IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ifma07/345416.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

PR - Farmers’ Behavioural Inclinations And Their Influence On The Anticipated Response To The Reform Of The Common Agricultural Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Rehman, Tahir
  • Garforth, Chris
  • McKemey, Kevin
  • Yates, Chris
  • Rana, Ram

Abstract

Recently the University of Reading has completed a project on behalf of Defra (Department of Food, Environment and Rural Affairs) to understand the behaviour and motivation of farmers in adjusting to the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), particularly to the Single Payment Scheme. This research provides interesting insights into how farmers can be expected to use the Single Payment (SP). In the literature on goals and objectives, the main interest is in ascertaining farmers’ motivations for being in farming. The Reading project has created an ‘influence’ model to identify the factors that are likely to determine farmers’ responses, in a differentiated way, to the unprecedented event of the SP. The Reading typology of farmers is a refined set of behavioural types, capable of providing insights into farmers’ intentions with regard to the SP. The project has used data from a survey, which used a postal questionnaire with a stratified (by region and farm type) random sample of 3,000 farmers in England in January 2006. Some 683 useable responses to 25 statements on “objectives†in farming, and 26 statements on “values†were generated. The questionnaire also elicited farmers’ attitudes and likely responses to the introduction of the SP. A set of six behavioural responses were identified through discussion with farmers including a general response of changing one’s farming system and practices in the next five years, and five specific ways of applying the SP. The analysis of farmers’ responses shows that of the five potential methods of using the SP, the most likely to be adopted is to regard it as a substitute for the previous production-linked subsidies. The respondents felt that family members, business partners, accountants and the farming press would strongly support changing the farming system and practices as a result of the SP, while Defra, land agents and other farmers would be indifferent or against the idea. Amongst all five farmer types the family is the strongest influence. Referents fall into three distinct categories: referents external to the farm business, farming peers, and those that are internal to the business (including family members and business partners). Attitudes, perceived behavioural control and the views of others all have a significant influence on farmers’ behavioural intentions with respect to the use of the SP.

Suggested Citation

  • Rehman, Tahir & Garforth, Chris & McKemey, Kevin & Yates, Chris & Rana, Ram, 2007. "PR - Farmers’ Behavioural Inclinations And Their Influence On The Anticipated Response To The Reform Of The Common Agricultural Policy," 16th Congress, Cork, Ireland, July 15-20, 2007 345416, International Farm Management Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:ifma07:345416
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.345416
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/345416/files/07Rehman_etal.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.345416?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lynne, Gary D., 1995. "Modifying The Neo-Classical Approach To Technology Adoption With Behavioral Science Models," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(01), pages 1-14, July.
    2. Fairweather, John R. & Keating, Norah C., 1994. "Goals and management styles of New Zealand farmers," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 181-200.
    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. Munasib, Abdul B.A. & Jordan, Jeffrey L., 2011. "The Effect of Social Capital on the Choice to Use Sustainable Agricultural Practices," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(2), pages 1-15, May.
    2. Aliz Feketéné Ferenczi & István Szűcs & Andrea Bauerné Gáthy, 2024. "“What’s Good for the Bees Will Be Good for Us!”—A Qualitative Study of the Factors Influencing Beekeeping Activity," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-20, June.
    3. Emtage, Nicholas & Herbohn, John, 2012. "Assessing rural landholders diversity in the Wet Tropics region of Queensland, Australia in relation to natural resource management programs: A market segmentation approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 107-118.
    4. Thornton, P. K. & Herrero, M., 2001. "Integrated crop-livestock simulation models for scenario analysis and impact assessment," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 70(2-3), pages 581-602.
    5. Gómez-Limón, José A. & Gutiérrez-Martín, Carlos & Riesgo, Laura, 2016. "Modeling at farm level: Positive Multi-Attribute Utility Programming," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 17-27.
    6. Costa, F. P. & Rehman, T., 1999. "Exploring the link between farmers' objectives and the phenomenon of pasture degradation in the beef production systems of Central Brazil," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 135-146, August.
    7. John Fairweather, 1999. "Understanding how farmers choose between organic and conventional production: Results from New Zealand and policy implications," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 16(1), pages 51-63, March.
    8. Davies, Ben B. & Hodge, Ian D., 2012. "Shifting environmental perspectives in agriculture: Repeated Q analysis and the stability of preference structures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 51-57.
    9. Catarina Roseta‐Palma & Yiğit Sağlam, 2019. "Downside risk in reservoir management," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(2), pages 328-353, April.
    10. L. Toma & A. P. Barnes & L.-A. Sutherland & S. Thomson & F. Burnett & K. Mathews, 2018. "Impact of information transfer on farmers’ uptake of innovative crop technologies: a structural equation model applied to survey data," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 864-881, August.
    11. Ovchinnikova, Natalia & Lynne, Gary D. & Sautter, John & Kruse, Colby, 2006. "What motivates farmers to sequester carbon: an empirical investigation," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21288, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. Chambers, Adam & Trengove, Graham, 2009. "The Implications of Information Asymmetry for the Achievement of Australia's National Water Objectives," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 47613, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    13. Nyaupane, Narayan & Gillespie, Jeffrey & Ken, McMillin, 2014. "Goal Structure of U.S. Meat Goat Producers: Is Farm Performance Consistent with the Goals?," 2014 Annual Meeting, February 1-4, 2014, Dallas, Texas 162502, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    14. Clark P. Bishop & C. Richard Shumway & Philip R. Wandschneider, 2010. "Agent Heterogeneity in Adoption of Anaerobic Digestion Technology: Integrating Economic, Diffusion, and Behavioral Innovation Theories," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(3).
    15. Konrad, Maria Theresia & Nielsen, Helle Ørsted & Pedersen, Anders Branth & Elofsson, Katarina, 2019. "Drivers of Farmers' Investments in Nutrient Abatement Technologies in Five Baltic Sea Countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 91-100.
    16. Jeffrey Gillespie & Ashok Mishra, 2011. "Off‐farm employment and reasons for entering farming as determinants of production enterprise selection in US agriculture," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(3), pages 411-428, July.
    17. Ion Lucian Ceapraz & Catherine Delhoume, 2017. "How Social Capital Can Improve The Territorial Innovation? The Case Of The French Agriculture. Some Conceptual Issues," Post-Print hal-04359913, HAL.
    18. Joyce Willock & Ian J. Deary & Gareth Edwards‐Jones & Gavin J. Gibson & Murray J. McGregor & Alistair Sutherland & J. Barry Dent & Oliver Morgan & Robert Grieve, 1999. "The Role of Attitudes and Objectives in Farmer Decision Making: Business and Environmentally‐Oriented Behaviour in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 286-303, May.
    19. Czap, Natalia V. & Czap, Hans J. & Khachaturyan, Marianna & Lynne, Gary D. & Burbach, Mark, 2012. "Walking in the shoes of others: Experimental testing of dual-interest and empathy in environmental choice," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 642-653.
    20. Chiara Calabrese1 & Stefan Mann1 & Michel Dumondel, 2012. "Patterns of occupational choice in the Swiss alpine labor market," Journal of Socio-Economics in Agriculture (Until 2015: Yearbook of Socioeconomics in Agriculture), Swiss Society for Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, vol. 5(1), pages 31-54.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:ifma07:345416. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifmaaea.html .

    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.