IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v114y2022ics0264837722000035.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

‘Real’ regulation and property relations on agricultural estates: Reducing opportunities for new entrants to agriculture

Author

Listed:
  • Prince, Nick
  • Maye, Damian
  • Ilbery, Brian
  • Kirwan, James

Abstract

A decline in the availability of opportunities for new entrants to agriculture is a recognised consequence of the agricultural restructuring process. Under the Common Agricultural Policy, various support schemes have attempted to address such concerns, with limited success. A number of these schemes focus on the provision of agricultural property rights for new entrants, but there appears to be limited justification for this. This paper argues the new entrant problem is as much about progression and exit as it is about entry, with such considerations generally not included in support frameworks. To develop this argument, the paper re-engages with the concept of ‘real’ regulation to examine rural property relationships on agricultural estates held by local authorities and county councils within England and Wales (i.e. the county farms estate). ‘Real’ regulation influences property-owner behaviour in three-ways: regulation of land occupancy; regulation of landowner behaviour; and, regulation of land use. These three regimes allow property owners to determine management strategies based on economic, social and environmental considerations. The flexibility afforded by ‘real’ regulation, and in particular, the regulation of land occupancy, and of landowner behaviour, allows property-owners the option to shift focus between these regimes, especially when faced with unfavourable market conditions. Analysis of different estate management strategies (consolidation, partial disinvestment, disinvestment), shows how this severely restricts the provision of property rights to new entrants and progressing tenants, as property-owners look to protect their interests. For these reasons, current new entrant support networks have limited success, irrespective of the political approach driving them.

Suggested Citation

  • Prince, Nick & Maye, Damian & Ilbery, Brian & Kirwan, James, 2022. "‘Real’ regulation and property relations on agricultural estates: Reducing opportunities for new entrants to agriculture," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:114:y:2022:i:c:s0264837722000035
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.105976
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837722000035
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.105976?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Soni, Aparna & Tekin, Erdal, 2020. "How Do Mass Shootings Affect Community Wellbeing?," IZA Discussion Papers 13879, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Kolotilin, Anton & Li, Hongyi, 2021. "Relational communication," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 16(4), November.
    3. Oecd, 2020. "OECD bundled communication price baskets," OECD Digital Economy Papers 300, OECD Publishing.
    4. Pindado, Emilio & Sánchez, Mercedes & Verstegen, Jos A.A.M. & Lans, Thomas, 2018. "Searching for the entrepreneurs among new entrants in European Agriculture: the role of human and social capital," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 19-30.
    5. May, Daniel & Arancibia, Sara & Behrendt, Karl & Adams, John, 2019. "Preventing young farmers from leaving the farm: Investigating the effectiveness of the young farmer payment using a behavioural approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 317-327.
    6. Cour-Thimann, Philippine & Jung, Alexander, 2020. "Interest rate setting and communication at the ECB," Working Paper Series 2443, European Central Bank.
    7. Michael Blastland & Alexandra L. J. Freeman & Sander van der Linden & Theresa M. Marteau & David Spiegelhalter, 2020. "Five rules for evidence communication," Nature, Nature, vol. 587(7834), pages 362-364, November.
    8. Williams, Fiona, 2006. "Barriers Facing New Entrants to Farming – an Emphasis on Policy," Working Papers 46002, Scotland's Rural College (formerly Scottish Agricultural College), Land Economy & Environment Research Group.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bianca Rochelle Parry & Errolyn Gordon, 2021. "The shadow pandemic: Inequitable gendered impacts of COVID‐19 in South Africa," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 795-806, March.
    2. Wyrwich, Michael & Steinberg, Philip J. & Noseleit, Florian & de Faria, Pedro, 2022. "Is open innovation imprinted on new ventures? The cooperation-inhibiting legacy of authoritarian regimes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    3. İlkay Unay-Gailhard & Mark A. Brennen, 2022. "How digital communications contribute to shaping the career paths of youth: a review study focused on farming as a career option," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1491-1508, December.
    4. Kristoffersen, Eivind & Blomsma, Fenna & Mikalef, Patrick & Li, Jingyue, 2020. "The smart circular economy: A digital-enabled circular strategies framework for manufacturing companies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 241-261.
    5. Unay-Gailhard, İlkay & Brennen, Mark A., 2022. "How digital communications contribute to shaping the career paths of youth: A review study focused on farming as a career option," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 39(4), pages 1491-1508.
    6. Bojnec, Štefan & Fertő, Imre, 2022. "Do different types of Common Agricultural Policy subsidies promote farm employment?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    7. María Pinto & Rosaura Fernández-Pascual & David Caballero-Mariscal & Dora Sales, 2020. "Information literacy trends in higher education (2006–2019): visualizing the emerging field of mobile information literacy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1479-1510, August.
    8. Francisco Simões & Ilkay Unay-Gailhard & Alen Mujčinović & Bernardo Fernandes, 2021. "How to Foster Rural Sustainability through Farming Workforce Rejuvenation? Looking into Involuntary Newcomers’ Spatial (Im)mobilities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-15, July.
    9. Ginzburg, Boris, 2019. "Optimal information censorship," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 377-385.
    10. Alexandros Gkatsikos & Dimitrios Natos & Christos Staboulis & Konstadinos Mattas & Michail Tsagris & Apostolos Polymeros, 2022. "An Impact Assessment of the Young Farmers Scheme Policy on Regional Growth in Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-12, March.
    11. Ogawa, Keishi & Garrod, Guy & Yagi, Hironori, 2023. "Sustainability strategies and stakeholder management for upland farming," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    12. Manyise, Timothy & Dentoni, Domenico, 2021. "Value chain partnerships and farmer entrepreneurship as balancing ecosystem services: Implications for agri-food systems resilience," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    13. Camille Robert-Boeuf, 2023. "Promoting Rural Regeneration and Sustainable Farming near Cities Thanks to Facilitating Operators in France? The Case of the Versailles Plain’s Association Governance Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-16, April.
    14. Para Jansuwan & Kerstin K. Zander, 2021. "Getting Young People to Farm: How Effective Is Thailand’s Young Smart Farmer Programme?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-18, October.
    15. Yuanyuan Zhu & Yukuan Wang & Bin Fu & Qin Liu & Ming Li & Kun Yan, 2021. "How Are Rural Youths’ Agricultural Skills? Empirical Results and Implications in Southwest China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, September.
    16. Imre Kovách & Boldizsár Gergely Megyesi & Attila Bai & Péter Balogh, 2022. "Sustainability and Agricultural Regeneration in Hungarian Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-14, January.
    17. Andresa Lagerborg & Evi Pappa & Morten O Ravn, 2023. "Sentimental Business Cycles," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 90(3), pages 1358-1393.
    18. Dudek, Michał & Pawłowska, Aleksandra, 2022. "Can succession improve the economic situation of family farms in the short term? Evidence from Poland based on panel data," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:4:p:849-882 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Cour-Thimann, Philippine & Jung, Alexander, 2021. "Interest-rate setting and communication at the ECB in its first twenty years," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    21. Mathias Eistrup & Ana Rita Sanches & José Muñoz-Rojas & Teresa Pinto Correia, 2019. "A “Young Farmer Problem”? Opportunities and Constraints for Generational Renewal in Farm Management: An Example from Southern Europe," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-13, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:114:y:2022:i:c:s0264837722000035. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.