Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T11:25:50.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Work: A necessary sacrifice or a suffered chore? Labor and farm continuity in alternative agriculture in France

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2007

Catherine Macombe
Catherine Macombe*
Affiliation:
CEMAGREF, UMR Métafort, 24 avenue des Landais, BP 50085, 63 172 Aubière cedex, France. GREGOR-Institut d'Administration des Entreprises, Paris I, Panthéon-Sorbonne.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Systems advocating alternative agriculture would appear to be handicapped by the amount and the minutiae of human labor required. Is this really a threat to the continuity of farms associated with these systems? We do not believe that this directly hampers the survival of a farm. We advance the theory that continuity is not just down to chance; the farmer at the time chooses to prolong the life of the farm and more especially to look for a successor. We have shown through a study conducted in central France (Auvergne) that the main guarantee of organizational sustainability, that which sustains the business as a viable entity when another person takes over, is when a farmer thinks of his farm as an entity-cum-project supporting a meaningful life plan. A farmer might also see his farm solely as capital or as heritage, but neither of these last two attitudes is sufficient for him to ensure the spirit of his enterprise is passed on. There is a particularly large number of farmers in the first category (entity-cum-project) who adopt alternative farming practices, which are meaningful. It also seems to be the case that the manner of working is closely linked to the moral principles of farmers who use alternative systems. Moreover, the same objective amount of work that might be thought excessive in a system that puts strong emphasis on high productivity, is regarded as normal in an alternative system. Farmers often approach extension advisors to help reorganize their working conditions. We maintain that alternative systems have peculiarities with regard to work that make this type of advice difficult. Our aim is to help advisors clearly construct the input they give to the various types of farmers. We put forward a typology of possible practices as regards advice on work, according to assessments farmers have made about the amount of work they do and their way of working. The large number of hours devoted to an alternative farming activity and the nature of that activity, whether demanding or linked to practices thought archaic, are not always a handicap to the continuity of an alternative system. On the contrary, these features can be its hallmark.

Keywords

work/laboralternative agriculturecontinuitysustainabilityadviceethics
Type
Research Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , December 2007 , pp. 282 - 289
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Debeir, J.C., Deléage, J.-P., and Hémery, D. 1986. Les Servitudes de la Puissance. Flammarion, Paris.Google Scholar
2 Mazoyer, M. and Roudart, L. 1997. Histoire des Agricultures du Monde: du Néolithique à la Crise Contemporaine. Seuil, Paris.Google Scholar
3 Allaire, G. 1995. Le modèle de développement agricole des années 60 confronté aux logiques marchandes. In Allaire, G. and Boyer, R. (eds). La Grande Transformation de l'Agriculture. INRA Editions Economica, Paris. p. 345–377.Google Scholar
4 Porter, M. 1982. Choix Stratégiques et Concurrence. Economica, Paris.Google Scholar
5 SCEES, Service Central des Enquêtes et Études Statistiques. 2001. Observatoire National de l'Agriculture Biologique: Résultats 2000. APCA Assemblée, Permanente des Chambres d'Agriculture, Paris.Google Scholar
6 Gautronneau, Y. 1997. Les agriculteurs et l'agriculture biologique: une situation paradoxale. Courrier de l'Environnement de l'INRA 30 (April 1997):53–57.Google Scholar
7 Brodt, S., Klonsky, K., Tourte, L., Duncan, R., Hendricks, L., Ohmart, C., and Verdegaal, P. 2004. Influence of farm management style on adoption of biologically integrated farming practices in California. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 19(4):237–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Cerf, M. and Sagory, P. 2004. Agriculture et développement agricole. In Falzon, P. (ed.). Ergonomie. PUF, Paris. p. 621–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Porcher, J. 2002. Eleveurs et animaux, réinventer le lien. Partage du savoir, Le Monde PUF, Paris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Dejours, C. 2003. L'évaluation du travail à l'épreuve du réel. Critique des fondements de l’évaluation. Sciences en questions. INRA, Paris.Google Scholar
11 Dedieu, B., Laurent, C., and Mundler, P. 1999. Organisation du travail dans les systèmes d'activités complexes: intérêt et limites de la méthode Bilan Travail. Economie Rurale 253:28–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12 Rattin, S. 1997. Jeunes chefs d'exploitation, diminution du nombre, montée du professionnalisme, revue POUR, GREP éditeur, September, no. 155. p. 11–19.Google Scholar
13 CNASEA, MSA. 2002. L'accès au métier d'agriculteur. Colloque des 5 et 6 mars 2002. Centre national d'aménagement des structures des exploitations agricoles et Mutualité sociale agricole, Toulouse.Google Scholar
14 Mignon, S. 2000. Stratégie de Pérennité d'Entreprise. Vuibert, Paris. 232 p.Google Scholar
15 de Geus, A. 1997. La Pérennité des Entreprises. Maxima Laurent du Mesnil, Paris. 268 p.Google Scholar
16 Penrose, E. 1995. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
17 Macombe, C. 2003. Ethique et pérennité chez les exploitants agricoles. PhD dessertation, Clermont I, Gestion, Clermont-Ferrand University.Google Scholar
18 David, A. 2004. Etudes de cas et généralisation scientifique en sciences de gestion. In 13ème conférence internationale de management stratégique. AIMS, Normandie Vallée de Seine—Le Havre. p. 20.Google Scholar
19 Blanchet, A. and Gotman, A. 2001. L'enquête et ses méthodes: l'entretien. Sociologie, vol. 128, no. 3. Nathan, Paris. 127 p.Google Scholar
20 Yin, R.K. 1998. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Applied Social Research Methods Series, 5. Sage Publications, , CA.Google Scholar
21 Girin, J. 1987. L'objectivation des données subjectives. Eléments pour une théorie du dispositif dans la recherche interactive. In Qualité des informations scientifiques en gestion. Méthologies fondamentales en gestion, FNEGE—Actes du colloques ‘Qualité et fiabilité des informations à usage scientifique en gestion.’ ISMEA, Paris.Google Scholar
22 Mucchielli, A. 1991. Les méthodes qualitatives, Que sais-je? Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.Google Scholar
23 Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, USA. 270 p.Google Scholar
24 Macombe, C. 2005. Une méthode pour détecter les éthiques de métier. Revue Management et Avenir 6 (October 2005):63–84.Google Scholar
25 Barthez, A. 1996. Les relations de l'agriculteur avec son travail. Travaux et Innovations 25 (February 1996):15–17.Google Scholar