Year: 1996
Type: article
Abstract: HIS PAPER DISCUSSES the problem of developing a formal definition of T family farming, and the problem of operationalizing it'.The contention is that only by working in that direction will rural sociology be able to address one of the basic problems of the discipline: the prevalence, development and likely future of family farming.In principle there are three types of definitions of family farming circulating, and a number of more or less ad hoc operationalizations.The problems with these is that most definitions are not truly formal.They are too marked by the context in which they were developed.Similarly, operationalization tend to be ad hoc, for example locating family farms within certain acreage or income brackets.The problem with context-bound definitions and ad hoc operationalizations is the usual problem of empiricism, i.e., that research gets stunted.It becomes difficult to study development over time (as contexts change), and to make comparative studies of family farming and agrarian structure.In this paper I will propose a formal definition of family farming, and sketch ways of operationalizing it.I do so in contrast to the definition proposed by Gasson and Errington (1993).In their eminent review of rural sociology research on family farming, Gasson and Errington work with an ideal type which they call the 'farm family business'.They define it as follows:There are six elements to our own definition of a farm family business: 1. Business ownership is combined with managerial control in the hands of business 2.These principals are related by kinship or marriage.3. Family members (including these business principals) provide capital to the business.4. Family members including business principals do farm work.principals.
Source: Sociologia Ruralis
Author: Göran Djurfeldt
Institution: Lund University
Language: English
Subfield: Development
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
SDG: Zero hunger
Open Access status: bronze
OpenAlex ID: W2097666265