21' 2015

NICOLAUS COPERNICUS UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY

21’ 2015 Toruń 2015

ADVISORY COUNCIL ADVISORY COUNCIL David L. Brown (USA), Osamu Ieda (Japan), Drobinka Kostova (Bulgaria), David L. BrownAgricultural (USA), Osamu Ieda (Japan), Drobinka (Bulgaria), AnnaFouli Bandler (Slovak University), David BrownKostova (Cornell University, Papageorgiou (Greece), Gerd Vonderach (Germany), Jerzy Wilkin (Poland) USA), ADVISORY COUNCIL Fouli Gorlach Papageorgiou (Greece),University, Gerd Vonderach (Germany), Jerzy Wilkin (Poland) Krzysztof (Jagiellonian Poland), Andrzej Kaleta (Nicolaus Copernicus University, Poland), Miguel AngelOsamu Sobrado (National Costa Rica), Irén Szörényiné David L. Brown (USA), Ieda (Japan),University DrobinkaofKostova (Bulgaria), Kukorelli Academy of Sciencies, Hungary), Michal Lošták Fouli(Hungarian Papageorgiou (Greece), Gerd Vonderach (Germany), Jerzy (Czech WilkinUniversity (Poland) of life EDITORIAL BOARD EDITORIAL BOARD Sciences, Czech Republic), Feng Xingyuan (Chinese Academy of Social Sciences) Christian Giordano – Member Christian Giordano – Member Andrzej Kaleta – Managing Editor EDITORIAL BOARD Andrzej Kaleta Kukorelli – Managing Editor Irén Szörényiné – Member IrénChristian Szörényiné Kukorelli – Member Giordano ––Member Iwona Leśniewicz – Editorial Assistant Christian Giordano Member Iwona Leśniewicz Editorial Assistant Andrzej Kaleta ––Managing Editor Michal - Member László J.Lošták Kulcsár – Member Michal Lošták Member IrénKwiecińska-Zdrenka Szörényiné Kukorelli Member Editor Nigel Swain – -Member Monika – –Managing Nigel Swain – Member Iwona Leśniewicz – Editorial Assistant Monika Kwiecińska-Zdrenka – Deputy Editor Lutz Laschewski – Member Monika Kwiecińska-Zdrenka – Deputy Editor Michal Lošták - Member Iwona Leśniewicz – Editorial Assistant Nigel Swain Toruń MemberEditor 87–100 Elwira Piszczek – Deputy 87–100 Monikaul.Kwiecińska-Zdrenka – Deputy Fosa Staromiejska 1a, Poland Editor Nigel SwainToruń – Member ul. Fosa Staromiejska 1a, Poland www.soc.uni.torun.pl/eec Toruń The journal is published annuallywww.soc.uni.torun.pl/eec by Th87–100 e Nicolaus Ccopernicus University in Toruń, Poland ul. Fosa Staromiejska 1a, Poland digital version available on1a, Poland Contact:EEC 87–100 Toruń, FosaisStaromiejska EECwww.soc.uni.torun.pl/eec digital version is available on www.kpbc.umk.pl/dlibra/indexsearch?startstr=E&attId=title www.soc.uni.torun.pl/eec, [email protected] www.kpbc.umk.pl/dlibra/indexsearch?startstr=E&attId=title www.versita.com/eec www.versita.com/eec EEC digital version is available on Eastern European the beginning May May 2007 2007, Index ®, www.kpbc.umk.pl/dlibra/indexsearch?startstr=E&attId=title Eastern EuropeanCountryside Countrysidefrom has been on Index®,ofSince Social Scisearch® and Journal citation Reports/Social Sciences Edition European Countryside has been /on Index®, Since Edition May 2007, www.versita.com/eec Social Eastern Scisearch® and Journal Citation Reports Social Sciences (IF 0,08) ThSocial e issueScisearch® 21’2015 isand finance by the PolishReports Ministry of Science andEdition Higher (IF Education Journal Citation / Social Sciences 0,08) – grant 1144/P-DUN/2015 Eastern European Countryside has been on Index®, Since May 2007, Social Scisearch® and Journal Citation Reports / Social Sciences Edition (IF 0,08) ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDITOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDITOR Jadwiga Komornicka

Jadwiga Komornicka ENGLISHNaukowe LANGUAGE EDITOR Mikołaja Kopernika © Copyright by Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu © Copyright by Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika Jadwiga Komornicka ISSN 1232–8855 The electronic version is published at: ISSN 1232–8855 © CopyrightNICOLAUS by Wydawnictwo Naukowe UNIVERSITY Uniwersytetu Mikołaja COPERNICUS PRESS Kopernika NICOLAUSwww.wydawnictwoumk.pl COPERNICUS UNIVERSITY PRESS ISSN 1232–8855 www.wydawnictwoumk.pl Editorial Office: ul. Gagarina 5, 87–100 Toruń NICOLAUS COPERNICUS UNIVERSITY PRESS Office: ul. 56 Gagarina 5, 87–100 tel. +48 (0) 56 611Editorial 42 95, fax +48 (0) 611 47 05, e-mail:Toruń [email protected] www.wydawnictwoumk.pl tel. +48 (0) 56 611 42 95, fax +48 (0) 56 611 47 05, e-mail: [email protected] Distribution: ul. Reja 25, 87–100 Toruń Editorial Office: ul. GagarinaMikołaja 5, 87–100 Toruń © Copyright by Uniwersytet Kopernika ul. 42 Reja 87–100 Toruń tel./faxDistribution: +48 (0) 56 611 38,25, e-mail: [email protected] tel. +48 (0) 56 611 42 95, fax +48 ISSN (0) 561232–8855 611 47 05, e-mail: [email protected] tel./fax +48 (0) 56 611 42 38, e-mail: [email protected] Print: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UMK Distribution: ul. Reja 25, 87–100 Toruń Print: Naukowe UMK ul.Wydawnictwo Gagarina 5, 87–100 Toruń NICOLAUS UNIVERSITY tel./fax +48 (0) 56 COPERNICUS 611 42 38, e-mail: [email protected] ul. Gagarina 5, 87–100 Toruń ul. Gagarina 11, 87–100 Toruń Print: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UMK ul. Gagarina 5, 87–100 Toruń Print: Nicolaus Copernicus University Press Edition: 300 copies

Contents

Articles and Studies Andrzej Kaleta – E-learning as a Diffusion of Innovation in the Rural Areas of the European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Kristina Knific, Štefan Bojnec – Agricultural Holdings in Hilly-Mountain Areas in Slovenia before and after the Accession to the European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Research Reports and Materials Jovana Čikić, Marica Petrović – Rural Families and Households in Post-Socialist Transition: Serbian Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Mihaela Preda, Iuliana Vijulie, Gabriela Manea, Alina Mareci – The Customary Identity of the Coppersmiths’ Clan in Oltenia: Between Tradition and Modernity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Slavomír Bucher, Štefánia Nováková – Territorial Aspects of Regional Identity and Respondents’ Identification with the Region and Place: Case Study of Slovakia . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Róbert Tésits, Alpek B. Levente, Rebeka Szabó, Some Social and Regional Lessons of a Complex Roma Integration Programme (Case Study from a Hungarian Rural Area) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Damir Demonja, Tatjana Gredičak – Contribution to the Research on Rural Resorts in the Function of Tourism Products and Services Distribution: the Example of the Republic of Croatia . . . . . . . . . . . 137

4

Eastern European Countryside 21’ 2015

Waldemar Chmielewski, Magdalena Głogowska – Implementation of Natura 2000 Network in Poland – an Opportunity or a Threat to Sustainable Development of Rural Areas? Study on Local Stakeholders` Perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

Reviews and information Laszlo Kulcsar Jr. – Coerced Modernization in the East European Countryside . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Magdalena Sternicka-Kowalska – Rural Poland at the Beginning of the 21st Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Elwira Piszczek – Social Research Studies of the Village in the Historical Perspective: the Family Farm Formerly and Now . 185 Monika Kwiecińska-Zdrenka – The Central Eastern European Countryside Transformation – Balance of Two Decades . . . . . . . . . 197

Central European Rural Sociology Grzegorz Zabłocki – Department of the Sociology of Rural Areas of Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

DOI: 10.1515/eec-2015-01

21’ 2015

Krzysztof Gorlach, Zbigniew Drąg, Piotr Nowak Andrzej Kaleta

Women on… Combine Harvesters? E-learning as a Diffusion of Innovation 1 1 Women as Farm Operators in Contemporary Poland in the Rural Areas of the European Union Abstract The authors discuss the main characteristics of women as farm operators using national Abstract sample studies conducted in 1994, 1999 and 2007. After an analysis of literature and various research results some were formulated, i.e.:tothe of Early observations show thathypotheses the introduction of e-learning thebetter ruraleducation areas of the rural women than rural men, women as “unnatural” or “forced” farm operators due has brought fewer advantages than had initially been expected. The results of toEU various household circumstances, the “weaker” economic status of farms operated the international research – interpreted by the means of the sociological theory of by women. Basic results of the studies carried out in 1994, 1999 and 2007 confirm the diffusion – indicate that theeconomic economicposition profitability doesoperated not havefarms. muchMoreover, influence hypothesis about the weaker of female women operators were slightly and farsince, better than their male on the farm pace of disseminating of that older innovation; theeducated rural inhabitants – both counterparts. On the contrary, the males were more active off the farms in the public those following the e-learning courses as well as those who have not yet done so – sphere. In addition, the circumstances of becoming farm operators did not differ largely feel that that type of education has the variety of advantages including the significantly between males and females. Finally, there were no significant differences lowering of itsand costs. It seems thatofitsfarming. social profitability has the crucial influence between “male” “female” styles on the poor dissemination of this new form of teaching and learning. E-learning Keywords: women, farm operators, education, market position, entrepreneur, has not yet found its niche in the value systems or educational experiences of the style of farming. Europe’s rural populations, since – rather like the other forms of education – it does not automatically improve the capability of coping with the current day-today problems. The better adaptation to the Remarks needs of the rural inhabitants through Introductory the perception of various types of the deficits hindering the usage of this type of us education intended byformulated the so-called innovative e-learning, Let start withisa statement by one of the leading Polishimplementing female rural new and generally innovative solutions to the pedagogical, technological and sociologists, a specialist in analyzing the problems of rural families. She points

out: “[…] roughly 60 per cent of agricultural production [in Poland – K.G.; 1

The article entitled ‘E-learning jako dyfuzja innowacji na obszarach wiejskich Unii Europejskiej’ [‘E-learning as a diffusion of innovation in the rural areas of the European 1 Union’] beendraft published in Polish in: Kultura i Edukacja [CultureCongress and Education], Anhas earlier of this paper was presented at the XXIV European for Rural Sociology, Chania, Greece, 22–25 August, 2011. vol 2’2014, pp. 134–145.

6

Andrzej Kaleta

organisational fields, which overcome existing limitations through the greater flexibility of the ways of the potential participants’ accessing e-learning proposals as well as the greater adaptation to the individual needs. Keywords: education, rural areas, e-learning, innovations, diffusion of innovation

In all the countries of the European Union2, there is a growing awareness of the role of good education as a condition for success in life. A growing number of rural inhabitants and those living in small towns are convinced that learning is both necessary and worthwhile.3 Achieving such educational aspirations remains an unsolved problem. In Europe, as in all the other continents of the world, there is still diversification in the educational and

2

Regardless of the accepted criteria, rural areas cover over 90% of the surface of the EU and are inhabited by about 60% of its citizens. Among the 28 member countries some are more rural, other more urbanised. The former include Bulgaria, Denmark, Ireland, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Finland and Sweden with rural areas occupying over 95% of their territory. On the other hand, we find only Belgium and Holland with rural areas no larger than 70% of the surface and Malta, which according to the accepted definition of rural areas, lacks this type of territory. The number of people living in the countryside and small towns in the EU’s countries vary. 80% of the population of Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia is rural; whereas, only 30% of the population of Holland and Great Britain is rural. See data: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/agrista/rurdev2010/ RD – Report 2010 Summary Tables.xls: tables 2.2.1.2.1 and 2.2.1.2.2. 3 A growing number of Polish rural inhabitants are demanding good education, although their educational aspirations continue to be lower than those of the urban inhabitants. It emerges from Joanna Nikorowicz’s report that in 2005 51% of the Polish rural inhabitants aged 20–24 (a rise of 12% in relation to 2003) and 9% of the rural inhabitants aged 25–29 expressed the wish to continue learning. However, the 20–24-year-olds living in medium and large towns expressed that wish as follows – 46% in 2003 and 54% in 2005 and respectively 61% and 70%. In the 25–29 year-old group the disproportions were greater (9% – countryside and 25% – towns). See: J. Nikorowicz, http://www.rowniwpracy. gov.pl/forum/t,1613.html.

E-learning as a diffusion of innovation in the rural areas…

7

hence life opportunities of both the children and youth in the primary and secondary education4, as well as the adults in Lifelong Learning.5 Great hopes – revealed in many papers6 – connected with the positive influence of e-learning on the improvement and democratisation of the access to knowledge in the rural areas of Europe7 are, however, toned 4 Europe’s rural inhabitants have a relatively high level of schooling. Almost 72% of adults, i.e. people aged 25–64, have education above primary education. However, in all the EU’s countries this is lower than that of the urban population (76.3%) and the population of the whole united Europe (73.3%). The educational standard of the adult rural inhabitants varies significantly, not only between individual countries but also between the so-called old (U – 15) and the new (U–13) countries of the EU. 68% of the rural population of the Western Europe (U-15) has above primary education; whereas, that is the case of almost 83% of the rural population of the Eastern Europe (U–13). The best educated are the rural inhabitants of the Czech Republic (90.7% with this level of education); Slovakia (90.5%) and Estonia (88.7%). The countries of the Southern Europe are at the opposite end: Portugal (23.9%), Spain (49.1%) and Italy (54.6%). The educational disproportions between the rural and urban areas, which we evaluate very negatively, are observed even more clearly as regards the higher education, which is held by one in ten European rural inhabitants. See data: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/agrista/rurdev2010/ RD_Report_2010;table2.2.5.10. 5 It emerges from Eurostat’s latest data that in the EU’s countries barely 10% of adults, i.e. people aged 25–64, undertake further education in the Lifelong Learning system (LLL), with their numbers being considerably lower in the rural areas. See: Learning, Innovation and ICT,. Independent Report . Brussels: ICT cluster with Technopolis and DG Education and Culture of the I European Commission, 2009. 6 Among others, they are expressed in the article I had written with Anna Pokorska, and which was published in last year’s issue of Culture and Education, where we presented the possibilities of e-learning in the process of improving teaching and eliminating educational barriers in Poland’s rural areas. See: Pokorska A., and A. Kaleta (2012), ‘E-learning in Poland’s rural areas’, Culture and Education, vol. 3, pp. 119–139. 7 The political confirmation of this thesis can be found in numerous documents of the European Commission and the European Parliament concerning the use of ICT as a supportive tool for the lifelong learning and an evaluation of the results of the activities undertaken by the EU with the purpose of disseminating this type of teaching and learning. They all confirm the usefulness of IT as a development tool of individual and organisational innovations, including e-learning as an instrument of limiting the distances in the field of skills and competences, separating the inhabitants of different countries as well as their urban and rural areas. See: Official Journal of the European Union, Decision no. 1720/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, “Establishing an action programme in the field of lifelong learning.” Brussels: 15 November 2006.; “Better access for rural areas to modern ICT.” The European Commission, 2009, Communication from

8

Andrzej Kaleta

down by the first practical experiences analysed in the reports of the Joint Research Centre and the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies affiliated to the European Commission, which show that the support provided by e-learning to general and life education in the workplace and in rural areas is insufficient (Ala-Mutka, Stoyanov). The pace of disseminating this new form of teaching and learning as well as the expected advantages of the rural inhabitants are less spectacular than had been expected and “[…] the initial enthusiasm has been replaced by moderate yet optimistic realism, probably with a greater advantage for both the development of pedagogical principles and practical application of this type of education” (E-learning, p. 21). In order to clarify the causes of this situation, the European Commission set in motion a few international research and development projects during the past few years, the results of which we shall make use of further in this paper.

E-learning – a Diffusion of Innovation If we try to explain the introduction of e-learning to the rural areas in categories of the theory of diffusion of innovation – still one of the leading issues in rural sociology – we have a wide social process, being “[…] a particular case of the process of teaching and learning as well as the theory of decision making or general behavioural theory” (Bertrand and Wierzbicki 1970, p. 309). According to its classical model prepared by Everett M. Rogers (Rogers 1960, pp. 399–421), the speed of adaptation of innovation depends on many factors, the first being profitability, which can be partly categorised into economic terms, i.e. the difference between cost and results, and perceived in accordance with the nature of the social system. That primarily means adapting novelties into the system of values and experiences of members of the rural community. Generally, the profitability of innovation grows in communities, which focus on the development, improving the conditions and quality of life; it diminishes in those communities, which have greater appreciation of the achieved status quo and are less mentally prepared for the change. the ‘A new impetus for European Cooperation in Vocational Education and Training’ to support the Europe 2020 strategy’. The European Commission, 2010.


9

The results of the international research projects of the Euracademy Observatory and E-ruralnet (further: E-ruralnet research)8, carried out in 2005–2011 in over a dozen EU countries, including the Institute of Sociology and Torun University in Poland, show that the argument about the growth of the profitability of innovation among people focused on the development gained total confirmation in the surveys on the participants of the courses supported by information technology in the rural areas. For example, of those carried out in 2006 in Poland, i.e. a country in the early phase of the development of this type of education (in comparison with the 15 countries of the so-called old EU), a majority (63%) of the 106 interviewed inhabitants of the rural areas with such experiences, either had a Master’s or a Bachelor’s degree. It is symptomatic that the women were in the majority (64%/60%) in the countryside and small towns in Poland, being generally better educated than the men. They also dominated in the best educated group of the 8

Research and development projects: Euracademy Observatory (A European Observatory of the Use of ICT-supported Lifelong learning by SMEs, Microenterprises and the Self-employed in the Rural Areas – the European monitoring of continuous education, assisted by IT, aimed at medium, small and micro enterprises as well as the self-employed in the rural areas) carried out in 2005-2007 in the rural areas of Greece, Finland, Spain, Germany, Poland, Great Britain and Hungary; Euralnet (Network promoting e-learning for the rural development – A network promoting long distance teaching for the development of the rural areas) carried out in 2009-2011 in the rural areas of Greece, Estonia, Finland, Spain, Germany, Poland, Sweden, Hungary, Great Britain and Italy; financed by the European Commission within the framework of the Leonardo da Vinci and Lifelong Learning programmes, included among others, extensive empirical research using specially prepared questionnaires, aimed – generally on-line – at institutions offering correspondence courses, participants of such courses (847 respondents in 2006 research , 1737 in 2011 research) and potential participants (respectively 1327 and 1679 respondents) from the rural areas, with the aim of describing the contents of long distance learning in countries participating in the project, identifying existing needs and limitations as well as accessing pan-European comparative data acquired in the researched population. In the article I refer to the data mentioned in the published research in: A. Kaleta, S. Bieniecka, N. Proń, J. Petrykowska, (2007), The Final Report of the European Union Euracademy Observatory programme – opinions of representatives of teaching institutions, course participants and non- participants, about continuous education, supported by modern information technologies in rural areas, Nicolaus Copernicus University; E-learning in the Rural Context: Innovation, Inclusion and Role of the Market. Report of the Project Results, (2011) Athens.

10

Andrzej Kaleta

respondents: 40 (64%) were university educated as opposed to 23 (54%) of the men. Such a portrait of the rural e-learning course participants did not generally create problems in providing systematic learning and hence putting into practice one of the most significant conditions for acquiring knowledge and raising qualifications in this way. Almost half (48%) of the course participants used material available via the Internet three times per week, using both the home computers (around 60%) and the computers available in school laboratories (80%). Practically no negative comments were made regarding the standard of the courses on offer. Complaints were made about the technical issues such as interference while accessing the Internet or the speed of transferring the questions during solving of the test. Some of the course participants had problems while studying in the early stages, due to the lack of direct contact with their lecturers (40%) and other course participants (20%), i.e. a deeply rooted attachment to the traditional model of education, not however undermining the possibilities offered by the modern telecommunications systems. The profitability in the case of e-learning does not seem to have much influence on the pace of disseminating this innovation in the rural areas, as their inhabitants – both the e-learning course participants as well as the non-participants – in 2006 and 2011 widely expressed the view that this form of learning has many extensive advantages, including lowering of the costs (see fig. 1). The social profitability is, therefore, decisive, i.e. there is a lack of fitting into the systems of values and former educational experiences. The research shows that e-learning, as well as other forms of education, do not automatically improve the capacity of coping with the current life problems. The newly acquired knowledge only occasionally leads to finding shortterm work, solving financial problems or enabling contacts with the health service, public administration, the bank or other institutions engulfing us in a dense network, so it is not included in the category of values which are absolutely crucial here and now (see fig. 2). In addition to the weakness of the mercantile motivations to raise the level of knowledge there is the fear of an unknown form of learning, which is the result of the technological specificity of e-learning, the necessity of using the computer as well as mastering the new technical skills enabling, e.g. the use of the Internet or long distance consultation.

Source: E-learning in the Rural Context: Innovation, Inclusion and Role of the Market. Report of the Project Results. (Athens, 2011), 17.

Figure 1. Views on e-learning

[11]

Source: E-learning in the Rural Context: Innovation, Inclusion and the Role of the Market. Report of the Project Results. (Athens, 20211), p. 16.

Figure 2. Advantages from e-learning

[12]


13

However, both in the light of the E-ruralnet project as in many other papers (Plebańska 2011, pp. 168–171; Penkowska 2010, pp. 49–55) volitional deficits are factors which stand in the way of spreading e-learning, the most frequent being the lack of self-discipline, without which it is difficult for the course participants to function in the independent acquiring of knowledge and responsibility for the results of learning. So the most serious barriers to the dissemination of e-learning in the rural areas are of a mental nature, social personalities which are dominant there: steered from the outside, geared towards copying traditional models of educational and professional careers and a demanding attitude towards educational institutions, including the creators and providers of e-learning. Due to the generally high costs of preparing and implementing of such courses, only a small number are addressed to the rural inhabitants, i.e. they are prepared taking into consideration both their specific needs and the deficits. The information acquired from the E-ruralnet research from 556 suppliers of e-learning services in 11 EU countries reveals that in every third institution of this kind on the average, the courses are planned and carried out specifically for the rural inhabitants (see fig. 3). Figure 3. Suppliers focussing on the rural areas

Source: E-learning in the Rural Context: Innovation, Inclusion and the Role of the Market. Report of the Project Results. (Athens, 2011), p. 12.

14

Andrzej Kaleta

There are various reasons for this situation, which differs from country to country (in Germany only 15% and in Estonia as many as 67% of the institutions provide specific e-learning courses for the rural areas). There is the lack of broadband access to the Internet, reported by 57% of the providers (in Greece, Spain and Italy this being the case of over 75% and in Sweden and Great Britain of 40% or less). The digital illiteracy is the another cause mentioned by about 50% of the providers (in Spain and Portugal over 70%). In relatively few (about 25%) of the researched institutions this was explained by the impossibility of financing this type of education by the rural and small town inhabitants (see fig. 4). Figure 4. Problems with e-learning in rural areas

Source: E-learning in the Rural Context, Inclusion and the Role of the Market. Report of the Project Results.(Athens, 2011), p. 12.

Innovative e-learning for the Rural Areas Innovative e-learning could serve as the better adaptation of e-learning to the needs of the rural inhabitants by noticing the various types of the deficits


15

hindering this form of education, while also accelerating its dissemination in Europe’s rural areas. Within the E-ruralnet project, that innovation was defined as the implementation of the new pedagogical solutions, enabling overcoming of the existing restrictions by relaxing the ways of potential students’ accessing the e-learning courses and their greater adaptability to the individual requirements. According to the available literature9 and professional evaluations carried out for the researchers10, a few desiderata were formulated, which should be implemented in this type of education, if it is to become a valid form of Lifelong Learning for a few hundred million of the European rural and small town inhabitants. The first desideratum is to adjust e-learning to the rural student to a far greater extent than in the past, enabling him/her to work out an individual style and create a personal learning environment as well as integrating the process of acquiring knowledge and skills with his/her professional activity and leisure. The second desideratum points to the necessity of the e-learning interactivity, i.e. the fixing mechanisms which encourage students to create the virtual communities of learners and activate their members. If e-learning is indeed to represent the realistic alternative to the conventional education, it should function mainly through the microlearning (the third desideratum); i.e. it should offer small portions of systematic knowledge, stimulating the learner to interact with others; learning in this way, as well as stimulating the context of learning, i.e. their immediate and direct application to solving his/her real life problems.

9

Among others: Atton, C. (2002), Alternative Media, London; Attewell, J. (2005), Mobile Technologies and learning. ATechnology Update and e-Learning Project Summary, London; Warren, M. (2007), ‘The digital vicious cycle: Links between social disadvantage and digital exclusion in rural areas’, Telecommunications Policy, vol. 31 (6-7); Crosta, L. and V. Prieto, (2009) ‘How to measure innovation in e-Learning: The i-AFIEL methodology.” E-Learning Papers, vol. 13, available at: www.elearning papers.eu.; an extensive bibliography concerning the innovation in e-learning is available at: http://www.prismanet.gr/eruralnet/ en/innovative_e-learning.php. 10 L. Laschewski, Innovative e-Learning in Rural Areas. [Online] Available: http:// www.prismanet.gr/eruralnet/en/innovative e-learning.php.; D.Rove, Alternative Media and Contemporary Applications of e-learning in a Rural Context. [Online]. Available: http:// www.prismanet.gr/eruralnet/en/alternative_media.php.

16

Andrzej Kaleta

The fourth desideratum was described as the interoperation of e-learning, i.e. the necessity of working out technical standards for the rural areas, enabling the use of such education regardless of the type of the network, equipment or computer programme, as well as creating the possibilities of using the mobile telephone, i-pods etc., the free programme access and recycling older forms of the computers handed over for the educational purposes by the industrial and services sector. This is the basic condition for the economic effectiveness of e-learning because it means lowering the learning costs. And finally, the fifth desideratum, e-learning requires the implementation of procedures for managing the quality and evaluation, demanding that the providers of such services react promptly to the users’ needs, satisfying them by maintaining the high teaching standards, managing the process of learning and their constant evaluation, including the evaluation of the students’ results through the implementation of the systems assuring the validation of skills and their certification (E-learning, p. 22).

Instead of the Summary It clearly emerges from the presented material that although the education aided by IT, above all e-learning, opens the variety of largely undisputed possibilities of the access to knowledge, further efforts are required in order to disseminate these solutions. In the first decade of the 21st century, the infrastructural problems have been solved to a greater or lesser extent, largely due to the EU’s policy promoting the idea of society based on knowledge. Although the technical installations necessary for its materialisation in the rural areas through the implementation of e-learning are not cheap, it has been possible to practically eliminate the barrier in the access to the computer equipment and the network, due to the partnership between the public and private resources. Mercantile aspects were significant, and hence hopes for the profit largely from telecommunications operators, who assumed that the traditional systems of disseminating knowledge would be unable to compete with those supported by ICT as regards the comfort, versatility, ways of preparing the content and, above all, the cost of teaching and learning. The intermediary confirmation of the farsightedness of such reasoning are the numerous enterprises and institutions emerging in Europe and dealing with


17

the creation of the technical equipment, academic aids and the preparation of the content of education for e-learning, sometimes connected with the powerful electronic industry and the mass media market.11 The investments in the communications infrastructure have not solved the problem of the digital exclusion in the rural areas, being to an ever diminishing extent the result of the technological barriers (now restricted to the broadband access) and with the decisive result of the deficit of the digital competence (the digital illiteracy) of mainly the older generation living there (Laschewski 2008). The second and possibly third decade of the 21st century raises the far more difficult challenge of providing e-learning to the remotest areas, and this cannot be done by simply transferring money into the development of the communications systems and free access to the computer equipment and the Internet. This entails the necessity of the activities encouraging the participation in the life-long learning by using this form of education. It has already been pointed out that the realisation of both of these goals requires the fundamental technological innovation which is methodical and organisational in the learning environment. This also requires the programmes and activities animating the rural communities, aimed on the one hand at overcoming mental deficits, and on the other, the closer connection of knowledge with satisfying more basic needs such as the job opportunities. In other words, it is a question of working out the new learning culture focussing on the individual and his/her real needs. However, the animation is a complex and long-term social process, more complicated and less predictable as regards achieving the set goals than the investment in the infrastructure. It is more difficult to find the good animators than the computer specialists, as it is more difficult to acquire the funding for the animation activity from both of the state sources, not to mention the private ones.

References Ala-Mutka, K., (2010), Learning in Informal Networks and Communities. JRC-IPTS Technical Report Series. Luxembourg: the European Commission. 11

In E-ruralnet research even in the countries such as Poland or Greece ( in the early phases of the e-learning development) a few hundred initiatives of this type were identified; whereas, in Germany or Great Britain several dozen thousands were identified.

18

Andrzej Kaleta

Bertrand, A. L., and Z. T. Wierzbicki (1970), Socjologia wsi w Stanach Zjednoczonych. Stan i tendencjerozwojowe [The Rural Sociology in the USA. The State and development tendencies]. Wroclaw–Warsaw–Krakow. E-learning in the Rural Context: Innovation, Inclusion and the Role of the Market. (2011), Report of the Project Results. Athens. Laschewski, L. (2008), ‘Boundless Opportunities? Visions and Setbacks to Digital Learning in Rural Areas’, Eastern European Countryside, vol. 14. Rogers, E. M. (1960), Social Change in Rural Society, New York. Penkowska, G. (2010), Meandry e-learningu [The Meanders of e-learning], Warszawa. Plebańska, M. (2011), E-learning. Tajniki edukacji na odległość [E-learning. The secrets of the distance education], Warszawa. Soyanov, S., B. Hoogveld and, P. Kirschner, (2010), Mapping Major Changes to Education and Training in 2025, JRC-IPTS Technical Report Series. Luxembourg: the European Commission.

DOI: 10.1515/eec-2015-02

21’ 2015

KrzysztofKristina Gorlach,Knific, Zbigniew Drąg, Piotr Nowak Štefan Bojnec

WomenHoldings on… Combine Harvesters? Areas Agricultural in Hilly-Mountain Women as Farm Operators Contemporary Poland1 in Slovenia before andinafter the Accession to the European Union Abstract The authors discuss the main characteristics of women as farm operators using national Abstract sample studies conducted in 1994, 1999 and 2007. After an analysis of literature and various research results some hypotheses were formulated, i.e.: the better education of This paper presents the questionnaire results of the research on implications of the rural women than rural men, women as “unnatural” or “forced” farm operators due ofhousehold Slovenia’s circumstances, accession to thethe European (EU)status on structural changes toeffects various “weaker”Union economic of farms operated in agricultural holdings (AHs) in the case of Škofjeloška hilly-mountain rural by women. Basic results of the studies carried out in 1994, 1999 and 2007 confirm the areas. Theabout effects studied based on the analysis of operated income diversification of hypothesis theare weaker economic position of female farms. Moreover, women farm operators were slightly older and far better educated than their male AHs three years before the Slovenian accession to the EU in 2000 and six years counterparts. On the accession contrary, the males moreStrategies active off of theAHs farms thebasis public after the Slovenian to the EUwere in 2010. oninthe of sphere. In addition, the circumstances of becoming farm operators did not differ the questionnaire were analysed in early 2011. Income diversification of AHs with significantly between males and females. Finally, there were no significant differences non-agricultural and between “male” andemployment “female” styles ofoff-farm farming. incomes is necessary for survival for the majority of AHs. There are observed differences in structural changes in the Keywords: women, farm operators, education, market position, entrepreneur, AHs between areas with different natural conditions for agricultural production, style of farming. and particularly in the extent and in the direction of structural changes by socioeconomic types of AHs. Structural changes inhibit non-economic objectives of AHs, while non-agricultural employment Remarks has a two-way influence. Introductory

Keywords: agricultural holdings, structural hilly-mountain Let us start with a statement formulated by one ofchanges, the leading Polish femaleareas, rural Slovenia, European Union sociologists, a specialist in analyzing the problems of rural families. She points out: “[…] roughly 60 per cent of agricultural production [in Poland – K.G.;

Introduction

With Slovenia’s accession to was thepresented European Union in 2004, relatively 1 An earlier draft of this paper at the XXIV (EU) European Congress for Rural intensive changes bothAugust, the internal and external environment have Sociology, Chania, Greece,in22–25 2011.

20

Kristina Knific, Štefan Bojnec

emerged for agricultural holdings (AHs). AHs are the most important operators of rural landscapes as they manage most of the land. Areas with limited opportunities for agricultural production comprise 85% of Slovenian territory, of which slightly less than 72% of less favoured areas are situated in hilly-mountain areas (MAFF 2007). These less favoured areas are characterised by lower production potential in agricultural production. Competitiveness of Slovenian agriculture is constrained by the unfavourable size structure and the socio-economic and productive structures of farms. The relative importance of the agricultural sector in the Slovenian economy at the time of accession to the EU was higher than the EU-25 average (MAFF 2007). The gap between the higher shares of gross domestic product (GDP) than employment in agriculture, hunting and forestry in Slovenia between the years 2000 and 2010 decreased as the share of GDP decreased from 3.2% to 2.1% and the employment share decreased from 11.9% to 8.4% (SORS 2005, 2012b). This suggests that labour productivity of the agricultural, hunting and forestry sector remains relatively lower than in the rest of the Slovenian economy. The survey of AHs with the written questionnaire is limited to the Škofjeloška area in Slovenia, more specifically the two municipalities: firstly, Škofja Loka, which is economically more developed with relatively favourable conditions for agricultural production, particularly in the flat areas, which comprise Soriško polje; secondly, Gorenje vas-Poljane, which is economically less developed and with a greater distance to urban centres or local markets. In addition, the conditions for agricultural production are relatively poor. The total area of the municipality is located in an area with limited conditions for agricultural production. In addition to the analysis between the two municipalities, the analysis compares the questionnaire survey results among socio-economic types of farms.

Methodology Sample Data on incomes and strategies of AHs were obtained through personal interviews using the written questionnaire in the sample of 60 AHs1. This 1 Data for 2000 are based on EC (2002), Möllers (2006), and Oblak (2002). Data for 2010 are obtained by Knific (2013) using an adjusted written questionnaire by Möllers (2007).

Agricultural Holdings in Hilly-Mountain Areas in Slovenia before…

21

sample represented approximately 5% of the population of AHs, which were active in agricultural production in 2000. The sample of AHs was within the municipalities selected as a proportional stratified random sample of AHs. The stratums were socio-economic types of AHs (Kovačič 1996, 19–22), with the difference being that the elderly members of AHs older than 64 years were not included in the sampling. For the purpose of research on incomes of AHs by socio-economic types of AHs, the sample included: pure farms, mixed farms, supplementary farms, and farms in abandonment. Following Kovačič (1996) and Udovič, Kovačič and Kramarič (2006), among the pure farms are included AHs without the elderly members of AHs older than 64 years, which complies with the criteria that no one of the core AH members is employed outside the farm and the annual work unit (AWU), 1 AWU = 1,800 hours of labour per year, is at least 1.2. Among the mixed farms are included: firstly, AHs in which at least one of the core AH members is employed on the farm, at least one of the core members is employed outside the farm, and the amount of work in AHs is at least 1.2 AWUs, and secondly, AHs in which all members of AHs are either employed outside the farm or retired or dependent persons and the total AWU is greater than 1.0 if they meet the following conditions: (i) nonelderly farm or pure farm, and (ii) without supplementary activities on the farm. Among supplementary farms are included AHs with supplementary activities on the farm with at least 0.7 AWUs in agricultural activity. Among the farms in the abandonment are included AHs that are not elderly farms with members of AHs older than 64 years, not supplementary farms, and in which their AWU in agricultural activity is smaller than 1.0 AWU. In the written questionnaire, all views and opinions of AHs on strategies of AHs were measured indirectly by a five-step Likert scale. Income of AHs Incomes of AHs are calculated as the sum of incomes by income sources (Eurostat 2012). Income from agriculture is calculated as the difference between revenues from agricultural activities (revenues from livestock production, revenues from crop production, revenues from other agricultural sources such as services, and rental of machinery) and costs. It also includes net revenues from forestry activity and state support or subsidies to agriculture. In the revenues of livestock and crop production, all revenues from sales and value of domestic consumption are taken into

22


account. Among incomes of the supplementary farms from supplementary activities on farms (self-employment), net income is considered. Among incomes of AHs from off-farm employment, net wages of members of AHs are included. Among revenues of AHs, we have also taken into account other allowances of members of AHs, e.g. social assistance and cash contributions from relatives and pensions, and other revenues of AHs such as incomes from securities, partnerships, gambling, leases, and other such benefits. Real incomes of AHs in 2000 are calculated using the harmonised index of consumer prices between the years 2000 and 2010 (SORS 2012a). The year 2010 is used as the base year of the calculation. Statistical tests The analyses of the differences in arithmetic means of incomes of AHs between the years 2000 and 2010, and between the municipalities of Škofja Loka and Gorenje vas-Poljane, are performed by a t-test and the application of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The analyses of the differences in arithmetic means between socio-economic types of AHs (pure farms, mixed farms, supplementary farms, and farms in abandonment) are performed by analysis of variance (One-Way ANOVA) using the SPSS. The acceptable level of risk is at a 5% significance level.

Empirical Results Sample of AHs The number of AHs where at least one member of the AHs is professionally engaged in agriculture has decreased. The number of AHs in which farms are in abandonment and, thus, are exiting farming has increased. AHs have abandoned farming mainly due to relatively low incomes from agricultural activities (Table 1). Among the socio-economic types of farms, only the number of supplementary farms has increased, while the number of pure and mixed farms has decreased. The number of mixed farms has been rapidly decreasing. The number of supplementary farms has grown in an area with better natural conditions for agricultural activity and in the close proximity of urban centres.

AHs from ŠL

AHs from GVP

SAHs 2010

SAHs 2000

SAHs

30

2000 (A)

-1

-1

B-A

B-A

29

2010 (B)

29

30

2000 (A)

2010 (B)

0

B-A

29

29

GVP (A)

ŠL (B)

0

B-A

30

GVP (A)

30

-2

B-A

ŠL (B)

58

60

2010 (B)

2000 (A)

N

1406

6862

5456

486

6835

6349

27

6862

6835

-893

5456

6349

947

6849

5902

9581

18307

8726

-583

8214

8797

10093

18307

8214

-71

8726

8797

5364

14063

8699

-0.38

-0.22

-0.01

0.39

-0.44

0.35

0.41

0.50

0.35

0.33

At risk

2937

3852

915

3774

5325

1551

-1473

3852

5325

-636

915

1551

3356

4589

1233

Arithmetic mean

3019

3706

687

3383

4383

1000

-677

3706

4383

-313

687

1000

3182

4091

909

Standard deviation

-4.27

-4.60

1.38

2.87

-6.20

t-statistic

(EUR)

(EUR) Arithmetic Standard t-statistic mean deviation

Real amount of subsidies

Real incomes from agriculture

Table 1. AHs’ incomes from agriculture and subsidies, 2000 and 2010 (at 2010 prices)

0.00

0.00

0.09

0.00

0.00

At risk

[23]

13260

21006

7746

-475

1961

2436

-922

7656

8578

438

8528

8090

-2.25

-1.13

1.,34

0.,90

0.02

0.27

0.06

0.19

At risk

4617

6189

1572

421

693

272

3944

5138

1194

7774

9310

1536

Arithmetic mean

2873

3871

998

848

1187

339

2504

3259

755

1862

2791

929

Standard deviation

-4.34

-0.98

-5.83

-9.31

t-statistic

0.00

0.17

0.00

0.00

At risk

Source: Authors’ calculations.

Note: GVP – Municipality Gorenja vas-Poljane, ŠL – Municipality Škofja Loka, SAHs – sample of agricultural holdings, AHs – agricultural holdings, and N – number of agricultural holdings in the sample.

13346

4

1013 15751

10

B-A

363

18

18

2010 (B)

-650

2405

8

2000 (A)

-3604

2920

6524

-3455

9051

12506

Arithmetic Standard t-statistic mean deviation

(EUR)

(EUR)

14

-10

B-A

25

2000 (A)

15

-6

B-A

2010 (B)

7

13

N

2010 (B)

2000 (A)

2000 (A) Supplementary 2010 (B) farms B-A

Farms in abandonment

Mixed farms

Pure farms

Real amount of subsidies

Real incomes from agriculture

Table 1. AHs’ incomes from agriculture and subsidies, 2000 and 2010 (at 2010 prices)

[24]


25

Incomes of AHs In 2010, real incomes from agricultural activities in AHs were lower than in 2000, except for supplementary farms. This was despite the fact that the state support to agriculture increased by almost four times (Table 1). Incomes of AHs from agricultural activities for the majority of AHs also six years after the Slovenian accession to the EU are not sufficient for survival. The income situation of AHs between the years 2000 and 2010 for the majority of AHs relatively deteriorated, in spite of the higher state support to agricultural activities on AHs (Knific 2013). In 2010, the highest average amounts of subsidies received per farm were for pure farms. This finding is attributed to the farm size in terms of the utilised agricultural area (UAA), the dominance of decoupled payments in that year, and the less favoured natural conditions for agricultural production in general in these hilly-mountain rural areas. Based on this finding, it can be concluded that the Common Agricultural Policy measures, structural policy, and rural development policy mitigate the unfavourable income situation of AHs in agricultural activities and maintain agricultural production in these less favoured hilly-mountain rural areas. The drop in real incomes from agriculture – without subsidies – is attributed to the fall in real prices for some agricultural products when applying the rules of the common market to the accession of Slovenia to the EU, and the faster increase in prices of agricultural inputs than in prices of agricultural products. In addition, the analysis of the databases of agricultural censuses in the years 2000 and 2010 shows an increase in the use of labour of AHs in agricultural activities (Knific 2015). The increased workload is found primarily in supplementary farms. It is attributed to the increased number of available manpower in AHs. According to the questionnaire results, for supplementary farms with relatively high incomes from agriculture, it is typical that they have achieved higher prices for products of primary agricultural production (mainly meat and milk). In the context of supplementary activities, which are dominated by tourism on farms and the processing of agricultural products, primary agricultural products are processed and sold at home or at farmers’ markets at higher prices. Farm diversification towards tourism has been observed also in other countries (Hjalager 1996; Baum 2011).

26


The lagging of incomes of AHs behind incomes from non-agricultural employment increased between the years 2000 and 2010 (Knific 2013). The lagging of incomes from agriculture behind incomes from off-farm employment resulted in a two-way structural change in the AHs in Škofjeloška rural areas: firstly, the abandonment of agricultural production (full and partial) and increasing economies of scale in the remaining larger and more specialised farms, and secondly, the changes in labour allocation from agricultural activities to non-agricultural employment and income diversification. In terms of success in income diversification of AHs, the supplementary farms have most successfully adapted to this change. This is consistent with the findings of some other studies, and typical for the larger and more specialised AH farms (Fernádez-Corenjo et al. 2007; Bojnec and Latruffe 2009, 2013; Bojnec and Fertő 2013). According to the questionnaire results, supplementary activity, which in the AHs includes the processing of products of primary agricultural activities, allows AHs to achieve higher prices of primary agricultural production and additional income from supplementary activities. Supplementary farms in the sample of AHs have made a decision to diversify incomes with supplementary activity, primarily to ensure a steady source of income of AHs, to increase the standard of living of AHs, and to ensure a source of funds for investment in primary agricultural activity. In addition, they perceived market opportunities and higher efficiency in labour allocation than in the primary agricultural activities. The number of AHs with supplementary activity increased faster in the municipality of Škofja Loka than in Gorenje vas-Poljane. In addition, in 2010, farms with supplementary activities in the municipality of Škofja Loka reached a higher income than the supplementary farms in the municipality of Gorenje vas-Poljane. In 2000, there were no such significant differences. In 2010, differences between supplementary farms in the municipalities are attributed to greater proximity to local markets in the municipality of Škofja Loka (local free market in town centres and tourism), better natural conditions for agricultural production, and a somewhat stronger focus of supplementary farms in the municipality of Škofja Loka on higher efficiency in the use of production factors, mainly labour (Knific 2013).


27

Diversification of incomes of AHs Diversification of incomes of AHs with off-farm employment remains, in addition to other revenues and remunerations of AH members, the most important income source of AHs. Off-farm employment and off-farm incomes play a crucial role for AHs’ survival and to provide funds for investments, including the education of children. Off-farm incomes are also often a source of funds for investment in the agricultural activity (Knific 2013; Bojnec and Fertő 2013). Other revenues and remunerations of AH members were an important source of revenues of AHs in Škofjeloška hilly-mountain rural areas, while the other sources of incomes between socio-economic types of AHs varied significantly. For pure farms, incomes from agricultural activities were important. For mixed farms and farms in abandonment, incomes from off-farm employment were important. For the supplementary farms, all sources of incomes from agricultural activities, self-employment, and off-farm employment were important (Knific 2013). Maintaining an active multifunctional role of AHs through the implementation of primary agricultural activity of AHs in hilly-mountain rural areas is worrying, especially while considering the unfavourable income situation of mixed and pure farms, as well as farms in abandonment in less favoured areas for agricultural production (Knific 2013). Opportunities to diversify incomes through supplementary activities are smaller, mainly for AHs in marginal hilly-mountain areas, for AHs with less favourable characteristics of members of AHs in terms of age, knowledge and entrepreneurship, for AHs with relatively little labour to carry out agricultural activities due to off-farm employment and labour migration from AHs and rural areas, and for farms with inadequate capital to start the business. In this context, expanding the scope of supplementary activities in AHs is becoming relatively limited due to limited local demand, legal constraints, and resources in AHs in terms of products of primary agricultural production and available labour. On the other hand, sufficient horizontal and vertical linkages of AHs are not established in the marketing of products and in the supply of inputs, as well as in the diversification of products in the distinctive higher value-added quality products (Knific 2013).

28


Objectives of the socio-economic types of farms in farming Strategies of AHs in the sample are consistent with the family household farming objectives. Their goals primarily do not seek to maximise profits, but rather are focusing towards preserving family tradition and the survival of AHs (Table 2). However, economic survival of AHs is associated with economic efficiency and sufficient incomes of AHs for long-term survival. Therefore, AHs from an economic perspective can often make irrational decisions. Economic objectives of farms are also geared towards the efficient allocation of production factors. Labour is one of the flexible factors in AHs. On the other hand, UAA, if natural conditions are appropriate, provides a variety of production orientations. Facilities and equipment are generally useful narrowly for specifically targeted needs (Knific 2013). The objectives of AHs have various impacts on structural changes. In areas with better natural conditions for agricultural production, they can inhibit structural changes in agriculture, reflecting mainly slower abandonment and exiting from the agricultural production of small farms, which limits the increase in size of the remaining AHs. In marginal, less favoured hilly-mountain areas with a natural handicap for agricultural production, the renting of land or purchase of agricultural land by the remaining AHs is often less important or not interesting. This is especially due to low revenues and high production costs, distances and requirements for specialised machinery in hilly-mountain areas (Knific 2013). The identified objectives of AHs do not inhibit structural changes on AHs. In these less favoured hilly-mountain areas, there is an alternative of agricultural production in the reforestation of agricultural land to forests. AHs’ objectives are related to the preservation of family tradition in these areas that maintain agricultural activity even if the results of the agricultural activity in AHs are less favourable in economic terms. This refers mainly to the transfer of the farm to a successor. According to the questionnaire results, the adapting of AHs to external changes takes time, but the response time between socio-economic types of AHs is different. The sample of AHs is dominated by gradual adaptation to changes such as policy measures, prices of agricultural products, and inputs. On the other hand, most of the pure farms track changes and react to them later on with their implementation. If the changes require adjustment in production orientations, then the adjustment of pure farms is slowing

4.6 4.1

3.8

4.4

4.1

2.6

4.4

AHs from ŠL

Pure farms

Mixed farms

Farms in abandonment

Supplementary farms 4.1

3.1

4.0

4.6

3.9

3.7

3.8

Ensure the survival of AHs

4.8

4.4

4.7

4.9

4.6

4.8

4.7

Maintain a farm for the next generation

4.7

4.2

4.4

4.3

4.3

4.5

4.4

Maintain a family tradition

4.1

4.2

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.2

4.1

Farming as a way of life in rural areas

Source: Authors’ survey.

Note: Calculated mean values using a Likert scale from 1 – not important at all to 5 – very important. GVP – Municipality Gorenja vas-Poljane, ŠL – Municipality Škofja Loka, SAHs – sample of agricultural holdings, and AHs – agricultural holdings.

4.5

3.3

3.9

4.2

3.7

AHs from GVP

4.1

3.8

To use factors of AHs most efficiently

SAHs

To maximise income of AHs

Table 2. Objectives of farms in farming, December 2011

[29]

30


down, mainly due to insufficient financial resources and attitude towards risk in hiring loans. Concerning the owners of pure family farms, this is attributed mainly to the unfavourable income situation of the AHs. Diversification of incomes with non-agricultural employment is inevitable for the survival of most AHs in the sample. Similarly, as noted by Bojnec and Dries (2005), the questionnaire results on the attitude of the members of the AHs towards income diversification with off-farm employment depend on the age and education of AH members (Knific 2013). Diversification of incomes with supplementary activity is favoured more by the younger members of AHs with vocational or secondary employment, while those with a university education give priority to offfarm employment. Off-farm employment can have two-way influences on the structural changes in agriculture in AHs in Škofjeloška hilly-mountain rural areas. Firstly, non-agricultural employment with supplementary activities on farms that are not related to the processing of products from primary agricultural production and regular off-farm employment is the first step towards reducing the volume and change in the structure of agricultural production, especially if it is labour-intensive, such as milk production, and if the sources of labour on AHs are restricted to the AH members with off-farm jobs and those school and university students studying away from these hilly-mountain rural AH places. Supplementary activities on farms that are associated with the processing of agricultural products in the sample of AHs provide opportunities for maintenance and development of primary agricultural activities. They can increase revenues from primary agricultural activities due to higher prices for higher valueadded products. They can also provide a source of funds for investments in farms in agricultural and non-agricultural activities. Members of AHs dealing with supplementary activities on the farm can often easier follow the needs of the work in AHs in primary agricultural activities than members of AHs who are in off-farm employment. According to the questionnaire results, most of the work in agricultural activity in AHs in Škofjeloška hilly-mountain rural areas is carried out by the core of AH members. Traditionally, the head of AHs is the most engaged in terms of maintaining agricultural production. The employment status of the AH head is crucial for agricultural activity and for the transfer of AH functions to a successor (see also Knific and Bojnec 2009; Knific 2013).


31

According to the questionnaire results, an abandonment of farming on commercial farms most likely can occur when changing the head of AHs, especially if non-agricultural employment is ensuring AH survival and the farm is economically too small to ensure parity income of at least one of the members of AHs. Most of the heads of AHs believe that their farm is economically too small, mainly due to limited natural conditions and low incomes from agricultural activities. According to the questionnaire results, farms in abandonment, mainly due to the low dependence on incomes from agriculture, preserve land ownership due to social reasons, property security, and the preservation of the farm for successors. This also limits the supply of land and maintains its relatively high price, especially in areas where the soil is of higher quality and commercial farms have a tendency to increase their economies of scale. This can inhibit the pace of structural change in areas with better natural conditions for agricultural production. While in marginal areas with difficult production conditions and the most diverse terrain, this can have a minor or no effect on the pace of structural change in agriculture, it can potentially keep the cultivation of agricultural land.

Conclusion Slovenia’s accession to the EU has influenced the AHs in the Škofjeloška rural areas, mainly the incomes of AHs. This is reflected in the change in incomes of AHs from agricultural and non-agricultural activities, and in changes by socio-economic types of AHs. Structural changes in the AHs in Škofjeloška hilly-mountain rural areas are confirmed by reducing the number of AHs due to exiting from the sector and the change in the socio-economic type of remaining AHs. Differences are found in the speed of structural changes. This can be explained by different natural factor endowments for agricultural production and proximity to urban centres (see also Knific and Bojnec 2015). Incomes of AHs from agriculture for the majority of AHs, even six years after the Slovenian accession to the EU, are not sufficient for survival. Between 2000 and 2010, the income situation for the majority of AHs relatively deteriorated, in spite of the relatively higher state support or subsidies for agricultural activities of AHs. An unfavourable income situation has forced AHs into structural changes, particularly to the abandonment of

32


agricultural production. This is reflected, in particular, by reducing the number of AHs, and increasing the economies of scale in the remaining AHs, and has led to the change in the socio-economic type of AHs with the increasing role of income diversification. The speed of abandonment of farming activities due to the lack of profitability has been mitigated by non-economic objectives related to the tradition of AHs, which are oriented towards the preservation of farms and agricultural activities as long as possible. The adaptation of farms in the form of restructuring and structural changes to market conditions is also hampered by insufficient financial resources for necessary investments and the attitude towards the risks or risk aversion of traditional farms associated with the hiring of loans. Among socio-economic types of farms, supplementary farms have most successfully adapted to changes. Between 2000 and 2010, the number of supplementary farms increased. The most successful by income were those from areas with better natural conditions for agricultural production and proximity to urban centres. Opportunities to diversify incomes through supplementary activities are smaller, mainly for AHs in marginal areas, for AHs with less favourable characteristics of members of AHs in terms of age, knowledge and entrepreneurship, and for AHs with relatively little labour to carry out agricultural activities due to off-farm employment and migration of AH members from farm and rural areas, as well as inadequate capital to start the business. The number of mixed and pure farms has decreased, while the number of farms in abandonment has increased. Diversification of incomes with non-agricultural employment and off-farm incomes for most of the AHs in the sample is inevitable for their survival. This has a two-way influence on structural changes in Škofjeloška rural areas. Firstly, it affects non-agricultural employment with supplementary activities on farms that are not related to the processing of primary agricultural production. Yet, in full-time off-farm employment, mainly due to higher incomes or higher labour productivity, it represents the first step towards reducing the size and change in the type of agricultural production. The first step with a lag is followed by a second step with the exiting and abandonment of agricultural production. Land in favourable conditions for agricultural production can be rented out and/or sold, while in marginal areas it can be uncultivated land and/or land in reforestation.


33

Supplementary activities on farms that are associated with the processing of agricultural products of AHs allow the preservation and development of primary agricultural activities. On the one hand, they increase revenues from primary agricultural activities due to higher prices for higher value-added products; on the other hand, they provide a source of funds for investment. Since most of the work in agricultural activity on AHs in Škofjeloška rural areas is carried out by the core of AH members, particularly by the head of the farm, in terms of maintaining agricultural production it is important, in particular, for the employment status of the head of the farm and for the successful transfer of functions to a successor. Abandonment of agricultural production on farms is most likely at a stage of transfer of the farm to a successor, especially if non-agricultural employment and off-farm incomes are ensuring the economic survival and if the farm is economically too small to be able to ensure parity income of at least one of the members of AHs.

References Baum, S. (2011), ‘The Tourist Potential of Rural Areas in Poland’, Eastern European Countryside, vol. 17, pp. 107–135. [DOI: 10.2478/v10130-011-0006-z] Bojnec, Š. and Dries, L. (2005), ‘Causes of Changes in Agricultural Employment in Slovenia: Evidence from Micro-Data’, Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 56 (3), pp. 399–416. Bojnec, Š. and Fertő, I. (2013), ‘Farm Income Sources, Farm Size and Farm Technical Efficiency in Slovenia’, Post-Communist Economies, vol. 25 (3), pp. 343–356. Bojnec, Š. and Latruffe, L. (2009), ‘Determinants of Technical Efficiency of Slovenian Farms’, Post-Communist Economies, vol. 21 (1), pp. 117–124. Bojnec, Š. and Latruffe, L. (2013), ‘Farm Size, Agricultural Subsidies and Farm Performance in Slovenia’, Land Use Policy, vol. 32, pp. 207–217. EC (2002), EC-PHARE Project No. P98-1090-R, EU Accession in the Balkans, Policy Options for Diversification in the Rural Economy, Final Report. Brussels: European Commission. Eurostat (2012), Farm Accounting Data Network: an A to Z of methodology. Luxembourg: European Commission. Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Ashok, M., Nehring, R., Hendricks, C., Southern, M. and Gregory, A. (2007), ‘Off-Farm Income, Technology Adoption, and Farm

34


Economic Performance’, Washington, DC: USDA, Economic Research Service. Hjalager, A.-M. (1996), ‘Agricultural Diversification into Tourism: Evidence of a European Community Development Program’, Tourism Management, vol. 17 (2), pp. 103‒111. Knific, K. (2013), Analiza strukturnih sprememb kmečkih gospodinjstev na območju Škofjeloškega podeželja [Analysis of structural changes in agricultural households in Škofjeloška rural areas]. PhD thesis. Koper: University of Primorska, Faculty of Management. Knific, K. and Bojnec, Š. (2009), Diverzifikacija dohodkov gospodinjstev na hribovitem podeželskem območju [Diversification of incomes of agricultural holdings in hilly rural areas]. Koper: Faculty of Management. Knific, K. and Bojnec, Š. (2015), ‘Structural Changes in Land Use of Agricultural Holdings in Hilly Rural Areas: The Case of the Škofja Loka Region’, Acta Geographica Slovenica, vol. 55, in press, http://ojs.zrc-sazu.si/ags/article/ view/736/0. Kovačič, M. (1996), Socio-ekonomska in velikostna struktura kmetij v Sloveniji v obdobju 1981–1991 [Socio-economic and size structure of farms in Slovenia 1981–1991]. Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty. MAFF (2007), Program razvoja podeželja za Republiko Slovenijo 2007–2013 [Programme of rural development for the Republic of Slovenia 2007–2013]. Ljubljana: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food. Möllers, J. (2006), Außerlandwirtschaftliche Diversifikation im Transformationsprozess [Non-agricultural diversification in the transition process]. Halle: IAMO. Möllers, J. (2007), Questionnaire for Households. Halle: IAMO. Oblak, O. (2002), Ocena skupnega dohodka na kmečkih gospodinjstvih v Sloveniji [Estimate of the total income in farm households in Slovenia]. Master thesis. Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty. SORS (2005), Statistical Yearbook of Slovenia 2005. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. SORS (2012a), Revaluation of Cash and Cash Equivalents. Ljubljana: SORS. SORS (2012b), Statistical Yearbook of Slovenia 2012. Ljubljana: SORS. Udovič, A., Kovačič, M. and Kramarič, F. (2006), Socio-ekonomski tipi kmetij po podatkih popisa kmetijskih gospodarstev v letu 2000 [Socio-economic farm types according to the census of agricultural holdings in 2000]. Slovenija v EU, izzivi za kmetijstvo, živilstvo in podeželje [Slovenia in the EU, challenges for agriculture, food and rural areas]. Ljubljana: DAES, pp. 71–80.

DOI: 10.1515/eec-2015-03

21’ 2015

KrzysztofJovana Gorlach, Zbigniew Drąg, Piotr Nowak Čikić, Marica Petrović

Women on… Combine Harvesters? Rural Families and Households Women as Farm Operators in Transition: Contemporary Poland1 in Post-Socialist Serbian Experience1 Abstract The authors discuss the main characteristics of women as farm operators using national Abstract sample studies conducted in 1994, 1999 and 2007. After an analysis of literature and various research results some hypotheses were formulated, i.e.:for theunderstanding better educationthe of Rural families and households make a basic framework rural women than rural men, women as “unnatural” or “forced” farm operators due wayhousehold of life. Thiscircumstances, relation is especially interesting understatus the recent andoperated difficult torural various the “weaker” economic of farms post-socialist transition in places such as Serbia. Previous research has shown by women. Basic results of the studies carried out in 1994, 1999 and 2007 confirm the that the transition its benefits not distributed hasMoreover, induced hypothesis about the and weaker economicare position of female equally. operatedThis farms. women farmeconomic operatorsdisparities, were slightly older and far better educated than their male social and at the expense of the social attractiveness of rural counterparts. On the contrary, the males were more active off the farms in the public areas. These disparities have influenced characteristics of Serbian rural families sphere. In addition, the circumstances of becoming farm operators did not differ and households, their survival strategies and their roles in the reproduction of the significantly between males and females. Finally, there were no significant differences rural way of life. startedstyles research with three assumptions: a) depopulation of between “male” andWe “female” of farming. Serbian rural areas continues under the post-socialist transition, b) transitional Keywords: women, farm operators, education, market position, entrepreneur, risks produce partial retraditionalization of Serbian rural family relationships, style of farming. and c) characteristics of Serbian regions affect characteristics of rural families and households. The analysis confirmedIntroductory rural depopulation. In the decade 2002–2011, there Remarks was the most significant decline ever in the number of Serbian rural families. This negative impact of transition areas. Besides this, the Let us signified start withthe a statement formulated by one ofon therural leading Polish female rural research confirmed that contemporary Serbian rural families and households still sociologists, a specialist in analyzing the problems of rural families. She points

out: “[…] roughly 60 per cent of agricultural production [in Poland – K.G.; 1

Paper is a part of the project research Sustainable agriculture and rural development in function of achieving strategic goals of the Republic of Serbia within the Danube region 1 (No. III46006), by paper the Republic of Serbia’s of Education, Science and An earlierfinanced draft of this was presented at theMinistry XXIV European Congress for Rural Sociology, Chania, Greece, 22–25 August, 2011. Technological Development.

36

Jovana Čikić, Marica Petrović

have some traditional features (multiple generations, relics of the role of head of the traditional rural family) which enable them to cope with transitional risks. A third finding proved that characteristics of Serbian rural families and households depend on regional characteristics. Within the regions that are more socially attractive and where the risks of social exclusion are lower, retraditionalization of rural families is less noticeable. It can be concluded that contemporary Serbian rural families and households survive throughout transition periods depending on their characteristics, but also characteristics of their social environment. Stronger social magnetism of a region is manifested in stronger rural social vitality. That is reflected in stronger modernization of rural families and households. Keywords: rural family, rural household, post-socialist transition, Serbia

Introduction Modern and postmodern societies brought significant transformation of rural space (Halfacree, 1993; Marsden, 2003), induced both from outside and within rural communities. The end of (relative) self-sufficiency of traditional rural societies and their integration into the global social structures made rural space less homogeneous. In contemporary societies, rural space became public space with numerous social functions. It is not only space of extraction, but also space of consumption in situ. Transformation of rural space induced modifications in rurality and vice versa. Cloke and Godwine (1992) wrote of both economic and cultural rural restructuring. Economic restructuring is the foundation of new rural economy in terms of multifunctionality (van der Ploeg, Roep 2003; Johnson 2001) and diversification (Slee 1987; Shucksmith, Bryden, Rosenthall, Short, Winter 1989; Shucksmith, Winter 1990). Cultural rural restructuring is a quest for a new identity of rural. Hence, it implies the issues of social attractiveness of rural areas (Petrović, Samardžija, Janković 2005) which relies on the prevailing concept of rural development and characteristics of rural social vitality (Čikić 2013). Integration in global societies caused multiple changes in rural social structure. Along with the transformation of the rural economy, the most prominent are demographic changes. Since the end of the 19th century, rural areas in most of the European societies have been facing depopulation

Rural families and households in post-socialist transition…

37

(Collantes, Pinilla 2011). Its intensity depended on dynamics of global social processes (industrialization, urbanization). Thus, former socialist European societies (such as Serbia) faced rural depopulation later, in the second half of the 20th century, but in a more intensive manner (rural exodus). Rural depopulation is considerably influenced by two major factors: migration and decrease of rural fertility. Forced by pull-push factors (demographic pressure, labour market, characteristics of social infrastructure, quality of life, poverty, social control, lifestyle choices), the selective nature of rural migration induced depopulation, both directly and indirectly. On the other hand, adoption of urban cultural values and erosion of traditional ones lowered the rural norms of biological reproduction. Consequently, the process of rural ageing has become a major rural demographic feature, with considerable social repercussions on the reproduction of rural areas (Burholt, Dobbs 2012). Even though we speak of integration of rural areas into contemporary global social processes, poverty and social exclusion are the main rural issues. This especially refers to transitional societies (Brown, Schaft 2003; Macours, Swinnen 2006), such as in contemporary Serbia. Rural poverty and social exclusion are causes, but also consequences of rural depopulation and ageing. All of the presented reflects on rural family life patterns. We, hereby, wrote of rural families and households, but it is very difficult to analyse them as separate entities. They are, as Milić underlined (referred to: Bobić 1999, p. 94), ‘two sides of the same phenomenon’. Nevertheless, even though significantly modified by contemporary social structures, rural family (as a primary social group, unity of life) and rural household (as a socioeconomic category, unity of consumption) are still major categories in sociological research of rurality. Their analytical importance even rose with the prevalence of the neo-endogenous concept of rural development (Shucksmith 2009; Cloke, Marsden, Mooney 2006; Ray 1999) and emphasis on the role of rural human capital. The number and ratio of rural families and households, their structural and development characteristics, inner relations, etc. are sociological cornerstones in researching models of reproduction of the rural way of life. The aforementioned transformation of rural structure also impacts on contemporary Serbian rural families and households. As a former socialist society, Serbia has been under significant changes for the last three decades,

38


most intensively in the last decade and a half (from the 2000s). Serbian rural areas entered the post-socialist transition right after the enforced period of the socialist concept of modernization. The previous period of modernization caused massive deagrarisation. Rural areas have been considered as extraction places – resources such as food / raw materials, labour force and (partially) financial capital from agriculture have been used for development of the industrial and, later, service sector. During the 1960s and in the first half of the 1970s, Serbian rural areas faced the most intensive demographic changes. That was the period of the significant rural depopulation, caused mainly by migration / rural flight and decline of rural fertility rates. Transformation of rural family and household has been at its peak of manifestation. It entails both quantitative and qualitative changes. Thus, along with the decline in number of rural families and households, their ratio in total number of families and their size, transformation of rural families and households comprised changes in partners’ relations, gender and generation relations, as well as changes in rural families’ and households’ functions. Even though not as radical as in the socialist period, transformation of rural families and households in Serbia continued throughout the period of post-socialist transition. The analysis of these transformations is based on three assumptions. First, rural depopulation in Serbia continues under the post-socialist transition. This process is a result of continuous rural ageing and negative migration rate. It reflects a decline in number of rural families and households. Second, the economic aspect of post-socialist transition caused retraditionalization of social relations. At the family level, it is manifested in preservation of rural families with multiple generations and households with multiple families. This is a model for rural households to provide more social chances for survival. Also, retraditionalization is more common for rural families and households than urban ones because of the greater exposure to poverty and social exclusion. Third, regional context is of great importance in the analysis of Serbian rural families and households’ characteristics. In more developed and, thus, more socially attractive regions, number of rural families and households is higher and the modernized type of rural families prevails. The aim of the analysis is to indicate the characteristics of social vitality of Serbian rural families and households. Social vitality ensures their biological, economic and social reproduction. In addition, it provides


39

outlines for defining and implementation of different survival and development strategies under the post-socialist transition.

Sociological and Similar Research of Rural Families and Households in Serbian Society From their very beginnings (end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century), Serbian sociology of family and rural sociology paid much attention to the analyses of rural families and households: their composition and structures, functions, inner relations, changes, family customs, their role in Serbian (rural) society, etc. (Karadžić 1987; Marković 1982; Bogišić 1867, according to: Mitrović 1998; Vukosavljević 1983). After WWII, the work of two authors emerged: R. First (1981) and O. Burić (1968; 1974). In the late 1960s and early 1970s, O. Burić (1968; 1974) analysed transformation of family life by tracking the line of (dis)continuity between traditional joint family (porodična zadruga) and modern rural family. Burić also analysed traditional rural values (such as solidarity) and the way they reflected the rural way of life. R. First (1981) researched rural families in relation to rural households and family farms. She paid special attention to the transformation of family functions under modernization, as well as the family life cycle. Next after Burić and First, A. Milić (1981; 1986), who analysed family in general, also researched rural families. Contemporary sociological and similar research deals with rural families and households in a cultural context (Dragičević-Šešić 1989), motherhood and procreation (Tripković 1988, 1997; Novakov 2010), and (in)equalities in decision-making (Molnar 1989; Babović, Vuković 2008). Also, researchers have been interested in the specifics of family roles (Blagojević 1997; Tomanović 2004), general conceptual and hypothetical outlines for the rural family and household analysis (Stojanov 2004), changes in family life under the post-socialist transition (Milić 2004; Milić, Tomanović 2009; Milić at al. 2010; Miletić-Stepanović 2011), changes in rural family in relation to the position of specific rural social groups (Sokić 2005; Miladinović 2010), rural family and household in the context of social exclusion (Bogdanov 2007), socio-economic strategies of households (Babović 2009), etc. Rural families are often analysed through their similarities with and differences to the urban ones (First 1981; Bobić 1999). According to First-

40


Dilić (1973), production and consumption as functions of rural family and their connections with the nature, surroundings (rural area as a biological and geographical entity) are the basic elements for its social distinction with the urban family. On these two elements, set of different issues regarding rural/agricultural family depends: living conditions, choice of life partner, number of children, children`s upbringing and education, professional orientation, age of social maturation, structure of family power, succession system etc. Nevertheless, insisting on rural–urban family dichotomy can be, sometimes, unproductive or even completely wrong because it can mislead us to a conclusion that transformation of rural family necessarily must track the development of its urban forms. On the other hand, if it is properly handled, dichotomy can be theoretically and methodologically very heuristic since it facilitates learning on specifics of rural families, particularly in relation to rural households and, even more, family farms. This clearly states that the rural family is not to be treated as a monolith phenomenon.

Rural Social Structure in Contemporary Serbian Society Under Post-Socialist Transition Gradual changes in the structure and way that former Yugoslav society has been functioning began in the middle of the 1980s. They set the foundation for the post-socialist transition of contemporary Serbian society. In the 1980s, the idea of a single-party state, and a socialist, state-planned and controlled economy, showed serious shortcomings. Antonić (2004) argues that Yugoslav/Serbian society, from the ‘communist welfare state’ (in the 1970s), in the first half of the 1980s already faced economic and social crisis. Therefore, in the second half of the 1980s, the first, but mostly unsystematic, changes (such as basics of political pluralism, decentralisation of the power between former Yugoslav republics) laid the path for the transition (Popović 1991). Changes in legal framework had an important influence on post-socialist transformation of rural and agricultural structure. After abolishing legal restrictions regarding private property land size (1992), enlargement of the family farms’ utilised agricultural areas was enabled. It created conditions for the economic strengthening of Serbian peasantry. On the other hand,


41

agroindustry (owned and controlled by state mechanisms), which employed quite a share of the rural population, was privatized or put out of business, due to its insolvency. In the beginning of the 1990s, after the breakdown of former Yugoslav society, the Republic of Serbia emerged, along with the five other countries. The decade of the 1990s completely blocked post-socialist transition, due to the unfavourable internal and external political and economic circumstances. This was the decade of false political democracy, supremacy of illegal economy, monopolistic control of the economy by the political elite, international political isolation of Serbian society, economic sanctions and embargos, internal Kosovo conflicts, NATO intervention (1999) etc. Lazić, Cvejić (2004) called it a period of blocked transition. During the 1990s, Serbian society can be characterized as a destroyed society (Bolčić 1994). A new window for social changes has been opened at the beginning of the 21st century. After the political demise of Slobodan Milošević’s isolation politics and totalitarian regime on the election and general public demonstration (2000), Serbia continued social and economic transformations that began a decade and a half ago. This is why Serbian society is often qualified as a society of late transition (Tripković, Tripković 2008; Lazić, Cvijić 2004). The need for accelerated changes was very much present because of the obvious gap in Serbian development compared to other post-socialist countries. Also, some of the changes missed their (expected) results. In the vortex of transitional changes (and global economic crisis), families and households suffered one of the biggest impacts. Therefore, we focused our analysis on characteristics of families and households, especially rural ones. One of the characteristics of Serbian late transition is unequal distribution of positive and negative effects of social changes. Economic and social disparities are especially visible in an urban–rural context. In order to understand features of Serbian rural families and households, we must briefly point out some of the main characteristics of Serbian rural social structure. One of its dominant characteristics is rural depopulation. This process is typical for Serbian society in general, but especially for rural areas. Second, rural social infrastructure is underdeveloped which makes it difficult for the rural population to fulfil their needs. In particular, this is a major problem for rural population living in distant and isolated rural areas. Also, rural settlements’ network (as well as settlements’ network in Serbia overall)

42


shows serious deficiencies due to its functional centrality. Third, the rural economy is underdeveloped (Prokić, Pavličić 2008) with numerous structural and performance imperfections. The rural population is more often exposed to poverty. Rural women, elderly and youth are particularly vulnerable. Almost 40% of the Serbian rural population is economically active in agriculture. Every fourth household has a family farm. Compared to the previous decade, there is a slight tendency towards enlargement of the agricultural land owned by the family farm. However, the average utilised agricultural area is still very small (5.44 ha per farm: Census 2012 – Book No. 1). There is a strong request for modernization of agriculture. It implies changes in economic mentality of Serbian peasants. It also means development of rural entrepreneurship. The social stratum of peasants is differentiating (Šljukić 2009). Rural youth, even though they have poor chances for employment, more than ever judge agriculture to be very low on the scale of desirable and prestigious occupations. Also, they do not think of rural areas as socially preferable. Agriculture is mostly regarded as a last option for fulfilling existential needs. Fourth, rural culture is trapped between traditionalism and mass culture. A patriarchal system of values is still present with certain modifications, mostly regarding generational roles and relationships and, partially, gender roles and relationships.

Method and Data Resources Analysis of the main characteristics of Serbian rural families and households is based on empirical data from the censuses of population and households (1971–2011). According to the latest census methodology (Census 2011 – Book No. 12; Census 2011 – Book No. 10), the same definitions of family and households have been applied in censuses since 1953. This also refers to the classification of families according to the type. That makes data comparable in the temporal dimension (Census 2011 – Book No. 12). However, there is a problem regarding inadequate methodological distinction between types of settlement. Since 1981, census methodology has used urban settlements – other settlements dichotomy (Stanković 1999). Even though we are fully aware that there is no absolute equality between the two concepts, in the absence of a more adequate solution, we hereby identify rural families as families in so-called other settlements. Moreover,


43

due to the political changes in Serbian society at the end of the 1990s, data for Kosovo and Metohija are not taken into account. In this way, we try to ensure better data comparability and reduce possible errors in calculation.

Does the Trend of Decrease in Number of Serbian Rural Familiesand Households Under Transition Continue? We advocate that transformation of rural families and households, initiated by modernization, continues in post-socialist Serbian society. The most obvious is quantitative indicator – persistent decrease in the number of rural families and households, in the absolute and relative value. This process is an outcome of rural depopulation. Rural depopulation in Serbian society is, from a demographic point of view, a consequence of rural ageing (Miladinović, 2010), negative migration rate (Bogdanov, 2007), postponement of marriage and procreation among the rural population in Serbia (Novakov, 2011), etc. According to the last census data, there are 670 000 fewer people in Serbian rural settlements than in 1991 (Radovanović, 1999; Census 2011 – Book No. 10). The ageing index of the rural population is very high (1.404). Other relevant socio-demographic indicators (average age, % of young rural population, % of elderly rural population, ageing index) show that the Serbian rural population is in a stage of the highest demographic being old age. In the last decade, depopulation is registered in more than 80% of rural settlements in Serbia (Statistical Calendar 2013). This statistic undoubtedly indicates that the rural population, and thus Serbian rural families and households, are facing great problems not only considering their biological, but also economic and social reproduction. According to the latest census data, there are 954 020 rural households in Serbia. Compared to 1971 (the end of the post-war modernization phase), the number of rural households in the Republic has decreased by more than 196 000 households or -4.68‰ per year. According to Bobić (1999), in 1971, 55.4% of all households in the Republic were rural. Nowadays, only 38.3% households in Serbia are rural (Census 2011 – Book No. 10). In the same period, the number of urban households increased by more than 600 000 or 12.7‰ per year. Under transition (1991–2011), the number of urban households increased by 5‰ per year. Today, urban households in Serbia make 61.7% of all households.

44


During the transitional period (1991–2011), the number of rural households in the Republic decreased by more than 75 000 or 7.4%. It confirms our hypothesis of continuous socio-demographic trend. Nevertheless, there have been changes in dynamics of rural households’ number decrease. Thus, the annual rate of change of the number of rural households was higher in the pre-transitional period (1971–1991; -.5‰ per year) than in the transitional one (1991–2011; -3.8‰ per year). Such a difference can be explained by at least two reasons. First, one regards socio-demographic characteristics of rural population in 1971–1981. Rural population continued to be forced out of agriculture. As it was the end of post-war modernization of Serbian societies, the 1970s are the period of the first signs of weaknesses of the socialist economy / mostly industry that could not employ any more rural population escaping from agriculture. Along with long-term rural–urban migration, the rural population in Serbia participated in long-term rural migration into West European countries (Germany, France etc.), as a result of the flexible external migration policy of the former Yugoslavia. Inner and external rural migrations influenced the reduction in the number of rural households. The second explanation of lower annual rate of change of rural households in Serbia during the 1990s is in conflicts between former Yugoslav republics. The population from the war zones in the Republic of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina migrated to Serbia. Most of the migratory population founded their new homes in rural areas, where they had relatives who migrated to Serbia (especially in Vojvodina, its northern part) after WWII (under the statecontrolled and organized colonisation) or where they practised farming as an income source. However, while observing census data, we have noticed that the highest annual rate of change of number of rural households (-9.5‰) corresponded to the period of the most intensive social and economic changes in Serbian society (2002–2011). It signified that after blocked post-socialist transition, Serbian rural areas were not seen as socially preferable communities to live in. It also showed that rural areas (still) did not benefit from the transitional changes. We also have noticed that the decrease in number of rural households matches the rate of rural depopulation (1971–2011). The annual rate of change of rural depopulation (-8.6‰) is slightly higher than the annual rate of change of number of rural households. That explains the high ratio


45

of single-person households among Serbian rural households. Also, there is high and significant correlation (0.926, p