IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v21y2004i1p37-46.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who is down on the farm? Social aspects of Australian agriculture in the 21st century

Author

Listed:
  • Margaret Alston

Abstract

Globalization, international policymanipulations such as the US farm bill, andnational policy responses have received a greatdeal of media coverage in recent times. Theseinternational and national events are having amajor impact on agricultural production inAustralia. There is some suggestion that theyare, in fact, responsible for a downturn in thefortunes of agriculture. Yet, it is more likelythat these issues are acting to continue andexacerbate a trend towards reduced viabilityfor farm families evident in economic andsocial trends since at least the 1950s.Nevertheless, globalization and Australia's policy responses have left farm families morevulnerable in the global world. What then do weknow about their impact at farm gate level?Just who is doing the farming in Australia inthe 21st century and how are these peopleresponding to major world politics? This paperwill focus on the social aspects ofagricultural production in Australia notingsocial trends and drawing attention to thechanging social relations of agriculture. Thedominance of farm families, the role ofcorporate agriculture, ethnic diversity, theimportance of women, and the practice of farmtransfers will be canvassed in this paper. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Suggested Citation

  • Margaret Alston, 2004. "Who is down on the farm? Social aspects of Australian agriculture in the 21st century," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 21(1), pages 37-46, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:21:y:2004:i:1:p:37-46
    DOI: 10.1023/B:AHUM.0000014019.84085.59
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/B:AHUM.0000014019.84085.59
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/B:AHUM.0000014019.84085.59?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.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Patrick O’Keeffe, 2018. "Creating a governable reality: analysing the use of quantification in shaping Australian wheat marketing policy," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 35(3), pages 553-567, September.
    2. Jacqui Dibden & Chris Cocklin, 2009. "‘Multifunctionality’: Trade Protectionism or a New Way Forward?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(1), pages 163-182, January.
    3. Laure-Elise Ruoso, 2020. "Can land-based and practice-based place identities explain farmers’ adaptation strategies in peri-urban areas? A case study of Metropolitan Sydney, Australia," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(3), pages 743-759, September.
    4. Chia-Hsin Wu & Yueh-Hsin Lo & Juan A. Blanco & Shih-Chieh Chang, 2015. "Resilience Assessment of Lowland Plantations Using an Ecosystem Modeling Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-22, March.
    5. Anthony M. Fuller & Siyuan Xu & Lee-Ann Sutherland & Fabiano Escher, 2021. "Land to the Tiller: The Sustainability of Family Farms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-24, October.
    6. Jean Vasile Andrei & Mirela Panait & Alexandra Alecu, 2016. "Aproaches on Eu-28 Social Agriculture Model," International Conference on Competitiveness of Agro-food and Environmental Economy Proceedings, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, vol. 5, pages 306-314.
    7. Camille Page & Bradd Witt, 2022. "A Leap of Faith: Regenerative Agriculture as a Contested Worldview Rather Than as a Practice Change Issue," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-20, November.
    8. Barbosa, Roseli Azambuja & Domingues, Carla Heloisa de Faria & Silva, Marcelo Corrêa da & Foguesatto, Cristian Rogério & Pereira, Mariana de Aragão & Gimenes, Régio Marcio Toesca & Borges, João August, 2020. "Using Q-methodology to identify rural women’s viewpoint on succession of family farms," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).

    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:spr:agrhuv:v:21:y:2004:i:1:p:37-46. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.