent of all Canadian census farm operators who had entered, exited from or stayed in agriculture during the period. Indeed, 56 per cent of the total number of 1966 Canadian census farm operators had departed by 1976 while 4 per cent of 1976 operators had entered since 1966 (Table 11). These parameters point out the sizeable ’flow‘ parameters into and out of the occupation of ’farming. These ’entry’ and ’exit’ parameters are discussed in the context of the extent to which part-time’ farming constitutes a mode of facilitation for entry into and exit from agriculture. It is concluded that off-farm work is a significant and important facilitator of entry and exit into * This paper was prepared for presentation to the 5th World Congress for Rural Sociology, August 7-12, 1980, Mexico City. Rev. canad. SOC. %c Anth./Canad. Rev. SOC. 8r Anth. i9(4) 1982

The stocks and flows of Canadian census farm operators, 1966–7

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: The stocks and flows of Canadian census farm operators, 1966–7

Research note / Note de recherche

The stocks and flows of Canadian census farm operators, 1966-7*

R A Y B O L L M A N Statistics Canada A L L A N D . S T E E V E S Carleton University

Les exploitants agricoles lors du recensement de 1966 et qui exergaient toujours cette activite en 1976 sont communkment appelks le groupe de base de tous les exploitants agricoles, par le recensement du Canada. 11s ne reprksentaient que 31 pour cent de tous les exploitants agricoles recensks qui sont entrCs, sortis ou sont demeurCs dans l’agricul- ture au cours de la pCriode (total des exploitants agricoles). En fait, 45 pour cent de tous les exploitants agricoles recensks au Canada avaient quittC cette profession en 1976 tandis que 24 pour cent y sont entrCs depuis 1966. Ces chiffres tCnoignent des entrees et sorties importantes qui se produisent dans le secteur agricole. On a kvaluC ces entrCes et sorties dans le cadre des activitCs agricoles ’B temps partiel’ et ’de loisir’ lorsque ces der- nikres reprksentaient un moyen d’entrer et de sortir de l’agriculture B plein temps; on a conclu que cela ne constituait pas un facteur important B cet Cgard. On pense plut8t que le mombre de jours de travail hors ferme et la valeur totale du capital agricole constituent des faaeurs beaucoup plus marques pour ce qui est de 1’entrCe et de la sortie. L’article discute brikement des implications analytiques et empiriques de ces rksultats pour les reherches B venir.

Census farm operators who were continuous farmers in the 1966 to 1976 period consti- tuted only 31 per cent of all Canadian census farm operators who had entered, exited from or stayed in agriculture during the period. Indeed, 56 per cent of the total number of 1966 Canadian census farm operators had departed by 1976 while 4 per cent of 1976 operators had entered since 1966 (Table 11). These parameters point out the sizeable ’flow‘ parameters into and out of the occupation of ’farming. ‘ These ’entry’ and ’exit’ parameters are discussed in the context of the extent to which ’ part-time’ farming constitutes a mode of facilitation for entry into and exit from agriculture. It is concluded that off-farm work is a significant and important facilitator of entry and exit into

* This paper was prepared for presentation to the 5th World Congress for Rural Sociology, August 7-12, 1980, Mexico City.

Rev. canad. SOC. %c Anth./Canad. Rev. SOC. 8r Anth. i9(4) 1982

Page 2: The stocks and flows of Canadian census farm operators, 1966–7

577 C A N A D I A N C E N S U S FARM OPERATORS

part-time agricultural production. We argue it is a significant but relatively unimportant facilitator of entry and exit into full-time commercial agricultural production. Total value of farm capital invested is rather more important as a determinant of entry and exit into Commercial agricultural production. The analytical and empirical implications of these findings for agricultural labour markets in highly industrialized settings are dis- cussed.

I N T R O D U C T O R Y REMARKS

It has been evident to virtually all social scientists working in the area of rural social organization in the advanced industrial societies of Western Europe and North America that the agricultures of these nations have undergone a fundamental revolution normally characterized as industrialization and commercialization. Industrialization refers to the susbstitution of technology for labour in the production process, ’ enabling ever larger components of the agricultural labour force to be pulled out of agriculture with no attendant loss in production. Indeed, large increases in agricultural production have been witnessed over the past half century as the labour component employed in agriculture has declined both relatively and absolutely. This dynamic is, of course, the fundamental premise upon which the urbanization of these societies has been built. The ’commercializa- tion’ of agricultural production simply refers to the increasing component of all agricultural production which is now produced for the ’market’ as opposed to production for ‘immediate subsistence consumption’ on the farm. It is now generally conceded that in excess of ninety per cent of all agricultural production in North America is produced for sale in the marketplace. Thus, agricultural production in North America is fundamentally ’commercial’ production.

These two dynamics have had fundamental implications for the production of agricultures. The ’industrialization’ of agricultural production has implied a deepening use of capital and technology in agricultural production accompanied by a decline in the relative value of ‘land,’ and ‘labour,’ in the production of agricultural commodities. Correspondingly, the increasingly successful applica- tion of ’scientific research’ and ’management techniques’ to agricultural produc- tion has implied the deepening use of ’human capital’ in contemporary agricultural production.

The ‘commercialization’ of agricultural production has had a number of consequences, among the most important of which must be mentioned here: First, agricultural producers have increasingly been brought into direct contact with the marketplace both as sellers of food and fibre commodities and also as consumers of credit, industrial technology, and other agricultural inputs. Second, the ’raison dOtre’ of commercial agricultural production is to make a profit on capital investment rather than the simple subsistence objectives of a former era. Farming has become a ’business’ rather than ’a way of life.’

Under these conditions, one would have expected a fundamental shift in the types of personnel attracted to ’farming’ as an occupation. The fundamental shift implied in the ‘commitment structure’ would appear to imply very different sorts of values and skills. Similarly, the deepening use of capital and technology would imply a fundamental shift in the skill structure required in ’farming. ’ Managerial,

Page 3: The stocks and flows of Canadian census farm operators, 1966–7

578 R A Y B O L L M A N A N D A L L A N D. S T E E V E S

technical, and administrative skills have been substituted for the traditional ‘labour commitment’ and traditional production knowledge commonly referred to in folk wisdom as ’the green thumb.’

Yet, for the most part, we have few studies and little empirical data which permit us to measure with any precision the changing rates of ’entry to’ and ’exit from’ agriculture and how the dynamics of recruitment to the industry have changed over time. In very large measure this weakness has been attributable to the difficulties of longitudinal designs and the problems of panel data analysis in social scientific work. What theoretical analysis we have had has, in general, asserted a traditional and conservative lore on analytical grounds. That is, these studies have asserted that while educational levels were rising among farmers, they were not rising as rapidly as in the non-farm labour force. In other words, the notion was that farmers held more traditional ideologies of Calvinist puritanism, and tended to vote in more conservative ways than did their non-farm counterparts. These findings when disembodied from the structural dynamics of the industry itself contributed to a false stereotypic view of the ’farmer’ as ’traditional,’ relatively slow to change, and engaged in a ‘cradle to grave’ career with few aspirations for status mobility.

In this paper, using ’linked records’ of all Canadian census-farm operators over the period, 1966,1971, and 1976, we hope to correct some of these impressions, and to outline some surprising features of the structural parameters of the mobility ‘flows’ of Canadian farm operators under advanced industrial conditions.

T H E DATA

The data presented in this paper are drawn from the 1966-71-76 Census of Agriculture Match for Canada. Thus, what in essence has been done is that the census records for each census have been ’matched’ across census periods in order to trace the mobility experiences of farmers at each of the succeeding time points. That is, we can determine whether a full-time farmer in 1966 remained a full-time farmer in 1971 and 1976 or whether he dropped out in 1971 or in 1976.

The Census of Agriculture Match includes all census farm operators (i.e. all individuals who operated a holding of one acre or more of land with sales of $50.00 or more of agricultural produce during the preceding year). Two categories of farmers have been designated here for purposes of explanation. Full-time farmers are designated as those who did not work off the farm during the preceding year. ‘Part-time farmers’ are designated as those who worked some days off the farm during the preceding year.

RESULTS

An Overview The average net decline in the number of Canadian farm operators over the 1966-76 decade was something of the order of two per cent per year represented by a decline from 429,731 farm operators in 1966 to a total of 337,807 farm operators in 1976 (Table I). Net declines in the absolute numbers of farm operators of this order have been witnessed in virtually all Western industrial countries. Given the relatively small change in the aggregate number of farm operators, researchers

Page 4: The stocks and flows of Canadian census farm operators, 1966–7

579 C A N A D I A N C E N S U S FARM OPERATORS

have tended to view the vast majority of farmers as having a long-term ’career’ or ’lifetime’ commitment to farming.

By contrast, the census match data indicate that fully 35.5 per cent of 429,731 census-farm operators in Canada in 1966 had stopped farming by 1971 (Table I). And to offset their large number of exits, 87,957 operations (24.1 per cent of the 1971 total) had started farming in the 1966-71 period. Similarly large gross rates of entry and exit appeared in the 1971-6 period. When the three-period feature of the longitudinal match is utilized, we learn that in addition to the 152,354 1966 operators who exited in the 1966-71 period, another 87,292 1966 operators continued to farm in 1971 but exited by 1976 (Figure I). Thus, in the ten-year period from 1966 to 1976,239,646 operators (fully 55.8 per cent) stopped farming.

Another way to summarize this phenomenon is to observe (from Figure I) that 620,083 individuals appeared as census farm operators in either 1966 or 1971 or 1976 but only 190,085 operators (only 30.6 per cent) were continuous farmers over the ten-year period. In other words, less than one-third of the observed supply of census farm operators over a ten-year period exhibited a ten-year attachment to farming. Thus, of all farm operators who in some way had been involved in agriculture over the course of the period 1966-76,69 per cent had either ’entered’ farming during the period of ‘exited’ from farming during the period. This, in turn, suggests that careers in farming over the ten-year period have been, in the words of the philosopher, ’nasty,’ ’brutish,’ and ’short.’ This is in sharp contrast to the ’cradle to grave’ tranquility frequently used in the past to characterize farming careers.

As a result of this brief discussion, we have demonstrated that ’farming,’ at least in Canada over the period 1966-76, is characterized by much higher rates of gross occupational turnover than formerly thought possible on the basis of net changes in the aggregate number of individuals engaged in agriculture.

After having begun our research, we discovered that each decennial census of agriculture in Canada from 1921 to 1951 asked the operator, ‘how many years have you operated this farm?’ The data presented in reponse to this question permit us to calculate an estimated rate of gross entry and gross exit of census farm operators in the i g i i - 5 ~ period.(To our knowledge, no other researchers in Canada have ever looked at these data !) The data indicate gross rates of entry and exit in the 1911-51 period were of approximately the same magnitude as during the 1966-76 period (Table 11).

Having highlighted the high rates of mobility hidden behind the net changes in the aggregate number of farmers, we now proceed to a more detailed examination of rates of entry into and exit from Canadian agriculture. The advantage of the 1966-1976 Census of Agriculture Match is that it is a computer-accessible micro-data base that can provide cross-tabulation (and multivariate analysis) in response to research questions. (Further analysis of the 1921 to 1951 historical data is severely constrained by the fact that only one or two tabulations were published for each census.)

Entry lnto Full-time Agriculture 1966-1976 In the past, one of the fundamental things known about entry into farming was that it was primarily constrained by ’farm background,’ ’experience’ and

Page 5: The stocks and flows of Canadian census farm operators, 1966–7

TABL

E I

NU

MB

ER

AN

D P

ER

CE

NT

AG

E O

F C

EN

SUS

FAR

M O

PER

AT

OR

S' W

HO

EN

TE

RE

D'

AN

D E

XIT

ED

3 B

ET

WE

EN

196

6 AN

D 1

971 A

ND

BE

TW

EE

N 1

971 A

ND

197

6, C

AN

AD

A4

AN

D

PRO

VIN

CE

S ~

~~

__

__

__

__

_~

_

__

__

__

__

~~

Num

ber

of

Cen

sus f

arm

N

et

Perc

enta

ge

Gro

ss

Perc

enta

ge

Gro

ss

Perc

enta

ge

Year

O

pera

tors

C

hang

e C

hang

e En

try

€n te

ring

Ex

it Ex

iting

Cana

da

New

foun

dlan

d

Prin

ce E

dwar

d Is

land

Nov

a Sc

otia

New

Bru

nsw

ick

Que

bec

1966

1971

1976

19

66

1971

1976

19

66

1971

1976

19

66

1971

1976

19

66

1971

1976

19

66

1971

1976

429,

731

365,

334

337,

807

1,70

4

1,01

7

864

6,34

8

4,53

5

3,67

9 9,

593

5,98

8

5,41

9 8,

689

5,46

7

4,53

4 80

,146

61,1

54

51,5

12

-64,

397

-27,

527

-687

-153

-1,8

13

-856

-3,6

05

-569

-3,2

22

-933

-18,

992

-9,6

42

-15.

0

-7.5

-40.

3

-15.

1

-28.

6

-18.

9

-37.

6

-9.5

-37.

1

-17.

1

-23.

7

-15.

8

87,9

57

102,

395

479

458

785

810

1,54

9

2,12

9

1,23

5

1,50

0

12,1

37

14,2

04

24.1

30.3

47.1

53.0

17.3

22.0

25.9

39.3

22.6

33.0

19.9

27.6

152,

354

129,

922

1,16

6

611

2,59

8

1,66

6

5,15

4

2,69

8

4,45

7

2,43

3

31,1

29

23,8

46

35.5

35.6

68.4

60.1

40.9

36.7

53.7

45.1

51.3

44.5

38.8

39.0

Page 6: The stocks and flows of Canadian census farm operators, 1966–7

TABL

E I-

conc

lude

d

Num

ber

of

Cen

sus f

arm

N

et

Perc

enta

ge

Gro

ss

Perc

enta

ge

Gro

ss

Perc

enta

ge

Year

O

pera

tors

C

hang

e C

hang

e En

try

Exit

Exi

ting

Ente

ring

Ont

ario

19

66

1971

1976

M

anito

ba

1966

1971

1976

Sa

skat

chew

an

1966

1971

1976

A

lber

ta

1966

1971

1976

B

ritis

h C

olum

bia

1966

1971

1976

109,

805

94,6

38

88,7

20

39,7

08

34,9

44

32,0

52

85,4

31

76,7

03

70,6

75

69,2

50

62,5

24

60,9

59

19,0

57

18,3

64

19,3

94

-15,

167

-5,9

18

-4,7

64

-2,8

92

-8,7

28

-6,0

29

-6,7

26

-1,5

65

-693

1,03

0

-13.

8

-6.3

-12.

0

-8.3

-10.

2

-7.9

-9.7

-2.6

-3.6

5.6

27,9

61

28,6

33

6,35

1

8,56

4

15,3

55

17,3

07

14,0

63

19,0

09

8,04

2

9,78

1

29.6

32.3

18.2

26.7

20.0

24.5

22.5

31.2

43.8

50.4

43,1

28

34,5

51

11,1

15

11,4

56

24,0

83

23,3

36

20,7

89

20,5

74

8,73

5

8,75

1

39.3

36.5

28.0

32.8

28.2

30.4

30.0

32.9

45.8

47.7

SOUR

CE:

Can

ada,

Sta

tistic

s Can

ada,

196

6-19

71-1

976,

C

ensu

s of

Agr

icul

ture

Mat

ch.

1 O

pera

tors

of i

nstit

utio

nal f

arm

s are

exd

uded

. 2

An

entr

ant i

s an

indi

vidu

al w

ho w

as a

cen

sus f

arm

ope

rato

r in

the

latte

r per

iod,

but

not

in th

e fo

rmer

per

iod.

3

An

exite

r is a

n in

divi

dual

who

was

a c

ensu

s far

m o

pera

tor i

n th

e fo

rmer

per

iod,

but

not

in th

e la

tter p

erio

d.

4 C

anad

a exd

udes

ope

rato

rs o

f fa

rms

in th

e Y

ukon

and

Nor

thw

est T

errit

orie

s.

Page 7: The stocks and flows of Canadian census farm operators, 1966–7

582 R A Y B O L L M A N A N D A L L A N D. S T E E V E S

(44.2 Yo)

FIGURE I Dvnamics of the Census-farm Operator Workforce, 1966-76, Canada'

(56.3%)

1966- 1971-1 976 Stayers

190,085 (52.0%)

1966 1971 19762

I 1966-1971 Exiters I 152,354 (35.5%)

1971-1976 Exiters

1971-1976 Exiters

429,731 1100.0%)

1966-1971 Entrants

42,630 (11.7%)

(12.4%)

1971-1976 Entrants

(30.3 %)

I Total'. 1971 1 I Total'. 19762 1 365,334 1 I 337,807 1 (100.0%) (100.OX)

SOURCE: Canada, Statistics Canada, 1966-1971-1976 Census of Agriculture Match 'Operators of institutional farms are excluded. 'Operators of all holdings in 1976 with gross sales of $50 or more are included.

Page 8: The stocks and flows of Canadian census farm operators, 1966–7

583 C A N A D I A N C E N S U S F A R M O P E R A T O R S

~ ~~~~

TABLE I1

ENTRY2, AND ESTIMATED TEN-YEAR GROSS EXIT', CANADA, 1921-1951 NUMBER OF CENSUS FARM OPERA TORS^ SHOWING ACTUAL NET CHANGE, ESTIMATED TEN-YEAR GROSS

Numberof census farm Estimated gross Estimated gross

Year operators' Net Change en tran ts2,4 exiters3,'

1911 682,329 48.0 (327,506

1921 711,090 50.1 (356,267) 37.1 (264,072)

1931 728,623 38.6 (281,605) 34.6 (252,153)

1941 732,832 35.0 (256.362) 52.7 (386,020)

1951 623,091 44.3 (276,279) 1966 429,7316 55.8 (239,646)

1976 337,8076 43.7 (147,722)

SOURCES: Canada, Statistics Canada, Censuses of Agriculture, 1911-51 and the 1966-1971-1976 Census of Agriculture Match. NOTE: N in parentheses. 1 The definition of a census farm has changed somewhat over time but all censuses attempted to enumerate all holdings with some agricultural production because one objective of the census of agriculture is to enumerate all agricultural production in the country. 2 An entrant is, conceptually, a census farm operator who is farming in the present period, but not farming in the previous period. 3 An exiter is, conceptually, a census farm operator who is farming in the present period, but not farming in the subsequent period. 4 Number of operators reporting having operated this farm for 1-9 years. 5 Calculated as a residual by subtracting the net change from the estimated number of gross entrants. 6 Operators of institutional farms and farms in the Yukon and Northwest Territories are excluded.

4.2 (28,761)

2.5 (17,533)

0.58 (4,209)

-15.0 (-109,741)

-21.4 (-91,924)

'inheritance.' That is, about 85 per cent of all farmers were themselves sons of farmers, (Blau and Duncan, 1967) (McRoberts and Selbee, 1981). An additional argument has been that entry into agriculture has been and continues to be importantly facilitated by means of 'off-farm' and 'part-time' work (see Steeves, 1980 and Bollman, 1979). We would here like to enter a caveat. It would appear to us that the 'gate-keeping mechanisms' for entry into commercial agriculture might be quite different from those of 'part-time' and subsistence agriculture. Thus, given the very different structures of the two domains it would appear useful to attempt to distinguish between them. On this basis, one would expect that entry into commercial agriculture would be importantly constrained by access to capital, extensive training in the techniques of scientific agriculture, and access to agricultural credit. Access to part-time agricultural production, subsistence production, or hobby and tax-farm production would, on the other hand, be less constrained by these conditions. In these areas, therefore, one would expect off-farm or non-farm work to be considerably more important facilitators of entry than in the commercial agricultural sector.

Page 9: The stocks and flows of Canadian census farm operators, 1966–7

584 RAY BOLLMAN A N D ALLAN D. S T E E V E S

Of all 1976 full-time operators, 38,265 (or 17.1 per cent) had been part-time operators in 1971 and 50,795 (or 22.8 per cent) had entered directly into full-time farming since 1971 (Table 111). Thus, more farmers entered full-time directly but many farmers used the part-time farming route to ’graduate’ into full-time farming. When we consider the full ten-year period, we find another 24,050 (or 10.8 per cent) operators who entered full-time farming via the part-time route in the 1966-71 period (giving a total of 38,265 + 24,050 = 62.315 who used the part-time route to full-time farming). Also, we find 19,260 (or 8.6 per cent) who directly entered full-time farming in the 1966-71 period (giving a total of 50,795 + 19,260 = 70,055 who directly entered full-time farming without passing through the part-time farming phase). One must recognize here that our five-year observation intervals may be too broad to capture the total contribution of off-farm work to entry and exit. Future research is planned using a longitudinal data base that presents annual observations to tackle the problem.

Rather than look at where the 1976 full-time farmers came from, we might determine whether part-time farming facilitates entry into full-time farming by following the mobility patterns of all 1966 part-time farmers. The results indicate that fully 43,830 (or 26.5 per cent) had ‘graduated’ to full-time farming by 1971 and another 17,465 (or 10.5 per cent) had ‘graduated’ to full-time farming by 1976 (giving, from this point of view, a total of 43,830 + 17,465 = 61,295 operators who used the part-time route to full-time farming (Table IV). However, the probability that a part-time farmer exit from agriculture or remain a part-time farmer is greater than the probability that a part-time farmer become a full-time farmer. In the 1966-71 period, 36.3 per cent of the 1966 part-time operators remained part-time farmers, 37.3 exited from agriculture and only 26.5 per cent became full-time farmers. Although part-time farming is a mobility channel into full-time farming, such a mobility channel is the experience of only a distinct minority of part-time farmers.

Thus, although many people may argue part-time farming and off-farm wages are important in facilitating mobility into agriculture, this mobility channel appears considerably less effective in terms of entry into full-time commercial agricultural operations. Rapid inflation and tax policies do not permit the savings necessary for entry into commercial agricultural operations. The probability, therefore, of a part-time farmer exiting from agriculture or remaining a part-time operator is greater than the probability of his gaining entry on a full-time commercially viable basis.

Exit From Agriculture 1966-1976 Farming during the post-war years in all major industrial nations has been an important ’donor occupation.’ That is to say, it is an occupation which has contributed substantial numbers of people to other occupations as opposed to absorbing them (Blau and Duncan, 1967; McRoberts and Selbee, 1981). This feature of farming rests on the fact that it has consistently declined in numbers both relative and absolute as technology has been substituted for labour in the production process of most highly industrialized agricultures. We have argued in the past that part-time farming was an important facilitator of this transition from agriculture to off-farm work. Again, we would like to enter a caveat in

Page 10: The stocks and flows of Canadian census farm operators, 1966–7

TAB

LE IIl

WH

ER

E D

ID T

HE

197

6 FU

LL-T

IME'

A

ND

PA

RT-

TIM

E3

FAR

ME

RS

CO

ME

FR

OM

?

1966

19

71

1976

Num

ber

Perc

enta

ge

Num

ber

Perc

enta

ge

Num

ber

Perc

enta

ge

Full-

time

Fann

ers

Part

-tim

e 17

,465

Fu

ll-tim

e' 11

,755

(sub

-tota

l 38

,265

Pa

rt-t

ime

24,0

50

Full-

time'

90,8

70

Entra

n?

19,2

60

(sub

tota

l 13

4,18

0

Entra

nt?

9,04

5

Part

-tim

e Fa

rmer

s Pa

rt-t

ime3

24

,005

Fu

ll-tim

e 8,

075

Ent

rant

? 12

,865

Part

-tim

e3

6,02

0

Entra

nt?

4,16

0 (s

ub-t

otal

18

,030

(sub

-tot

al

44,9

40

Full-

time

7,85

5

23.6

10

0.0)

14.4

10

0.0)

28.6

10

0.0)

23.0

10

0.0)

Part

-tim

e

Full-

time'

Ent

rant

(s

ub-t

otal

Part

-tim

g

Full-

time

Entra

nt'

(sub

-tot

al

38,2

65

134,

180

50,7

95

223,

235

44,9

40

14,0

30

51,5

75

114,

550

22.8

I 10

0.0)

39.2

) I

45.0

1

100.

0)

SOU

RC

E: C

anad

a, S

tatis

tics C

anad

a, 1

966,

1971

-6.

Cen

sus o

f A

gric

ultu

re M

atch

1 A

ful

l-tim

e fa

rmer

is a

cen

sus

farm

ope

rato

r who

rep

orte

d no

day

s of

off-

farm

wor

k in

the

prev

ious

yea

r (o

pera

tors

of i

nstit

utio

nal

farm

s are

exc

lude

d).

2 A

n en

tran

t is

a ce

nsus

farm

ope

rato

r who

has

sta

rted

farm

ing.

3

A p

art-

time

farm

er is

a c

ensu

s far

m o

pera

tor w

ho re

porte

d 'so

me

days

of o

ff-f

arm

wor

k in

the

prev

ious

yea

r (o

pert

ors o

f in

stitu

tiona

l fa

rms a

re e

xclu

ded)

.

Page 11: The stocks and flows of Canadian census farm operators, 1966–7

TA

BL

E IV

WH

AT

HA

PPE

NE

D TO

TH

E 1

966

FUL

L-T

IME

1 A

ND

PA

RT

-TIM

E’

FAR

ME

RS?

1966

19

71

1976

Num

ber

Perc

enta

ge

Num

ber

Perc

enta

ge

Num

ber

Perc

enta

ge

Exite

r’

Part

-tim

e

Full-

time’

26

4,09

0 10

0.0

Full-

time’

(tot

al

Exite

r’

Part

-tim

e3

Part-

time’

16

5,64

5 10

0.0

Full-

time

(tot

al

90,6

20

28.3

20

145,

150

264,

090

61,7

40

60,0

80

43,8

30

165,

645

34.3

10.7

55.0

100.

0)

37.3

36.3

26.5

100.

0)

Exite

ll Pa

rt-t

ime

Full-

time’

(s

ub-t

otal

Ex

iter’

Part

-tim

e Fu

ll-tim

e’

(sub

-tota

l

Exite

r’ Pa

rt-tim

e3

Full-

time

(sub

-tota

l Ex

itell

Part-

time’

Fu

ll-tim

e (s

ub-to

tal

8,49

0 8,

075

11,7

55

28,3

20

46,4

25

7,85

5 90

,870

14

5,15

0

30.0

28

.5

41.5

32.0

5.

4 62

.6

100.

0)

100.

0)

18,6

15

31.0

24

,005

40

.0

17,4

65

29.1

60

,080

10

0.0)

13

,765

31

.4

6,02

0 13

.7

24,0

50

54.9

43

,830

10

0.0)

SOU

RC

E:

Can

ada,

Sta

tistic

s C

anad

a, 1

966-

1971

-197

6.

Cen

sus

of A

gric

ultu

re M

atch

1 A

full-

time

farm

er is

a c

ensu

s fa

rm o

pera

tor

who

rep

orte

d no

day

s of

off-

farm

wor

k in

the

prev

ious

yea

r (o

pera

tors

of

inst

itutio

nal

farm

s are

exc

lude

d).

2 A

n ex

iter i

s a

cens

us fa

rm o

pera

tor w

ho h

as s

topp

ed fa

rmin

g.

3 A

par

t-tim

e fa

rmer

is a

cen

sus f

arm

oper

ator

who

repo

rted

‘som

e day

s of o

ff-f

arm

wor

k in

the

prev

ious

yea

r (op

erat

ors o

f in

stitu

tiona

l fa

rms

are

excl

uded

).

Page 12: The stocks and flows of Canadian census farm operators, 1966–7

587 C A N A D I A N C E N S U S F A R M O P E R A T O R S

distinguishing between exit from full-time or commercial agriculture and exit from non-commercial agricultural production. Once again we have operational- ized the notion of commercial production in terms of full-time commitment to self -employment agriculture, whereas non-commercial production is here opera- tionalized as simply part-time commitment.

Very few full-time farmers exit from farming via the route of part-time farming. By 1971, 90,620 (or 34.3 per cent) of the 1966 full-time farmers had stopped farming completely and another 46,425 (or 17.6 per cent) continued as full-time farmers in 1971 but had exited completely by 1976 (Table IV). Only 8,490 (or 3.2 per cent) became part-time farmers in 1971 and exited in 1976. Thus, while part-time farming is an important facilitator of exit from the status of census farm operators (Steeves, i979a; Bollman, 1979)~ part-time farming is not an important mobility channel for full-time farmers to leave farming. Reasons for this finding may include the following: lack of flexibility for full-time operators to gradually adjust their operations into part-time enterprises; the fact that many full-time operators may retire from the labour force completely and thus do not move into off-farm jobs; the fact that commercial or full-time farm operators may have relatively high debt-equity ratios which many necessitate complete liquidation rather than a scaling down of the farm enterprise, etc.

These possible explanations will be pursued in our future research on Canadian agricultural mobility using this and other longitudinal data sets to which we have access.

P R O V I N C I A L V A R I A T I O N S I N G R O S S M O B I L I T Y R A T E S

Although we frequently tend to refer to 'Canadian agriculture' as if it were an integrated national production system, it is in fact probably more accurately characterized as a set of regional agricultures each with their own particular problems and each with their own unique provincial government policies. But, in general, most analysts are convinced of three major agricultural regions which give rise to unique agricultural production systems within the country. The provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta constitute an ecological area called the Prairies which for some years has supported a viable commercial agriculture based on the monocultures of wheat and beef. It is generally conceded that this area has substantial comparative advantages over other regions in the country in the production of these two commodities.

Second, the 'mixed agricultures' of Southern Ontario and Quebec have for many years supported viable livestock enterprises particularly during the last twenty years with the growing of short-season hybrid corn varieties, enabling substantial increases in the production of high-quality protein. Additionally, market gardening of vegetables and fruits have been viable enterprises in specific sub-regions of this area within easy transportation distance of major urban markets.

The Atlantic Provinces and British Columbia have sustained subsistence agricultural production operations for many years. As a proportion of national production, production from these areas has been in continual decline at least since the Second World War. The ecology and topography of these regions have not lent

Page 13: The stocks and flows of Canadian census farm operators, 1966–7

588 R A Y B O L L M A N A N D A L L A N D. STEEVES

TABLE V CENSUS FARM OPERATORS WHO WERE ENTRANTS AND EXITERS IN THE 1966-71 AND 1971-76 PERIODS BY TOTAL FARM CAPITAL VALUE (YO)

Entrants Exiters

Total farm Entrants Entrants Exiters Exiters Capital Value (S) 1966-71 1971 - 76 1966-71 1971-76

0-1,949 57 71 82 79 1,950-4,949 47 60 74 74 4,950-7,449 42 57 66 68 7,450-9.949 34 52 57 61 9,950-14,949 34 47 49 54 14,950-19,949 30 44 41 48 19,950-24,949 29 44 36 44 24.950-49,949 25 38 30 36 49,950-74,949 20 35 24 29 74.950-99,949 17 33 21 25 99,950-149,949 17 29 21 23 149,950-199,949 19 26 21 23 199,950 and over 22 21 24 26 Total 24 30 35 36

SOURCE: Canada, Statistics Canada 1966-1971-1976. Census of Agriculture Match

themselves easily to major mechanization, the frost-free period is short, and the small size of local markets has introduced constraints to the expansion of certain kinds of commercial enterprises.

Bearing these regional distinctions in mind, it is interesting to refer back to Table I where gross ’entry’ and ’exit’ rates are presented for Canada and each of the provinces. From this table one can see that, in general, the rates of ’gross entry and exit’ are highest in the Atlantic Region and British Columbia, while being consistently lowest in the Prairie Provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. In general, Quebec and Ontario occupy interstitial positions.

These data suggest that rates of ’labour turnover’ in agriculture appear to increase as the degree of commercial agricultural viability decreases, and vice-versa. At least on the basis of the data presented here, this would seem to be a very good initial hypothesis with which to begin further inquiry into these substantial ’labour turnover’ differentials.

Impact on Gross Entry and Exit of Total Farm Capital Value Table v shows a strong and inverse association between the size of the total farm investment and rate of entry into agriculture. While more than sixty per cent of those with less than $5,000 invested in agriculture had entered between 1971 and 1976, only 21 per cent of those with $i99,950 or more did so. This is substantial evidence for the hypothesis that the lower the level of capital value in agriculture, the higher the rate of ‘entry’ (and probably turnover) into agriculture.

Similarly, Table v indicates an inverse and continuous relationship between gross exit rates from agriculture and total farm capital value. Thus, over 75 per cent of those with less than $5,000 invested in agriculture had ’exited’ within each of the

Page 14: The stocks and flows of Canadian census farm operators, 1966–7

589 CANADIAN C E N S U S F A R M O P E R A T O R S

five-year periods. By contrast, only between 20 and 25 per cent of those with $ioo,ooo or more invested in agriculture had exited within either of the five-year periods. This, we feel, is very good direct evidence of the extent to which capital investment reinforces the commitment of labour and managerial capacities to agriculture.

SUMMARY A N D C O N C L U S I O N S

The total number of farm operators over any period of time considerably exceeds the number of farm operators at any point in time. The fundamental premise upon which this paper is based is that from a sociological point of view ’period’ estimates of the size of the farm labour force are at least as important as ‘net’ or ’point’ measures. Furthermore, from the standpoint of structural analysis, ’gross’ measures of ‘entry’ and ‘exit’ to and from agriculture enable a much more elaborate understanding of the dynamics of the occupation of farming and the industry of agricultural production.

While Canada experienced a decline in the ‘net’ number of census-farm operators from 429,731 in 1966 to 337,807 in 1976 (21 per cent), the total number who were census-farm operators during some part of this period was 620,083. Of this ’total’ number of operators who had been involved in agriculture during the 1966-76 decade, only 190,085 or 31 per cent were farming in both 1966 and 1976. Thus, the continuing farm operators for the period constituted less than one-third of the total numbers who had ’tried their hand’ at agriculture. By contrast, 282,276 operators ‘exited‘ from agriculture during the course of the period. This loss in farm numbers was partially offset by the 147,722 new ‘entrants‘ into agriculture. These rates constituted 45 per cent and 24 per cent of the total numbers of farm operators during the period. Thus, the ’flows’ of farm operators in the course of the ten-year period considerably exceeded the number of individuals who were continuous farm operators during that same period.

For purposes of this paper, it was of considerable interest to look at the extent to which ‘part-time’ farming either facilitated or hindered the flows into and out of full-time farming. In general, the evidence is fairly clear. Relatively small proportions of those who enter agriculture as ‘part-time farmers’ ever make it into full-time commercial farming. Of all full-time farmers in 1976, only 17 per cent had entered via this route and 23 per cent had entered directly.

Correspondingly, it was of interest to look at the extent to which ’exit’ from full-time agriculture was facilitated by cutting back the operation to a ’part-time’ operation. Evidence presented in Table IV suggests that of all full-time farmers in 1966, only about 11 per cent were operating ’part-time’ farms in 1971 while 34 per cent had ’exited from’ agriculture directly.

On the basis of this evidence, we conclude that ’part-time farming’ is less important as a vehicle into and out of full-time commercial agriculture production than it is into and out of all agriculture.

Other evidence presented suggests that on a regional basis in Canada the gross flows into and out of agriculture decline as the commercial viability of agriculture increases. Thus, the gross flow parameters are much greater in the Atlantic Provinces and British Columbia than in the Prairie Provinces.

Finally, the rates of entry into and exit from Canadian agriculture decrease as

Page 15: The stocks and flows of Canadian census farm operators, 1966–7

590 RAY B O L L M A N A N D ALLAN D. S T E E V E S

total farm capital value increases. This would generally be interpreted as evidence of the extent to which capital investment tends to reinforce the career commitment of labour to agricultural production.

These results tend to suggest that much remains to be done. Systematic causal models of the determinants of ‘entry‘ and ’exit’ to and from agriculture under a range of late industrial and capitalist conditions would assist in understanding the ’dynamics’ of agricultural labour markets and the changing relations between the ‘farm’ and the ‘non-farm’ sectors of these societies. It is equally important to understand both ‘entry’ and ’exit’ given the magnitude of rates as well as their potential theoretical importance. It is also obvious that, in time, more work should be done on the age-specific character of entry and exit, and the bearing which historical and cohort effects might have on such mobility.

As a closing note, we might comment that another longitudinal data base has already provided us with a valuable insight into the annual gross flows into and out of Canadian agriculture. On the basis of a 10 per cent longitudinal sample of farm taxfilers beginning in 1967, we have found gross annual rates of exit from 10-13 per cent and gross annual rates of entry from 10-12 per cent (Bollman, 1978; Steeves, 1979). This data base admirably complements the census match data base because annual flows can be monitored in response to income levels (or income differentials); these flows can also be monitored for relatively small sub-national areas, and the income pattern of taxfilers who have stopped farming can be traced and compared to continuing farm taxfilers. With present and emerging computer technology, many countries may wish to explore the possibility of developing longitudinal micro-data bases from their census or taxation records. The potential for the analysis of the micro-components of structural change (or, in other words, the micro-dynamics of structural change) is very great.

R E F E R E N C E S

Blau, Peter and Otis Dudley Duncan 1967 The American Occupational Structure. New York: John Wiley & Sons Bollman, Ray D. 1978 ’The 10 Percent Longitudinal Farm Taxfiler Sample: A Data Base to study Entry and

Exit, Income Stability and Geographic Mobility of Farm Taxfilers. ‘ Background paper prepared for the Workshop on the Rual Information System sponsored by the Council on Rural Development, Canada, October 31-November 1. Ottawa

1979 ‘Changes at the urban-rural Interface: The Contribution of Off-farm Work by Farmers.’ Paper presented to the XVII International Conference of Agricultural Economists, September 1979, Banff, Alberta

McRoberts, Hugh A. and Kevin Selbee 1981 ‘Trends in Occupational Mobility in Canada and the United States: A Comparison.’

Steeves, Allan D. 1979 ‘Structural Features of the Stock and Flow of Canadian Farm Taxfilers.’ Paper

presented to the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Sociology & Anthropology Association, Saskatoon, 1-4 June 1979

q79a ’Mobility Into and Out of Canadian Agriculture.’ Rural Sociology ~ ( 3 ) : 566-83 1980 ‘The Dissociation of Occupation and Residence.’ The Canadian Review of Sociol-

American Sociological Review

ogy and Anthropology 17(2): 154-68