SOCIAL SUSTANABILITY AND

CONTINUITY OF FAMILY FARMS:

HOW THE DUTCH ARE DOING IT

A Research Paper presented by:

ISSAKA ADAMS
(GHANA)

in partial fulfilment of the requirements for obtaining the

degree of
MASTER OF ARTS IN DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

Major:
AGRARIAN, FOOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
(AFES)

Members of the Examining Committee:

Dr Tsegaye Moreda
Dr Oane Visser

The Hague, The Netherlands

December 2018
ii
Contents
Content iii
List of Table v
List of Figures v
List of Map v
List of Appendices v
List of Acronyms vi
Acknowledgement vii
Abstract vvii
Relevant to Development Studies ix
Keywords ix

Chapter one: Introduction

1.1The Problem: Sustaining the Family Farm (From Social Perspective) 1
1.2 Aims and Objectives 3
1.3 Research Question 3
1.3.1 Sub Research Questions 3
1.4 Method of Data Collection 3
1.5 Research Population 4
1.6 Research Setting 5
1.7 Positionality 5
1.8 Challenges and Limitations 6
1.9 Ethics 7

Chapter Two: Overview of Dutch Agriculture

2.1 Introduction 9
2.2 Dutch Agriculture 9
2.3 Dutch Family Farms 12
2.4 Type of Agriculture in Research Setting 13

Chapter Three: Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

3.1 Introduction 14
3.2 The Classic and Ideal Family Farm 14
3.3 The Contemporary Family Farm 16
3.4 Gender 17

iii
3.5 Gender Relations in Agrarian Household 18
3.6 Analysing Gender Relations in Agrarian Household: Patriarchy or
Partnership? 18
3.7 Generation 20
3.8 Conceptualizing Generation in Agrarian Studies: Property and Power for the
Old 20
3.9Analysing Generational Exclusion in Farming 21

Chapter Four: Data Presentation

4.1 Introduction 23
4.2 Gender 23
4.3 Generation 26
4.4 Marriage 27
4.5 Religion 30

Chapter Five: Data Analysis

5.1 Introduction 32
5.2 Gender and Farm Succession 32
5.3 Gender Division of Labour and Women's Economic Contribution on the
Farm 34
5.4 Generational Inclusion for Continuity of the Farm 35
5.5 Compatibility Union: Position of Women on the Farm 36
5.6 Farm Continuity: The God Factor 37

Chapter Six: Conclusion 39

List of References 41

iv
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Numb. of Agric. Holdings in The Netherlands from 2000-2010 10

List of Figures
Figure 2.2 Type of Agriculture in The Netherlands 10

Figure 2.3 Diary Farming Contribution in the Agriculture Sector of The

Netherlands 11

Figure2.4 Diary Livestock and Products Production in The Netherlands 11

Figure 4.2 Structure of the Farming Household in Research Setting 24

List of Maps
Map 1.6 Map of Research Setting 5

List of Appendices
Appendix One: Profile of Interviewees 48
Appendix Two: Questions for Older Generation Interviewees 50
Appendix Three: Questions for Younger Generation (Males) 51
Appendix Four: Questions for Younger Generation (Females) 52

v
List of Acronyms
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
ISS Institute of Social Studies
EUROSTAT European Statistical Office
WWII World War Two

vi
Acknowledgements
In the Name of God, The Beneficent and Ever Merciful. By His Permission I
accomplished this work. All praises are due to Him.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Dr Tsegaye
Moreda for his support and kindness. The numerous articles he printed for me
with his own money helped to make this study a success. I am also grateful for
his time and direction on how to improve the paper.
I am also grateful to Dr Oane Visser for his useful comments particularly
during the proposal stage of the study. His direction on the literature review and
the framing of the research question was very useful. His subsequent comments
at the presentation of the draft also further deepened the analysis of the study.
I would also want to thank Dr Mindi Schneider for her comments during
the proposal stage and the subsequent articles she sent to me which helped me
found a focus for the study.
My next gratitude goes to Jan Joost Snoek of International Fellowship of
Evangelical Students (IFES) who first took me on a fieldtrip to his family farm
in Stolwijk which ignited my interest to work on family farms. I should also
mention his concerted effort to get me in contact with farmers in Bergambacht
and Stolwijk without which this study wouldn’t have been possible. For all that
you did for me, Jan, it is only God who can compensate you on my behalf.
I should not also forget the household of Jongenhoeve Cheese Farm in
Bergambacht who helped me in diverse ways. Floor, Evelyn, Leendert, Hanna,
Debora and Rebekka I say God richly bless you all. What you all did for me
during my stay would live with me till the end of my time.
I also remember the contributions of Cornelis Johannes Zeelenberg (C.J
Zeelenberg) and Gerrit Johannes Meerkerk (Jack) which strengthened the study.
I appreciate every single effort each one of you put in to make this paper a suc-
cess.
Finally, I am grateful to my family and friends who supported me one way
or the other during my stay at the ISS as a student. God be our guide till the end
of time!

vii
Abstract
Globally, family farms or smallholder farming constitute 98% of all farms, taking
up at least 53% of agricultural land, and producing at least 53% of the world’s
food. This shows the crucial role these farms are playing in feeding the nearly 7
billion population of human beings on Earth. Yet despite the relevance, family
farms are facing sustainability and continuity challenges.
For over two centuries, sustainability and continuity challenges of family
farms have been centred on economic and environmental perspectives though
a social dimension could be added it has been largely overlooked. This study
thus examines and continuity of family farms from social perspective.
It focuses on how farming families are preserving their social heritage— the
culturally learned behaviours that are constant through each generation, which
allows the family to sustain and continue the farm without interruption.
The study finds that farming families preserve their social heritage for
sustainability and continuity through gender, generation, marriage and religion.
The study hence argues that gender and generational relations in the farming
household drive the inclusion of women and children to play crucial roles in
sustaining and continuing the farm. Marriage in the farming household is
designed in such a way that both the man and woman are compatible through
their farming backgrounds to ensure the smooth running of the farm which
contributes to successful transfer of the farm. Strong attachment to religious
beliefs by the farming household also helps to shape the perspective of the
younger generation to not abandon the farm.
The study concludes that based on how the farming families are preserving
their social heritage, it would help to sustain and continue the farm, giving it a
bright future.

viii
Relevance to Development Studies
Family farms or smallholder farming make up 98% of all farms, producing more
than half of the world’s food for the nearly 7 billion human population on Earth.
Despite this crucial role it plays, family farms face sustainability and continuity
challenges, putting the world’s food supply in jeopardy. Farmers through their
learned behaviour and socialisation on the farm are positioning members of their
families to continue their farming tradition.
However, the effort by farmers to defy the odds and continue their
profession has been largely been overlooked by researchers prompting the need
of this study to shed light on how farming families are preserving their social
heritage to ensure sustainability and continuity of the farm.
Knowing this can serve as a guide for agricultural policymakers to not
always think about sustainability and continuity of the farm from only economic
and environmental perspectives, but also include the social dimension as it is the
primary foundation upon which the farm rest.

Keywords
Family Farms, Peasant Agriculture, Smallholder Farming, Dutch Agriculture,
Agriculture in The Netherlands, Diary Farming, Global Food Production

ix
Chapter One: Introduction

1.1 The Problem: Sustaining the Family Farm (From

Social Perspective)

Globally, family farms or smallholder farming constitute 98% of all farms, taking
up at least 53% of agricultural land, and producing at least 53% of the world’s
food (Graeub et.al 2016:1). This shows the crucial role these farms are playing
in feeding the nearly 7 billion population of human beings on Earth.
Yet despite the relevance, family farms are facing sustainability and
continuity challenges. The rapid commoditization and financialization of
farming by large scale capitalist farms is threatening the future of
smallholder/family farming (van der Ploeg:2010: 2).
Indeed, the threat of capitalism to family farming has been debated since
long ago. In the classical agrarian political economy debate during the 19th
century, Karl Marx predicted that that the peasantry or smallholder family
farming cannot survive capital (Akram-Lodhi and Kay 2009: 4). This sparked
the famous Agrarian Question debate among scholars including Friedrich
Engels, Karl Marx, Karl Kautsky, and Vladimir Lenin among others. The
relevance of the debate was to conceptualize the future of peasant or smallholder
family farming from an economic point of view. This debate continues today
between agrarian scholars. Some say peasants or family farms don’t exist
anymore due to capitalist relations in agriculture (Hobsbawm 1994: 289) while
others argue that peasants are still active but have only reconstituted themselves
to adjust to the changes of capitalism that have swept through the sector in the
last half of the 20th century (Van der Ploeg 2010: 1).
This shows that sustainability of smallholder agriculture or family farming has
been widely debated from an economic perspective.
Similarly, the heightened fear of environmental collapse that arose after the
end of the Second World War due to the support of capital-intensive agro-
industrialization which primarily centred on agro-chemicals and fossil fuel
(McMichael 2007: 176, Woodhouse 2010: 439), led to calls to invest in small-
scale agriculture or family farming to avert the impending calamity (Lipton 1977:
31, Berry and Cline 1979: 4). Philip McMichael describes this period of energy
and agro-chemicals intensive farming as a sharp contrast to the type of farming
during the Victorian Age1 “whereby ecologically-sustainable biological methods
of crop rotation and the management of livestock sustained ‘the condition of
the land indefinitely, even while production levels climbed” (McMichael 2007:
176). This attracted the attention of agrarian scholars, and the debate once
centred on economic sustainability shifted to the environment (Woodhouse
2010: 438).

1 The Victorian Age was the period of the reign of the British’s Queen Victoria (June
20 1837-22 January 1901) where it is claimed there was rapid change and developments
in nearly every sphere of human society with Britain as the world’s superpower. Source:
https://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Victorians/article.html

1
Now, following a comprehensive analysis of peer-reviewed journal articles on
family farms by Suess-Reyes and Fuetsch in 2016, it was detected that
sustainability of family farms and agriculture in general has been debated from
economic and environmental perspectives (Suess-Reyes and Fuetsch 2016:122).
Even though a social perspective can be added, it has been largely ignored by
researchers (ibid: 122).
To add the social aspect to the debate, Suess-Reyes and Fuetsch theorize
sustainability of family farms from three dimensions—economic, environmental
and social. Economic sustainability signifies the generation of enough farm
revenues such as farm diversification to include agro-tourism and other on-farm
pluriactivities (ibid: 122, van der Ploeg 2018: 8) to ensure the family's
independence from off-farm employment while environmental includes aspects,
such as safeguarding biodiversity and protecting natural resources. Social
sustainability refers to the preservation of social heritage such as “dynastic”
ambitions of the family (Goldberg and Wooldridge1993:57), the family's
identification with their venture (Berrone et al. 2012: 265) and the general climate
of the family (Bjornberg and Nicholson 2007: 238) that helps the farm to move
from one generation to the other (Suess-Reyes and Fuetsch 2016:122).
As the social aspect of the sustainability of the farm has been overlooked2
in the literature, the study hence explored this important dimension to contribute
to filling the existing research gap. Social heritage is the culturally learned
behaviours that are constant among farming families through each generation
(Graeub et al. 2016: 12). These behaviours are intangible assets that household
of family farms pass down as a responsibility from the past, present and future
generations to ensure continuity (Grubbström et.al 2014: 154, Price and Evans
2009: 4).
The process of handing over this legacy of the family to the next generation
is difficult and takes many years through deliberate and subtle socialization
(Trussell and Shaw 2009: 434). According to Haan (1993: 193) this becomes a
respected tradition within the family and if disrupted has the tendency to disturb
the smooth functioning of the farm. Hornosty and Doherty (2003: 40) also add
that the social behaviours of farming households make them distinct from the
broader society particularly urban households where modernity has changed the
entire social structure.
This means the social angle of the farm is crucial for its sustainability and
continuity. Therefore, for a start to paying attention to social sustainability, it is
valuable to know how farming families have been preserving their social heritage
to ensure continuity and sustainability of their farm.

2 Although the period Suess-Reyes and Fuetsch did their peer review should be considered, it is
also important to take note the Soviet Agrarian scholar Alexander Chayanov wrote extensively
on sustainability of family farms from social perspective in the 1930s. After his execution, his
works were neglected until authors like Daniel Thorner and Jan Douwe van der Ploeg attempted
to revive them.
2
1.2 Aims and Objectives
1. To contribute to filling an existing research gap on social sustainability of
family farms using this micro-study as a starting point.
2. To explore and build new knowledge on the social aspect helping to sustaining
the farm.
3. To explore and add more knowledge to the existing gender and generational
dimensions in the household of farming families.

1.3 Research Question

The research question of the study is informed by the existing research gap. As
the study is interested in the sustainability and continuity of the family farm, it
posed the question: How are farming families preserving their social
heritage of the farm for intergenerational succession and continuity of the
farm?

1.3.1 Sub Research Questions

1. How are the younger generation of farming households being socialized to-
wards the farm for future succession?
2. How are the farming families organizing their succession plans in relation to
gender and generation dimensions of the household?
3. How are the past learned behaviours of members of the farming household
shaping the future direction of the farm?

1.4 Method of Data Collection

According to Kallet (2004: 1229) the method of a research describes how the
author took to investigate the research problem. The study relied primarily on
primary data through participant observation and interviews in the town of
Stolwijk and the village of Bergambacht. The author stayed with respondents of
the study for one month (July 16, 2018-August 18, 2018) hence the study can be
described as a micro-ethnographic.
The study employed ethnographic tools of qualitative interviewing and
participant observation. Kvale and Brinkmann (2009:1) state that a qualitative
interview is used in a research to understand the views of subjects being studied.
Thus, the method was used to understand the views of the participants of the
research who in this context are members of farming households.
A semi-structured interview guide was used to elicit responses from the
research subjects. Structuring the interview guide this way for the interview
allowed for the asking of important follow up questions which enriched the data.
It also made the interview open and allowing participants to freely express their
views.

3
I relied largely on my gatekeeper for getting access to other farmers since I was
new in the research setting. My gatekeeper contacted farmers he knew, booking
an appointment with them, so I could visit those farms and conduct interviews.
Also, there were times too I met other farmers at a particular farm and they also
invited me to visit their farms and conduct interviews with members of their
household. From this sampling process, I can say the technique was a
combination of convenience, purposive and random. The interviews were
recorded and later transcribed. Field notes gathered also helped to shape the
interview.
I should be honest and highlight the crucial role participant observation as
an ethnographic tool played during data collection. Participant observation is a
foundation of cultural anthropology. It is the presence of the researcher in the
research setting that leads to participant observation which as Harvey Russell
Bernard puts it “involves getting close to people and making them feel
comfortable enough with your presence so that you can observe and record
information about their lives” (Bernard 2011: 256). This allows the research to
be in constant motion as the researcher interprets and makes meanings out of
the unfolding events. The interpretation and making of meanings of events I
was witnessing shape my interview, adding new direction to enrich the data. For
example, through participating and closely examining adult members of the
farming households through informal conversations, I noticed that the son who
inherit the farm would likely marry a woman who comes from a farming
background or has lived on a farm before. This helped me to turn my attention
and ask young males who are heirs to the farms the kind of woman they would
prefer to marry in future. The response I elicited became one of the themes of
the findings of the study. Also, the religious nature of the farming households
as part of their social heritage which another thematic finding of the study
emerged from observation.
This shows the crucial role participant observation and ethnography in
general played in the study. I would not have been able to identify these
important social herniate of the farming households if the data was collected
through just visiting a day for interviews or through a survey with a standardized
questionnaires.
As ethnographic fieldwork relies largely on improvising and not on a set of
standardized techniques (Cerwonka 2007:20), it helped me to modify my
strategies during the fieldwork to concentrate on data that answers my research
question. That is the opportunity ethnography presented me in this study.

1.5 Research Population

Ten farming households are involved in the study. The total number of
respondents interviewed and observed is 21. Six of the households of the study
are in Bergambacht while four are in Stolwijk. Twelve out of the 21 interviewees
are males while the rest are females. In terms of generation, the older ones are
14 while the younger are 7. The younger generation fall between the ages of 12
to 25 while the older ones are above 30. The older generation are the current
ones managing the farm while the younger are the ones who would inherit the
farm.

4
1.6 Research Setting
The research setting refers to the physical, social, and cultural site or place a
study is conducted, allowing for meaning to be constructed in the process of
studying the research participants in their natural setting (Given 2008: 95). This
part of the research setting focused more on the physical location of respondents
of the study.
Empirical data of the study was collected in the municipality of
Krimpenerwaard in the province of South Holland, The Netherlands.
Respondents were sparsely located in two areas—the town of Stolwijk and the
village of Bergambacht. With a population of approximately 5,000, Stolwijk is
said to have been founded some 750 years ago by a group of peasants.

Map 1.6: Map of Research Setting.

Source: Adams 2018.

The area consists mainly of marshland part of the reclaimed lands from the sea
which lies 2 meters below sea level (http://www.maaijen.nl/stolwijk.html).
Bergambacht, located 4 kilometres Southeast of Stolwijk is a peripheral village
sharing similar topographical characteristics with Stolwijk. I stayed in
Bergambacht for the entire duration of the fieldwork. I was thus moving
between Bergambacht and Stolwijk for the data collection.

1.7 Positionality
I come from a farming family. This subjective experience of mine no matter how
I tried to detach my personal from the study would have some influence in the
study. However, this should not be taken as a weakness of the study. It was
rather an opportunity for me to deepen my knowledge on farming. Bourdieu
(2003: 287) sums the researcher’s positionality in relation to the research by
stating “Nothing is more false, in my view, than the maxim almost universally

5
accepted in the social sciences according to which the researcher must put
nothing of himself into his research”.
My previous experience on the farm shaped my involvement in the study
particularly on how I participated in work activities on the farms. I saw myself
as being part of the farm within my stay. I remember some of the farmers even
telling me that I adjusted myself so well to the farm. In fact, there were times I
get so busy with work on the farms that I forget for some minutes that I am a
research participant and not a full-time worker. The reason I committed myself
that way to the work on the farm is that I felt I was indebted to my gatekeeper
and all those farmers who helped and opened their farm for me to study. For
the period I spent on the farm, I was fed and housed by my gatekeeper. This
made me felt I must also give my all, so it could serve as a compensation to my
accommodation cost.
My subjective experience helped me to involve myself in the work on the
farm which also made my host to appreciate my effort by also helping me to get
access to other farmers, allowing me to gather data I would not have been able.
As a black Muslim from a ‘Third World Country’ living among White
Christians in a ‘First World Country’ and studying them would have been highly
unheard-of some 400 years ago during slavery or yet an abomination during the
period of apartheid in South Africa. But my experience on the farm showed me
that there are common values of love, solidarity and sympathy that humanity
shares which transcend race, religion and other barriers of human society. As a
conservative Muslim I was impressed with the religious nature of the farming
households although my concept of God and morality in general differs from
them. This might have exposed my bias in the study as sometimes I find myself
unconsciously becoming sympathetic and emotionally attached to the
household. For example, when I reflect on my gender, I realized that throughout
my stay I did not even in a single day participate in the cheese making.
I only worked in the barns and the fields. This of course is because the men
worked in the barns and the fields while the women do the cheese. As a
researcher I should have defied this subtle rule in the household and participate
in the cheese, but my inherent bias held me back. Overall, knowledge is situated
and socially produced in specific circumstances, places and histories (Rose 1997:
308). The knowledge of this study is produced in specific social setting at a
period. Both time and space should be considered in judging the overall strength
and weakness of the study.

1.8 Challenges and Limitations

The challenges I faced during this study started even less than a week before my
fieldwork. My gatekeeper had arranged for me to stay with a farming family in
Stolwijk for the fieldwork. But just less than a week to the start date, the family
called to inform us they would not be able to host me because they are too busy
with work hence would not have time for me. This means a Plan B was needed
for the fieldwork to be possible. My gatekeeper asked me if I had such a plan to
which I responded negative. Fortunately, luck was on our side. He was able to
arrange with another family in Bergambacht for me. This experience shows how
messy the research process can be. Always be prepared for the shock!

6
As the family in Bergambacht agreed to accept me, my gatekeeper picked me up
in his car on the start date. After exchanging pleasantries and a formal
introduction followed by coffee, my gatekeeper left me and returned to The
Hague. Thereafter my host assumed the gatekeeping role. This means he played
double roles—one as a host and the other a gatekeeper. He would talk to other
farmers who are obviously his friends for me to visit their farms to observe and
interview them.
This first challenge I faced during the fieldwork was language. I anticipated
this challenge before the start of the fieldwork. Although in all the households I
visited at least one member could understand and speak basic English, there
were instances my gatekeeper intervened to translate words or even full
questions from English to Dutch for respondents to understand, as well as
translating answers from Dutch to English for me. In fact, the language served
as a fundamental challenge that affected the study.
The quality of the data would have been enhanced if all the members of the
household I visited were able to speak English. As I was participating in the
work on the farms, sometimes I had to use Google translator to help me
communicate with some of the young people I was working as they can’t speak
basic English.
The selection of respondents for the study also became a challenge. As I
was relying on my gatekeeper to get access to other faming families, sometimes
we would be working in the field or in the barn milking the cows when a family
would call that they are ready to receive me. Quickly, we had to stop whatever
we are doing, and my gatekeeper would drive me to that family’s farm. This
served as a disruption of work for my host as he has no choice than to
accompany me to introduce me to the area for the first time. It is only when I
become familiar with the place that I can visit by myself.
Also, as I was participating in the work of the farm as a participant observer,
it means I had to do many tasks simultaneously. Sometimes when we were
milking the cows or working in the field, I would have to stop to take notes or
put some thoughts together. And I must also admit that despite mechanization
on the farm drudgery still exist. It was summer time, so work starts very early in
the morning and closes late in the evening. As I was an active participant, my
role included cleaning the barns, milking and feeding the cows, working in the
field to build new barns or place for the cows to graze as well as general cleaning
on the farm. With these physical works in addition to the mental ones as a
researcher, I was overwhelmed. I fell sick on the second day of the fieldwork.
But I recovered quickly as my body gradually adjusted itself to the new changes.

1.9 Ethics
I took time to explain to respondents that all data I collect is for academic
purpose, assuring them of protection. Although some respondents asked for
anonymity before I could even discuss it with them, it was a key consideration
as the study focused on social aspect of the family and farm of which some
information are sensitive. Therefore, the identities of respondents are fully
protected. Photos taken (for draft presentation) and recordings during
interviews were by the consent of respondents.

7
I presented an introductory letter from the ISS to request for access. All data
collected were thus treated with the highest confidentiality it deserves. Some
respondents requested for a copy of the study. I hence sent copies to them. This
is to serve as token of appreciation for their time and resources they spent on
the study. It hence means the knowledge we produce as researchers does not
belong to us alone. There should be a symbiotic relationship between the
researcher and respondents.

8
Chapter Two: Overview of Dutch Agriculture

2.1 Introduction
This chapter examines the general overview of agriculture in The Netherlands.
It looks at the current trend of the country’s agriculture before engaging with its
family farms, focusing on the post-World War II (WWII) period. It also touches
on the types of agriculture practiced in the country, concluding with the
description of the physical location of the study and the type of agriculture in
the area.

2.2 Dutch Agriculture

The Netherlands is a small densely populated country in Northwest of Europe.
Despite the size of the country, it is famed for being a strong agriculture
producing country. Measured by value, The Netherlands is the number two
exporter of food, second only to the United States, which has 270 times more
farmland than The Netherlands (National Geographic Report 2017).
In an age where corporate industrial agriculture is threatening to eclipse
small scale family agriculture holding (White 2009: 11), The Netherlands has
managed to sustain its family farming population in a manner uncharacteristic
of other countries in Europe (Karel 2010: 14). A 2013 estimate by FAO indicates
that 87% of all farms in the country are organized as family farms (FAO 2013).
The Dutch government reports that the country made a total export of
agriculture goods for up to €91.7 billion in 2017.
The latest figure was up 7% the previous year (2016) when it totalled €85.5
billion. Carola Schouten, the country’s Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food
Quality heaped praises on the ingenuity of the family farming population and
others making this possible at the 2018 International Green Week, an
agricultural trade fair held every year in Berlin, Germany (Government.nl Report
2018). This highlights the crucial role family farming is playing in the overall
development of the Netherlands.
According to an executive summary report on the current prospect of
agriculture by the Dutch government published by Wageningen University, the
agricultural sector generates an average surplus balance of export for up to €20
billion every year (Wageningen University Report 2018). This means agriculture
in the Netherlands depends on export or international trade.
Despite the success, the number of farms in The Netherlands have been
decreasing. As shown in in figure 2. 1 below, there were 101, 550 agricultural
holdings in the country in 2000 as compared to 72, 320 in 2010. This means
there has been a whopping 28.8 % decrease within the 10-year period the census
was carried out.

9
Table 2.1 Number of agricultural holdings in The Netherlands from 2000-2010
Source: Eurostat 2010

Meanwhile the size is expanding. The average size of farms increased from 20
ha in 2000 to 26 ha in 2010 (Eurostat 2010). Like the number of holdings, the
number of people working in the agriculture is decreasing. Between 2000 to
2010, the number decreased from 275, 730 to 211, 630, representing a drop of
between 23 %. The 2010 figure represents 2.4 % of the Dutch economically
active population working in the agriculture sector. Dutch agriculture is
predominantly rearing of livestock notably goats, sheep, cattle, pigs and poultry
(Eurostat Report 2010).

Figure 2.2: Type of Agriculture in The Netherlands.

Source: Eurostat 2010.

Livestock alone accounts for 58% of all agriculture holding in The Netherlands.
Special diary animals alone accounts for 24.2%. This makes dairy farming an
important aspect of Dutch agriculture.
Figure 2.3 shows the economic contribution of dairy farming in the
agriculture sector to the Dutch economy in 2015. The milk industry alone is
estimated to worth €6. 5 billion while cheese accounts for €4.5 billion. These
products together with other dairy products contributed to the country’s trade
surplus in 2015 by 8%. The figures confirm the blossoming nature of Dutch
agriculture particularly dairy farming.

10
Figure 2.3: Dairy Farming Contribution in the Agriculture Sector of the Economy of The
Netherlands.
Source: Statistics Netherlands 2015.

In 2010, there were 6.7 million livestock unit registered in the Netherlands as
compared to 7.3 million in 2000 (Eurostat 2010). Although the total number of
livestock and arable farms are reducing (van der Heide et.al 2011: 26, Eurostat
2010), there has been an increase in the number of dairy livestock. As it shows
in figure 2.3 below, the number of dairy farms in The Netherlands continues to
fall since 2005 but milk production and the number of diary livestock rise albeit
slowly.

Figure 2.4: Diary Livestock and Products Production in The Netherlands.

Source: Statistics Netherlands 2015.

11
2.3 Dutch Family Farms
Haan (1993: 148) assets that the Dutch were able to build this vibrant and
effective family farming system based on “an enlightened vision of rurality which
was not subordinate or even auxiliary to economic, productionist goals”.
According to him, shortly after WWII, rural sociology occupied `the national
discourse in a way that envisioned modernizing agriculture to produce more
food while at the same time making rural life equal to the city (ibid: 148).
In a special report on small farmers published in 1947 by the Dutch
government, it explicitly echoed the need to have family farms rather than
industrial agriculture:
A small number of very good farmers would be sufficient as far as
accomplishing economic tasks is concerned. They could produce in an efficient
and mechanized way, thereby incurring the lowest possible costs. The largest
possible number of independent farmers [family farms] is, however, necessary
in order to discharge their social function. Farmers in general exercise an
influence over our whole population and in the end, this is responsible for our
national culture and other social values. (Het kleine-boerenprobleem in Nederkand
1947:39, quoted in Haan 1993: 150).
This means the Dutch saw family farming and agriculture in general as a sector that
should contribute to the transformation of the national economy and the entire society
at large. Perhaps one of the most radical views ever expressed in the quest to transform
family farming and the agriculture sector in general to become productive was that of
Dr Anne Vondeling who later became Minister for Agriculture in 1958:
With greater state involvement in the individual quest for welfare, and the
growing conviction that all irrational production is immoral, the farmer should
give up his personal ambitions and subordinate himself to the demands
imposed by society. If he does not manage to do this, either because he does
not want or is unable to improve upon the economic outcome of his action
above a certain standard, then it will be necessary to remove him from his farm
(Vondeling 1948: 6, quoted in Haan 1993: 151).
True to the objective of the report and the radical view by prominent people
including Vondeling to modernize agriculture and the countryside, Haan states
that there was a boom in family farms in the Eastern and Southern parts of the
country from the 1950s onwards (Haan 1993: 150).
Karel (2010:2) confirms that the Dutch agriculture sector from the 1950s
was characterized by rationalization, specialization and expansion of production
to make the country’s farms competitive at the international market. This means
the Dutch vibrant family farming system was not achieved serendipitously. It
came about through years of careful planning and determination.
Notable Dutch agrarian authors at the time defended the positive virtues of
the blossoming family farms. One for such authors is F W J Kariella who is
credited to have coined the term “family farm” (Gezinsbedrijf) in 1951 in the
country. He writes:
Living and working together on the farm strengthens the unity of the family,
reinforcing parents’ authority and influence, domesticity and religiosity; it turns
the family into a real community. This is one of the main reasons why farmers
constitute a stable element in society, hardly or not at all susceptible to
extremist and revolutionary influences (Kriellaars 1951: 12, quoted in Haan
1993: 155).

12
Kriellaars helped to conceptualise family farms in his country, positing that it is
an entrepreneurial activity in which members of the family provide most of the
labour and financial requirements (Kriellaars 1951: 7, quoted in Haan 1993: 156).
Kriellaars’ concept of the family farm appears to have influenced the world’s
agriculture policy makers. The Committee on World Food Security’s High-Level
Panel of Experts theorizes family farming as a venture which relies on family
labour and finance and managed exclusively by members of the family (Bosc et.al
2013: 10).

2. 4 Type of Agriculture in Research Setting

The province of South Holland3 (province of the research setting) is among the
top 3 provinces in The Netherlands with the highest number of persons working
in the agricultural sector (Eurostat 2010). Some of the lands in the research
setting were reclaimed from the sea. The salinity level of the soil hence keeps
rising making crop farming difficult. This has influenced farmers to engage more
on animal than crop farming. There are goats and poultry, but cattle are the
dominant. They are kept primarily for milk which is used to make cheese. When
the cattle are unable to produce enough milk, they are sent to the slaughterhouse.
The number of cattle in the households ranges between 80 to 500.
Despite the salty nature of the soil in the area, farmers manage to grow
maize as part of the grass family, harvesting it as fodder to feed the animals. The
size of land of farmers ranges between 30 to 150 hectares, putting the average at
40 hectares, which is higher than the national average of 25.9 (Eurostat 2010).

3 The other two provinces together with South Holland with the highest number of
agricultural workers are North-Brabant and Gelderland. According to Eurostat, these
three provinces had more than 30, 000 persons working on farms in 2010. Source: Eu-
rostat 2010.
13
Chapter Three: Theoretical and Conceptual
Framework

3.1 Introduction
This chapter consists of theories and concepts relevant to the study. The aim of
the theoretical and conceptual framework is to demonstrate an understanding of
the relevant concepts and theories of the study to be able to apply it to the body
of knowledge the study is seeking to build (University of Southern California
2018).
The chapter first examines the early concept of family farm put forward by
the Soviet agrarian economist and scholar of rural sociology, Alexander V.
Chayanov. Chayanov is arguably the first classical agrarian author and left-wing4
political adherent who strongly believed in peasant agriculture.
It then focuses on subsequent authors who expanded on his ideas, before
looking at gender and generation—the two key social dimensions in the farming
household affecting intergenerational succession and continuity of the farm
(White 2015: 330).

3.2 The Classic and Ideal Family Farm

Chayanov conceptualizes the family farm as an endeavour that relies exclusively
on labour within the family to produce primarily for consumption while selling
the surplus products to obtain other basic needs (Thorner 1966: 271, Van der
Ploeg 2010: 6, 2013:16). By this, Chayanov claims family farms do not rely on
the market as capitalist farms do, but rather use it as an opportunity to satisfy a
pressing need (Thorner 1966: 271).
He further stresses the difference in capitalist and family farms stating the
former relies on wage labour and capital to produce for profit (surplus) while
the latter depends on labour of the family without hiring outside labour (Van
der Ploeg 2013: 31). Labour-capital relations are thus central and crucial to the
capitalist farm (ibid:15). Based on this assumption, Chayanov believes the small-
scale family farm is superior to large scale capitalist farms as the family farm can
survive without profit, which the capitalist farm cannot (Thorner 1966: 18).
Elaborating on the factors that drive changes in the family farm, Chayanov
proposes the labour-consumer balance and the drudgery-utility balance.
The labour-consumer balance is the number of hands (labour) needed for
working on the farm against the number of mouths (consumption) the farm
feeds (Van der Ploeg 2013: 33). Chayanov argues that the main objective of
production in the family farm is to provide sustenance (Chayanov 1966: 128).
This means there is no accumulation in the family farm like the capitalist farm,
where profit is the motive for production. How does the labour-consumer

4 Left-wing politics is the portion of the political spectrum associated with egalitarianism
ideas and opposition to social hierarchy and inequalities. Source: https://www.britan-
nica.com/topic/left

14
balance constitute an internal drive to changes of the family farm? In answer to
this question, Chayanov uses his native homeland of Russia as an example:
The peasant farm in the course of decades constantly changes its volume,
following the phases of family development, and its elements display a
pulsating curve (ibid: 69).
This means the development of the family has a direct impact on the farm. The
more mouths the farm feeds, the more hands it gets for working, translating into
increase of the size of the farm. If the farm feeds less mouths, also needs less
labour and hence it is likely to decrease production. This concept is still relevant
in developing countries. In Ghana where agriculture is still dependant on human
labour particularly that of the family (Owusu-Amankwah 2015: 4), farming
families would want more children, so the household can get more hands to help
on the farm. Children are motivated to participate in the farm as they are heirs
to the farm upon the retirement of their parents. This contributes significantly
to the expansion of the farm to meet consumption and other needs of the family.
However, if the children find no prospect of inheriting the farm, they might
be reluctant to help. For example, Amanor (2010: 116) finds among the Akan5
speaking people in Southern Ghana that children of a farming household are
reluctant to offer their labour on the farm because they are not entitled by the
customary law to inherit their parents farm. This of course leads to stagnation
of the farm.
Contemporary agrarian authors who identify themselves with the ideas of
Chayanov also believe the labour-consumer balance of the farming household is
tied to the inheritance of the farm which can also serve as an internal key driver
to changes in the farm (Van Der Ploeg 2017:492, Shanin 1982: 9). Van Der Ploeg
particularly argues that changes in the family farm are cyclical, and not linear as
espoused by adherents of modernization school of thought. He points out:
when the parents retire or die, the farm is divided into smaller units, one for
each of the children: the enlarged farm is replaced by several small ones (Van
der Ploeg 2018:492).
The other balance that drive change in the family farm is drudgery-utility.
Drudgery is the extra efforts required to increase total production while utility is
the extra benefit derived as a result in increase in production (Van Der Ploeg
2013: 38). Drudgery is thus associated with both physical and metal hard work
that is needed to increase production. It is manifested by farmers long working
days or hours, sweating under a burning sun and waking up early from bed to
attend to the farm. Utility is the opposite of drudgery. According to Van Der
Ploeg, farming family seeks a balance between drudgery and utility as “a growth
in production implies an increase in drudgery and a decrease in utility” (ibid: 38).
Chayanov himself explains that the farmer is motivated to work due to
demands of the family. As the demands increase, the farmer develops greater
energy for work leading to “an increase in well-being” (Chayanov 1966: 78). The
summary of the drudgery-utility concept is that the desire to meet the demands
of the family leads to hard work which results in increase in production. This
serves as an internal factor that drives change on the farm.

5Akan is an ethnic group of people sprawling in the West African countries of Ghana,
Ivory Coast and Togo with an estimated population of 12 million. Source:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Akan

15
3.3 The Contemporary Family Farm
Agriculture today is driven largely by capital (Martin and Clapp 2015: 549).
However, the development of capitalism in agriculture did not start today. The
agrarian debate in the 19th Century was ignited by capitalism in agriculture. The
agrarian debate still ranges on today. For the purpose of conceptualizing the
modern family farm, the agrarian debate is divided between time and space. First,
let us look at the time debate.
Some of the classical agrarian authors believed capital in agriculture would
be an external driver that would completely transform farming. Karl Marx for
example understood capital as a tool for exploitation by those who own it
(Harvey 2003: 73). He predicted that peasant agriculture can’t compete with
capital. According to Marx, the peasant would either become a capitalist farmer
or be transformed into a wage worker on the farm due to differentiation brought
by capital investment in agriculture (Akram-Lodhi and Kay 2009: 4). Vladimir
Lenin in his Development of Capitalism in Russia also makes similar claims as Marx
that peasant agriculture has no future due to intrusion of capital in agriculture
(Lenin 1964: 686).
There is division among current agrarian scholars on Chayanov’s concept
of family farm. Henry Bernstein for example follows the augment of the 20th
century Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm that peasants do not exist anymore
due to capitalist relations in the agriculture sector (Hobsbawm 1994: 289).
But Van der Ploeg asserts that peasants are still active but have only
reconstituted themselves to adjust to the changes of capitalism that have swept
through the sector in the last half of the 20th century (Van der Ploeg 2010: 1).
He argues strongly in his The peasantries of the twenty-first century: the commoditisation
debate revisited that peasant agriculture is still there and that current family farms
organized like capitalist farms are but “remnants of the past” (ibid: 1).
Van der Ploeg thus considers small entrepreneurial family farmers as
peasants based on the argument of Shanin (1974 :64) that the link between 19th
Century peasants and that of today is not unilinear, but rather a process,
emphasizing that the peasantry is constantly being reshaped in every epoch (Van
der Ploeg 2010: 2).
What makes the concept of peasant agriculture more difficult and confusing
is the space factor. Space is simply the geographical location of the farms. In
developed (Global North) countries where capitalism has matured and
agriculture modernized, peasant agriculture is organized different from
developing countries (Global South) where capitalism is still developing and
agriculture largely at the traditional stage. In the North, small scale farmers have
at their disposal machines, equipment and other technologies for production.
As this cuts down the amount of human labour and increases production, it
simultaneously also demands huge capital investment.
This is the opposite case for small scale farmers in the South, and thus
appears to suggest their counterparts in the North are operating like capitalist
farmers. However, Bernstein (2010a: 112) tries to solve the spatial contradiction
by asking the question “is there any common social relation with capital?" He
then contends:
I think the argument that peasants share certain common conditions of
existence vis-a.-vis corporate capital and therefore have a common basis for

16
 collective action in the pursuit of common interests provides a solid basis for
legitimately grouping them together as a single entity (Bernstein 2010b: 308).
This means Bernstein believes any farmer qualifies to be called a peasant once
the person’s social relation with capital is not for the creation of surplus or what
Marx describes as M-C-M6, meaning Money is transformed into Commodity and
back to Money in an endless cycle. Bernstein might have taken inspiration from
the work of Kautsky in The Agrarian Question in which he argues that capital in
peasant agriculture is not capital that produces surplus value to be invested in
order to produce more surplus value (Kautsky 1974: 65). Kautsky adds that
capital in the family farm constitutes the available tools, buildings, animals and
savings and that these items facilitate labour and production process (ibid: 66).

3.4 Gender

Gender is the social roles assigned to men and women by society based on their
sexuality (Butler 1990: 145). There is distinction between sex and gender. Sex is
the biological characteristics while gender is the social role associated with the
biological characteristics. For example, a man is called a man due to his biological
features.
However, man as the head of household is socially constructed and
produced by society based on norms and traditions. This is what is referred to
as gender. Lorber (1995: 23-24) argues that gender is a process in which social
differences between men and women are created, defined and maintained
through social interaction by members of the society.
Amartya Sen in his Many Faces of Gender Inequality enumerates varieties of
gender inequalities including that found in the household (Sen 2001: 468). Sen
argues that men’s dominance of the household is clear, giving rise to division of
labour in which domestic chores in the household primarily done by women are
not accounted for economically (ibid: 468). This premise thus points to
subjugation and relegation of women in the household, allowing for a system of
patriarchy to thrive.
Sylvia Walby delves deep into men’s hegemony of the household by
theorizing patriarchy as “a system of social structures and practices in which men
dominate, oppress and exploit women” (Walby 1990: 35). But Ray (2007: 1)
takes a moderate view by positing that “Patriarchy is based on a system of power
relations which are hierarchical and unequal” in favour of men. These views
mean theorizing patriarchy may lead to conflicting views.

6M-C-M is part of Karl Marx’s General Formula for Capital. The capitalist uses Money
(M) to buy a Commodity (C) and sells that commodity to make Money (M) or profit.
According to Marx that is how capital works in an endless cycle. Source:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch04.htm

17
3.5 Gender Relations in Agrarian Household

How power and property are formed, and their change are relevant in agrarian
political economy as they allow the study of dynamics in farming households
(Bernstein 2010:1). The immerging concept of gender in agrarian literature
depicts a system of exclusion and dominance of men in farming household
against women.
Agrarian societies are said to be patriarchal. Women are subordinated in the
household—they do domestic chores which are unaccounted as economic
activity (Ní Laoire 2002: 8, Stearns 2006: 18, Jacobs 2013: 42). Particularly on
succession of the farm and other properties, sons are preferred to daughters
(Shortall 2006: 20). According to Symes (1990: 280) “women suffer extreme
prejudice in succession and inheritance; they are likely to succeed only when
'normal' systems for intergenerational transfer of property rights break down”.
The FAO estimates that 20% of landholders in developing countries are
women and that they hold small and low fertile lands (FAO 2011: 3). The
Preference of sons to daughters on farm inheritance is associated with historical
traditional practices across the world (Schwarz 2004: 222). One of such
traditional practices is religion. For example, Rahman and Van Schendel (1997:
264) find in the Muslim-dominated village of Monglarpara, Bangladesh that
although partible inheritance is practiced, women are not allowed to inherit and
take possession of land. This patriarchal system of inheritance is said to have
been inspired by the Hanafi7 belief system on inheritance (ibid: 265).
Lisa Bossenbroek links women exclusion in the farming household to the
current generational crisis in farming. She documents in the village of Saiss
plteau in Morocco how gendered norms and constraints are influencing young
people’s future aspirations. As young men are hoping to become agricultural
innovators and producing organic crops for export, their opposite sex want to
establish a bakery or tailoring business and marry a wealthy person in the city or
the village (Bossenbroek 2016: 118).

3.6 Analysing Gender Relations in Agrarian

Household: Patriarchy or Partnership?

The writings on the concept of gender clearly show that men and women in
farming households are not treated equally. However, as simple as the gender-
based exclusion can be blamed on patriarchy, there is another view. Farming is
an activity that demands intensive labour. About 10,000 years ago when settled
agriculture begun, it depended mostly on human labour or drudgery.

7Hanafi is one of the four religious schools of jurisprudence in Sunni Islam founded by Imam
Abu Hanifa. The denomination holds Islamic Law in order of importance and preference: the
Quran first, before the hadiths—the actions and customs of Prophet Muhammad.
Source: http://www.deo-band.net/blogs/hanafi-school-of-fiqh

18
The demand for intensive human labour and hard work appears to have made
agriculture more suitable for men than women as the former have more physical
strength than the latter (White 2016: 7). This inherent drudgery nature of
agriculture can thus be a factor to explain why men played lead roles on the farm
in almost all agrarian societies throughout history across the world (Stearns 2006:
11-13).
In the context of this study, women are aware of the distinction between
the sexes and think men are appropriate for inheriting the farm. In fact, the
women don’t see this as male dominance but believe the role they play in the
household are complementary to that of the men that helps in the effective
administration of the farm.
This scenario is hence closely related to the opinion of the French
sociologist Émile Durkheim that gender differences is the basis for work roles
in the household between the man and woman (Shope 1994: 27). Durkheim
disagreed that patriarchy and religious beliefs are responsible for the subornation
of women in the household as he claimed they rather elevates and allow the
family to function properly, unlike in primitive societies where there was no
assignment of work roles within the family (ibid: 24-28). By this, Durkheim
sought to create the impression that gender roles have nothing to do with
disadvantaging any of the sexes but serve as complementary.
Janet Hinson Shope in examining Durkheim’s views admits that even
radical feminists see “men and women as distinct, but complementary beings (Shope
1994:24). To put this discourse in perspective, members of the farming
household particularly the parents see themselves as one unit. Though the man
acts as the head of the household, he sees himself as part of the woman and vice
versa for the woman.
However, despite the two in one concept, there is yet another opinion to
analysing gender relations in agrarian household. This revolves around power
and property. Some authors assert that though the two in one concept is visible
in agrarian households, the role of the woman in broader context is regarded as
being complementary, thus turning the relations on power and property of the
household in favour of the man (Price and Conn 2012: 94).
Grubbström et.al (2014: 153) explain that in most cases an economic value
is placed on the role of the man on the farm. But that of the woman is treated
differently even if they play crucial economic which sustain the farm (Saugeres
2002: 644, Flygare 2012:4). Djurfeldt and Gooch (2001:4) find in Sweden that
despite the immense economic contributions of women to the continuity of the
farm, less than half of such women get the opportunity to become even co-
owners of the farm with their husbands. Jacobs (2013: 42) thus takes a swipe on
authors who attempt to analyse households as undivided entities. He argues it
conceals the asymmetrical power and property relations in favour of men in the
households (ibid: 42).

19
3.7 Generation

Intergenerational succession of the farm is at the heart of farming households.

As Henry Bernstein puts it “community and its reproduction is always likely to
involve tensions of gender and intergenerational relations. The former is widely
recognised, the latter less so” (Bernstein 2010:16). This means intergenerational
tension in agrarian households have received less attention.
The Oxford Living Dictionaries defines generation as “All of the people
born and living at about the same time, regarded collectively” (Oxford Living
Dictionaries). It is through generational succession that farming families transfer
their social heritage of the farm to the next generation including land and other
farming resources such as agricultural knowledge and skills (White 2016:6).

3. 8 Conceptualizing Generation in Agrarian Studies:

Property and Power for the Old

Using generation as a conceptual framework in agrarian studies is new. The

credit goes to Ben White, Emeritus Professor of Rural Sociologyy at ISS.
Generation is divided into two broad categories—the old and the young. The
older generation are the ones currently managing the farms while the younger
are the ones aspiring to become farmers. Generation is thus a relational concept
between the old and young in a household (Park and White 2017: 1105).
In the farming household, the older generation are the parents who have
the power and play frontline roles on the farm. The younger are the children
who have less power and play minimal roles, in most case without financial
compensation (ibid: 1106) because they are part of the household, representing
Chayanov’s labour-consumer balance idea.
Just like the gender dimension, a dominant claim of the conception of
generation in a farming household also shows a system of dominance by the
older against the younger (White 2016: 1, White 2012: 14, Park and White 2017:
1105). The older generation by their position monopolize agrarian power and
resources without creating opportunities for the younger generation to
participate in farming. The young ones would have to wait until the passing away
or the retirement of the older generation before they could start their farms.
Ben White describes this situation as ‘timepass’, a situation where children
must spend many years working for parents or other elderly relatives until they
are 40 or 50 years old to be a farmer after the retirement of their parents (White
2012: 14). The farming household hence becomes synonymous to a
gerontocratic society where older people monopolize power to the exclusion of
the youth.
Kouame (2010: 137) documents in the West African country of Côte
d’Ivoire where the older generation leased vast tracts of land to foreign
companies to produce pineapple rendering the youth or the children of their
households landless leading to their alienation from agriculture. Young people
in Ghana too engaged in night-time harvesting of oil palm kernels as they
20
became frustrated of obtaining land to start their own farm due to the leasing of
vast tracts of land to the Ghana Oil Palm Development Company8 (Amanor
1999:107). These situations spark discontent accompanying with riots among the
younger against the older generation (Peters 2011: 29).

3.9 Analysing Generational Exclusion in Farming

Most of the evidence emerging from the generational exclusion against the
young are from households practicing land-intensive farming. This thus appears
to suggest the type of farming being practiced greatly influences the generational
exclusion. Land is a priority in such households, and the younger generation
would have to wait for the retirement of the old or engage in an intense
negotiation before they could have access to land (White 2016: 7, Li 2014: 59,
Punch 2011: 156).
Some authors take note of this phenomena, arguing that generational
exclusion of young people from farming is mostly prevalent in households
practicing intensive agriculture (Borgerhoff Mulder et al 2009: 17; Shenk et al.
2010: 64). Shenk et al (2010: 65) explicitly state that land is “key to the high and
persistent levels of inequality seen in societies practicing intensive agriculture”.
Ben White acknowledges this and writes:
Intergenerational transmissions play a key role in perpetuating and
strengthening inequality in access to agrarian resources among small-scale
agriculturalists and pastoralists, in contrast to shifting horticulturalists and
foraging peoples (White 2016: 6).
Apart from the type of agriculture being practiced by households, the macro
society also influences the exclusion. In developed countries where agriculture
is modernized and organized, farming is largely seen as an entrepreneurial
activity especially among family farmers (Van der Ploeg: 2010: 4). This means
the farm is considered as a property with a succession plan. This contrast sharply
with developing countries particularly in Africa where the overall value of the
farm is placed only on land, making it a highly contested resource (Obeng-
Odoom 2016: 661).
To substantiate this claim, Europe which today has organized and modern
agriculture system when lacking these in previous centuries experienced land
related conflicts between the older and the younger generations as a result of the
former’s monopoly of the resource. Agrarian authors have documented plenty
of these intergenerational conflicts and tensions over land between the younger
and the older generations (Watts 1984: 59, Arensberg and Kimball 1968: 40,
Abrahams 1990: 157, Berkner 1976: 78, Le Roy Ladurie 1974: 33).
However, this is not an absolute claim that there is no generational
exclusion of young people from farming currently in developed countries. The
section of the younger generation whose parents have no farms or do a part-
time farming and thus are unable to build a viable farm for their children to

8 Ghana Oil Palm Development Company is a subsidiary of Siat Group of Belgium, an

integrated agro-industrial company specialized in the cultivation of oil palm, extraction
of crude palm oil and palm kernel oil. Source: http://www.gopdc-ltd.com/

21
inherit, face exclusion if they want to become farmers. This is because farming
in these areas is regarded as an entrepreneurial activity and hence demands lots
of financial investment. Ben White labels such young aspiring farmers as
‘newcomers’, highlighting the difficulties involved to start a farm in these areas
(White 2016: 16).
Matthews and Tucker (2011: 97-99) document how ‘newcomers’ in a village
in Northamptonshire, in the English midlands have become disenchanted due
to how they have been completely alienated from the land and rural life although
they love to stay in the village and engage in farming. Similarly, ‘newcomers’ in
Hamilton, Ontario province in east-central Canada have to work for established
farms in their area on part-time basis to gain the skills and knowledge needed to
start their own farms (Haalboom 2013: 26).
Synthesising this analysis, the evidence show generational exclusion against
young people in farming mostly happens in places where agriculture is
underdeveloped and unorganized, as well as places where intensive or crop
farming is practiced. Nevertheless, exclusion is also in places with organized
agriculture system.

22
Chapter Four: Data Presentation

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the data collected from the 10 farming households during
the fieldwork. The data is grouped into four broad themes—Gender,
Generation, Marriage and Religion. These themes were found to be dominant in
the data collected through participant observation and interviews.
Presenting the data thematically allows for in-depth and thorough approach
during the analytical stage in chapter five. Anonymity of respondents is part of
the ethical consideration of the study and hence the word “Man” stands for a
father of the household while “Woman” is mother. Man and Woman are the
current generation who oversee the farm. The word “Young Man” denotes male
dependent or child of the household. “Young Woman” represents female
dependent or child of the household. Young Man and Young Woman are the
next generation who are expected to inherit the farm.

4.2 Gender
Gender emerging as one of the themes of the findings of the study was expected
as it is one of the key dimensions of households. The farming families are gender
conscious. Male children are mostly the preferred candidates for inheriting the
farm and are oriented towards such a goal. After their primary education and a
little of bit secondary, they are mostly enrolled in agricultural school. According
to farmers, this is to allow the boy to gain theoretical and broader knowledge on
how to manage the farm.
From the interviews, the study finds that men who received the agricultural
education when they were young are likely to enrol their sons in the agricultural
school to prepare them to inherit the farm. In fact, those who had some form
of agricultural education (seven out of the 10 households) looked more
organized on their farm and are very anxious to get their children to learn more
about farm management in agriculture in school than those who do not.
Sons who don’t want to go to agricultural school start committing
themselves fully to the farm at a very early age. As they grow, their
responsibilities on the farm keep increasing. Once a son shows interest in the
farm rather than schooling, fathers are more comfortable and would involve the
son more and more in the activities of the farm. The goal is to prepare the son
to take over the farm.
I started to work on the farm at 10 or 11 years. I did not like school. I wanted
to work on the farm and my father was happy about it. I started gradually with
driving the tractors, milking the cows and helping to cut the grass to feed the
cows. As I grew the responsibility kept increasing. [Interview: Man of
Household Five. 21 July 2018, Bergambacht].
This means fathers are generally happy if their sons show early interest in the
farm. The happiness stems from the fact that the farm would get a successor
who as it is believed would be capable to expand and hand it to another
successor.

23
In a sharp contrast, female children are not oriented to take over the farm.
Instead, they are mostly restricted to the cheese making aspect of the farm. They
combine the cheese making with schooling with the hope of working outside
the farm in the future. As a result, they grow up with less interest in inheriting
the farm. This leads to division of labour along gender lines as males take care
of animals and work on the fields while females work on the cheese.
The farming household in general is structured like a pyramid. At the apex is the
father who has the greater say regarding the decisions and overall management
of the farm. After the father is the mother. The mother also wields power, but
the power is mostly restricted to the cheese making aspect of the farm.
Rearing the cows, building of stables and preparing the land for the cows
including tilling and cutting the grass is the primary duty of the man. The
children depending on their gender would work on the cows or the cheese.
Young men normally would follow their father milking the cows and helping in
the fields while young women would follow their mother on the cheese making.

Father

Mother

Children

Figure 4.2: Structure of the Farming Household in Research Setting.

Source: Adams 2018.

From careful observation, the rearing of the cows is considered the major
activity of the farm. Although the cheese making is important as it is mostly the
main first finished product of the cows, some of the farmers admit the history
of the farms started with keeping of the livestock. The cheese making was added
later when farmers realized it is a viable business. The farm is thus deliberately
structured for the male children to takeover. Although heads of the household
say they would not mind if their female children takeover the farm, they admit
the generational succession is from father to son and not father to daughter or
mother to daughter.
It is very important if you have the farm from a father to son [succession]. You
should involve your son. If you don’t, it is probably going to be the last
generation of the farm. There were some farmers who didn’t involve their sons,
so the farm couldn’t expand and some even shutdown. For me and my dad
24
 we always think the same that I should take over the farm. My son is now 14
years. He is going to agricultural school and I try to involve him in the farm
like my father did to me. [Interview: Man of Household Eight. 2 August 2018,
Stolwijk].
As it is claimed a farm risks folding up due to lack of a son succession, the
question then becomes what is the special thing about the sons that they are
perceived as better managers of the farm than daughters? The answer is made
explicitly by Man of Household Eight as he continues:
If I had a daughter who likes the farm, I would involve her. I have three
daughters. The oldest is 13 years and doesn’t like the farm. The other two are
too young. On a farm, the farmer makes the decisions than the wife. People
say men and women are equal. Well, they may be equal, but they are not the
same. A woman thinks different than a man. Even if a farmer has daughter
who takes over the farm, the son-in-law becomes the leader. I prefer my son
to take over the farm because father-son succession is far better. It is 100
percent. It is easier to have father-son than father-daughter. [Interview: 2
August 2018. Stolwijk].
Of course, there is a contradiction of wanting to involve daughters in the farm
and at the same time preferring sons to takeover. The contradiction can be de-
duced from the implicit fear that not only the daughters would be unable to
manage the farm and expand it for the next successor, the farm is also likely to
fall into the hands of the future husband of daughter leading to losing the farm
to another male lineage. In fact, the study finds this situation:
My wife was born on this place [the farm] and her parents had only female
children—three girls including my wife. The other two left the farm but my
wife stayed and took over the farm. My own parents were also farmers. They
had goats. The farm belongs to the father of my mother. Our farm was small
as compared to that of my wife’s parents. When we married the father of my
wife agreed that I take the farm [Interview: Man of Household Six. 22 July
2018, Bergambacht].
This is not just a single case. The study further finds same situation in which a
seemingly ‘outsider’ has come to occupy a frontline role of the farm. This man
from Household Seven also narrates how he has taken over the farm inherited
by his wife:
My father wanted me to become a farmer. I had another brother who was also
interested in farming. But our farm was too small for the two of us. So when I
met my wife and her parents had a farm that she inherited that was good for
me. I left the farm of my parents for my other brother and now I am taking
care of this. I am the manager, and she makes the cheese and cooks for me and
the children. [Interview: 22 July 2018, Bergambacht].
The study can thus deductively reason that since it is likely for husbands of
daughters who inherit the farm to take over the farm, there is fear of losing the
farm to an ‘outsider’ which makes the family to want their sons to inherit the
farm, so the farm remains in the Patrilineal lineage. This is probably the prime
factor making parents to want their sons to inherit the farm instead of daughters.

25
4.3 Generation

The study finds that the gender dimension of the farming family is tied to
generation. As it has been already discussed that the farming family prefers sons
to inherit the farm than daughters, the question of generational succession to
the farm is thus central to the family. It was clear during the interviews that once
a successor takes over the farm, the person’s major concern becomes the next
successor.
Although some farmers say they would not force any of their children to
take over the farm as the profession demands passion, they nevertheless orient
their children especially the sons in a manner that would ignite the passion. For
example, it is common to find on the farms farming tools for kids and other
playing objects such as tractors, excavators, trucks and other farming equipment
and tools. This appears to be a bait to get the children to have an interest in the
farm, so succession can be easy. Sons respond positively to this orientation and
are far more likely to become successors than daughters. Attempting to
understand why daughters despite the childhood orientation to have an interest
in the farm fails, a Young Woman of Household One shares her experience:
When I was young, I was attending to the cows and a cow walked over me. So,
this made me not to like the cows. Sometimes I help with the cheese. I like the
cheese, but I don’t want to inherit the farm. I haven’t decided but surely not
on the farm. Even if my parents hand over the farm to me, I wouldn’t work
with the cows. I would get workers to do that. My brother is always on the
farm and he likes it very much. It is easy for him to work with the cows and
the tractors than me. [Interview: 5 August 2018. Bergambacht].
Though this girl’s bad encounter with the cows during her childhood days could
be the demotivating factor, the generic belief among the young female is that
their opposite sex (brothers) are better candidates to inherit the farm.
I was around the age of eight when I did little tasks like feeding the calves.
When I grew up, I started to help my dad milk the cows. I can’t inherit the farm
because my brother will. I don’t have the ambition to do it. I don’t think I could
manage the farm on my own. [Interview: Young Woman of Household Five.
12 August 2018, Bergambacht].
The perception among the young females that their brothers are the right
candidates to inherit the farm could partly be attributed to how they were
oriented towards the farm. Parents want sons to inherit the farm hence
daughters don’t receive same attention paid to sons on tasks on the farm.
In a sharp contrast to daughters, sons prove their overwhelming love for
the farm. Particularly for those who are 20 years and above, they are beginning
to take part in the decision making of the farm. They claim it is an opportunity
for them to build on to what their parents have done on the farm. Even for
those sons whose parents’ farms are relatively small, they go outside their farms
to look for bigger farms where their services are needed. As they work and get
paid, they have the vision of using their experience to expand their small family
farm when they become managers.

26
 My parents are farmers and we lived in this farmhouse. My father introduced
me to the farm when I was young. I didn’t like school, so I started to do more
work on the farm. Our farm is not big, so I am working for a farm bigger farm
next to our farm. I milk the cows, drive the tractors and the excavators. I want
to become a farmer. I am hoping to take over our small farm and expand it.
[Interview: Young Man of Household Seven. 10 August 2018, Stolwijk].
The admission by this young man that his father introduced him early to the
farm could even serve as a clue as to why sons are likely to inherit the farm. It is
hence the common case that sons normally would dislike the school of general
education in favour of the farm or agricultural education. When this happen,
fathers become relax as the next successor is guaranteed.
Farmers admit the number of farms is reducing while the size is expanding.
According to farmers, this situation is not necessarily because of generational or
succession problem. They rather blame it on rising difficulty in investment and
over all financing of the farm. Although generational succession uncovered by
the study appears to be smooth, there is also the situation which if not handled
well could degenerate into conflict. This interview is an example one of such
situations:
My oldest son is going to do his traineeship in the agriculture sector. The
second son is studying dairy farming. The hobby of my third son is working
with the machines on the farm. All three are interested. Together with them we
have agreed that the farm should be taken by the second son. He seems to like
the farm more. It is difficult to deal with the situation when all the children are
interested in inheriting the farm. It requires compromise [Interview: Man of
Household Four. 29 July 2018, Bergambacht].
This means that when a household has two or more sons who are all willing to
inherit the farm, it puts the household in a difficult position. This of course
requires a compromise and understanding between the children in order not to
break up the farm into pieces which could lead to its demise.
In a more extreme case, the compromise could include the potential
successor buying the farm from the parents, so the money would be distributed
to the rest of the siblings. This resonates with the view of van der Ploeg that
succession issue can serve as a key internal change to the family farm as there is
potential of breaking the farm into pieces in a case of two or more heirs who
would not compromise for one person to inherit the farm (Van der Ploeg
2018:492). At the same time, this situation can also lead to the expansion as if all
the siblings accept a single successor while they channel their efforts to helping
this person on the farm.

4.4 Marriage
The study finds that the union between a man and a woman is an important
factor in preserving the social heritage and continuity of the farm. In fact, the
study did not expect to find this social relation as a crucial factor for the farming
household. But few days into the data collection, I started to uncover a
consistent pattern among the farming households.

27
The man who inherits the farm is likely to marry a woman who comes from a
farming background or has worked on the farm before as a cheese maker.
Likewise, the daughter of a farmer is likely to marry a farmer. The study took
an interest in this pattern and delved into it to understand why this is happening.
From the responses given by farmers, it shows they are engaging in such
marriage for the sake of compatibility. Compatibility simply means two things
co-existing without major problems. It was expressed from different
perspectives.
The parents of my mother were farmers and she married my father whose
parents built this farm. My mother’s parents had a little farm. My wife worked
in a cheese farm. So you can see we are really farming family. It is easier to
work together when you have a woman who worked on a farm before.
[Interview: Man of Household Two. 8 August 2018, Stolwijk].
This man expresses the general view of compatibility without telling what he is
really seeking to achieve from engaging in such form of marriage. However, his
revelation about the marriage pattern of his grandparents, parents as well as that
of his wife gives an insight into the marriage pattern of his predecessors of the
farm. This thus suggest that the intertwining marriage of farmers did not start
from this current generation.
The study wanted to understand whether the intertwining marriages were
deliberate. The general response by the older generational farmers show it is not
deliberate but a random situation. This farmer also expresses compatibility as
the reason for his marriage.
I took over the farm 3 years ago and have been running it with my wife. My
wife is also a daughter of a farmer. Her mother was making cheese, so she
learned it and takes care of the cheese on this farm. The farm is like an
entrepreneurial environment so if both of you [husband and wife] grew up in
such an environment it makes it easier to invest and expand the farm since you
really understand how the farm works. Had my wife been working outside the
farm, it would have been very difficult for us to manage the farm [Interview:
Man of Household Three. 20 July 2018, Bergambacht].
This man is concerned about the entrepreneurial aspect of the farm which he
thinks is the foundation for expanding the farm hence the couple should have
such an experience. As said under generation that the preoccupation of the
successor is to maintain or expand the farm for the next successor,
entrepreneurial skills are valued on the farm. It is through which the farm invests
and expands production. And this is mostly done by sacrificing pleasure for
investment. The couple ought to have the foresight, vision, determination,
perseverance and the zeal to working hard to expand the farm. This scenario is
a perfect example of Chayanov’s idea of the drudgery-utility balance which van
der Ploeg describes “a growth in production implies an increase in drudgery and
a decrease in utility” (Van der Ploeg 2013: 38). Another thing that could be said
about the man’s opinion on entrepreneurship and investment is that he would
have probably married any woman with entrepreneurial skills not necessarily
acquired on the farm like on family-owned business or personal start-ups, as
these are entrepreneurial oriented businesses.
As the older generation or the men claim their marriages to women from
farming background were mere coincidences, the study turns the attention on
the younger generation who are planning to inherit the farm. The goal was to
find out the kind of women they would like to marry in future when they take

28
over the farm. Interestingly, the responses were that they would like to marry
women who have farming backgrounds or are familiar with farming. Again, the
reason for such a marriage choice is compatibility which was also expressed
differently.
I don’t have a girlfriend now but if I am going to marry, I would like to marry
a woman who goes to church [religious woman] and comes from a farming
family. If the woman comes from a farming family, it would help me to do the
farming well. It would help us to raise our children, so they could take over the
farm if we stop farming. Farming is a special work. You can’t just marry
anybody who doesn’t believe in it. It is important for me to do all these
considerations before I marry. [Interview: Young Man of Household Four. 30
July 2018, Bergambacht].
Unlike the economic and investment considerations of the man from household
Three, this young man is concerned about the social continuity of the farm by
training his children to like the farm hence his decision wanting to marry a
woman with farming experience.
Another young man from household 3 also shares his thoughts between the
past and the present on his ideas on the need to marry a woman with a farming
background:
When I didn’t have interest in the farm and started my university education, I
used to go to the club to party with girls. But now I have stopped. I want to
marry a woman with a farming background who at least has little education.
This would help me in my vision to become a farmer with my ICT knowledge.
If I marry a woman who has no understanding of farming it is likely going to
complicate things for me. The farm doesn’t really give much income. And if
you marry a woman who doesn’t understand some of these challenges it would
be difficult for you to have a happy life. [Interview: Young Man of Household
Ten. 11 August 2018, Bergambacht].

The young man’s wish for a compatible partner is expressed in the light of
somebody who can make judicious use of economic resources available on the
farm. This view shed light on the nature of frugality that exists in the farming
household. For example, in a household with over 500 cattle, 1, 800 pigs and
other livestock, the family do not regard themselves as wealthy. Some farmers
reveal they hardly take vacations, concentrating their efforts to working on the
farm and living a moderate lifestyle. This also is part of Chayanov’s concept of
the internal drivers of change of the farm where the farming family chooses
drudgery over utility which is likely to improve the wellbeing of the family
(Chayanov 1966: 78).

29
4.5 Religion
Through participant observation and the interviews conducted, the study also
uncovered that the farming households conduct their affairs in line with their
religious belief system. All ten households are members of the Protestant Church
of The Netherlands which is rooted in the doctrine of Calvinism9 or Calvinist
branch of Protestant Christianity. Normally the farms are busy six days in a
week—from Monday to Saturday. Sunday is for church service. The entire
household participates.
Whenever the family gathers around the dining table for a meal, a special
prayer is said before the food is eaten. Especially for the last meal of day (supper)
it always closes with reading of verses from the Bible after eaten. The children
are particularly encouraged to read or listen attentively as the mother or the
father reads. According to the older generation of the households, the rationale
behind such reading is to thank God and show appreciation for the grace shown
to the family for harmonious living on the farm.
The older generation believes their religious activities are part of their
inherited tradition on the farm and must be passed down to the next generation.
This they say helps to maintain the moral values of the family which have
profound influence on the operation of the farm. A Woman from Household
One explains why members of a farming household take their religious duties
seriously on the farm:
We are religious people. We are Christians. It is part of us. We work with
nature. We know we can’t do all things by ourselves. We need the help of God.
We need the rain to water the fields for the grass to grow. If you mention
Holland people think it is all about Amsterdam. People in the cities don’t care
about these things. We are farmers. We care. We need the rain [Interview: 28
July 2018, Bergambacht].
The opinion of this woman reinforces the assumption by some agrarian scholars
that farming is a special profession because of its closeness to nature. Even
before the advent of Christianity people believed nature is controlled by a
supreme deity. Thus, becoming a farmer means submitting to the will of this
supreme deity. This is what F W J Kariella describes as the religiosity of the
farming household which is crucial to maintaining the social order unlike people
living outside the farm who are susceptible to extremist and revolutionary
influences (Kriellaars 1951: 12, quoted in Haan 1993: 155).
Further, how religion motivates the farming household to continue farming
and ensuring intergenerational succession could be seen in the context of the
Christian belief that farming is profession ordained by God, and being a farmer
means doing the will of God.
Farming is work with the cattle, work with the ground and work with nature.
God created Adam and Eve and when they were driven out of the Garden of
Eden, they became farmers, so God created us [humans] to be farmers.
Farming is the original profession for mankind. But today they say even
prostitution is a profession. That is not true. Farming is our profession. If you

9 Calvinism is a branch of Protestant Christianity that follows the teachings of the

French 16th-century religious theologian John Calvin. Source: https://dutchre-
view.com/culture/society/calvinism-netherlands-dutch-calvinist-nature/

30
 are a farmer, you serve the whole of mankind. The young, the old, rich, poor
all eat food because of the farmer. [Interview: Man of Household Ten. 12
August 2018, Bergambacht].
This view shows the belief among farmers that they have a greater responsibility
in the society by way of feeding people and hence are fulfilling the
commandments of God. It also adds to the claim that the development of this
modern human species was accelerated when settled agriculture begun thus
making farming a crucial profession for human development.
The belief that being a farmer means serving God and humanity is so deep
in the farming household to the extent that even the younger generation of the
household believes there is no better way to serve God than becoming a farmer.
This Young Man of Household Two expresses his views on the religious
influence on the farm:
You know, what happens at the village is even different from what happens
here on the farm. Here you think more about the blessing of God as you can
see how the animals and the grass grow. I think our religious activities in the
church has encouraged us to work hard as farmers because we know lots of
people depend on us for their food. And that itself is a form of worshipping
God. [Interview: 28 July 2018, Stolwijk].
This is an attempt to separate the farm from the entire community and show the
influence of the farm on members of the household to believe in God which in
turn shapes the lives of residents on the farm. As the young has found this
inspiration, for the older generation, it is thus a duty to socialize the younger
ones in religious activities, so it could shape them to want to inherit the farm.
Some farmers fear that if they fail to teach their children religious values it could
lead to loss of interest which ultimately might threatened the future succession
of the farm.
You see, if I don’t show my children the right path [belief in God] they would
grow up to become like many who are turning away from God. They would
even leave the farm and go to the city [Interview: Man of Household Ten. 12
August 2018, Bergambacht].
This explains the important relationship between God and that farm for farmers.
When God is removed from the equation on the farm, it takes away a crucial
pillar of the farm away.

31
Chapter Five: Data Analysis

5.1 Introduction
The aim of the analysis is to answer the research question of the study: How are
the farming families preserving their social heritage for intergenerational
sustainability and continuity of their farms? The analysis primarily relies on the
interviews. It will also include what the author observed during his stay as
participant of work activities on the farm. Although the findings were presented
thematically, it is impossible to analyse all of them within the theoretical and
conceptual framework.
As it is common with many qualitative data analysis for the researcher to
use discretion, paying attention to relevance to an existing or emergent
theoretical theme of the study (Life, Researching Social 1994: 59-60), this study
follows the same path in the analysis. It is important to take note that the reason
for analysing part of the data within the framework of the theories is to stimulate
theoretical thinking in the overall knowledge production of the paper.
However, this does not mean the study is seeking to develop a grounded
theory—looking for the part of the data that contradicts the theoretical
framework to develop new or refine the theory nor analytical induction which
aims at achieving a ‘universalistic’ explanation to the theoretical framework
(Becker 1963: 15). The aim is to have a nuanced analysis to shed light on different
perspectives.

5.2 Gender and Farm Succession

There is no doubt from the data presented that the farming household are male-
dominated. Of course, there is a clear patriarchal tendency. But this type of
patriarchy is far from Sylvia Wally’s idea of men dominance through oppression
and exploitation of women (Walby 1990: 35).
It rather appears as a system of power relations which puts men ahead of
women particularly on power and property in the household (Ray 2007: 1).
Women despite the skills and knowledge they bring to the management of the
farm is seen as playing supportive roles, echoing the findings of previous works
in Northern Europe that women despite their economic contribution do not
even get the opportunity to become owners or even co-owners of the farm with
their husbands (Djurfeldt and Gooch 2001:4, Grubbström et.al 2014: 153,
Saugeres 2002: 644 , Flygare 2012). This biased treatment is likely to cause an
internal tension between the man and the woman, and more especially among
the children as daughters might feel sons are receiving preferential treatment.
The basis of Bernstein’s claim that community at the household level is
embedded with tensions on property and power (Bernstein 2010:16) is thus
partly premised on this situation of gender dynamics of the household. It also
validates the claim of Jacobs that it is inaccurate to analyse household as a united
entity, but as a group in which each member has a place, acting as a distinct entity
(Jacobs 2013:42). This allows for the unpacking of power and property relations
in the household.

32
Daughters marry and move out from the farm to stay with their husbands (8 out
of the 10 households studied, the wives joined their husbands on the farm in
their early 20s). Even before they leave the farm, they show little interest in
taking care of the livestock, but more interest in cheese making. The livestock
meanwhile are considered as the foundation of the farm. Two factors— the
nature of farming and the way the women are oriented towards the farm are
likely to have accounted for preventing women from inheriting the farm.
In a broader agrarian political economy debate the former can be attributed
to agency while the latter is social structural. Agency is simply the capacity of the
individual to decide on which action to take or not while social structure is the
consistent pattern of social life that replaces and regulates the instinct of the
individual to meet the expectations of members of the society (Giddens 1999:
17-19).
Despite some level of mechanization, there still exist high level of drudgery
or physical labour on the farm. (During summer time activities on the farm
including feeding, cleaning and milking the cows star as early as 4:30am and close
as late as 11:30pm). The drudgery nature in keeping the livestock appears to be
turning away the women from inheriting and maintaining the farm. The women
explicitly made this clear.
The cows are dirtier and harder to take care of, but the cheese is clean. He
[husband] is capable of taking care of the cows [Interview: Woman of
Household One. 2 August 2018, Stolwijk].
Even the men are aware of the drudgery on the farm and its potential influence
on turning women away from inheriting the farm:
I have three siblings, all females. They didn’t like the farm. They wanted to
become teachers or work in the office. I think maybe it is because of the hard
work on the farm that didn’t make them to like the farm. The work on the farm
is difficult [Interview: Man of Household Ten. 5 August 2018, Bergambacht].
Drudgery demotivating women to take lead role on the farm reverberate with
the findings of Stearns (2006: 11-13) that the demand of physical labour in
agriculture is the likely explanation to why mostly men played lead roles on the
farm in almost all agrarian societies throughout history across the world. This
thus confirms hard labour on the farm cannot be discounted when discussing
the reason women do not become heads of the farms. However, it goes deeper
to mean that although women do not receive the same socialisation as men on
the farm, the former are not exercising their constrained agency in a manner that
would make them competitors.
As drudgery on the farm serves as a demotivating factor for women to
inherit the farm, however, the argument could also be advanced that women do
not like the drudgery partly because of how they are oriented towards the farm.
This means it is not an instinct in women that they do not like to inherit the farm
but due to socialisation. The findings of Shortall (2006: 20) shows men are
socialised to inherit the farm and other properties to the disadvantage of women.
Symes (1990: 280) finds that women get the opportunity to inherit the farm only
when 'normal' system breaks down, where normal refers to men. This means it
is only when sons are not available to inherit the farm that daughters are given
the opportunity. Further, van der Ploeg has documented patrimonial inheritance
pattern among family farmers in Mediterranean Europe (Van der Ploeg 2013:
23). Rahman and Van Schendel (1997: 264), Hann (2008: 15), and even the FAO
(FAO 2011: 3) have all found limited chances of women becoming farm
33
successors. All these are deep social structural factors that leave women with a
constrained agency on inheriting the farm.
Male dominance on succession of the farm is therefore largely socially
constructed and maintained by the family, with the intend of keeping the family
name on the farm, matching the findings of the latest work of Berit Brandth in
Norway where older generation of fathers were anxious to hand over the farm
to their sons for fear of losing it to another lineage should daughters become
successors (Brandth 2018: 8). This shows the gender structure of the household
on inheritance is primarily followed to ensure continuity of the farm in the same
patrilineal lineage.

5.3 Gender Division of Labour and Women’s

Economic Contribution on the Farm
Though women in this study do not inherit as farm head, they nevertheless play
an important economic role in running the farm. This can be seen from the fact
that the women in the households oversee the cheese making part of the farm.
The division of tasks on the farm is not by chance. Farmers believe it leads to
efficiency and best management of the farm. Men value the contribution of
women on the farm. The women also believe dividing the task on the farm helps
to maximize the output of work:
Me and my wife we have our expertise on the farm. I take care of the cows and
milk them while she makes the cheese. Although we sometimes help each other,
our territories [expertise] help us to plan and expand the farm. This makes the
work very easy on the farm [Interview: Man of Household Seven. 2 August 2018,
Stolwijk].
This means that though the work on the farm is divided along gender lines, the
two genders see the role they play as complementary in the overall development
and continuity of the farm. This resonates with the view of Janet Hinson Shope
that although men and women are distinct, they are complementary particularly
as the household level (Shope 1994:24).
Division of labour in the household of this study also proves that women
don’t only do domestic chores which has no economic value as claimed by
Amartya Sen (Sen 2001: 468), but also take active part in the economic activities
on the farm. In fact, the cheese making by the women is one of the crucial
sources of income for the farm. It thus contradicts Sen’s claim that women
always do unpaid work in the household.
However, Sen’s claims were based on evidence from developing
countries—where majority of the households produce raw agriculture products
without no additional value (Brenton and Ikezuki 2005: 55, FAO 2016: 3).
Admittedly, the type of agricultural activity in this research context is unique—
milk which is the primary product of the cows is converted into cheese which is
a finished product. This appears to have given the women an opportunity to
contribute economically on the farm. The question hence to consider is that had
there been no cheese making, what would have been the fate of women in terms
of economic contribution in the household? Probably their situation would have
been like those in developing countries who do only household chores as
pointed out by Sen.

34
Wrapping-up, gender division of labour in the household does not restrict
women to only domestic activities. Women contribute economically to the
running of the farm through their specialized skills on the cheese. The evidence
suggest women are able to contribute economically on the farm due to the type
of agriculture practiced.

5. 4 Generational Inclusion for Continuity of the Farm

The socially learned behaviour of the members of the farming family allow for
the inclusion and involvement of the younger generation particularly sons on the
farm. When a successor takes over the farm, the priority is to expand or at least
maintain the farm. Farmers believe if they inherit the farm, they must make it
better for the next successor or at least keep it the same they took it but not to
contract it as that is a sign of failure. The second priority is the next successor.
As the next possible successor must come from the nuclear family, the children
are oriented towards taking an interest in the farm. Though sons would inherit
the farm, daughters also play a vital economic role by getting involved in the
cheese aspect of the farm.
This part is thus unparallel to the theoretical framework on generation. In
the theoretical discussion, we saw that in the farming household the older
generation or the parents monopolize resources to the exclusion of the younger
generation or the children. Instead of the exclusion and the monopoly of the
resources of the household by the parents or the older generation in the theory
on generation, the study rather finds a well-structured system of inclusion and
proper integration of the younger generation towards the farm. There are two
fundamental reasons that are likely to have caused the contradiction between the
findings and the theory.
First is the type of agriculture practiced. Almost all the findings supporting
the generational exclusion of young people from farming have come from places
where land-intensive or crop farming is practiced. In such places land is a
contested resource as farming demands a higher level of input and output per
cubic unit of agricultural land area, producing primary agricultural products with
no value. It is the opposite in this study. Farming households of this study are
animal farmers and produce value-added agricultural products. This confirms
previous findings that in households practicing land-intensive farming there is
high tendency for tensions to emerge between generations on property relations
particularly on land (Borgerhoff Mulder et al 2009: 17; Shenk et al. 2010: 64,
White 2016: 6).
The second reason rests on the macro society where the farmers live. Again,
the generational exclusion of young people assumption come from
underdeveloped economies or the Global South where the agriculture sector is
largely unorganized with high rate of poverty and youth unemployment, as well
as large chunk of the population working in the agriculture sector. In Ghana for
example, 54% of the working population are in the agriculture sector (GIPC
2014). With scarcity of land and no welfare provision system, the older
generation are left with no choice than to lease out their lands or continue
working on it to the exclusion of the younger ones. This caused conflict between
the youth and older generation in Côte d’Ivoire (Kouame 2010: 137), and Ghana
(Amanor 1999:107). In a sharp contrast this study was conducted in a wealthy

35
and developed economy with a low level of youth unemployment and poverty.
For example, 2.4% of the working population of The Netherlands works in the
agriculture sector (Eurostat 2010). This means that there is not the same level of
pressure on agricultural resources such as land as it is in underdeveloped
economies where majority of the population relies on agriculture to make a
living.
However, it must be pointed out that despite the current favourable
conditions in developed economies that allow for inclusion of younger
generation in farming, there still exist some form of exclusion. This type of
exclusion is not against the younger generation within the farming household. It
is against those who parents are not farmers and thus are not privileged to inherit
a farm but still want to become farmers. These young aspiring farmers are the
people Ben White describes as ‘newcomers’, emphasizing the difficulties they
have to face to become farmers (White 2016: 16). The work of Matthews and
Tucker (2011: 97-99) in the countryside of Northamptonshire in Britain, and
Haalboom (2013: 26) in the Province of Ontario, Canada illuminate the difficulty
‘newcomers’ are facing to become farmers. Starting a farm in these developed
countries is expensive due to the level of development of agriculture. Farmers
admitted in this study that land and other farm technologies or equipment are
expensive. For example, the average cost of tractor is 60,000 Euros. This means
to start a farm one needs a substantial investment, making it difficult for
‘newcomers’ as the banks too would not give out loans to these young people
without collateral.
Also, though there is inclusion of the younger generation within the
household, there can still be tension among children particularly when there are
two or more sons all interested in inheriting the farm. As farmers pointed out
that such situations require compromise, it likely that some few cases could
degenerate into conflict. This is the other part of tensions in the household
Bernstein claims is present in the household but less recognized (Bernstein
2010:16).
In summary, though there is inclusion of the younger generation in the
farming household contradicting majority of the theoretical framework on
generation, the development of farming makes it difficult for those who parents
are not farmers to become part of the profession. Also, despite the inclusion
children enjoy, there could be tensions among them when there are two more
sons, and all are interested in inheriting the farm.

5.5 Compatible Union: Position of women on the

Farm
The stability and continuation of the gender and generational relations of the
farming household partly depends on the pattern of marriage that has been
occurring among farmers. The successor of the farm marrying somebody from
a farming household means there is likely some substantial level of unity and
agreement between the two towards the operation of the farm. This system of
marriage appears to allow the family to preserve its socially learned behaviour,
passing it to their children who in turn replicate the example of their parents.

36
As seen in the data presentation, compatibility was expressed from varied
perspectives. Men want women who possess some form of skills and knowledge
of farming. This means without the women it would be difficult for the men to
run the farm, highlighting the crucial position women occupy on the farm.
Therefore, the farm serves as a link between the marriage making the man and
the woman complementary to each other (Shope 1994:24).
However, despite the seemingly utopian compatibility notion, a critical
perspective questions why despite their contribution of women on the farm have
limited chance to become heads of the farm or in rare cases if they inherit the
farm falls in the hands of their husbands. It can be assumed therefore that the
women are needed on the farm to play complementary roles, leaving all
important decisions concerning the operation of the farm in the hands of the
men. This assumption can be validated with previous findings in Northern
Europe on the relations of women and the farm in which women despite their
immense economic contributions on the farm get less recognition on inheritance
and management of the farm (Grubbström et.al 2014: 153, Saugeres 2002: 644,
Flygare 2012).
The point thus is that men recognize and value the role women play on the
farm. However, the role is regarded as complementary for the stability and
continuity of the farm.

5. 6 Farm Continuity: The God Factor

Although the province of the setting of the research is not an integral part of the
Bible Belt10 of The Netherlands, Calvinist Protestant Christianity is strong in the
area. This has a strong influence on the farming household. The religiosity of
the farming household and how it helps to shape and preserve the social heritage
to ensure continuity of the farm can be analysed in the context of some
Christians creed that farming is the original profession of mankind. In the
biblical story of the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden as narrated in The Bible,
God makes this pronouncement on Adam for disobeying His Commandment:
Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree
about which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground
because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and
thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By
the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for
out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return (Genesis
3:17-19, New Revised Standard Version 2007).
The toiling of Adam on the land and his return into it symbolises not only
working on the land from the beginning of mankind but also shows humans are
part of the land. Working on the farm hence means obeying the commandment
of God which is also considered as part of worship. This belief thus encourages

10 The Bible Belt is a strip of land in the Netherlands with the highest concentration of
conservative orthodox Calvinist Protestants. It runs from the Zeeland islands and
Goeree-Over-flakkee via the rivers area of the provinces of South Holland, Utrecht,
Gelderland and Noord-Brabant through the Gelderse Vallei and the Veluwe to Over-
ijssel. Source: https://mens-en-samenleving.infonu.nl/religie/117285-wat-is-de-bible-
belt.html

37
the farming households to ensure successful transmission of the farm to the next
generation. Generally, the religious aspect has an influence on both gender and
generational relations of the household.

38
Chapter Six

Conclusion
This study conducted in the rural Netherlands set out to understand how
farming families preserve their social heritage to ensure intergenerational
continuity and sustainability of their farms. It was discovered in the literature on
family farms that the sustainability of family farms has been studied and debated
mainly from economic and environmental perspectives, leaving a gap in the
social aspect. To contribute to filling the gap, this study formulated the question
of how farming families are preserving their social heritage of the farm for
intergenerational succession and continuity of the farm.
The findings showed that farming families preserve their social heritage for
intergenerational succession and continuity of the farm through the dynamics of
gender relations, generation, marriage and religion. This answered the research
question of the paper as well as allowing for the delving into the dynamics of the
farming household within the theoretical and conceptual framework. The
findings tend to contradict the theoretical and conceptual framings employed in
this study on gender and generational dimensions of the household. Though the
farming household is male-dominated, with asymmetrical power and property
relations in favour of men, it still gives room for women to make a crucial
economic contribution which helps to sustain and continue the operation of the
farm. Women are not oriented towards inheriting the farm, but they are given
both economic and social skills to make them key actors in the running of the
farm. The prime concern of the successor of the farm is to expand or at least
maintain it for the next successor. This allows for the inclusion of the younger
generation particularly sons in the running of the farm, preparing them for future
takeover. The findings also showed marriage in the farming household is
undertaking on compatible grounds, with farming knowledge and skills being
the link between the couple. Religious doctrine aims to keep the household and
the farm united to ensure the continuation of farming tradition in the family.
The findings hence bring a new perspective to the theoretical and
conceptual framing on the social relations and dynamics within farming
households. It shows these relations and dynamics are largely context specific.
The social relations and dynamics within a farming household in the Global
North and Global South are distinct, and even further vary between North-
North and South-South or within countries. Context hence is an important
factor to consider in analysing relations and dynamics within farming
households.
This study context reveals a well-structured succession plan among farming
families which generally appears to meet the expectations of members of the
family, giving the farm a firm guarantee of a successor. This thus suggests that
unlike elsewhere particularly in the Global South where the succession of the
farm looks bleak, the relations and dynamics within the farming families
uncovered in this study would allow for the sustaining and continuation of the
farm, giving it a bright future.

39
The scope of the study was limited to a small geographical area due to finance
and time constraint. It would be a good idea to expand the scope in The
Netherlands or even in another country in Europe or elsewhere outside. Also,
the thematic findings on marriage could be explored further to determine how
marriage patterns of farmers have changed over time and how it is framed
among the young and old generation for social continuity of the farms, following
the path of the latest work of Brandth (2018) on how farming fathers frame
fatherhood according to time-specific ideals in Norway.

40
 LIST OF REFRENCES

Abrahams, R. (1990) 'Old Master, Young Master: Retirement on Finnish Farms.',

Old master, young master: retirement on Finnish farms. (28): 156-166.
Akram-Lodhi, A. H. and C. Kay (2009). ‘The agrarian question: peasants and rural
change’. In A. H. Akram-Lodhi and C. Kay (eds.). Peasants and Globalization:
Political Economy, Rural Transformation and the Agrarian Question, London,
Routledge, pp. 3-30.
Amanor, K.J. (2010) ‘Family Values, Land Sales and Agricultural Commodification
in South-Eastern Ghana’. Africa 80 (1), 104–125. Cambridge University Press.
Arensberg, C.M. and S.T. Kimball (1968) Family and Community in Ireland. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Berkner, Lutz K. (1976) ‘Inheritance, land tenure and peasant family structure: a
German regional comparison’, in J. goody, J. Thirsk and E.P. Thompson (eds)
Family and Inheritance: Rural Society in Western Europe, 1200-1800. 71-95.
Cambridge: University Press.
Bernard, H.R. (2011). ‘Participant Observation’, Chapter 12 in Bernard, H.R. (2011).
Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. New York,
London, Toronto, Plymouth, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Bernstein, H. (2010a) Class Dynamics of Agrarian Change. Halifax: Fernwood.
Bernstein, H. (2010b) 'Introduction: Some Questions Concerning the Productive
Forces', Journal of Agrarian Change 10(3): 300-314. Wiley-Blackwell.
Berrone, P., C. Cruz and L.R. Gomez-Mejia (2012) 'Socioemotional Wealth in
Family Firms: Theoretical Dimensions, Assessment Approaches, and Agenda
for Future Research', Family Business Review 25(3): 258-279. SAGE Publications
(United States).
Berry, R. and W. Cline. (1979) Agrarian Structure and Productivity in Developing Countries.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bjornberg, Å. and N. Nicholson (2007) 'The Family Climate scales—Development
of a New Measure for use in Family Business Research', Family Business Review
20(3): 229-246. SAGE Publications (United States).
Blanc, M. and P. PERRIER‐CORNET (1993) 'Farm Transfer and Farm Entry in
the European Community', Sociologia ruralis 33(3‐4): 319-335. Wiley-Blackwell.
Borgerhoff Mulder, M., S. Bowles, T. Hertz, A. Bell, J. Beise, G. Clark et al. (2009)
'Intergenerational Wealth Transmission and the Dynamics of Inequality in
Small-Scale Societies', Science (New York, N.Y.) 326(5953): 682-688.
1880–present. American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Bosc, P., J. Berdegué, M. Goïta and J. Van der Ploeg (2013) 'Investing in Smallholder
Agriculture for Food Security. A Report by the High-Level Panel of Experts
on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security',
Rome, FAO.
Bossenbroek, L. (2016) Behind the veil of agricultural modernization: gendered dynamics of
rural change in the Saïss, Morocco. PhD dissertation, Wageningen University.

41
Bossenbroek, L., van der Ploeg, Jan Douwe and M. Zwarteveen (2015) 'Broken
Dreams? Youth Experiences of Agrarian Change in Morocco's Saïss Region',
Cahiers Agricultures 24(6): 342-348.
Bourdieu, P. (2003). 'Participant Objectification.' The Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute 9(2): 281-294. Wiley-Blackwell.
Brandt, B. (2018) 'Farmers Framing Fatherhood: Everyday Life and Rural Change',
Agriculture and Human Values : 1-11. Springer Publications.
Brenton, P. and T. Ikezuki (2005) 'The Impact of Agricultural Trade Preferences,
with Particular Attention to the Least Developed Countries', Global Agricultural
Trade and Developing Countries : 55-73.
Butler, J., 1990. Gender trouble and the subversion of identity. New York and
London: Routledge.
Cerwonka, A. (2007) ‘Nervous Conditions: The stakes in interdisciplinary research’,
in Cerwonka, A. and L.H. Mallki. Improvising Theory: Process and temporality in
ethnographic fieldwork. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Chayanov, A. (1966) The Theory of Peasant Co-operatives. Columbus: Ohio State
University Press.
Coogan, M.D., M.Z. Brettler and C.A. Newsom (2007) The New Oxford Annotated
Bible with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books: New Revised Standard Version.
Oxford University Press, USA.
Djurfeldt, G. and Gooch, P. (2001) Bondkaringar e kvinnoliv i en manlig varld. In:
Lund Studies in Sociology, vol. 3. Department of Sociology, Lund University.
FAO, (2016) The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets 2015-16: Trade and Food
Security: Achieving a Better Balance between National Priorities and the Collective Good.
Rome: FAO.
FAO, 2011. The State of Food and Agriculture 2010-2011. Women in Agriculture
– Closing the Gender Gap for Development. Rome: FAO.
Flygare, I. (2012) ‘Family land. Generational succession and property transfer in two
Swedish agricultural areas from 1870 to 2009’. Ethnol. Scand. (42), 86-100.
Giddens, A. (1997) 'Sociology. London: Polity'.
Goldberg, S.D. and B. Wooldridge (1993) 'Self-Confidence and Managerial
Autonomy: Successor Characteristics Critical to Succession in Family Firms',
Family Business Review 6(1): 55-73.
Graeub, B.E., M.J. Chappell, H. Wittman, S. Ledermann, R.B. Kerr and B. Gemmill-
Herren (2016) 'The State of Family Farms in the World', World Development 87:
1-15. Elsevier.
Grubbström, A., S. Stenbacka and S. Joosse (2014) 'Balancing Family Traditions and
Business: Gendered Strategies for Achieving Future Resilience among
Agricultural Students', Journal of Rural Studies 35: 152-161. Elsevier.
Haalboom, S. (2013) Young Agrarian Culture in Nova Scotia: The Initial and Ongoing
Motivations for Young Farmers from Non-Agricultural Backgrounds. Bachelor Thesis,
Dalhousie University.
Haan, H.d. (1993) 'Images of Family Farming in the Netherlands', Sociologia Ruralis
33(2): 147-166. Wiley-Blackwell.
42
Hammersley, M. (1992). ‘By What Criteria Should Ethnographic Research Be
Judged?’, chapter 4, in: What's Wrong with Ethnography? Methodological explorations.
London, New York, Routledge.
Hann, C. (2008) ‘Reproduction and Inheritance: Goody Revisited’. Annual Review of
Anthropology 37(1),145-158. Annual Reviews.
Harvey, D. (2003). The new imperialism. Oxford University Press, USA.
Het kieine-boerenprobfeem in Nederland (1947) rapport van de commissie-Dewez,
ingesteld door her Centrum voor Staatkundige Vorming (’s-Gravenhage: Centrum voor
Staatkundige Vorming).
Hobsbawm, E. (1994) 'The Age of Extremes: A History of the World', New York:
Pantheon.
Hornosty, J. and D. Doherty (2003) 'Responding to Wife Abuse in Farm and Rural
Communities: Searching for Solutions that Work', The trajectories of rural life:
New perspectives on rural Canada: 37-54.
Jacobs, S. (2013) Gender and Agrarian Reforms. Routledge.
Kallet, R.H. (2004) 'How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper',
Respiratory care 49(10): 1229-1232. American Association for Respiratory Care
(United States).
Karel, E. (2010). Modernization of the Dutch agriculture system 1950-2010. In Paper for
the International Rural History Conference 2010, University of Sussex,
Brighton (UK) 13-16.
Kautsky, K. 1974 [1899]. La Cuestion Agraria. BuenosAires: SigloVeintiuno,
Argentina Editores.
Kouamé, G. (2010) ‘Intra-family and socio-political dimensions of land markets and
land conflicts: The case of the Abure, Côte d'Ivoire. Africa’ The Journal of the
International African Institute 80 (1), pp.126-146. Cambridge University Press.
Kriellaars, F .W.J. (1951), Enige beschouwingen over bet gezinsbedrijf in de landbouw Leiden:
Stenert Kroese.
Kvale, S. and S. Brinkmann (2009) Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research,
California: US. SAGE Publications.
Le Roy Ladurie, E. (1974) The Peasants of Languedoc. Trans. John Day. Urbana,
Illinois: University of Illinois Press.
Lenin, V. I (1964) Development of capitalism in Russia, Moscow: Progress, 686 p.
Li, T.M. (2014) Land’s End: Capitalist Relations on an Indigenous Frontier. Duke
University Press.
Liepens, R. (1998) ‘The gendering of farming and agricultural politics: a matter of
discourse and power’. Australian Geographer 29 (3), 371-388. Taylor & Francis.
Life, R.S., 1994. Qualitative data analysis.
Lipton, M. (1977) Why Poor People Stay Poor. London: Temple Smith.
Lorber, J. (1995) ‘Night to his day: The social construction of gender’, Paradoxes of
Gender, New Haven, Yale University Press

43
Martin, S.J. and J. Clapp (2015) 'Finance for Agriculture or Agriculture for Finance?',
Journal of Agrarian Change 15(4): 549-559. Wiley-Blackwell.
Matthews, H. and F. Tucker. (2011) ‘On both sides of the tracks: British rural
teenagers’ views on their ruralities’, in R. Panelli et al, eds. Global Perspectives on
Rural Childhood and Youth. London: Routledge, 95-105.
McMichael, P. (2007) 'Feeding the World: Agriculture, Development and Ecology',
Socialist register 43(43). Monthly Review Press.
Mollinga, P.P. (2010) 'The Material Conditions of a Polarized Discourse: Clamours
and Silences in Critical Analysis of Agricultural Water use in India', Journal of
Agrarian Change 10(3): 414-436. Wiley-Blackwell.
Ni Laoire, C. (2002) ‘Young farmers, masculinity and change in rural Ireland’. Irish
Geography 35 (1), 16-27. Geographical Society of Ireland.
Obeng-Odoom, F. (2016) 'Understanding Land Reform in Ghana: A Critical
Postcolonial Institutional Approach', Review of Radical Political Economics 48(4):
661-680. Sage Publications.
Owusu-Amankwah, R. (2015) Certification, child labour and livelihoods strategies : analysis
of cocoa production in Ghana, PhD Dissertation, Wageningen University.
Park, C.M.Y. and B. White (2017) 'Gender and Generation in Southeast Asian Agro-
Commodity Booms', The Journal of Peasant Studies 44(6): 1103-1110. Routledge.
Peters, K. (2011) War and the Crisis of Youth in Sierra Leone, Cambridge: University
Press.
Price, L. and N. Evans (2009) 'From Stress to Distress: Conceptualizing the British
Family Farming Patriarchal Way of Life', Journal of Rural Studies 25(1): 1-11.
Elsevier.
Price, L. and R. Conn (2012) 'Keeping the Name on the Land’: Patrilineal Succession
in Northern Irish Family Farming', Keeping it in the family: International Perspectives
on Succession and Retirement on Family Farms: 93-110. Ashgate Publishing.
Punch, S. (2011) Generational power relations in rural Bolivia. In Ruth Panelli et al.
eds., Global Perspectives on Rural Childhood and Youth: Young Rural Lives. London:
151-164. Routledge,
Rahman, M. and Schendel, van W. (1997) ‘Gender and the inheritance of land: living
law in Bangladesh’, in J. Breman, P.Kloos and A. Saith eds The Village in Asia
Revisited. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 237-276
Rose, G. (1997) ‘Situating Knowledges: Positionalities, Reflexivities and other
Tactics’ Progress in Human Geography 21(3): 305-320. SAGE Publications.
Saugeres, L. (2002) '“She's not really a woman, she's half a man”: Gendered
discourses of embodiment in a French farming community', Women's Studies
International Forum: 641-650. Elsevier.
Schwarz, U. (2004) To Farm or Not to Farm? Gendered Paths to Succession and Inheritance.
Münster: LIT Verlag.
Sen, A. (2001) 'The Many Faces of Gender Inequality', The New republic: 466-477
Shanin, T. (1974) The nature and logic of the peasant economy, ii: diversity and
change; iii policy and intervention. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 1(2), 186–206.
Routledge.
44
Shenk, M.K., M. Borgerhoff Mulder, J. Beise, G. Clark, W. Irons, D. Leonetti et al.
(2010) 'Intergenerational Wealth Transmission among Agriculturalists:
Foundations of Agrarian Inequality', Current anthropology 51(1): 65-83. University
of Chicago Press.
Shope, J.H. (1994) 'Separate but Equal: Durkheim's Response to the Woman
Question', Sociological Inquiry 64(1): 23-36. Wiley-Blackwell.
Shortall, S. (2006). Economic status and gender roles. In B. Bock & S. Shortall
(Eds.), Rural gender relations: Issues and case studies Oxfordshire, UK: Cromwell Press:
303–315.
Stearns, P. (2006) Childhood in World History, London: Routledge
Suess-Reyes, J. and E. Fuetsch (2016) 'The Future of Family Farming: A Literature
Review on Innovative, Sustainable and Succession-Oriented Strategies', Journal
of Rural Studies 47: 117-140. Elsevier.
Thorner, D., American Economic Association, A.V. Chianov, B. Kerblay and R.
Smith (1966) The Theory of Peasant Economy. RD Irwin for the American
Economic Association, Homewood, Ill.
Trussell, D.E. and S.M. Shaw (2009) 'Changing Family Life in the Rural Context:
Women's Perspectives of Family Leisure on the Farm', Leisure Sciences 31(5):
434-449. Routledge.
Van der Heidea, C Martijn, H.J. Silvisa and W.J. Heijmanb (2011) 'Agriculture in the
Netherlands: Its Recent Past, Current State and Perspectives', In the beginning 2:
1900-19502.
Van der Ploeg, J.D. (2010) 'The Peasantries of the Twenty-First Century: The
Commoditisation Debate Revisited', The Journal of Peasant Studies 37(1): 1-30.
Routledge.
Van der Ploeg, J.D. (2013) Peasants and the Art of Farming: A Chayanovian Manifesto.
Fernwood.
Van der Ploeg, J.D. (2018) 'Differentiation: Old Controversies, New Insights', The
Journal of Peasant Studies 45(3): 489-524. Routledge.
Vondeling, A. (1948). De bedrijfivergelijking in de landbouw. Een economiscb-statistische studie
(Wageningen: H. Veenman ti Zonen)
Walby, S. (1990) 'Theorising Patriarchy, Basil Black Well', Cambridge and Oxford.
Watts, S.J. (1984) A Social History of Western Europe, 1450-1720: Tensions and Solidarities
among Rural People. Routledge.
White, B. (2012) 'Agriculture and the Generation Problem: Rural Youth,
Employment and the Future of Farming', IDS Bulletin 43(6): 9-19. Institute of
Development Studies, University of Sussex.
White, B. (2016) Generational issues in smallholder agriculture: exploring the social
reproduction of agrarian communities, Conference paper presented at the
International Rural Sociology Association Conference, Toronto, August 2016.
Woodhouse, P. (2010) 'Beyond Industrial Agriculture? some Questions about Farm
Size, Productivity and Sustainability', Journal of agrarian change 10(3): 437-453.
Wiley-Blackwell.

45
 WEBSITE SOURCES

Understanding Patriarchy by Suranjita Ray. Accessed on 28 August 2018.

<http://www.ikhtyar.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/Understanding_Patriarchy.pdf>
Introduction of Hanafi School of Fiqh (Islamic Jurisprudence). Accessed on 12
September 2018.
<http://www.deoband.net/blogs/hanafi-school-of-fiqh>
Calvinism in the Netherlands – Why Are the Dutch So Calvinist in Nature? Accessed
on 3 September 2018.
< https://dutchreview.com/culture/society/calvinism-netherlands-dutch-calvinist-
nature/>
What is the Bible Belt? Accessed on 11 September 2018.
<https://mens-en-samenleving.infonu.nl/religie/117285-wat-is-de-bible-belt.html>
Investing in Ghana’s Cash Crop. Retrieved on 8 September 2018.
<http://gipcghana.com/17-investment-projects/agriculture-and-agribusiness/cash-
crops/287-investing-in-ghana-s-cash-crops.html Retrieved December 24 2017>

Definition of generation in English. Accessed on 26 August 2018.

<https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/generation>

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: Theoretical Framework. Accessed on

16 August 2018.

<http://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/theoreticalframework>

"SOCIAL HERITAGE,". Accessed 22 August 22 2018.

<https://psychologydictionary.org/social-heritage/ >

History of our village Stolwijk. Accessed on 4 September 2018.

<http://www.maaijen.nl/stolwijk.html >

This Tiny Country Feeds the World. Accessed on 11 August 2018.

<https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/09/holland-agriculture-
sustainable-farming/>

Agriculture Exports Worth Nearly €92 billion in 2017. 11 Accessed on August 2018.
<https://www.government.nl/latest/news/2018/01/19/agricultural-exports-worth-
nearly-%E2%82%AC92-billion-in-2017>
Agriculture Sector in The Netherlands Towards 2020. Accessed on 13 August 2018.
<https://www.google.nl/search?q=The+agricultural+sector+in+the+Netherlands+to
wards&oq=The+agricultural+sector+in+the+Netherlands+towards&aqs=chrom
e..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8# >
Family Farming Knowledge Platform: Netherlands. Accessed on 10 April 2018.
<http://www.fao.org/family-farming/countries/nld/en/>
Agricultural census in the Netherlands. Accessed on 13 August 2018.
<http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php/Agricultural_census_in_the_Netherlands>

Dutch Diary in Figure 2015. Accessed on 13 August 2018.

<http://www.zuivelnl.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Dutch-dairy-in-figures-
2015.pdf>
46
 Akan PEOPLE. Accessed on 5 September 2018.
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/Akan>
Overview of the Victorian Era. Accessed on 29 September 2018.
< https://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Victorians/article.html>

47
 Appendix One: Profile of Interviewees

Household One
Name Place Age

Man Bergambacht 48

Woman Bergambacht 35

Young Woman Bergambacht 14

Household Two

Name Place Age

Man Stolwijk 40

Woman Stolwijk 29

Household Three

Name Place Age

Man Stolwijk 45

Young Woman Stolwijk 17

Household Four

Name Place Age

Man Bergambacht 55

Young Man Bergambacht 24

Household Five

Name Place Age

Man Bergambacht 45

Young Woman Bergambacht 20

Household Six

Name Place Age

Man Bergambacht 39

48
Young Woman Bergambacht 15

Household Seven

Name Place Age

Man Stolwijk 43

Young Man Stolwijk 18

Household Eight

Name Place Age

Man Stolwijk 35

Woman Stolwijk 29

Household Nine

Name Place Age

Man Bergambacht 36

Woman Bergambacht 28

Household Ten

Name Place Age

Man Bergambacht 39

Young man Bergambacht 14

49
 Appendix Two: Questions for Older Generation Interviewees
How did you become a farmer? Were your parents farmers? (If they were how
did they teach you in relation to the farm?) How did your contribution to the
farm change as you grew up? As you grew older did you start doing more/other
activities on the farm? What tasks (and at what age)? Did your parents begin to
give you more/new responsibilities on the farm (i.e. not just ‘helping/doing what
they tell you to do’, but getting involved in decision-making?)
What is farming in your view? / What does your farm mean to you? (a place
to nurture your family? Source of income?) Or just like any other ordinary
venture where profit is the motivation hence if there is no profit the business
should shut down? What would you do to/does when economic returns from
the farm is low or unable to meet cost? In this case what would motivate you
to keep the farm running? How do you deal with economic challenges ensuring
the farm doesn’t go bankrupt?
How are you orienting members of your family particularly your children
towards the farm? Are you orienting them just like you were introduced to the
farm by your parents? What would be your prime wish regarding the relationship
between your children towards the farm
How would you describe the farming tradition in your family? Do you think
your family has a strong sense of attachment to farming?
Are you planning to hand over the farm to your son/daughter or any
member of the family when you retire? How are you preparing these/this
person/s towards managing the farm?
How are your religious beliefs influencing your work on the farm? How
would you describe the religious influence on your family and the farm?
How are you orienting your children towards your religious belief system in
line with the farming tradition of your farm?

50
Appendix Three :Questions for Young Generation Interviewees (Males)
How did you become a farmer? Were your parents farmers? (If they were how
did they teach you in relation to the farm?)
How did your contribution to the farm change as you grew up? As you grew
older did you start doing more/other activities on the farm? What tasks (and at
what age)?
Did your parents begin to give you more/new responsibilities on the farm
(i.e. not just ‘helping/doing what they tell you to do’, but getting involved in
decision making?)
What do you think in your social life could help you become a farmer or
inherit the farm from your parents?
How would you describe the ideal woman you want to marry in the future?
What potential benefits do you think a woman from a farming background
would add to the farm in case you marry her?
What are your views on a woman raised on a farm when it comes to
marriage? Do you think such woman should marry a farmer?

51
Appendix Four: Questions for Young Generation Interviewees (Females)
Are you helping your parents on the farm? If yes, at what age did you first start
helping on the farm? What specific work do you do on the farm? If she is not
helping, ask why she is not helping
Were you told to help, or was this your own decision? Do you like the
work, or did you try to avoid it (and why?)? Did you get any reward for the work
you are doing? How are your parents orienting you towards the farm? Do you
think they are exerting pressure on you to become a farmer? Do you personally
like to become a farmer or inherit the farm?
How would you describe your relationship with the farm? Do you feel like
you are born into a farming family hence the need to continue the farming
tradition?
Do you think your parents want you to inherit the farm? Would you like to
inherit the farm? Do you think you can manage the farm if you inherit it?

52