“Unpaid” Farm Work a scoping study

MAF Policy Technical Paper 97/21

byHeather McCrostie Little

Nick TaylorWayne McClintock

Taylor Baines and Associates& Ruris Consultancy

November 1997

ISSN 1171-4662ISBN 0-478-07483-2

DisclaimerWhile every effort has been made to ensure that the information in this publication is accurate,the Ministry of Agriculture does not accept any responsibility or liability for error of fact,omission, interpretation or opinion which may be present, nor for the consequences of anydecision based on this information.

Reprinting of material from this report is welcomed (except for commercial use or on advertisingor promotional material), provided proper acknowledgement is made to the source.

Comments on the contents of this paper, including errors of fact, omission and interpretation,would be appreciated and should be directed to:

MAF PolicyMinistry of AgriculturePO Box 2526Wellington

Telephone (04) 474 4100Facsimile (04) 474 4206

Requests for further copies should be directed to:

ManagerMAF Information BureauPO Box 2526Wellington

Telephone (04) 474 4100Facsimile (04) 474 4111

This paper is also available on the Internet at the following address: hppt://www.maf.govt.nz.

ForewordThe research documented in this report on “unpaid farm work” arose from a discussion withStatistics New Zealand in 1994 about an employment status category used in the Census ofPopulation and Dwellings “unpaid family assisting”. While this category is used internationally,and without hesitation by farming people, it was agreed that in the (then) absence of time use datamore than anecdotal information was needed to understand what work was undertaken by thisgroup of people (thought to be predominantly women), and what it meant in terms of income.The latter is an important issue when such work ceases due to injury or illness and compensationis sought.

As a first stage to this project a literature review was commissioned and reviewed by socialscientists with an interest in issues related to unpaid work. The literature review was followed bya scoping study which explored more fully issues raised in the literature. It provides a picture oflabour input into the family farm business, explores the relationship between farm familymembers and the extended family, and how the involvement of extended family through unwagedwork contribute to farm viability and sustainability in social as well as economic terms.

Of particular interest is how the research question changed from one of pragmatic interest inpayment for farm work, to the broader issue of farm sustainability. In this context sustainability isexplored from the perspective of total labour input into New Zealand farming and how this ischanging. As a scoping study, the analysis reported here is tantalising in that it provides a picturewhich still requires substantiation at the national level. Nevertheless, the material adds anotherdimension to understanding of agricultural systems which MAF has been developing through itssocial science research programme.

Dr Ann PomeroyManager Rural Affairs

1. Introduction

1.1 The original focusSocial research is an important factor in the achievement of sustainable and

competitive agriculture. The initial focus of this scoping study was the farm work of farmwomen. Our interest was in the work of women on farms, particularly women who arepart of farming couples. The questions asked at the beginning of the study were: Whatfarm work are the women doing, and how does this work relate to their other householdwork, off farm employment, other enterprises and community roles? And, how is theirwork on the farm valued, within the farm enterprise, by their husband/partner and family,and by the community? From the start it was considered necessary to distinguishcarefully between paid and unpaid farm work.

The intention was to research women who have a range of on-farm activity from nil,to chores (“housewives”), to very active (“the boy”), to equal partners, to women as theprimary farm worker.

A number of factors were to be analysed, including the nature of farm ownership,and values placed on work. Analysis of farm ownership can usefully distinguish betweenaspects of ownership, including land, stock and plant, in which women can have a varyingstake. The ‘visibility’ of ownership by women and their involvement in farm‘partnerships’, and the level of power or decision making that they have, was alsoconsidered important. Farm work of women may or may not be formally recompensed bythe farm accounts. Others factors to examine included farm characteristics and cycles,family cycles, and family and community relationships and commitments.

The research was to build on previous research funded by the Rural Resources Unit,MAF Policy, which has provided initial information and understanding of paid and unpaidemployment for the farm families involved. This work has included studies ofpluriactivity in New Zealand farming systems, including off-farm employment (Taylorand Little, 1995) and non-agricultural enterprises (Taylor et al, 1997), and studies of farmsuccession (Little and Taylor, 1998). Altogether, these three studies involved 180 in-depthpersonal interviews, primarily with farm couples. In addition, there have beencomprehensive studies undertaken as part of the Rabbit and Land ManagementProgramme (Taylor Baines, 1995). These various studies have examined the nature ofwork by the farm family, both on the farm and in the household, as well as social changesrelating to the economic and social roles of farm women.

The farm work research aimed to complement the findings of the studies describedabove, as well as other related research in New Zealand, such as the work by AnnPomeroy, Diane Anderson, Diedre Shaw and Mary-Jane Rivers.

1.2 Revised parameters of the scoping studyThe parameters of the study were reconsidered in the light of:

(i) the initial literature review which focused on the unpaid work of farm women, andcomments on that review by staff of MAF Policy;

(ii) an expanded literature review that covered the unpaid work of farm familymembers, and others more generally;

(iii) the experience and findings of the other ongoing research, particularly the studiesof non-agricultural enterprises, the succession study, and the RLMP end of

programme farmer survey.

The amended subject for the scoping study was “unwaged work in agriculturalbusinesses (on farms)”. There was some consideration of expanding this topic to includerural businesses in general, but while this topic would be of interest, it was consideredbest to retain a farm focus, perhaps with follow-up research on other types of ruralbusiness.

In the revised study “family member” referred to any relative of the principal farmoperator who provides labour to the family farm without receiving a regular wage. Eventhough such relatives may receive some monetary compensation or payment in kind, suchas drawings, share of profits, reciprocal labour, meat, petrol, etc, the labour they providewas deemed to be unwaged.

The distinction of the principal farm operator was important as it appears from ourprevious research that very few pay themselves a wage per se. They could therefore insome respects be considered as ‘unwaged’, or at least be as ‘unwaged’ as a spouse livingoff shared farm drawings. But it was not the purpose of the study to focus on all farmwork, as it would soon have lost direction, therefore in the scoping interviews no detailswere sought on the farm work of the principal farm operator.

The focus has been on the labour provided by a spouse/partner, child, other relativeor non-family member (such as friend or neighbour) that either directly contributes to theproductivity of the farm enterprise, or indirectly provides services to that enterprise. Suchlabour includes a wide variety of tasks including, for example, agricultural and livestockactivities, administrative and secretarial services, and cooking meals, washing laundry, etcfor the principal farmer, contractors and paid employees.

Just as the study could lose focus by including the work of the principal farmoperator, it was necessary to limit detail of housework and family reproduction orchildcare not directly related to the farm. This is not, however, the ‘traditional’ economicapproach whereby the domestic labour of farm women is excluded from research on farmlabour. Recognition of that orientation has informed this study. Where appropriate, unpaidfarm work has been related to other work and roles - in the household, off farmemployment, work in any non-farm enterprises, and work in the community.

1.3 Approach and outline of methodThe overall approach of the research was to conduct an in-depth analysis of “unpaid”

work on farms, focussing on farm work other than the principal farm operator, through anational-level study.

It was intended that the full research project would be broken into several phases, ofwhich a report of the first, scoping phase, is provided here.

Phase One - Scoping(i) Literature review. This review built on the pluriactivity and other research noted

above, and included discussions with other researchers.

(ii) Information from the literature review and scoping interviews were used to designa structured personal interview schedule. The off-farm employment, non-agricultural enterprises and Rabbit and Land Management Programme final farmsurvey were all examined closely to see what questions might usefully be repeatedor modified. The interviews included both closed and open-ended questions.

(iii) Scoping interviews. The scoping questionnaire was put to five farm couples andone single principal farm operator in the Ashburton District, Mid-Canterbury

during May 1995, in an area that extended from the coast to the foothills. Face toface interviews of approximately one and a half hours were used.

A further 20 interviews were conducted in July 1997 to complete the scoping phase.They were undertaken in Mid and North Canterbury. Respondents were selected from listsof names supplied by Federated Farmers. The sample was purposive. Families weresought where the spouse, and or children and members of the extended family appeared tohave a farm labour role.

The questionnaire used in the scoping interviews is developmental. For the initial sixinterviews a number of questions were left open, with the intention of generating materialthat will allow for the development of more closed questions. These results wereintegrated into a substantial revision of the questionnaire for the next 20 interviews. It isexpected that the final interview schedule for a national survey would be as closed aspossible.(iv) An interim scoping report was produced covering the first phase of literature

review, results of the first six interviews, and a draft questionnaire for use in widersurvey work. Feedback on the report was obtained from MAF Policy staff and otherresearchers to whom the report was circulated. Subsequently, there was a decisionto conduct a further 20 scoping interviews and complete the scoping study.

This final scoping report therefore includes:(i) analysis of the 26 interviews;

(ii) the full literature review - prepared in two parts (Appendix I);

(iii) the questionnaire used in the final 20 interviews (Appendix II);

(iv) initial conclusions for policy and future research, including discussion of the futureof the project.

This final scoping report will form the basis for:(i) discussion and review of the project with MAF Policy;

(ii) a workshop on the project with research colleagues, convened in collaboration withMAF Policy;

(iii) discussion of the project with potential funding agencies (there is no fundingavailable for the national survey as yet);

(iv) discussion of the project with potential partner groups in the rural community, e.g.Womens’ Division of Federated Farmers;

(v) preparation of a detailed proposal and budget for a national study into the work offamily members and others on farms.

2. ResultsIn this section we present the results of the scoping interviews. The results combine

those from the original six interviews and the second 20. Although, in some instances theresults from the two sets of interviews are differentiated. The interview results provide anindication of the types of information obtained. It is not intended that they should beinterpreted widely, due to the small sample involved. Rather, the intention is to indicateissues for future research to explore.

2.1 Principal farm operatorThe great majority of the 26 respondents were farm couples. In two cases the single,

principal farm operator was female. Other cases included a father and son, a son, and aman and his brother as principal operators.

One couple had only been married for six months and it was the second marriage foreach partner. The female spouse took no role in any aspect of the farm, either practical oradvisory, and was employed off the farm in a full time profession. The principal operatorof this farm employed a female farm worker who lived in a second house on the farm andwho took part in all decision making and management aspects of the farm operation.

2.2 The farm enterprisesType of farmThe farm types are typical of the Mid-North Canterbury area. For 15 of the 26 farms

cropping was part of the production base. Two farms had a major dairy element, and threea complementary dairy element, such as grazing dairy stock over half the farm andrunning a dairy and dairy stud enterprise within the mix cropping enterprise. The otherfarms were stock farms running primarily sheep and beef operations. Stock diversificationevident included goats (cashmere), deer and ostriches.

Size of farm (effective area)In the initial six interviews, principal operators were asked to describe their farm

enterprises as small, medium or major. The farms fell equally into the two categories ofmedium and major. Subsequently, only the size of the farm was obtained. The farmsranged in size from 90 to 740 ha. The average farm size was 307 ha.

Four respondents reported ‘other farms’. For example, an ‘other farm’ consisted of34 ha of a neighbouring property bought on the sale and subdivision of this farm andincluding a house in which the respondent’s single son now lives. (This was not classed asa second household as the son for all intents and purposes is part of the family unit andeats at home.) The land is in the son’s name so the 34 ha were not included in the farmarea.

Farm ownershipThe majority of the farm businesses were owned in a partnership arrangement

(usually held 50/50) between the farm male and female. Seven were companies (usuallyinvolving other family members, some of whom were women), two were in soleproprietorship and one was a trust involving family members. In a number of cases therewere variations indicated in the ownership of land, plant and stock, compared to the“ownership” of the farm business. These cases involved differential arrangementsbetween the principal operator and their spouse, sons or other family members such asparents or a family trust.

At least five of the respondents indicated that the land was leasehold, usually from

family members or trusts.Farming experience of principal farm operatorThe years that the farm had been owned by the principal operator ranged from four to

44 years. On average the respondents had owned their farms for 21 years.Years in farming ranged from 17 to 52 years. On average the respondents had been

farming for 31 years. These were therefore mainly experienced farmers.Farm incomeThe gross income of the farms ranged from $80,000 to $500,000 and averaged

$260,000 over 17 farms. The before tax surplus ranged from “making a loss” to $100,000.Running the farm at a loss was, however, described as a deliberate strategy to build up thecapital asset of the farm through a comprehensive development programme. Respondentswere generally willing to answer these questions about farm finances, but sometimesrequired recourse to the account statements, taking extra time. Experience during theinterviews and their analysis has reinforced the need for clarity about gross income and“surplus” or “profit” when seeking this information.

Non-farm incomeThirteen of the farm women were working off their farms. Occupations included

nursing, teaching, orchard and vineyard work. Their annual incomes ranged up to$44,000. Six of the male respondents noted off-farm employment including directors,contracting and tutoring. Their annual income ranged up to $24,000. Sixteen (61%) of thehouseholds had some off-farm employment income and three of these had both membersof the couple working off the farm.

Three of the households indicated non-agricultural enterprises income. One of thewomen ran a home hosting and bus lunches enterprise that netted $2,000-$4,500 annually.Another did graphic design for $12,000 per annum. The data were not clear as to thenature of agricultural contracting work of some males that was classified as off-farmemployment, but could have been owner-operator enterprises.

There was no question on investment income, yet two of the original six respondentsvolunteered information. In each case the female spouse held a small portfolio of shares,fixed term investments and in one case a commercial property (which netted $6,000 perannum). It was noted that this money was ‘important’ to the family and the farm in thatthe interest enabled children’s needs (including adult children) to be taken care of withoutdrawing on the farm.

Liabilities and assetsLong term liability for the farms ranged from nil to $1.5 million (two properties farmed together,

one being for dairying) being an average of $270,000. In one instance the long term liability includedseasonal finance - the respondent was steadily decreasing his liability and knew only that figure.

Asset values of the farms ranged from $300,000 to $2.3 million with GVs covering asimilar range. Some of the farmers were uncertain of their asset values due tocomplications such as potential value of subdivision, or leasehold of the land asset.

Farm drawingsFarm drawings ranged from $11,000 per year to $50,000. One of $47,000 included

$14,500 for school fees. The average was $21,000. One respondent reported that shemade no drawings from the farm and lived on her national superannuation. Five familiesin the first round of interviews identified their usual expenditures. In order of priority theywere education of children; provisions and living expenses; and family support (intocareers, setting up house and establishing families: financial responsibilities appear not toend once the children have been educated).

On one property, at least, an extensive garden run by the female spouse providedvegetables throughout the year, so vegetables were never bought. Meat and eggs were alsoprovided ‘by the farm’ so cost of food provisions was low. This female spouse also noteda ‘clothes network’ whereby clothes were exchanged between families with growingchildren.

Hours of work by the farm coupleAll but two of the principal farm operators, including the two women who were

principal farm operators, worked full time on their farm. The respondents typicallyworked between 55 and 60 hours per week. They invariably commented that they worked‘full time plus’. One who classified himself as “part-time” worked 40 hours per week!

It was apparent that respondents need to be prompted to include some types of workas ‘farm’ work. For example, one of the respondents noted that in addition to his weeklysixty hours he worked up to two hours per day, of a five day week, on ‘paper work’.Another respondent also commented that the proportion of paperwork that demanded hisattention had increased ‘hugely’ over the years. The term ‘farm work’ conjures up theimage of physical work on the farm not the hours these farmers were describing that wentinto ‘paperwork’, including paddock records and stock management records, accountsand ‘book work’.

Full time paid employeesSix of the 26 respondents employed full time labour. One of these had four and

another two employees. Of 10 employees total, two were women. On the farm with fouremployees the work included machinery and dairy work. One farm employed a stockmanager, and another was young (16 years - an Industrial Training Organisation cadet)and required supervision, but working with other family members he carried out generalfarm duties including milking and stock management. He used the basic farm equipmentincluding the milking machines. The remainder carried out general farm duties.

Part-time paid employeesSix respondents had part time employees. Of seven employees, three were women.

The men carried out general farm duties and stock work (particularly seasonal work). Onefemale was permanent; she lived on the farm in a second house and her work rangedthrough all general farm tasks to attending meetings with the farm consultant and beingresponsible for stock performance. She managed the farm when the principal operator wasabsent and acted as a ‘sounding board’ for all major farm decisions. Another female wasemployed on a seasonal basis and mainly undertook stock work such as calf rearing. Thethird female was employed on housework.

Casual and seasonal employees and contractorsIt is not always easy to distinguish between casual work and contractors. All farms

had workers in one of these categories.All but four of the respondents employed casual workers (usually seasonal). Nine

noted that these included female workers. The main tasks related to shearing and shedhanding, relief milking, assistance with lambing and calving, feeding out, machinemaintenance and annual capital maintenance, hedge trimming and tree work, and‘covering’ in the absence of the farm

family during holidays. The women were all shed hands, wool classers, or reliefmilkers.

All of the respondents employed contractors. Their ranks were dominated by maleswith 105 being employed against a total of 13 females (primarily in the shearing shed).They carried out tasks such as shearing, ploughing, spraying, baling, silage making,

drilling, fertiliser spraying, harvesting, fencing, hedge trimming, tree planting, excavation,water race cleaning, machinery maintenance, and border dyking.

Changes in paid farm workThe second round of 20 interviews asked a question about changes in paid

employment. All but two said there has been change, and one of these said “not greatly”and proceeded to identify changes similar to the other respondents! The most commonchange identified was a shift away from employment of permanent staff to the use ofmore casual staff and contractors in particular. Some related these changes to a change infarm type, others to the advent of larger machinery, particularly for cropping. Tasks suchas shearing are less likely to be done by farmers themselves with contractors widelyavailable. Another reason given was the completion of farm development on a property.Tight farm finances were identified by several farmers who now “do it ourselves”, andothers noted they used to employ students, farm cadets or international exchange students.One of these cited the pressure of OSH to employ more experienced staff.

2.3 The farm householdPrincipal farm operatorAges of the principal farm operators in the initial six interviews ranged from 33 years

to 68 years and averaged 49.3 years.All of the principal operators had received a secondary education with the majority

completing four years of schooling. Seven had attained university entrance. Twelve hadreceived tertiary education. Five held diplomas in farm management, two held certificatesin farm management, one had completed an ITO course in farm management, two hadcompleted units towards degrees in accounting/English and veterinary/zoology and therewas one certified wool classer.

Female spousesThere were 23 female spouses and their ages ranged from 33 to 60 years, averaging

46.6 years.All of the female respondents had received a secondary education with the majority

also completing four years of schooling. Four of the female spouse had universityentrance and four had a higher leaving certificate. One of the respondents had a Master’sdegree in Agricultural Science, five were State registered general nurses (one withadditional mid-wife qualifications), two had nursing training, one had a diploma inhorticulture and another, a diploma in Radiography. Five were certificated primary schoolteachers, two held diplomas from Lincoln University, one in rural secretarial practice andthe other in farm management. And finally, one respondent had a higher trade certificatein graphic design.

It is of interest to note that four of the respondents had farm management, ruralstudies or agricultural qualifications. These women had an interest in rural society andagriculture prior to their marriages. (It is obvious from the chosen careers of theserespondents that more had achieved university entrance than indicated in thequestionnaire.)

Date of marriageThe majority of the couples were married in the seventies decade; nevertheless dates

of marriage spanned the years from 1957 to 1995.One couple had only been married for six months prior to the initial six interviews

and it was the second marriage for each partner. The female spouse took no role in anyaspect of the farm, either practical or advisory, and was employed off the farm in a full

time career. The principal operator employed a female farm worker who lived in a secondhouse on the farm and who took part in all decision making and management aspects ofthe farm operation.

Other farm householdsThe majority of families in this study did not support other households within the

boundaries of the property. Nine of the respondents reported ‘other households’ involvedin the farm operation. Only two were farm workers, both single, who worked full time onthe farm and ate at least one meal a day at the homestead. At least one respondent notedthe social benefits of employing a farm worker to negate the loneliness of farming.

Two respondents noted sons living on the farm, two of whom were single and two ofwhom were married and who not only worked on the farm but were involved with theprincipal operator in farm decision making and management.

Three other respondents reported the presence of parents (his) living on the farm,however, it appeared that in spite of the land being leased from a parent (father) in oneinstance, parents took no part in the farm operation.

The other extended family members to be found living on the farm were brothers. Inone instance two brothers ‘and families (no sons)’ and in another, two brothers and amother rent the three available houses with the fourth being ‘rented out’ to non familymembers.

Farm work of female spouseOf the twenty-three female spouse (excluding the three female principal operators) twenty one were

actively engaged in farm work. (One took no part in the farm operation, two worked full time off the farmand a further ten held off farm jobs part time.) The farm work of these women included:• General farm duties; spreading silage; relief milking; calf rearing; stock work; tailing;

weighing and recording cattle; moving irrigators; feeding out; mustering; lambing;harvesting and driving heavy machinery; break fencing; tractor work; forestry treeplanting; drafting and all yard work; designing and maintaining the garden andsurrounds; and recording stock performance.

House work that contributed to the farm operation included: • cooking for shearers; working in the vegetable garden; phone messages (taken and

given); gofer jobs to and from local village/nearest town; book work financial andaccounting (GST); washing and mending work clothes; cooking for stock agentsand extras on the farm like builders; and cooking for farm workers.

One of the two female principal operators noted that her spouse: does not do any farm jobs on my farm. He runs his own farm elsewhere in thedistrict but he is capable of doing all house jobs, can and does help witheverything.

Another of the female respondents noted with pride that when out mustering her dogwas the ‘top bitch on the team’.

The phrases ‘taking and doing messages’ and ‘gofer jobs’ that are universally used todescribe the secretarial role of farm women fell short of accurately describing thecomprehensive range of tasks the women carry out. Anyone ‘taking messages’ needs toknow a great deal more about the farm operation, and not only on a daily basis, than thephrase suggests. The alternative terms ‘secretarial’ and ‘courier tasks’ more adequatelythe role of women in this aspect of their farm businesses.

Equipment used The women were then asked to describe the equipment they used in carrying out

their farm work. Equipment included:

• digital scales; milking machines; 4 wheel bikes; trucks; ‘utes’; trucks and trailers;tractors; tractor with roller (and other equipment); silage wagon; dockingequipment; car; phone/fax; diverse associated mechanical equipment; andcomputers.

And as a change from new technology mechanics one respondent reported that shecould use anything ‘horses, dogs, anything’.

Preferred work The work preferred by the women was:

• stock work; droving cattle; dairy cattle work; milking; sheep work; feeding lambsand calves; calving; and tractor work.

A number of women noted that they ‘had no preferences’, saying either that they‘enjoyed it all’ or more passively that the ‘jobs have to be done.’ For other women it wasthe opportunity to work ‘outside’ or the chance to ‘assist him in all the jobs’ that madetheir farm work enjoyable.

The range of work undertaken by the women demonstrates their skill in a realmhistorically accepted as a ‘man’s world’.

When it came to identifying tasks that they least like doing the choices were veryindividual: • cooking for shearers; lambing in wet weather; working in the cattle yards with bulls;

working with electric fences; digging the vegetable garden; tailing; tractor work;driving the farm ute; weaning calves; shifting irrigation, which was described as a‘continual daily task that has to be done, a tie and a chore.’ And finally tractorwork with a heavy roller, which was acceptable if it was for a day only.

For the women who disliked farmwork there were an equal number who disliked‘housework and cleaning’.

Given the extensive list of tasks undertaken by the women the list of ‘dislikes’ issmall indeed. And just under half of the women had no dislikes at all. Given theindividuality of the disliked tasks it cannot be said that any one form of farm work iseither generally disliked, avoided or incompatible with the generic skills of women.

Hours of women’s farm work The usual hours that the women worked per week ranged from three to 65. The

average hours worked was 28 per week. The women interviewed later reported that theirweekly hours of work ranged from 3 to 65. These women averaged 23 hours per week offarm work. Three of the women were unable to give any estimation of their farm worknoting either that farm work ‘just fits in with the household’ or that ‘feeding men isseasonal and other farm work is irregular.’

In general, the women had no particular time of the day or the week when theyexpected to work, ‘whenever jobs are needed’ or ‘throughout the year’ or ‘the work isspread’ and ‘all the time, anytime’. And if there was no particular time of the day or weekwhen women performed their farm work, neither was that work seasonal for the majorityof the women, it was in fact ‘ongoing.’

Seasonal farm work of women For the women for whom their work was seasonal, the seasonality was directly

linked with the tasks they perform like lambing and calving or shearing so that spring and

summer can be work intensive. Summer harvest was another seasonally intensive workperiod.

Seasonal work included: • shifting irrigators; harvesting; feeding out; cooking for shearers; lambing/tailing and

calving; and some tractor work (rolling). For those on dairy farms there was lesswork in the winter when cows were ‘dried off’.

Remuneration for women Only five women reported receiving direct financial remuneration for their work.

Two drew a monthly allowance and a second received a regular ‘drawing’ but this alsocovered household requirements. A third woman shared a joint cheque account with herspouse and the fifth got paid cash for cooking for the shearers.

Five women reported that they were remunerated ‘in kind’, one with a ‘kind word’;another with ‘hay for the ponies, reciprocal farmwork for hay for the pony stud’; andanother received ‘the odd hug but not the odd dollar.’ A son helping in the house wasremuneration ‘in kind’ for another woman, while yet another woman benefited withmembers of the family from owning cattle which when sold brought cash payments to thesyndicate. Three women reported that because of partnership arrangements they shared inthe profit - and in the losses,

‘I’m a partner in the business. But I don’t necessarily see any income - all I got washalf a mortgage!’

However, one of those partnerships did allow each partner to pay themselves ‘asmall wage’. A ‘partnership’ of a less formal nature resulted in a half share in slink skinsales earning another women $300: ‘Will be able to buy myself something.’

The research confirms that, at least through their labour contribution if nothing else,that women need farm ownership arrangements if they are to protect their labourinvestment in their farm businesses. Elsewhere in the survey one woman commented thatthose outside the rural community find it difficult to understand the financialcircumstances and structure of farm businesses ‘we may be asset rich but we are cashpoor’.

The pleasure that women in this study show when disposable cash is availabledemonstrates that dollars in the wallet for their spending is not a daily occurrence.

Effect of life cycles The women were asked if the extent and pattern of their farm work had changed in

response to changes in their own life cycles. Only five women reported that they took upmore farm tasks as their children grew older and required less dedication. However, aninteresting finding of the study was the number of women who reported that they didmore work on the farm when their children were young and about the home.

‘Children no great influence, children can go out on the farm.’

Or they can be ‘babysat with grandparents’. They did more farm work in thoseearlier days than they did later. They worked on their farms because they had to be athome with their children. Today off farm employment means that they have less time forfarm work.

Release from other household farm based activities as a result of the departure of afarm worker, for instance, and no longer being tied to cooking and washing clothes orrelease from cooking for shearers by sharing the workload with other family members,resulted in some women being able to work on the farm. And while this may seem to be

nothing more than exchanging one hard working role for another, it was obvious thatthese women greatly preferred the outside work, the farm labour, to the household tasks.The departure of working male relatives also had the same effect, creating a space, andwomen reported they ‘now enjoy’ working with their husbands.

Other women noted that when their children were at a certain age they became moreinvolved in the community in such roles as Girl Guide leaders, Plunket members andother community and fund raising activities. At these times the women do less work ontheir farms because of their competing community involvement.

Children growing up and needing less round-the-clock care, resulted not only in anincreased farm role for women but also allowed time for the development of new skills,like computer skills. In one instance this meant that the role of the woman had increasedto the extent of replacing the farm secretary. Gaining new skills therefore can translateinto more farm work.

The study found a surprising number of women who reported that they did morefarm work when their children were young, before children went to school, than laterwhen their children no longer required continual care and were attending school. Thewomen had to be at home when their children were at pre-school, so they were availablefor farm work. Both men and women spoke naturally about carrying children around thefarm in back packs while they worked. With the advent of school came the school busroutine and the women became caught up in bus schedules and school activities. This wasthe stage that they described as their ‘time on the road’ ferrying children to and from thebus, as well as sporting, social and educational activities. This car ferrying was timeconsuming and de-stabilised any formal farm work routine.

The younger women (especially in North Canterbury) were all also engaged in anumber of community roles - the disruption of a more orderly farm and household routineby the car ferrying meant that the women were of necessity regularly at their childrens’school and in their local villages. It was a natural progression to use that time usefully andso began their community work.

Household work of male spouse A similar set of questions to those enquiring of the womens’ farm work were put to the male spouse

(principal operator) regarding his work in the house and the equipment he used to carry out house tasks. Only one of the male respondents reported that he did no house tasks. His spouse

commented that she had always believed ‘women in the house - men on the farm.’ Therange of tasks carried out by the male respondents ranged from drying the dishes (inseveral instances further enquiries revealed that a dishwasher was regularly in use), to‘delegating to the children’, to sharing all the household tasks - ‘children, cooking andcleaning’, or frequently cooking meals, doing the ironing and generally being‘supportive’.

A number of men reported ‘cooking own lunch’ as an indication of contemporarysocial change and an increasing number of farm women seeking off-farm employment.Another indication of absent working women were the number of men who noted thatthey ‘take over the children in cases of illness’ or that they ‘get the children to school’ or‘put the children to bed’.

Hanging out or bringing in the washing was an accomplishment most reported.Cutting firewood and being responsible for the fire or the woodburner was gender specificwork and deemed to be ‘his’. Sons were taught to follow in father’s footsteps and theirresponsibility increased with maturity - gathering wood and keeping the fire bright wasvery much the male preserve.

Men who did little in the house were clearly embarrassed during the interview and

some were at pains to give reasons why they didn’t help. One reported that he wasresponsible for all the clerical work of his extended family business

‘Nights are working in the office, farm accounts today are so complex. At nightthere is no time to help.’

Another noted that he spent at least ten hours a week on farm accounting and on thephone doing business.

One respondent, who had no house role, pointed out that he didn’t sit around whilehis spouse was working in the house:

‘Our situation, we are a team. My tasks are in the office or in the workshop, that isafter hours. Our teamship is interlinked. I’m working when she is working.’

Drying the dishes, which seemed to be the standard, ‘lowest’ level of house taskachievement for men, was important to one couple as it was ‘over the dishes’ that theydiscussed the farm business and devised their management strategies - for this reasonneither would consider a dishwasher! Other male respondents also described doing thedishes as ‘thinking time’.

Equipment used Five male respondents advised that they used no household equipment and a sixth

advised that his use of household equipment was ‘limited’. Several used the vacuumcleaner and at least two could and did use an iron. The most common appliances used bythe men were the microwave and the dishwasher while several noted that they used mosthousehold appliances

‘everything she uses I use - no gender distinctions.’

Preferred tasks Six of the men either enjoyed, were relaxed about, or loved cooking. Spending time

with their children was the preferred task of two men, another enjoyed interior housemaintenance, while one preferred ‘getting in the wood’, otherwise men were notenthusiastic about their household role and ‘prefers outside’ fitted the majority.

However, the men were stoical when it came to identifying their most disliked housetasks with over half of them reporting that they had no great dislikes, ‘they have to bedone’ was very much the attitude. It is of interest nevertheless to see what tasks were notfavoured i.e. vacuuming and window cleaning. But perhaps the last word should be left tothe respondent who joked that his most preferred household task was ‘getting out thewhisky glass’ and his most disliked task as ‘putting the bottle back!’

Times of household tasks The thirteen men who believed that their household role could be calculated in hours

averaged six and a half hours per week working on house tasks. Further analysis showed that the household work of the men in the study declined

with age. For instance, those men in the thirties cohort averaged just under 10 hours perweek, the men in the forties cohort averaged just over 8 hours per week while those in thecombined fifties - sixties cohort averaged three hours per week. The age of the men whodid no household tasks ranged upward from forty-five years.

It would therefore appear, at least in this study, that younger farm men are morelikely to have a house role and to share tasks, including child rearing, with their spouse.Men in the upper age group appear to have little inclination to become involved in housetasks, however, it needs to be pointed out that their spouse may be equally disinclined tohave them involved in the running of the household seeing this as ‘her’ territory.

The evenings appear to be busy household task times for the men, related to thenumber who ‘dried the dishes’ no doubt. Nevertheless, weekends, school holidays, ‘nousual time throughout the day or week, when required’ were also regular responses.

While their household work was not considered ‘seasonal’ one respondentcommented that there was ‘Not so much time at home when busy on the farm at peaktimes.’

Three of the respondents reported financial remuneration. One noted that the‘partnership shares in profit and loss’, another more directly reported ‘Yes, petty cash formy pocket.’ and the third noted that ‘We pay ourselves a small regular wage.’

Two of the respondents noted remuneration ‘in kind’ such as ‘Well rewarded withfamily harmony.’ and ‘labour of love.’

Changed house roles over time The responses show that when their children were young a number of the men had a

real role in child rearing. That role continues as the children grow, especially if the spouseis employed off the farm when the men are often responsible for getting the children readyfor/ and or ferrying them to school. A woman working off the farm necessitates menbecoming familiar with and competent in the kitchen. The ability to get their own lunchbecomes essential.

Farm household children The farm households had a total of 77 children (41 females and 36 males), an

average of 2.96 children per family. The childrens’ age ranged from 6 months to 39 years.

Fifteen families sent their children to regional town or city secondary boardingschools.

The 23 children who had attended university completed degrees and doctorates insuch diverse specialisations as law, agricultural commerce, education, parks recreationand tourism, marketing, and forestry. Other tertiary education included TelfordAgricultural School, nursing, teaching, tourism and polytechs.

The majority (40) of the children were no longer living at home. Included here weretwo children of divorced parents who lived with their mother off the farm but returnedseasonally to work in the shearing shed.

Farm role of children Farm school aged children living at home work on their farms. During the school

term the daily tasks may be minimal, 2 to 6 hours per week in some instances. However, during the holidays many of the children will work up to 50 hours a week including those

who return home from boarding school. The holiday jobs of these children were considerable. A numberof the teen age boys were working long hours on the farm ‘will work all day when at home.’ Regardlessof their future career choice these young people worked on their farms during their childhood years. Theyounger the children, the more difficult it was for the parents to assess the length of time the childrenworked on the farm. This inability to gauge the time tasks took should not detract from the fact thatyounger children did have set tasks, like feeding the house animals, gathering firewood, and feedinglambs, which they had to complete each day. One respondent noted that their children were their‘mainstay’, that the eldest took care of the others while their parents were in the milking shed and that theyall took up farm tasks from the age of eight years.

Farm children therefore have a role in the family that extends to includeresponsibility towards the farm business. They are taught farm tasks from an early age andthey are expected to be responsible for those tasks once they have learnt them. A

surprising finding of the study was the high incidence of adult children who returnedhome to work on the farm during university holidays. It was usual for children to returnfor shearing, to work in the shed, or to return to work at any other peak busy or crisistimes.

Tasks of children The farm tasks of the children included

• shearing shed ‘rousie’; tractor work; irrigation work; shifting stock; forestry treeplanting; firewood splitting and gathering; feeding animals (house); pickingpaddock peas; maintaining some machinery; cattle yard work; weeding rows (ofcrops); helping with tailing; cleaning out silos; feeding lambs; crutching sheep;nassella grubbing and the list is not finite.

A number of respondents reported that their children carried out all ‘general farm duties’. Youngchildren learn about the routine and discipline of work by going out on the farm with their parents. Theirtask then is to ‘open the gates’, gather firewood and feed the house animals including ‘pet’ lambs and ‘thechooks’. At this stage parents gauge the child’s aptitude to work’ seems interested in working’.

Children graduate through the farmwork learning process and several respondentsreported currently of their children ‘she has her own calves’ and ‘he has his own ewemob’.

Major farm tasks were organised around school and university holidays and childrencame home to play an essential part in the completion of the shearing, weaning, tailingand the harvest. However, a major disruption has now occurred with the changing of theschool and university teaching year from three to four term years. Term holidays are now‘out of kilter’ with the farm seasons. The loss of childrens’ labour contribution to the farmoperation is critical for many families. Respondents also commented that the loss ofpocket money or wages created problems for the children especially those who returnedhome from university to work and earn fees. Another respondent commented that OSH‘created problems for children working on the farm’ and several respondents noted that,now either as a result of OSH or the changed schooling year, the children were:

‘missing out on the experience of learning to work for money, learning to beresponsible and learning the value of money.’

Adult children certainly have a continued farm role even after embarking on theirown careers. As well as frequently returning to help parents on the farm they also returnedto ‘manage’ the operation to allow parents a holiday. The children of the single farmwoman return to help with tasks that might be ‘too heavy’ or for regular tasks like helpingat lambing or cleaning the house (to enable the farm woman to concentrate on herfarming). They will ‘give’ half a day of work whenever it is required.

Respondents spoke of their adult children ‘enjoying’ returning to take a farm roleand expressed their own pleasure at working with them around the farm again as a familyunit. Several couples recalled the days when their children worked alongside them,commenting that they were ‘great times, we worked as a family unit’. Parents paid tributeto their children noting that their children were their ‘labour unit’ and that they couldn’thave developed the farm without their work.

Research has seldom accounted the major role that children play in the farmbusiness. The increase of women’s farm labour is often cited as a result of the loss ofpermanent waged non-family labour. The extensive labour of children today may alsoresult from the loss of waged farm workers although farm children have always made alabour contribution to the farm business. What we don’t know is if that contribution has

increased over time, although there are indications that it has. Remuneration for work of children Remuneration came in the forms of pocket money, wages, cash and kind and

investment on behalf of the child in either farm stock or Bonus Bonds. The majority of thefamilies paid either pocket money or set, standard wages. Payment of pocket money orwages could also trigger book-entry arrangements between the family and the child. Wagepayments were recorded against the child’s ‘educational fund’ with set sums ($100) perterm for pocket money. ‘In kind’ payments included clothing ‘that he wants’ or petrol or‘help with car expenses’.

One respondent noted that payment to children varied according to good and badfarming years. Another told their children that ‘you work for love’ and they felt the livesof their children had been enriched by their farm working lives. They believed thatchildren, as well as parents had to do their ‘bit’ towards the enterprise.

2.4 Work of other family members Farm work of other members of the family Sixteen respondents reported that family members, other than spouse or children

worked on the farm. The majority were fathers (and fathers-in-law). There were only twowomen, an aunt and a mother, as well as a former husband and the brother of a femalespouse The average age of these extended family members was 73 years.

Levels of tertiary education were low with only one, the youngest, recording tertiaryattendance. This female was a State registered nurse. There was a marked differencebetween the low level of education for this older cohort and the high level for the childrenof the current farm families.

With four exceptions, the background of these members of the extended farm familywas farming, most qualifying the response with ‘retired’. The exceptions were a HospitalBoard employee, a butcher and the general manager of a regional newspaper. One of thewomen involved in farm work was a registered nurse and a former farm woman.

Three family members lived on the farm and the remainder lived locally in thenearest town, only one travelled back to the farm from a regional city.

Farm tasks and hours of other family members These members of the farm families’ extended family carried out a range of farm

tasks when they returned to work on the farm. The tasks included • splitting firewood; shearing shed hand; fencing; stock drafting; shifting stock;

building (yards) and general maintenance; pruning shelter belts; tractor work; silagemaking; goffer/courier type jobs; tailing; woolshed work; computer work, bookwork and GST; vegetable garden; nassella grubbing; housekeeping; and cookingfor farm workers.

The women carried out house tasks including caring for the children to enable thefarm spouse to take on full farm duties.

All the usual farm equipment necessary to carry out the tasks is used. Several respondents noted that with ageing their fathers were able to do less physical

work and as a consequence their farm work role was decreasing. Similarly several notedthat their fathers had, in the past, assisted them on the farm but ageing and decline nowprevented them from such work.

Respondents found it difficult to give an estimation of hours worked per week on thefarm by these members of their extended family. Hours varied from one per week tothirty, and from a regular full working week to two weeks a year. Generally these workers

appeared ‘in their own time’ or ‘when needed’. ‘When there are jobs to be done he will do them. Maybe eight hours per day, thenmaybe only one day a month. He is on call, he will always come when we ask him.’

Depending on the characteristics of the farm business there was some seasonality about the work ofextended family members, they frequently assisted at peak times. The informality of their working hoursis no indication of the value of the work they carried out for the farm families. A number of respondentsalso noted that they were in regular contact with their parents, fathers especially, seeking advice and thattheir ‘psychological support’ was critical. Parents also returned to manage the farm thus allowing thefarm family to go on holiday or in the event of illness particularly of the principal operator they would takeover the running of the farm. At least two respondents noted that returning to the farm to work was a typeof ‘occupational therapy’ for their fathers. Respondents rated their fathers’ contribution as ‘invaluable’and spoke of the generational wisdom that was lost when and if their fathers died. The generationalparental role is unique and as we learnt in previous research (Taylor and Little, 1995) is not replaced byneighbours or friends on the death of the parents.

A respondent commented that in times of disaster all the family ‘rally around’. Thefamily comprised both sets of parents, her/his brother, his brother-in-law and variousnieces and nephews.

Remuneration Only two of the family members were reimbursed financially and these indirectly

through their partnership in the farm business. Eleven of the family members were reimbursed for the labour ‘in kind’. ‘In kind’

arrangements ranged from gifts of petrol, meat and firewood to being taken out to dinnerand other ‘outings’ including being taken away for the weekend. Respondents commentedthat ‘in kind’ meant

Family love and care but this would happen anyway and is not a ‘reward’ forfather’s help.’

or ‘Father enjoys being involved, being part of the family.’

Farming parents continue to play a role in the farm business long after their formalretirement from the farm. When physical ageing restricts a labour contribution parents arestill valued for their ‘sounding board’ characteristics and their moral support. The data onthe contribution of parents to the farm operation collected by this questionnaire is limitedbut not surprising because the majority of the respondents were in their middle yearswhen death or ageing restricts the involvement of parents. A clear finding was thegenerational difference between levels of tertiary education achieved by the children asopposed to their parents, and even more so, grandparents.

2.5 Non-family work Social relationship of non-family workers Sixteen of the twenty-six respondents reported a work contribution from un-waged

non-family neighbours, ‘acquaintances’ and in one instance an international agriculturalstudent. The acquaintances were two males from the local town who regularly travelledto the farm to work, the student was on an international agricultural exchange.

With two exception all of these non-family workers were males. Their ages rangedfrom 18 to 74.

The backgrounds of the two town based workers were company management and

carpentry otherwise farming was both the usual occupation and the background of theremaining unpaid, non-family neighbour workers.

Tasks of non-family workers and hours of work Tasks included help in severe weather or climatic crisis, as well as general neighbour

help with • fencing; stock work; tractor work; farm carpentry; farm maintenance; gofer jobs (in

and out of town); shooting sick stock or injured animals (principal operator doesn’thave a gun); wool classing; dipping; hay carting; silage making; crutching; andgeneral farm duties.

One neighbour had his own equipment for specific work (fencing), otherwiseneighbour workers used all the farm equipment necessary to carry out the tasks.

Hours of work ranged from 6 to 70 hours per week, or ‘2 hours here and there’ or 2to 3 days per year. One neighbour worker worked mornings only, 2 or 3 days per week.Generally work was carried out during the working week.

The work was often seasonal, during harvest or spring lambing or late spring tractorwork, haymaking and shearing. Hours of work under these circumstances therefore maynot be relevant. More relevant is the task and it’s completion.

Reciprocal arrangements and remuneration There were sophisticated systems of reciprocal exchange of labour for machinery

between farmer networks. The lending of machinery frequently meant that the owner, thelabour unit, accompanied the piece of machinery so that as well as lending the equipment,he gave his labour. Sometimes labour results from ‘trade’ of equipment betweenneighbours, or work with one’s own equipment on neighbours’ properties; or share ofequipment between neighbours, whichever is most convenient or effective.

Exchanges could be and were based on any of the following examples ofarrangements, silage wagon for use of cattle yards, fuel for use of tractor, machinery formeat and sheltered land at lambing for tractor work, classes wool clip for use of a bailer,use of shearing shed for lucerne hay, trailer for grain auger, and babysitting for work inshearing shed. As these examples show, reciprocal exchanges were either labour formachinery, machinery for machinery and/or labour for labour.

Sharing or exchanging equipment was a regular exercise for these respondents but asthey repeatedly noted there must be TRUST between neighbours for machinery to be lent:‘Lending equipment is an act of faith.’ Stories were told during the interviews of thelengths these farmers go to ensure that equipment is returned ‘in better nick’ than when itwas borrowed. Just as neighbours help neighbours at times of climatic crisis, so doneighbours help neighbours during times of personal crisis and illness - this was describedas ‘goodwill labour’.

Movements of families out of the district can disturb the delicate network of trustbuilt up over many years and often through several generations. One respondent wassurprised but happy to find that reciprocal co-operation had continued betweenneighbours throughout the subdivision into five farms of another neighbour’s property.Exchanges there with the new farmers included farm advice and paddock work for a fine,tasty salmon and a cattle beast in the deep freeze!

Respondents also explained that a mental tally may be kept of exchanges but nomoney passed between neighbours. Generally ‘over a five year period it works out fairly.’While the system of reciprocal exchanges is not built on cash payments, there is ‘in kind’remuneration. In addition to fish or meat (mentioned above) are firewood and specialcheese.

Other respondents reported that while there were no formal arrangements in theirdistrict, at times of harvest if it appeared some neighbours were falling behind and mightloose their crop other neighbours automatically arrived to share the work and ensure theharvest was gathered.

Farmwork is done in exchange for machinery or repayment of farmwork - labour formachinery, labour for labour. An example of labour being used as an exchange currencywas the work of a neighbour’s son in the shearing shed as ‘remuneration’ for generallending and borrowing. The son’s labour contribution was given in repayment forborrowing.

In another cropping district a group of neighbours got together and ‘walked’ theircrops several times a year to inspect and monitor their condition. They did so again justbefore harvest assessing which crops would be ready first. Each farmer had aresponsibility to get his own harvest in before moving on to assist the next farmer. So thelast farmer to harvest was likely to have every combine in the district in his paddocks toget his harvest in record time just ahead of breaking weather. The goal is speed of harvestand the more efficient use of resources achieved through shared labour and sharedequipment.

At these times farm women are also involved because they feed whoever is workingin the paddock - and again this is shared labour.

In another district there exists a neighbour reciprocal arrangement between threefarmers assisting each other in special farm tasks - this is a straight labour for labourarrangement although they have bought one piece of equipment to be worked betweenthem.

A number of farmers were in machinery partnership arrangements, machinery co-operatives. One of the advantages, according to one of the partners was that a betterquality piece of equipment could be bought adding to its length of life.

The inclusion of a dairy farmer in one of the reciprocal arrangements appearsunusual as in other examples the presence of dairy farming in the district is given as thereason why the arrangements are not in place: ‘no co-operation from dairy farmers, don’tmix’.

The international agricultural student was an exception to the co-operative andreciprocal arrangements. This young female student was part through her agriculturaldegree in Austria and was completing her practical work in New Zealand. She lived‘board and keep’ free in return for a farming education. However, this arrangement is noexception to farming labour patterns in New Zealand as farm families throughout thecountry frequently host either international students on agricultural exchanges (as above)or young international farmers travelling the world and willing to gain farm workexperience in countries other than their own.

Overall, the reciprocal arrangements where they existed in the research communities wereextremely complex and sophisticated. They existed in the hill country areas of North Canterbury and inmid Canterbury between farms closer to the hills. It was suggested that such arrangements do not exist indairy districts nor in some districts because of the social characteristics of that district. Given the emphasison the necessity of trust between neighbours for the arrangements to be successful, perhaps suchreciprocity only exists where the social cohesion and sense of ‘community’ is strong. It may be, thatsuccessful reciprocal arrangements only exist where there are strong social networks and that if they arestrong enough these social networks can subsume industry differences - for example, the dairy farmerinvolved in reciprocal arrangements with arable and pastoral farmers.

2.6 Other contributions to the farm enterprise Non-work contributions The study explored contributions to the farm business other than work, made by

unpaid family and non-family participants. Questions were asked to clarify the role of thespouse (of the principal operator), the children, the extended family members and anynon-family members in decision making and management.

The spouse Twelve women made a practical contribution to the farm in terms of financial

support either being financially independent or through their off-farm employmentincome, extensive farming knowledge, nursing skills (farm animals as well as family!), bytaking part in all discussions, decisions and meetings with professional advisers, throughprevious experience in accounting and farm management, and through a farm workcontribution equivalent to one labour unit. The remaining women played a less direct butno less important role by providing ‘the motivational force’, and being a ‘soundingboard’ for business decisions. This type of support also included discussing the farmbusiness, talking over problems, keeping spirits up (his).

‘The quality person that she is, helps my credibility.’

The strengths of these women were identified as self-sufficiency, considerableorganisational skills, and ability to help (on the farm) whenever called upon. Several hadfarming backgrounds so that they ‘understood’ farming, which was seen as an advantage.Running a smooth functioning household was described as an important contribution tothe farm business.

Two of the younger women also noted that they contributed to their families’community and social responsibility by being active in community events andorganisations. This responsibility was generational, having come to them from threeprevious female generations, and was described as ‘enhancing the farm business’. Onecomment from an older woman was sobering ‘left work when married. [Was] never askedfor an opinion.’

A second comment appears to suggest an isolation from the farm and the farmbusiness. One woman noted that she ‘was aware of what was going on in the farm.’However, further analysis reveals that she was running her own pony stud on the farm butoutside the farm business operation.

Generally, contributions of the farm women (not principal operator) to the farmenterprise were generally ‘minor’ in respect to production, with more involvement inmarketing, and more particularly in financial decision making. Some act as a ‘soundingboard’, which is difficult to rank in terms of contribution. In two instances a farmconsultant and farm advisor had major inputs into the farm decision making. One femalefarm worker had a minor role, but a role nevertheless, in management production andmarketing.

Children The contributions of children vary, depending on their age, their involvement and

interest in the farm. Certainly returning children (from university and or careers) bringwith them a range of new skills and knowledge that stimulate debate and discussion (andfrequently action) in the farm family and the business operation. For three families theirchildren were too young to make any real contribution to the farm business:

‘We work for our children so that one day they might have a debt free farm. Theyare too young yet to make a contribution.’

Children provide a release from hard work and they ‘are good company’. Severalfamilies noted that they missed the children’s presence and their contribution when theyfirst left home. These children now contribute during term breaks or school holidays.Several parents also noted their pleasure in being included in their children’s socialactivities. Their own social contacts expanded through their children’s school and sportsinvolvement.

The contribution of children at university, especially but not exclusively those whoare undertaking courses in agriculture, changes and extends as they bring home newlygained skills, information, farming knowledge, and ideas. In these circumstances childrenbecome their parents ‘sounding boards’ or they participate in decisions: ‘Children areuncomplicated thinkers so they often deliver pearls of wisdom.’

The newly found skills of children engrossed in their formal education were eagerlysought and the new knowledge appreciated and absorbed by farming parents. At this stagea new relationship developed between the children and the parents, one where ideas andknowledge were freely exchanged and debated.

It would seem that no matter what stage children are at in their education or careersthey will return to the farm to help at times of pressure, either during a crisis or just peakfarming times. The links between the children, their parents and the farm are very strong.

One woman described the blossoming relationship between her husband and theirson,

‘Our son lives for farming, this keen interest has strengthened the relationshipbetween father and son. It must be one of the best learning curves, that from fatherto son. This is a generational farm and I am watching family wisdom being passedfrom father to son.’

Other adult respondents also noted the value of generational wisdom and describedits passage from their fathers to them.

Other family members While parents may not continually contribute active labour support as a result of

ageing, their moral, insightful and management support to the farm business was criticalfor many of the respondents. The very fact that parents supported their children’s farmactivities was important. And parents did not have to have a farming background tocontribute usefully to the farm business. The type of support varies with the life cycle ofthe farm families. In their early years respondents noted the support of parents babysittingor assisting in rearing the children freeing them to work on the farm.

Individual and immediate contributions included former husband’s and parents’skills/knowledge (generational wisdom); marketing skills; siblings successionexperiences; mother’s crisis help; former husband lending short term finance; her parentsskills (cooking and fencing).

One respondent noted rather sadly that farming had changed so much, it was somuch more complex than farming as his father knew it, that his father was no longer ableto understand the business operation. This respondent was no longer able to sharediscussion of the farm business with his father and missed this aspect of their relationship

Non-family contributions ‘At this stage we are helping neighbours, in time they may know enough to helpus.’

Support came from two different levels firstly, that of the traditional institutions like

Federated Farmers and the Society of Farm Management and secondly from thecommunity level of neighbours, parents and immediate family. Farm discussion groupsgave confidence to either try new things or to do things differently. Farm monitoringgroups equally instil confidence and share knowledge. Regret was noted regarding the‘user pays’ policy that saw the end of farm discussion groups previously instigated by theMinistry of Agriculture.

Membership of institutions outside agricultural, like school Boards of Trustees, alsooffered experience that contributed to growing confidence which was applied back intothe farm business.

Supportive farming peers promoted general farming discussion. A number ofrespondents reported that the support of their farming neighbours was critical. Discussion,between and amongst them, prompted reciprocal exchange of farming knowledge andinformation. They ‘picked each other’s brains.’

On a practical note, another neighbour took on a farm caretaking role (in exchangefor dog tucker) thus enabling the resident farm family to go on holiday. This gesture wasdescribed as being ‘very supportive, very neighbourly’. Baby sitting was anotherreciprocal gesture, especially from older farmers, in appreciation of those who had babysat for them in their early farming years.

Mention has already been made of those neighbours who in a group ‘walk’ eachothers’ paddocks advising on and monitoring the crops as they grow.

Participation in management (production, marketing and financial) decisions Spouse Less than half the couples shared production decisions. For the majority of women

their contribution was minor or non existent. Even fewer women shared in marketingdecisions, their role was largely minor or non existent. Just over half of the women sharedin financial decisions.

Across each of the three categories one other spouse had a ‘minor- sounding boardrole.’

Children Children in three of the families play some role, from passively being ‘kept

informed’ to actively taking part in production discussion, commenting and observing butproduction decisions in this study were not shared with any children. The same threeprincipal operators involved their children in marketing discussion as they did forproduction discussion - there was no role for children in marketing decision making.

Two principal operators shared their financial decision making with their children. Intwo other instances children were involved in the general discussions regarding financialmanagement while in another, all the children ‘were kept informed’.

Other family members Production decisions were share by two principal operators with a brother and a

father while another father was involved in general production discussion. Marketing decisions were shared by three principal operators with brothers and a

father while another father joined in the general marketing discussion Financial decisions were shared by three principal operators with brothers and a

mother and father. Another father had a minor role in the financial decision making whileanother was involved in the general financial discussion.

Non-family members Discussions regarding production decisions were shared by seven principal

operators. The list of shared decision makers included farm advisers, an accountant, the

local Livestock Improvement Club, a farm discussion group, and neighbours. Onerespondent reported that he

‘liked to include staff in goal setting and farm management strategies.’ Eight principal operators shared marketing decision making in almost exactly the

same manner as they shared production decisions with the added exception of the ‘major’use of a stock agent by one principal operator. Eleven principal operators shared financialdecision making with non-family members. These included accountants/solicitors, farmadvisers, the Livestock Improvement Club and bank managers. Discussion was sharedwith neighbours, the farm discussion group and the staff as farm goals and managementstrategies were set.

Differences of opinion Respondents were asked if there were any differences of opinion between the

principal operator and the spouse when answering questions to do with the contribution offamily members to the farm operation. One female respondent believed that her spouseunderestimated the strength of the children’s contribution to the farm while anotherbelieved that her father-in-law made a greater contribution to the farm than that describedby her spouse, his son.

In a more cynical vein one female respondent wondered if ‘the new neighbourswould ever reciprocate with the labour, machinery and advice they had given them.’

A fourth female respondent reported that at the time when she and her husband werefarming she felt ‘left out’ of the discussions about the farm because of the presence of thefarm adviser. She continued by stating that in her opinion

‘because of the presence of farm advisers, women were excluded from farmbusiness discussion - yet these advisers seldom had direct or practical farmexperience. I totally blame them for the vulnerable position many farm businesseswere in when they were overtaken by the ‘87 downturn. Over fifty percent of thefarms in this district ‘went to the wall’ then - they all employed farm advisers.’

2.7 New technology ‘Initially the family thought that ‘new technologies’ were just mother wastingmoney’.

Respondents were asked what new technologies had been acquired for the farm orthe household which affected the work contribution to the farm of the principal operator,the spouse, the children, waged and unwaged workers.

In general response to this question one respondent commented that new technologyenabled the replacement of labour with machines.

Principal operators Technologies used by the principal operator included:

• round bales; 4-wheel bike (some 4-wheelers were doing up to 15,000 kms annually);silage handling equipment; digital weighing scales; soil testing; top dressing;heated/air conditioned tractor cab; electric fencing; wool-overs; post driver; water racecleaning equipment; jet system for cleaning dairy; auto irrigation; digital controlscombine harvester (and other big machinery); Racewell pneumatic crutching machine;electric wool press; Prattley mobile sheep yards;

• computer; fax; internet; cell phone; futures marketing; cordless phones; answer phone

• new grass species; embryo transplants; new animal health technologies; pregnancytesting/ewe scanning; weather marketing; new cattle/stock breeds; new plant species;extender drenching capsules.

Irrigation was described as being responsible for ‘a changed outlook’ on farming.The equal distribution of water became a huge bonus for the farm operation sometimeseradicating generations of drought fears.

Bigger and more complex machinery enabled farmers to carry out more sophisticatedtasks and movements. Modern and well stocked farm workshops were described as a‘huge advantage’ to the business operation.

While electric fencing was still considered a major new technology production toolemphasis on machinery type new technology was lessening - in part possibly becausemodern new technological digital controlled heavy machinery had advanced little in thepast fifteen years, according to several cropping farmers. New machinery, they argued,had made ‘few break throughs’ in the last few years and today’s new machinery was littleadvanced on machinery bought a decade ago.

Today’s new technologies were described as being new plant species, new stockspecies and scientific ‘break throughs’ like stock embryo transplants. Also counted asnew technologies were the development of animal health strategies including new parasitedrugs and their new technology application (extender capsules). Contemporary newtechnology therefore is increasingly based on scientific achievements and ‘breakthroughs’ rather than engineering and mechanical developments.

The growing emergence of scientific new technology over industrial technology hasbeen hastened by the fact that there have been few new developments in farm machineryin the last decade. As one cropping farmer noted, ‘today’s models are exact replacementsof my thirteen year old combine, there are no new technology gadgets.’

Several principal operators identified microwaves as the new technology householdappliance that was essential in the speedy preparation of their own meals, particularlylunch. Certainly the preparation of lunch by male farmers is a sign of contemporaryfarming times as farm women seek employment off their farms and are not availablearound the clock in the farm kitchen.

Farm women New technology identified by the farm women crossed both their spheres of activity,

farming and household work, and included:• automatic washing machine; dishwasher; microwave oven; electric kitchen equipment

(mixer/blender etc); gas hob (works in power cuts/snow storms);• bulk feeding of calves; digital scales; 4 wheel motorbike; extender drenching gun;

new technology roller; ride on lawn mower; electric wool press; thermal underwear,especially socks; heated/airconditioned tractor cab; Racewell pneumatic crutchingmachine;

• fax; cell phone; call minder; cordless phone; computer; answer phone. One woman who shared responsibility for the financial management of the farm

operation was considering moving all the farm accounts into a ‘direct banking’ system.This same woman commented that in fact new technology had ‘taken away jobs for me:‘I used to work the two-way radio, now we use a mobile phone.’ Another respondentnoted that for her the 4 wheel bike was the greatest application of new technology

‘labour unit [was replaced] by using the 4 wheeler.’ ‘its called “mobility” andutilises the efficient use of my farm labour. I become an independent.’

The list above is an indication of the extent of women’s farm role. In contemporary

farming the use of new technology is no longer the exclusive prerogative of the malefarmer. In fact some new technologies enable the female farmer to carry outcomprehensive farming activities. In the same way modern kitchen appliances speedcooking preparation time and enable women to make life style choices. The inclusion ofnew communication technology by the women also emphasises the critical courier andsecretarial role that women play in the farm business.

A distinction between the new technologies identified by farm men and farm womenhelps to define women’s current farm role. The data show that women have minimalproduction or marketing roles. Only men identified new species technology, and they arethe production and marketing decision makers.

Children New technology has provided safety mechanisms on machinery allowing children to

take a great role in farm work. Safety features dominated this range of new technology• safety cabs on tractors; safety of 3 and 4 wheel bikes; small chain saws; electric fences

(enable children to break fence a paddock;• computer.

There is no discrimination between older children and parents, especially fathers andchildren especially sons, older children can and do use all the farm equipment.

Improved 4 wheel drive equipment resulted in younger children accompanyingparents around the farm as they worked. This meant that the children ‘become familiarwith and knowledgeable about the farm.’

Children’s computer skills are often in advance of parents’ skills and respondentsdescribed their computer learning curve initiated by their children as they developedcomputer techniques bought home from school.

Other family members Fathers returning to the farm used most types of farm equipment and especially

tractors. Accordingly, safety features and heated/air conditioned tractor cabs made theirwork less stressful and more pleasant.

2.8 Stress and role conflict Respondents were asked if they experienced stress: only one of the principal

operators reported that he did not experience stress. Only two female respondents reportedthat they didn’t experience stress. A third woman who was not involved in the farmoperation reported that she didn’t experience farm related stress.

Children Five families reported that their children had experienced stress. Two adult sons in

one family had experienced stress during the ‘87 downturn. The marriage of one son hadnot survived this period. A family with 3 school age children reported that their childrenexperienced role conflict stress between farm tasks and school activities.

Two other families noted that their children had reacted ( ‘picked up the vibes’) tothe ‘drought’ stress that they (the parents) experienced. A third respondent reported thatwhile he and his wife had endeavoured to shield their children from stress during the ‘87downturn they were not successful mainly because of the intensity of stress throughout thecommunity. This experience of stress had ‘turned the children away from farming’.

It was noted by another respondent that by working on the family farm his son wasactually working for ‘three bosses’ and this was stressful.

Spouse While children can experience stress they can also be the source of stress. One

woman noted that for her the busiest time of the year both on the farm and in the housewas during the summer just when the children were home for the long holidays. She wasnot available for them when they, the children, had the time to do things with her. Thiswas stressful.

A number of women reported that they became stressed when their partner was.‘Stress is infectious. He’s stressed/I’m stressed.’ The women identified peak busy timeslike shearing or harvesting as being the source of stress for their partners.

Women who worked off the farm can and do experience role conflict stress (Taylorand Little, 1995). The women in this study also described ‘not having enough time’, of theconflict between employment and farm life, and of ‘rushing from school to farm’.Another teacher noted that her extra school work and organising other school workers andthe children ‘can be as tiring as actually physically teaching.’ While another women notedthat her school teaching role had become more demanding over the years, ‘Teaching ismore stressful today because of the behaviour of the children.’

However, it was acknowledged by some of the women that off-farm employmentwhile creating stress (Taylor and Little, 1995) can also relieve it by opening up socialcontacts.

Another woman found constant interruptions stressful as she carried out her differenton farm and off farm roles, she also felt guilty about neglected housework and identifiedconflict stress between her farm commitments and her social/community involvements,‘on holiday no demands - wonderful.’

Financial stress, ‘the money situation’, as it related to the children, ‘not enoughmoney to do for the children as you would like,’ was identified by another women.

One of the women farmers identified ‘time’ as her major stressor but reported thatshe was ‘good at switching from one role to the other, from mother to farmer.’ Herspouse, however, suffered from the stress of distance. He travelled each day to farm hisfarm and at times found both the travel and the fact he was not living on the farm,stressful.

Time or the lack of it was more often identified by the women than the men. Menwith commitments in addition to the farm business were more likely to identify a lack oftime as a stressor than men who had no additional commitments outside the farmbusiness.

Principal operator The shadows of the eighties decade still affect farming lives. ‘1986 was the

beginning of my stress. I haven’t had the resilience since then although we did survive thedownturn.’ The principal operators identified four key stressors of which finances (orstrained financial viability) were the major stressor. Financial concerns underpinnedeverything else.• finances - climate - lack of time - seasonal production pressure

Within those headings lie a number of other stressors unique to the businesscharacteristics, the geographical location of the farm and the individual characteristics ofthe principal operator. These stressor included, in no order of priority:• •staffing problems and difficulty in finding skilled staff

- fatigue during peak busy times combined with pressure to complete harvestor lambing or shearing ahead of, or in the face of bad weather, developingthe business, more management, less production options with decliningmarkets(sheep/beef)

- loss of family time during holidays which fall at peak farm times, loss oftime with children

- production yield and quality, machinery breakdown delayed harvest - animal health - watching stock decline (climate)’stock - safety issues with children and visiting children(family).

One respondent reported that the economic downturn in the ‘80s were the cause ofhis brother’s serious mental breakdown. His own farm business suffered as heendeavoured to financially assist his brother. His brother’s overdraft required the sale of1,100 acres to reduce the financial debt. One of the farms bought between the brothers toensure the succession of each of their three sons had to be sold. Now the succession ofany child is in doubt.

Only one respondent identified job conflict ‘long hours at peak times, allocating timebetween contracting and farming - conflict.’ When describing the pressure of climaticstress this principal operated noted that ‘during the last storm we worked 68 hours at astretch, no time for breaks or sleep.’

Neither were members of the extended family exempt from stress. Severalrespondents reported that their parents reacted to their stress by becoming stressedthemselves.

2.9 Importance of work contributions to the farm The principal operator was asked to rank the importance (very important, important,

unimportant) of the work contribution to the farm business and the household of thespouse, the children, other family members and non-family members. For the greatmajority of principal operators the role of their spouse in the farm operation and thehousehold was very important. The majority of principal operators believed that the roleof the children in the farm operation was important as was their role in the house.According to the principal operators the role of their extended families in the farmbusiness was important but that their role in the household was unimportant.

The farm role of non-family members, on the other hand, was important but notsurprisingly their household role was unimportant.

Several principal operators noted that without the support of their spouse they wouldleave farming. Even the ‘passive support’ of the non-farming spouse was acknowledgedby her husband. On the other hand one female spouse commented that if ‘he died I’dcontinue to farm’.

In their comments respondents (male and female) reinforced the importance of theirchildrens’ support. Examples were given of the spontaneous housework that children doespecially in the absence of their mother - while she is working on or off the farm.Comments continually endorsed the contribution of children maintaining that it ‘wasvital’ and ‘very supportive’ and without their contribution one couple at least would nothave achieved their successful farm operation. A stressor, for one spouse, was the fact thatthe children had left home and they, the couple, were now ‘totally reliant’ on themselves.

Family cohesion and ‘working as a family unit’ were important to respondents.Children gained ‘good work habits’ while working as part of the farm family ‘team’.

Parents enjoyed working with their children. One principal operator reported that the dayhis father stopped coming (to work) on the farm would be a loss.

Respondents noted that much of their work in developing the farm business was fortheir children with one respondent commenting that ‘farmers lose their drive if no-one(children) is interested.’

Another farmer affirmed this comment ‘Children are the reason why I keep going. If the boys weren’t interested I would beinclined to “sell up”.’

A woman noted ‘When the children are not here we are incomplete.’

Several respondents noted the importance of children ‘knowing the businessbackwards’ if they were going to farm

‘very important to work on a family farm regardless of the scale of work - it is ourfarm, our life.’

Often the work the children did was more important to them, as they learnt anddeveloped skills, than it was to the farm business.

One respondent noted that community stability encouraged neighbour (non-family)support, and that neighbour networks would be/were challenged by frequent farm salesand ‘turn-over’ of farm families. Farm ownership mobility made such networks moredifficult to sustain.

Neighbour networks offer support to single or widowed farmers by providingcompany while performing farm tasks. Several principal operators spoke of the socialdimension of neighbour support in combating the loneliness experienced by many farmerswho work on their own.

2.10 Rural Community Attitudes Responses were sought only from the female principal operator or female

spouse/partner) in the following section. The length of residence of the women in the interviews ranged from 6 months to 40

years. The average length of residence for these women was 20 years. Attitudes to farm work by women The following comment was made by one of the female principal operators:

‘I can now tell how husbands treat their wives by the way they react to mefarming’.

The respondents were asked to rate community attitudes to women doing farm work.In general they believed the community favourably viewed the farm work of women.Comments included:

‘It is more acceptable today that women farm, however, still more acceptable in theUK than NZ.’

‘I wanted to farm all my life the way nurses, for instance want to be nurses. I wasmade to feel guilty. Women are made to feel they should always do what husbandsor society wants. My guilt was the most difficult aspect to cope with.’ (Note:Respondent now farming; her husband refused to farm with her and divorcefollowed.)

The women commented on the ‘huge’ social changes that had occurred but theybelieved that the extent of women’s farm work may still not be widely acknowledged:

‘Outside the farming community people don’t appreciate the work involved.’

They also noted that, men don’t always acknowledge (in public) that women work alongside themon the farm. Other respondents noted that women were now an accepted part of the farm scene - withinclusion in farm discussion came the realisation that ‘you had a role’ and this was ‘appreciated’.

Sector attitudes to women farming The respondents were asked to rate sector attitudes to women doing farm work.

There were no differences noted between the attitudes of neighbouring males andneighbouring females to women farming and both rated ‘in favour’.

One woman noted that people she knew approved of her farming ‘I wouldn’t want toknow those who didn’t.’ Another, that attitudes were more positive as a result of morewomen farming. And a third reported that her neighbours are more accepting of her farmrole now than those in a district where they had farmed before.

One respondent suggested that attitudes to women farming were generational basedwith older men less prepared to accept women farming.

Just under half of the respondents rated stock and station agents as either ‘indifferentor resistant’ to women farming. Nevertheless several women noted that the attitudes ofstock and station agents to women farmers were changing and becoming more positive.One respondent believed that the critical point was whether the agent knew the womanwell: ‘if he doesn’t then he will ask for the BOSS’. Agricultural contractors were rated asbeing equally ‘in favour’ or ‘indifferent’ to women working on their farms. Indifferencecould be passive acceptance.

The majority of farm consultants were rated ‘in favour’ of women working theirfarms, with only slightly fewer rated ‘strongly in favour’. The majority of accountantswere rated ‘in favour’, and a slightly smaller majority of bank managers. Respondents didcomment that bank managers were seldom seen: ‘not known like the “old days”, now theyare always changing.’

Several respondents noted that agricultural commercial travellers, or salesrepresentatives, were ‘the fringe ones’ who like stock and station agents of past years,arrived at the back door and demanded to see ‘the BOSS’. These travelling salesmenwere called either ‘the fringe ones’ or the ‘peripheral ones’. Not only was theirterminology viewed as outdated but there was considerable angst amongst the respondentsconcerning their expectations. These men expected farmers to be available withoutnotification when they appeared and similarly expected farmers to make ‘$5,000 decisionson the back door step’. It was suggested that these actions by this type of salesmanindicated that they understood nothing about farming or the farm family unit.

The women were asked if they had experienced any changes in attitudes to women infarming since they began farming. The great majority of women believed that attitudes towomen farming were more positive today. Both female and male respondents were theninvited to comment on general attitudes to farming women.

The women in this study were positive, busy women creating interesting lives. Fewwere affected by the attitudes of the community to their farm work. If there was ‘anattitude’ then that was ‘the problem’ of the individual and they intimated that they hadneither the time nor the inclination to be ‘bothered’. Few women had identity problemswith the groups identified in the questionnaire.

General comments Females The loss of farm workers, the fact that few farm businesses today employ outside

labour, triggered the increase in women farming according to one woman. Womenfarming, according to this respondent was an economic fact rather than a social trend.

One woman on a large cropping farm regretted that she was not farming. Previouslyshe had enjoyed stock work:

‘If this was a stock farm I would be interested in farm work but there is no placefor me in a cropping operation with all the large machinery.’

The research data shows that women on cropping farms tend not to be involved inwork on those farms.

Women who were employed off the farm still retained an interest in farming. ‘Lovethe farm but need the pocket money.’ Previous research (Taylor and Little, 1995) hasshown that off-farm employment does not exclude women from working on their farms.

New technology, according to another woman, had replaced farm labour and releasedthe women from household tasks like cooking and washing for that labour, so that she isnow presented with the options of working outside or on the farm or off the farm.

An older women expressed regret that some women work so hard on their farms tothe exclusion of ‘any other life’ nevertheless she believed working on the farm waspreferable to working off and having to spend nights away in the towns where work wasavailable, leaving children behind.

Several women reported that their farm work was a necessity and it was ‘notnecessarily because they wanted to do farm work.’

Males Male respondents commented that the community had become ‘more positive’ in

their acceptance of women over the years. Two respondents had ‘no problems’ employingwomen and they did. Women, they noted, were often ‘brilliant with stock’ and for one, atleast, his female farm worker was his ‘lynch pin’.

Commented the same respondent ‘I don’t expect women to physically work like men- and some men have this expectation.’

Another male respondent commented that for him the ‘partnership role’ was moreimportant than a ‘gender role’. His spouse was his partner and they were a team. Withoutthat ‘team’ approach he did not think that they would have survived on the farm. Theteam approach meant that she was present at all farm policy and financial meetings andthat her position as a partner in the team was acknowledged by all their advisers. Theteam approach was described by several of the male respondents ‘that’s what makes itsuch a pleasant occupation, you can work together.’

One younger respondent reported that nobody in his age group in the district woulddoubt the ability of women on the farm. Others in this age group described women as‘capable farmers’ and reported that ‘brute strength’ was the only advantage men have infarming. These men are of the generation that expect their spouse to farm alongside them,if that is what they want. ‘My mother always ran the farm, I just expected her (hisspouse) to farm with me when we were married.’

Another older male, while observing that today more women work their farmsfollowing the exit of waged farm workers questioned women’s preference ‘do they reallywant to do farmwork?’ He maintained that it was a physical impossibility for one man tofarm the 5,000 stock units which are now reported to be the break-even limit. He believed

that farm families were in a “no win” situation regarding labour. The necessity today of a secondary income for many farm families and/or the

equivalent of an extra labour unit, supplied by the spouse, presents a ‘do you want towork/don’t you want to work?’ Catch 22 situation to many farm families, women inparticular.

It would appear that the participation of women in farm work decreases in proportionto the amount and size of farm machinery used in the farm operation. While there was onewoman in the survey who was delighting in the acquisition of two new technology piecesof farm machinery that facilitated her paddock work, generally women did not drive largemachines. This appears to result in few women on cropping farms taking an active part infarm work. One cropping farmer enunciated a common perception when he commented‘women and machinery don’t go together.’

Such philosophy supports the retention of male proprietorship over new or differingskills. History shows that such skills are not unique to men. Only two generations agomale society believed that feminine characteristics prevented women from driving motorcars! It is only a matter of time before those women who want to drive big machinerywill do so. In the meantime the women most likely to be contributing labour to their farmbusinesses will be dairy and pastoral farmers.

The research showed that in cropping farms particularly, machinery has replacedlabour. In general, across the sectors, contract labour has replaced permanent residentialfarm labour. Respondents emphasised that labour today must be skilled and maturebecause of the implication of OSH (especially but not exclusively) when handling largeand complex machinery. In these circumstances contract labour suits requirements.Contract labour also gives the employer some power, if the work is not up to standardthose contractors are not employed again. It may be that residential farm worker labourhas not been replaced so much by family labour, which has always contributed to the farmoperation, but by contract labour.

3. Conclusions – Continued Research on Farm Work

3.1 Conclusions What are the key issues and lessons learnt from the scoping study? As the research proceeded, it became obvious that remuneration for farm work

amongst family members (household and extended family) was not the central issue.These are farm businesses, to which family members contribute, including members whono longer live in the farm household. Therefore, the focus of the research has moved fromwhether the input of family labour on farms is paid or unpaid, to a more fundamentalquestion:• What is the nature of the total labour input on New Zealand farms and how is this

changing? Farm work is a major component of the agricultural economy and there appears to

have been major changes in labour on New Zealand farms. In particular, there arecontinuing changes in farm and household technology and tight financial positions onfarms due to changes in the structure of the farm economy, including involvement of thestate. There is increasing emphasis on the need to maintain a competitive advantage ininternational markets. Labour costs are a vital component of that competitive advantage.

There are some clear characteristics to the current labour input to New Zealandfarms.

• The farm household is the primary source of labour on family farms. The household isan economic unit that is involved in the reproduction and nurturing of the farm family,farm production, other income generating activities including off-farm employmentand additional enterprises, and community work.

• There are now few full and part-time paid, non-family employees.• There is increased employment of contract and casual labour.• There is an increasing emphasis on experience/mature workers due to the influence of

OSH.• There are still strong, gender based differences in farm and farm-household work.• But it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish gender difference in terms of

farm labour, and the use of farm equipment.• As ownership structures for farms evolve primarily into partnership arrangements

(between the farm couple) remuneration becomes an issue of farm profitability.• Men, nonetheless, still dominate farm management decision making.• The household role appears to reflect major generational attitudes and differences in

household work patterns, with younger men moving to a shared household role.• Children, including those adult children living away from the farm with their own

careers, appear to have an important role in providing farm labour.• Family relationships in farm families remain very strong and these are reflected in the

role of children in the farm business.• The work of the retiring generation changes with their life cycle, with less physical

activity and more support and advisory work.• There has been a substantial increase in off-farm employment, and labour inputs to

additional farm enterprises, but these and other roles are not mutually exclusive,placing considerable stress on farm families.

• Reduced state involvement in rural social services has led to continuing and increaseddemands for inputs to community work. But community work is mainly of higherpriority to “generational” families (men and women) than for newer entrants tofarming, who are driven by more instrumental goals.

3.2 Need for further work Economic analysis of farming commonly focuses on production costs, prices and

returns to capital invested. Since labour is a major component of most farming systems,analysis of the labour input to farming and of returns to labour, are fundamental to anappreciation of the international competitive advantage of New Zealand’s agriculture. Anunderstanding of farm work is also important to the development of policy for sustainableagriculture.

A complete analysis of the labour input to farming should consider the social contextof that input. In New Zealand, farms remain the primary mode of agricultural production,and family work is a vital component of the farming system. This work includes that workof the spouse-partner of the principal farm operator, or operators, the children or familiesof the operators, and their friends, neighbours or other workers.

There is currently a paucity of information on farm family labour. Official statisticsare limited and social and economic research tends to have looked at farm labour as aperipheral issue, if it has done so at all. A national survey would provide much neededdata and understanding at a national level, and across a range of farm types, of the labourcontribution to the farm business (see Appendix 3).

Appendix 1: Unpaid Farm Work Literature Review Prepared by Wayne McClintock and Heather McCrostie Little

Part One: Farm Work of Women

Introduction This review summarises the following themes that emerge from overseas and New

Zealand literature which examines the farm work of women:• family farms as households and enterprises;• the integrated nature of productive and reproductive labour;• the gender division of labour;• farm women: a flexible labour supply;• women’s contribution to farm labour;• effects of technology, farm size and the family life cycle on women’s involvement in

farm work;• farm tasks performed by women• unpaid nature of women’s farm work;• roles of farm women;• self identity of farm women; and• issues of research methodology. Family Farms as Households and Enterprises

The significance of women’s contribution to agricultural production can only be fullyunderstood within a conceptual framework that recognises that family farms are bothsocial units and economic enterprises. This concept of family farming challenges bothMarxist and mainstream traditions of rural sociology. The boundaries drawn between theeconomy and the household/family reflect western assumptions derived from theseparation of work from home during the 19th century and are not universal. Theliterature on non-western societies demonstrates how those boundaries began to shift. Itreveals that households constructed livelihoods through “a multitude of self-provisioningstrategies and interactions with the natural environment” as well as through the wageeconomy (Redcliff and Whatmore, 1990:188).

The farm enterprise has been traditionally viewed as comprising a nuclear familyhousehold managed by a woman and an agricultural business managed by her husband(Garkovich and Bokemeier 1988:212). Garkovich and Bokemeier (1988:212) suggest thatthere is an alternative to this traditional view. The farm family and the farm enterprise canbe viewed as interdependent social systems linked through the agrifamily household.From this perspective, the agrifamily household is a social institution situated within aparticular historical, social and cultural milieu and composed of a complex network ofinterpenetrating and mutually dependent roles.

Moran et al (1992:7-8) describe the characteristics of the farm family. They maintainthat the farm family is both an enterprise and an household unit. As an enterprise it investsfamily capital and labour to produce goods for sale in external markets, and the householdunit provides the home for the family which operates the farm. Kinship provides the basisfor organising production, while decision making within the family requires the balancingof household and enterprise goals. Both the ownership of the means of production and theprovision of labour are combined within the farm family. And it is this coincidence offamily and enterprise that distinguishes farm family enterprises from many other types ofbusinesses. Yet, as Moran et al point out, many theorists continue to separate the two

components of the farm family for analytical purposes, when it is their interdependentrelationship that provides the key to the way they function.

Whatmore maintains that family farming is “a varying form of production centred onthe intersection of family household and agricultural enterprise and characterized by thecomplex interweaving of commodity and gender relations” (1991:72). She identifies threetypes of family farm - family labour farms, transitional family farms and family farms -that “reflect a shift from labour to property as the organizing principle of household-basedforms of production” as their degree of market integration increases (ibid:73). Foranalytical purposes Whatmore assumes that the farm labour process consists of fourcircuits: agricultural labour, domestic household labour, non-agricultural farm labour andoff-farm labour (ibid). Integrated Nature of Productive and Reproductive Labour

The artificial distinction drawn between the household and workplace by bothmainstream and Marxist theorists has obscured the interdependence of productive andreproductive labour. Houseworkers have become invisible persons even though they are avery significant part of the working population. More precisely, what is hidden is not justthe housework itself, but the capitalist relationship between production and reproduction(Picchio, 1992:95). Furthermore, the one-sided emphasis on employment by theorists, hashighlighted the role of the individual earner (usually the husband), rather than thehousehold, as the basic economic unit. Women, however, are more likely to view thehousehold as the basic economic unit and manage the balance between their domestic andother work accordingly (Pahl, 1984:84).

The nature of the relationship between production and reproduction becomesobvious in the context of a surplus approach to profit where “Housework is theproduction of labour as a commodity, while waged work is the exchange of labour”(Picchio, 1992:96 emphasis in the original). Yet housework is not only the performance oftasks for the physical and psychological welfare of household members. Its function isalso to restore a relation between production and reproduction that makes sense from thepoint of view of the individuals involved. Picchio (1992:98) maintains that the process ofcapital accumulation “uses people as commodities, and the task of housework is toproduce and restore them as people within the constraint of reproducing them ascommodities”. Gender differences, she argues, are reflected in an “enormous mass ofenergy which women pour into others, to make them feel like human beings in a systemthat treats them as commodities” (ibid). Thus women have assumed the primary role ofcompensating for the negative effects of the labour market and inadequate public services(ibid).

Women who perform both housework and farm tasks, according to Picchio(1992:109), are involved in a continuous interaction between reproductive labour andproductive labour for the market. Fink (1988:238) maintains that the intertwining ofvarious tasks of the production, processing and distribution of food, with homemakingand childcare makes assessment of the full range of farm women’s tasks difficult. Twoother factors also contribute to the confusion about the role of farm women. Unliketeachers or nurses, farm women perform much of their work out of the view of the generalpublic. Moreover, women’s participation in field work may be down played to maintaintheir husband’s status in the local community.

Thus the distinction that is often made by mainstream and Marxist theorists betweenthe domestic and farm work of women is artificial. Garcia-Ramon and Canoves(1988:263), for instance, believe that women’s contribution to family farming isundervalued. They point out that the whole sphere of domestic labour (childcare, food

preparation etc) is ignored, yet it includes tasks that are essential to the reproduction of thefamily farm labour system. Elbert (1988:262) reports that when she asked one womanwhether washing the family clothes represented “farm work” or “house work”, the womanthrew up the lid of her washing machine in disgust, pointed out the mixture of barn suits,children’s jeans, and furniture slip covers and invited her to sort the farm wash from thehome wash. Reimer (1986) maintains that when the farmer’s wife or children wash thekitchen floor, their labour corresponds to that of a corporation’s maintenance crew whenthey clean the plant or the office, except that the farmer’s family does not always get paida wage and the labour time is not included in the farm accounts. Nevertheless it is labour,according to Reimer, and it contributes just as much to the operation of the farm as theincome generated from the sale of farm products.

The relationship between the domestic and farm work has been analysed in a numberof studies. Whatmore (1991) draws on a survey of two study areas in southern England.All farm women interviewed in the study (81) undertook the main domestic tasks(including childcare) without significant assistance from other members of theirhousehold. However, women play a key administrative role on the farm. They combinethe tasks of a receptionist, secretary, accountant and public relations officer, as well asrunning most of the errands (Whatmore, 1991:73-74). Whatmore found that “For all typesof agricultural work a higher number and proportion of women with childcareresponsibilities are involved in agricultural labour than those without (ibid:74 emphasis inoriginal)”. And she concludes: “Whatever else women do on the farm it is clearly inaddition to, rather than instead of, their domestic tasks and responsibilities (p.74 emphasisin the original)”. Shortall reached a similar conclusion in her study of farm wives inIreland. She observes that the wives who had a high degree of involvement in farm tasks“were not relieved of their housework and childcare duties in any way” (Shortall,1992:437).

Farm women experience considerable stress associated with the role conflictbetween domestic and farm work according to Berkowitz and Perkins (1984:164). Theyobserve that this role conflict appeared to be unrelated to either the farm or domesticworkload, but was negatively associated with husband support. On the other hand, Taylorand McCrostie Little (1995) found that role conflict between men and women was not amajor source of stress for families where individuals were engaged in off-farmemployment. They suggest, however, that a greater source of stress for women in thesecircumstances may be their inability to internalise their various roles as housekeeper,mother, wife and nurse. Juggling these roles requires sufficient time, and a number ofwomen in the study attributed their stress to a shortage of time and being pulled in severaldirections at once (Taylor and McCrostie Little; nd:174). The authors also discovered thatthere was a relationship between job conflict, as between the place of work and the homeof the farm family, and the quality of farm and household work. The majority of womenin the study reported stress associated with household work particularly when maintainingor increasing their farm activities (ibid:166-167).

Garcia-Ramon and Canoves (1988:31), moreover, discovered that housework issubordinated to the woman’s farm work in the Catalonia region of Spain. The proportionof female labour used on the farm depended mainly on type of tenancy and farm size.Darque (1988) reports a 1978 study of 388 women farmers in France. She found there wasa “strict specialization in domestic and agricultural chores” and that most domestic taskswere performed by the wife (Darque, 1988:276).

In New Zealand, Anderson (1993) examined the degree to which women’sparticipation in agricultural labour, paid/unpaid off-farm work, and on-farm agricultural

labour influenced their involvement in domestic labour. Her study was conducted inSouth Otago, and was based on a sample of 42 farms. All the women interviewed in herstudy performed some degree of farm work, and they all reported at least 20 hours ofdomestic work per week (Anderson, 1993:49). Almost half of the women considered thattheir domestic work was either “important” or “very important” for the farm enterprise(ibid:66). Gender Division of Labour

Several researchers discuss the factors which influence the typical gender division oflabour on family farms. James (1982:310), for instance, comments that the role of women“in the division of labour has to be placed against the background of family composition,values and goals, and set within the constraints of the rural scene and the unit’s placetherein for proper interpretation”. While Gasson and Winter (1992:396) suggest that it isthe difference in backgrounds of farm wives and their husbands which shape gender roles.They consider that the more egalitarian patterns of sharing responsibility for the farmbusiness reflect the less traditional attitudes of couples from non-farming backgrounds.From their study of farm women in the Galacia region of Spain, Garcia-Ramon et al(1993:13) found that when the size and productive orientation of the farm could fullymaintain the family group, men usually worked on the farm. When the farm was smalland mechanisation difficult, however, the men worked off-farm and the women had totake over their husband’s work. Whatmore (1991), on the other hand, maintains that thegender division of labour is shaped by ideology. She argues that the gender division oflabour within the family is established by and reinforces a process in which women’sidentity is associated with ideologies of wifehood and motherhood that assume genderinequalities are ‘natural’ (Whatmore, 1991:74-75). She notes that all the women in hersurvey “expressed a ‘hatred’ for domestic work”, yet accepted their responsibility forhousehold tasks “as ‘a fact of life’ or ‘the natural order of things’” (ibid:75). Two studiesin this country also highlight factors which shape the gender division of labour on familyfarms. McMath (1991) discovered from the accounts of childhood experiences by thewomen in her survey that gender, along with age and necessity, were important factors inthe division of labour. This was particularly apparent in the childhood experiences ofwomen who spent their early life on farms. They recalled that the men were expected todo the outside work on the farm, while the women were expected to perform the domesticchores. Their descriptions suggested that women were also capable of doing outside farmwork should it become necessary. Benediktsson et al (1990) found that there was a sharpdivision of labour on the 105 beef and sheep farms they studied in Raglan County.Reproductive work was primarily the female sphere of responsibility. Women had themain responsibility for childcare, household shopping, and housework on over threequarters of farms in the sample. In only three of the households where both men andwomen are present did a man have the main responsibility for housework. In all of thesethree cases the women were employed full-time off the farm (Benediktsson et al,1990:41). Farm Women – A Flexible Labour Supply

Family farms seem to have a remarkable capacity to adapt to the forces of economicchange. Fairweather and Gilmore (1993:74) maintain that a prevailing issue in thesociology of agriculture is the nature of the adjustment of the family farm to changes incapitalist society, and the likely outcome for the family farm as these processes develophistorically. Their survey findings show that farm families in their sample decreasedconsumption and increased family labour to adapt to acute financial pressure in the mid1980s. Since then, however, family farms have increased their consumption and made

greater use of paid labour. Fairweather and Gilmore argue that these changes demonstratethe flexibility inherent in family farms.

In an earlier study of the agricultural restructuring process, Fairweather (1992:34)notes “the growing presence of women as full-time working owners and as unpaidmembers of the family”. Between 1984 and 1990 the number of unpaid female membersof the family working on New Zealand farms increased by 1,538 (8 percent), while thenumber of female working owners increased by 1,851 (7 percent).

Shortall (1992:447) considers “that the exploited labour of the farm wife is essentialfor the survival of the family farm with capitalism”. She adds that the persistence of thefamily farm in advanced industrial nations is partly attributable to the nature of the farmhousehold as a source of flexible non-wage labour. She comments that the inferiorposition of farm women has benefits for the farming industry, and suggests that if thatcontribution were to be acknowledged and properly rewarded it would place greatpressure on the industry (Shortall, 1992:446-447). A similar view is expressed byPomeroy (1986:229) who suggests that farm wives are seen as a reserve army of labourthat provides on-farm work and off-farm income to maintain the viability of the farmenterprise.

There seems to be broad agreement in the literature that farm women act as a flexiblereserve supply of cheap labour for family farms (e.g. Symes and Marsden 1983, Garcia-Ramon and Canoves 1988, Darque 1988, McKinnon et al 1991). Their presence on thefarm provides the principal farm operator with a readily available source of labour to meetthe demands of peak seasonal activities (e.g. harvesting, haymaking and lambing) andemergencies (e.g. flooding and snowfalls). The contribution of these women is usuallypoorly renumerated and receives very little public recognition. Yet, when there is a needfor their services, they are expected to give priority to farm tasks over whatever otheractivity they are presently engaged in. Garcia-Ramon and Canoves (1988:269) point outthat the main feature of the work schedule of these women “is its fragmentation:housework continuously alternates with livestock tasks, gardening or agricultural work”. Women’s Contribution to Farm Labour

There are a number of studies that provide some type of measurement of women’scontribution to farm labour. Moreover, the evidence suggests that their contribution toagricultural activities is increasingly being recognised in the official statistics collected inthe United States, Australia, and New Zealand (James 1982, Lyson 1990, Fairweather1992, Pomeroy 1993). Lyson (1990) notes that the number of woman farmers in the USAincreased by 78 percent between 1970 and 1980, while the number of male farmersdeclined by 14 percent. In New Zealand the number of woman farmers increased by over40 percent between 1976 and 1981, and the number of men farmers remained virtuallystatic (Lyson, 1990:60-61). Lyson advances two explanations for this phenomenon: morewomen entering traditional male occupations, and the changing nature of agriculturalproduction means a fall in the number of men actively involved in full-time farming withmore responsibility for management falling on their wives. He finds support for both ofthese explanations from his examination of the USA and NZ statistics (ibid 63-64).

Pomeroy (1993:2) reports that a quarter (25,182) of full-time workers engaged inagricultural and livestock production in New Zealand during 1991 were women. With theaddition of part-time workers (less than 30 hours per week) the number of womeninvolved in this sector increased to 39,168 or a third of the total workforce. Pomeroy alsonotes that the proportion of women involved in full-time agricultural and livestockproduction grew from seven percent of the workforce in 1951 to 25 percent forty yearslater. Fairweather (1992:33-34) has also examined New Zealand’s agricultural census

statistics. He found an increase of 3,436 persons in the working owners and unpaid familycategories between 1984 and 1990, with a decrease of 5079 persons in the permanent andcasual workers categories during the same period. Almost all the increase (3,389) in theworking owners and unpaid family members categories was in the number of women.

Other research in New Zealand has attempted to assess the contribution of women’slabour at the family farm level. Two unpublished studies conducted by Willis andCampbell during the early 1970s have been reported by Lloyd (1974). Their findings areinconsistent; probably reflecting some degree of regional diversity. Willis, on one hand,notes that on 53 percent of his sample of dairy farms in South Taranaki the wives milkedfull time, and in most cases provided additional assistance on the farm when it wasrequired. Wives also helped, seasonally or occasionally, on a further 26 percent of farms,and on only eight percent of farms were there wives who made no contribution to on-farmlabour. On the other hand, Campbell found that wives assisted with the milking on 87percent of his sample of dairy farms on the Central Volcanic Plateau. Lloyd comparedthese figures with a 1940 study that reported 38 percent of farmers’ wives working onfamily farms, and concluded that women on dairy farms appeared “to be making a greatercontribution than was the case in 1940” (1974:40).

A study by Maunier et al (1985) examining land use change in Northland recordedthe labour contribution made by women on dairy farms in the region. For the seventy-onefarms for which detailed time allocation data were obtained, 53 percent of total workerhours were contributed by male farm operators, 12 percent by wives, 14 percent by sons, 6percent by other family, and 16 percent by non family labour. The wives contributed farmlabour of about 550 hours annually or 11 hours per week (Maunier et al, 1990:15).However, the thirteen wives who participated more fully in the daily management of thefarm worked an average of 1078 hours per annum (ibid:25). Benediktsson et al (1990:41),in their survey of sheep and beef farms in Raglan, found that women’s involvement infarm work was mostly seasonal or occasional rather than regular (54 cases). Regular workwas performed by 31 women, and 12 women in their sample of 105 farms did notundertake any farm work.

From their study of off-farm employment in New Zealand, Taylor and McCrostieLittle (nd:142) report that the contribution of women employed off-farm to farm labourvaried from no involvement, through helping at peak periods, to taking a full part inoperating the farm. Whatever the extent of this contribution, however, off-farm work isoften scheduled around seasonal demands for farm labour to ensure the woman’sinvolvement. Some forms of farm work are planned around the woman’s off-farmresponsibilities, but it is her on-farm role that usually dominates.

Some studies conducted in Europe have also tried to measure the contribution ofwomen to farm work. Gasson (1992), for instance, estimated that wives contributed about10 percent of the total hours worked by the regular labour force on British farms. While inanother study of 272 principal male farmers and 245 wives in Devon undertaken with acolleague she records that their interviews with the women revealed that the total timespent on farm work was 16.1 hours (11.5 manual, 2.5 farm office and 2.5 administration)with extra hours at lambing and silaging (Gasson and Winter, 1992:391). Garcia-Ramonand Canoves (1988) conducted a study in the Catalonia district of Spain. They found thatthe women’s contribution to farm labour represented between 25 to 50 percent of the totalfarm income. The women work an average five to six hours per day on the farm and atleast five hours on domestic tasks (Garcia-Ramon and Canoves, 1988:268-269).

Symes and Marsden (1983:235) consider that the key variable explaining the extentand nature of the wife’s participation in farm labour is the husband’s own role. They

suggest that when the male farmer’s work is mainly outdoors then it is more likely hiswife will be involved in ‘outdoor’ work and also have a major role in secretarial workand policy making. But if the male farmer only adopts a managerial role, the wife’sactivities on the farm, whether outdoors or indoors, are likely to be less regular and lesswide ranging. Thus the way in which the male farmer organises his work appears todefine his wife’s participation in farm activities. Effects of Technology, Farm Size and the Family Life Cycle on Women’sInvolvement in Farm Work

Changes in technology may affect the nature and extent of women’s involvement infarm work. Bouquet (1982), for instance, describes the historical development of dairyproduction and accommodation of visitors on family farms in south-west England. In the1870s dairy produce was transported by rail from the district to London. Thus dairyproducts became market commodities when formerly they had been items for householdconsumption. The dairy became a separate sphere of activity and this made the malefarmer’s wife someone of considerable importance within the farm household (Bouquet,1982:237-238). Railways also helped change the concept of the holiday. As the numbersof labourers and servants on farms declined, farmers’ wives began to accommodatevisitors in their houses. The farmers’ wives usually spent their ‘visitor money’ ondecorating, repairing, or improving the house (ibid:238-239). After the 1930s, however,the collection of milk from the farms and its transportation by truck to the factoriesestablished by the Milk Marketing Board ended women’s role as dairy producers. Buteven though their contribution to farm work has declined, they still retain their domesticfunction of providing accommodation for visitors until the present day (ibid:239-240).

Coughenour and Swanson (1983) argue that the differences found between therelative contributions to farm productivity by men and women may be due to theirrelationship to the technical means of production rather than their physical characteristics.If men operate those production technologies that extend labour such as tractors andcombines, then the loss of their labour will result in the greatest reduction in productivity.Therefore it is the relationship of labour to production technologies, rather than physicalcharacteristics that vary by sex, that influence how a man’s or woman’s labour contributesto farm productivity.

While discussing the relationship farm machinery and women’s participation in farmwork Rosenfield quotes Sachs who found that the use of larger equipment was a barrier tothe women’s participation in all aspects of farm work. It was not that women could notrun the equipment, but rather that they had problems hooking up pieces of equipment orreaching the pedals. Sachs illustrated this point with the following anecdote. ‘Onewoman’s doctor told her that “a woman wasn’t made to drive a tractor.” The woman’sresponse was that “tractors weren’t made for a woman” (Rosenfield 1985:23). Withregard to other sorts of farm tasks, Rosenfield suggests that the nature of women’s workmight have remained relatively unchanged. It seems likely that women have continued tofill in even on mechanised farms when extra labour is needed for activities such asharvesting.

The size of the farm also affects the degree of women’s involvement in farm work.There is a general consensus among rural researchers that women perform less work onthe farm as the size of the holding increases (e.g. Symes and Marsden 1983, Garcia-Ramon and Canoves 1988, Gasson 1992). Anderson (nd:40) considers that the growingnumber of small-size farms and the increasing emergence of large-scale farm enterpriseshas significant implications for the role of women in western agriculture. She notes that asfarm size increases women not only become less involved in farm tasks and decision

making, but they also become more confined to domestic work. Anderson attributes thistrend on large-scale enterprises to confine women to the domestic sphere to the increaseduse of new technology and changing patterns of farm business organisation, farm labourorganisation and land ownership.

Other significant factors that influence women’s participation in farm work are thefamily life cycle and the farming life cycle. Young children, for instance, often preventwomen from making significant contributions to farm work (Shaw, 1993:33), but as theygrow older their mothers have more freedom to perform work outside the home (Garcia-Ramon and Canoves, 1988:266). But the financial circumstances of the farm enterprisemay also shape the extent of women’s involvement in farm activities. According toKeating and Little (1991:54-57), there are three stages in this farming life cycle - entry,consolidation and exit - each of which shapes the degree of a woman’s involvement infarm work. Begg (1991:3) describes how the farming life cycle on dairy farms in NewZealand affects the role of women both on the farm and in the wider community.

“Young couples getting established either as sharemilkers or owners depended on thewomen to provide the extra pair of hands. In the case of established farming people,women did less of the practical farm work. Often their husbands were semi-retired andemployed farm managers, or sharemilkers, or sons had taken over much of theresponsibility of farm management. As a consequence these women were more involvedin community affairs but were there to help on the farm if required.”

A study of dairy farms in Northland by Maunier et al (1985:15) provides somesupport for Begg’s account of the farming life cycle. The researchers found that as the ageof the owner/operators increased the proportion of hours their wives contributed to totalworker hours on the farm declined. Women married to owner/operators under 35 years,for example, provided 16 percent of labour on the farm, while wives married to men over55 years only contributed eight percent.

On the other hand Keating and McCrostie Little (1994:35) note that the older womenin their study reported that their highest level of involvement in farm labour had beenduring their early forties. The authors found that changes in the amount of workperformed by older men and women were gradual. They also discovered that youngerwomen in their sample expect to do the same amount of work in their peak working yearsas the older women report having done (Keating and McCrostie Little 1994:36). Farm Tasks Performed by Women

International literature indicates that women perform a wide variety of tasks on thefarm, although they are more likely to perform reproductive activities such asbookkeeping, caring for young livestock, and cooking for workers, than productive workthat demands physical strength and stamina. It emphasises this distinction betweenreproductive work dominated by women and productive work dominated by men.Nevertheless, in recent years rural researchers such as Whatmore (1991) have drawn onthe insights of feminist social theory to highlight the significance of women’s role in theprocess of agricultural production.

The particular tasks women perform on farms will vary between countries, regions,and the particular type of commodity produced by the enterprise. The data on the farmwork of women in the United States are very comprehensive. Rural sociologists in thatcountry have a strong empirical tradition that emphasises gathering quantitativeinformation, but often neglects to address the social and economic processes associatedwith farming.

Rosenfield (1985) conducted a survey of farm women in the United States. Sheconcluded that very few women did not participate in any farm tasks. On average, women

at least occasionally did more than half of the inventoried tasks done on their farms. Thetasks that they were most likely to perform were common ones for farm women, such asbook keeping and doing errands, but at some of them did field work and other lesstraditional work as well. Almost all the women did housework, and they cared for youngchildren (Rosenfield, 1985:97). A later study by Bokemeier and Garkovich (1987)discovered that the farm tasks that the women in their sample were least likely to performincluded attending meetings of farm organisation, mowing fields, baling hay, and haulinggoods and animals to market. The tasks that these women were most likely to do includedrunning errands to town, paying farm bills, checking market prices, and doing farmbookkeeping. Two regional surveys (Lasley and Fellows 1990, Saupe and Eisenhauer1990) also illustrate the kinds of work women perform on farms in the USA. Lasley andFellows (1990:7) found that 92 percent of their sample of 3,630 spouses (in 12 states)reported that they “always” undertook household and childcare tasks. Over half “always”took care of a vegetable garden or animals or did the bookkeeping and other recordkeeping tasks. Most farm spouses “always” or “sometimes” performed farm errands (92percent) or worked off-farm (62 percent). Other on farm tasks less frequently reportedwere milking, caring for farm animals, field work, supervision of farm work, buyingsupplies and equipment, and marketing farm products. Saupe and Eisenhauer’s (1990)study focused on a sample of over 600 spouses in Wisconsin. They concluded that the“common perception of the male/female division of labour in the farm householdprevailed” (Saupe and Eisenhauer 1990:7). Nearly all of the spouses reported theyperformed household tasks and/or childcare, and 85 percent of them took care of avegetable garden or animals for family consumption. With regard to the farm business thegreat majority of the spouses did bookkeeping or maintained farm records, and ran farmerrands. About three-quarters of them were involved in production either by milking cowsor caring for farm animals or doing field work (ibid).

A similar picture emerges from research conducted in Europe. Two studies in theUnited Kingdom record the types of farm tasks undertaken by women. Symes andMarsden (1983) identify office and secretarial work, meal preparation, running messagesas the main tasks of women in East Yorkshire. They describe the outdoor work of womenas “largely seasonal and irregular in occurrence”, with a wife being called in anemergency to drive a tractor or operate farm machinery (Symes and Marsden 1983:235).While a study of farm women in southern England found that all the women undertookthe main domestic tasks (including childcare) without significant assistance from othermembers of the household. Women did play a key administrative role on the farm,however. They combined the tasks of a receptionist, secretary, accountant and publicrelations officer, as well as running most of the errands (Whatmore, 1991:73-74).

Other studies in Europe focus on Ireland, France and Spain. Shortall (1992:443)analysed power relationships on Irish farms, and concluded that the activities of farmwives are “financially important for the farm business”. Shortall found it difficult toquantify the farm work performed by women in her sample. Nineteen fed calves orbedded cattle, 18 ran errands of various kinds, and 13 did the farm accounts. During theharvest they took meals to the fields. They also prepared meals for hired labourers (ibid).Darque (1988) reports a survey of 368 women farmers in France. On the farms shestudied the proportion of women keeping the books was identical to that of the men(Darque, 1988:279). About 90 percent of the women took care of small animals andpoultry, two-thirds looked after calves, and about a half fed sheep, goats, and pigs. Thegreat majority participated in milking activities (88 percent) and the care and cleaning ofthe milking equipment and dairy (about four-fifths). In nearly half of the farms the

harvesting of fruit and vegetables was undertaken by the woman (ibid:281). Garcia-Ramon and Canoves (1988:268) examined the role of women on family farms in Spain.They concluded that housework was subordinated to the woman’s farm work. The mainactivities of women were tending small livestock (rabbits and pigs), rasing poultry (ducksand chickens) and the kitchen garden. Part of the small livestock was for homeconsumption; with any surplus being sold by the women at the local market.

New Zealand research indicates that women make a significant contribution to manyaspects of agricultural and livestock production. The nature of that contribution providedby women seems to vary with the type of commodity production, however (Le Heron etal, 1991:47). On beef and sheep farms in Raglan county, for instance, their jobs includecooking, working in the woolshed, feeding out fodder, bookkeeping and purchasingsupplies for the farm enterprise (Benediktsson et al, 1990:42-44). On Otago farms theyundertake drenching, tailing, crutching, draughting, fencing and general labouring(Walton, 1991:21). Women also are engaged in milking, the rearing of calves, feeding outfodder and hay or silage making on dairy farms as well as acting as secretaries and cooks(Begg 1991:31-34). Milking, however, is a major activity for women on dairy farms.Maunier et al (1985:50) state that “On 63 farms (89% of the sample) the wife takes part inmilking, averaging 330 hours (about a third that of the farmers). Wives contribute 14% ofthe total labour time in milking and milking occupies about 40% of the total farm labourcommitment of wives”. Many women working on farms have to use farm machinery andvehicles while performing their tasks. A study by Shaw (1993:32) of 85 North Islandwomen found that 82 percent of the women used tractors, 67 percent farm bikes, 48percent milking/shearing plant, 47 percent fencing units, 44 percent harvesting equipment,32 percent trucks and 11 percent chain saws. When discussing the use of physical strengththe women farming by themselves commented that they usually overcame obstacles byapproaching the task from another angle by “using cunning rather than brute force” (Shaw1993:32). Unpaid Nature of Women’s Farm Work

The income of the farm enterprise is often unequally distributed between members ofthe farm household. This situation arises from the unpaid nature of much of the farm workwhich is performed by family members assisting the principal farm operator. Cloud(1988:288) suggests that, although the unpaid family labour of women and youngermembers of the family may increase agricultural production or contribute to the purchaseof additional land or livestock, they may not receive an equal share of the benefits fromtheir activities.

Farm women are particularly disadvantaged in this respect because they performunpaid reproductive labour (i.e. housework and childcare) as well as unpaid productivetasks. Little (1987) points out that the farmer’s wife is expected to undertake all herdomestic duties, including tasks such as answering business calls on the phone which inother circumstances would be considered the job of a paid secretary, and to be available towork on the farm. All of which she is usually expected to perform without any formalrecognition in terms of wages or a real share in the business. Furthermore, Shortall(1992:439) in her study of Irish farms explains this phenomenon in terms of an “ideologythat farm wives work unpaid within the farm home and on the farm is fully legitimizedand accepted as natural”.

Research in New Zealand indicates that most farm women do not receive anymonetary payments for their contribution to farm production. Walton (1991:22) foundthat only 15 of the 43 Otago women in her sample reported they had derived any incomefrom the farm enterprise, even though they all undertook farm work. Begg (1991:30) also

notes that the 21 dairy farm women in her study did not receive any weekly or monthlyrenumeration for most of the domestic and farm work they performed. Similarly, Shaw(1993:29) discovered that although 80 percent of the women in her sample identifiedthemselves as ‘farmers’, 78 percent of them were unpaid apart from farm drawings or ashare of the profit. While Grigg (1987:101) cites a study by Blake of the impact ofhorticultural development in Canterbury that found women had to increase their hours offarm work without any offsetting monetary benefits to ensure the financial success of thenew venture.

Austrin (1994) has described the work performed by married couples employed aspaid workers on dairy farms. His account of the duties of the farm labourer’s wife alsoprovides significant insights about the role of the farmer’s wife.

“The ‘wife’ was absolutely essential to the organisation of activities on the farm, yetshe did not receive a separate wage. She was paid a minimal amount for specific dutiesand the rest was classed as ‘helping out’. This arrangement was possible because heractivities were viewed as an extension of the unpaid activities provided for her husband.The ‘duties’ performed for others in the wage relationship were the same as those for herhusband. Both were carried out in the household. As a result they were not classed as‘work’ in the same way as her husband’s. This was her ‘lot’ in life (Austrin, 1994:250)”.

The division of labour of married couples which is described above reflects thedifferences between the unpaid nature of work performed by farm wives and the higherstatus activities of their husbands. Roles of Farm Women

Recent changes in the nature of family farming have had important consequences forthe role of women in agricultural production. De Vries (1990) comments that changes inthe farm household have been brought about by a number of factors including theemancipation of women and increase of individualism in society. She maintains that manywives from the younger generation and their children no longer accept the duties andobligations characteristic of traditional family farming. The ideas of some farm operatorsabout the involvement of family members in farm work have also changed. Many farmoperators no longer expect their spouse or their children to work on the farm as a matterof course. Thus De Vries suggests that the nature of gender and parent-child relations mayassume a less hierarchical character. She argues that the majority of young farmers’ wivesnowadays want to have the choice of working on the farm or of working off-farm in a jobof their own. Many of them are not content with the position of a housewife caring onlyfor their household and assisting with work on the farm. Instead they want an activity withits own work identity.

In reviewing the situation of women on Australian farms, Alston (1991) argues thatthe development of the ideology of separate spheres for men and women in the earlytwentieth century included the belief that women and men were complementary opposites.Women belonged in the home, and forcing women into farm work was viewed as a causeof national shame. Women themselves, according to Alston, wholeheartedly embracedthis doctrine of separate spheres during the early twentieth century as it freed them fromthe burden of hard work. Alston maintains that there was a considerable diversity in theamount and type of work done by farm women. This diversity was largely accounted forby the interaction between two independent variables: the farm’s degree of modernisationand its dependence on capitalist relations of production. Where outside labour was hiredas part of the modernisation process, the amount of work women performed on the farmwas reduced and their amount of domestic work increased.

Pomeroy (1988) has compared the role of women on nineteenth and early twentieth

century English and New Zealand farms. She argues that New Zealand women from allclasses were educated, well informed and articulate, and had a strong interest in socialreform. The belief that women should not have an occupation was much weaker in NewZealand. New Zealand also had a different class structure than England. The workingclass was much larger and the middle and capitalist classes were smaller. Furthermore, theneed for both partners to be involved in developing their farms gave women in NewZealand a greater degree of equality than that possessed by their counterparts on Englishfarms.

A recent study by Lyson (1990) analysed United States and New Zealand aboutfarming occupations. He reports that the number of woman farmers in both countriesincreased substantially during the 1980s. Lyson (1990:61) suggests there are twoexplanations for this phenomenon: more women are entering traditional maleoccupations, and the changing nature of agricultural production in which there has be adecline in the number of men involved in full-time farming has meant that moreresponsibility for management has fallen on their wives.

The role that women perform in farm enterprises may assume a variety of forms.Several researchers have developed models of role types to better understand and explainthe diversity and complexity of women’s work on the farm. Pearson (1979), for instance,considers that farm women in the United States may assume one of four relationships toagricultural production. First, some women are independent agricultural producers whomanage farms largely by themselves. Second, others are partners in an agriculturalenterprise. These are the women who share tasks, responsibilities and decision makingwith their husbands concerning all aspects of the farm operation. Third, there are womenwho do not usually participate in agricultural production except during peak periods whenextra labour is required. Finally, there are farm women who are exclusively homemakers.Their contributions to production are largely indirect. Rather than work in the fieldthemselves, they help by running errands and preparing food for those who work outside.

By contrast, Gasson (1980) classifies British ‘farm wives’ into three ideal roletypes. She describes the ‘working farm wife’ as having loyalties divided between the farmand the home. This farm woman spends part of every day working on the farm, andprobably prefers farm work to housework, yet she usually regards her domestic role as themore important. She and her husband make a good team, according to Gasson, workingtogether much of the time but with a clear division of tasks. Gasson also describes a‘woman farmer’ category. These women are farm centred rather than home centred andalmost without exception they regard farming as their most time consuming, mostimportant, and most enjoyable activity. Like her category of ‘working farm wives’ thesewomen work regularly on the farm, probably spending more time outdoors than in thehouse, but unlike them they are more likely to manage enterprises themselves than toassist others. For these women the division of responsibility between husband and wife, ifthe woman’s husband is also a farmer, is not necessarily according to gender stereotypes.Gasson’s third ideal role type is the ‘farm housewife’. In this category there is a markeddivision of labour between husband and wife. The woman is not expected to workregularly on the farm and her contribution to the farm enterprise is usually limited torunning errands, answering the telephone, attending to callers, bookkeeping and otheroffice work.

Bokemeier and Garkovich (1987:22) propose five ideal role types for women onfarms in the United States: farm homemaker, agricultural helper, business manager, fullagricultural partner, independent agricultural producer. The farm homemaker does notwork regularly on the farm. Her main duties are running errands and traditional

homemaking tasks. Family and domestic responsibilities are paramount and are the mosttime-consuming. The agricultural helper usually participates in agricultural productiononly during busy times and in emergencies. The domestic role is still paramount and thereis a clear division of labour for most tasks. She has more input to decision making thanthe farm housewife. The main responsibilities of the business manager are bookkeeping,financial management, and collecting information. Her husband is the main farm operator,and she is less likely than other farm women to come from a farm background. The fullagricultural partner and her husband share equally the work, management, and decisionmaking of the farm operation. Their labour is not necessarily divided on a gender basis,but the woman retains the main responsibility for domestic work. The independentagricultural producer is the sole or main operator of the farm. During her lifetime awoman may adopt one or more of these roles, with the type of role she adopts at anyparticular time often being heavily influenced by the household’s position in the familylife cycle and the farming life cycle.

Closer to home, James (1982) has developed a complex model of eight ideal typesfor investigating the role of women on Australian farms. These ideal types are based onthree variables: the woman’s involvement in a legal partnership or family company, thewoman’s degree of contribution to farm labour, and the woman’s level of participation indecision making (Lyson 1982:306). They range from a traditional homemaker, through amatriarch, a helper who contributes labour, and a legal partner who contributes labour buthas no voice in decision making, to an active partner who participates in every aspect ofthe farm’s operations (ibid:313-314).

Another typology that was specially developed to analyse the involvement of bothmen and women in farm work in New Zealand has been proposed by Keating andMcCrostie Little (1991). This typology, like James’s, addresses not only the subject ofwork, but also the closely related topics of management and ownership. With regard towork, Keating and McCrostie Little identify four ideal types ranging from low to highlevels of involvement. These ideal types are the homemaker who has minimal or no farmwork, the half farm hand who has a limited range of farm tasks, the boy who performs thefull range of farm tasks and identifies her/himself as a farmer, and the farmer who is thesole or chief worker and supervises all the farm work (Keating and McCrostie Little,1991:51).

Taylor and McCrostie Little (1995) maintain that the pluriactive farm women of NewZealand perform four distinct roles. These roles are household/family, farm work, off-farm work, and community work. The authors found that these four roles are notexclusive, but rather that as a woman assumes another role, such as off-farm employment,she usually continues to carry out her existing roles in the house, farm enterprise, andcommunity. Self Identity of Farm Women

The characteristics of a particular woman’s role in agricultural production is closelyassociated with her self identity. The type of role a woman adopts with respect to farmwork will to some extent depend on her own perception of herself as a woman and afarmer. Bokemeier and Garkovich (1987), however, maintain that although manyresearchers have oriented their analyses of farm women’s involvement in the farmenterprise in terms of work and family roles, little attention has been given to the socialpsychological dimension of these roles. In other words, no attempt has been made todetermine the relationship between involvement in farm work and how farm womendefine their self identity. They concluded that self identity was a key component inshaping the role performance of farm women, and it seemed to be more significant than

the traditional measures of women’s involvement in farm life. They also studied thefactors influencing the self-identities of farm women and found that the background ofeach woman was a crucial factor in the development of those identities. Other significantfactors in developing those identities were marital status, education, age, and income.

The significance of this issue of self-identity is also emphasised by Darque (1988),and Shortall (1992). Darque (1988:289) considers that the task of redefining genderrelations in agriculture is indicative of a double identity crisis of social identity and farmeridentity. “In today’s society where social identity is largely defined by professionalactivity, the malaise of these women without professional status and in a devalued sector,is understandable” (ibid:290). Whereas Shortall (1992:444) maintains that “The farm wifeis tied to her powerless position by her own identity and self-knowledge, which prohibitsher involvement in activities outside of her legitimized sphere”.

Farm women differ as to how particular farm tasks are incorporated into their self-identities and role enactments as wives, mothers and economic producers. Their self-identities influence their perceptions of an appropriate role performance as a ‘farmwoman’, and their definitions of activities (household, off-farm, and on-farm)encompassed by this role location (Bokemeier and Garkovich, 1987). Pearson (1979)suggests, moreover, that differences in attitudes to farm work and satisfaction levelsamong farm women may be linked directly to the sex role definitions with which theymost closely identify. She argues that even in the masculine occupational world ofagriculture, women can be identified along a masculinity-femininity dimension. The moresatisfied female farmers, in her view, appear to have defined the feminine role toaccommodate behaviours that are necessary and appropriate to farming. Earlysocialisation experiences, and exposure to urban environments where sex roleexpectations are more flexible, seem to be critical factors in generating of sex roleidentities that are compatible with performing ‘men’s’ work.

While the gender identity of male farmers fits their job identity, female farmers haveto confirm their femininity in other ways by keeping a house and caring for children(Brandth and Haugen, 1992).

One way of exploring this issue of self-identity among farm women in the literaturehas been to investigate how they describe their occupation to other people. Rosenfield(1985:245), for example, asked in her survey of farm women what occupation they put ontheir income tax forms. Most of them (60 percent) referred to themselves as wives,mothers, or homemakers. Only five percent replied farm wife, and less than four percentsaid farmer, rancher or producer. Those who held off-farm jobs were more likely to putdown another occupation, usually the one associated with their off-farm work. Rosenfieldconcludes that the majority of farm women identify with traditional women’s roles withinthe family. Furthermore, it is not automatic for women to use the label ‘farmer’ evenwhen they are involved in the work of farming as it conveys the image of a man doing thework.

Two recent New Zealand studies also comment on how farm women refer to theiroccupation. Begg (1991:36) notes that over half the women in her sample describedthemselves as farmers or sharemilkers on the census form. She adds that those “womenwho identified formally as being farmers reported that this was a change in self-perceptionduring their own lives and also a change from the self identities of the women in theirmothers’ generation. Because many younger farm women are now changing their self-identity to that of being a farmer, it would appear that they are deriving more personalgratification in being a farm partner (ibid:36)”. Shaw (1993:29) found that 80 percent (68)of the 85 women from the North Island that she interviewed referred to themselves as

farmers. These women gave a variety of reasons for using this occupational labelincluding ownership of the farm (23 percent), an interest in the farm (30 percent),involvement in decision making (27 percent), and involvement in farm work (83 percent).

Other factors associated with women’s self identity as farmers are the degrees oftheir involvement in the ownership structure, the management practices, and the decisionmaking processes of the farm enterprise. Rivers (1992:24) reports that partnerships inNew Zealand farms have increased from 23 percent in 1975 to 42 percent in 1990. And, ifthe majority of these partnerships are of the husband/wife variety as she assumes, it wouldseem to indicate that women are acquiring a greater share of the legal ownership of farms.Legal ownership of farm holdings by women does not always result in their having agreater involvement in management and decision making, however. Fink (1986:169), forinstance, observes that even where women own land they often lack the means to raisecapital and recruit labour for agricultural production.

A key factor in a farm woman’s participation in decision making is her self-identity.Bokemeier and Garkovich (1987) found that women who described themselves as activeparticipants in the farm operation played a greater role in decision making than womenwho defined their roles in the farm enterprise as homemaker or helper. Taylor andMcCrostie Little (1995: 142) also discovered that the gender division of labour wasreflected in the decision making process of the farm enterprise. Only 15 percent of thecouples in their sample reported shared decision making. Even within this group thenature of the decision making varied; with some women acting as ‘sounding boards’ andothers only being involved with some aspects of the decision making process.

Maunier et al (1985:25) found that sometimes the wives who were engaged in farmwork in their Northland study had a minor role in daily management. They also report thatmajor long-term decisions were closely linked to ownership, but even wives who did notformally have a share in ownership were often involved in those decisions. Furthermore,Grigg (1987) notes that in New Zealand two main factors have encouraged farm womento participate more fully in management decision in recent years. These factors are thechanges in the law that have given women the opportunity to become legal partners withtheir husbands, and the financial pressures arising from the agricultural restructuringprocess of the 1980s.

However, Keating and McCrostie Little (1991:44) discovered that management anddecision making expectations were not symmetrical between younger men and women.Women of the receiving generation were more involved in marketing and financialmanagement than their mothers-in-law had been. Men of the receiving generationexpected to be less involved in these activities than their fathers. While being lessinvolved in management activities than their fathers had been, men of the receivinggeneration did not expect their wives to be more involved. The authors also found thesame to be true of ownership with the women expecting to own significantly more thantheir mothers in law, while their husbands did not expect to own less. Keating andMcCrostie Little consider that these issues may become contentious for receivinggeneration couples whose expectations of business involvement do not appear to becongruent. Issues of Research Methodology

By the early 1980s global institutions like the FAO were recognising that thecontribution of women to agriculture was indeed invisible and as a consequence baselinedata regarding women’s contribution did not exist. Little (1982) reports a meeting she hadwith Dr Finney of the FAO who commented that this lack of baseline data reduced theeffectiveness of the FAO’s programmes of planned rural development and made it

difficult to assess the impacts of those programmes on the farm family. There are several significant issues raised in the literature regarding the research

methodology used to study the farm work of women. Many researchers draw attention to the inadequacy of census data for providing an

accurate assessment of women’s contribution to agricultural production. Hill (1981:69),for instance, found defining the population of farm women in the United States difficultfor two reasons. First, it was unclear how various censuses defined “farming” and howthese different definitions had been applied (e.g. Is a farmer an owner or an owner whoalso operates a farm?). Second, women who farm as partners in kinship units have usuallynot been counted as “farmers”. The US census in all its population counts had neversolved the problem of how to classify women who work with their husbands but are notlisted as owners, or operators, or workers. Therefore women could only be recorded in thecensus as individual participants in agriculture if they were single or a hired worker.

Garcia-Ramon and Canoves (1988) identify another deficiency of official statistics.They report that recent studies in Western Europe indicate that women on farms averageabout two thousand hours of manual labour per capita per year, yet in official statisticswomen are recorded as part-time workers. Garcia-Ramon and Canoves attribute thissituation to the peculiar nature of women’s farm work as both production andreproduction. They note that the Spanish agrarian census also underestimates thecontribution of women’s labour (Garcia-Ramon and Canoves, 1988:264). Finally, theypoint out that women’s labour is not easily measured by conventional economic concepts,and claim that an understanding of its contribution can only be determined by in-depthfield research (ibid:266-267).

The explanatory power of census statistics is also limited. Lyson (1990) used officialstatistics to investigate the increase of women farmers in the United States and NewZealand. He considers that census data cannot enlighten us as to whether the increase ofwomen farmers reflects the creation of new opportunities for women to farm or the factthat women are now beginning to officially acknowledge the work they have been doingon the farm (Lyson 1990:65).

Other writers highlight the shortcomings of research methods that are unable to fullyrecognise the contribution of women to farm work. Conventional economic approachesdefine work as paid employment and this makes it difficult to assess women’scontribution to agricultural production. Anderson (nd:9) observes that “From theperspective of the orthodox theorist, only those activities resulting in the direct productionof goods for the commercial market should be included in the definition of work. Such anarrow definition fails to recognise other forms of work, in particular domestic andunpaid work, as farm labour. This is despite the fact that this work is crucial to themaintenance of the family and the farm.” Furthermore, the varied nature of farm workmakes it difficult to describe the tasks women perform (Anderson, nd:10).

Garcia-Ramon et al (1993) commented on the inadequacies on their own study. Theynoted the difficulty of evaluating and measuring women’s work schedules. Several of thetasks were performed simultaneously and this meant that many hours were counted twice.

On the other hand, Bokemeier and Garkovich (1987), maintain that current researchon farm women fails to adequately address several key issues. First, agriculturalenterprises require different types of farm tasks depending upon factors such as thecommodity, the farm structure, and the season. The nature and amount of women’sparticipation in farm enterprises vary according to these factors, although theserelationships are yet to be specified. Second, family structure, family dynamics, personalbackground, skills and resources may all affect women’s participation in farm tasks and

decision making to an as yet unknown degree. Third, while many researchers havecouched their analyses of farm women’s involvement in the farm enterprise in terms ofwork and family roles, little attention has been given to the social psychological basis ofthose roles. Fourth, the relationship between women’s participation in farm work andtheir involvement in decision making remains poorly specified. Fifth, with fewexceptions the previous research on farm women fails to provide a theoretical frameworkthat allows interpretation of how work and family roles are integrated within the contextof agricultural enterprises.

Some researchers suggest how the contribution of farm women may be moreaccurately assessed. James (1982:317), for instance, identifies a number of factors thatneed to be investigated when studying the role of farm women. These factors includedifferences in farm size, farm type, profitability, and location; brief histories of family andlegal arrangements; the attitudes, goals, and relationships within farm families (includinggender ideologies); the mode of the woman’s relationship with the controlling unit andthe farm; and her association with farming as a way of life. From an analysis of thesefactors, James suggests it is possible to establish patterns of roles and status among farmwomen and seek to explain them in terms of differences in family goals, attitudes,structure, history etc. Inhetveen (1990:114) takes a different approach. She advocatesbiographical methods for collecting information about woman farmers; firstly asinstruments for collecting data, and secondly as approaches to analysing biographies associal constructions.

Part Two – Unwaged Work in Agriculture

Introduction The original focus of this research project was the “Farm work of women”. Recently,

however, it was decided to expand the focus of the project to include the unwaged workof all members of the family engaged in farm tasks. Therefore this review should be readin conjunction with an earlier paper examining the literature regarding the farm work ofwomen that we prepared in October 1994 (McClintock and McCrostie Little, 1994).

This review focuses on the following themes arising from an examination ofoverseas and local studies which discuss the unwaged work of family members inagriculture:• the world economy and unwaged work on family farms;• the nature of unwaged work in New Zealand; and• unwaged work in agriculture.The World Economy and Unwaged Work on Family Farms

The global economy consists of a network of production and exchange relationshipswithin which highly developed capitalist forms of production coexist with traditional non-wage production units. Pressures generated by capitalist competition can maintain or evenrevive non-wage production activities performed by family members for wages lower thanprevailing rates (Baxter and Mann, 1992: 222). Thus subsistence-type agriculture“subsidises” production in the capitalist economy, and this “subsidisatio” betweendifferent modes of production (domestic and capitalist) may even occur across areas thatare in close physical proximity to each other (Wenger and Buck, 1988: 464).

Smith (1984: 65) claims that “nonwage work is becoming more the rule than theexception” in the world economy. She defines nonwage work “as all those forms oflabour that are organized outside of direct formal market control” including housework,petty commodity production, and the petty distribution of goods and services (Smith,1984: 84). She notes that “These activities are ... relatively invisible to capitalistaccounting procedures. ... Their invisibility, rather than being a mere methodologicalproblem for social scientists who have come to rely on official government reports, isessential to their nature. That they are neither recognized by governments nor subject togovernment regulations is a key to their success (ibid:65)”. Smith roughly estimates theproportion of nonwage activities in the world economy as a minimum of 30 percent oftotal labour activities (ibid: 65-66). She maintains that “the prevailing mode ofproduction” occurs through a combination of waged and unwaged work, and argues thatalthough housework and subsistence-sector labour have similar characteristics they have“totally different kinds of labor relations” (ibid:.66).

A recent trend in advanced capitalist countries has been the growth of flexibleproduction arrangements on small scale farms. In some areas of the world certain parts ofthe production process are contracted to family production units to reap the benefits oftheir particular economies of scale, legal status, flexibility, and their ability to producegoods more cheaply than hired labour. (Baxter and Mann, 1992: 223). The unequalstructure of kinship relations enables households engaged in rural petty commodityproduction to reduce costs and flexibly respond to production conditions (ibid: 237).

Under simple commodity production both the ownership of the enterprise and thesupply of labour are combined in the household. Both consumption and production areorganised through kinship rather than market relationships (Friedmann, 1978: 559).Where most production is organised through capitalist relationships, wages and profits

refer to separate classes of people. But where both ownership and labour are combined ina single class these “concepts of wages and profits must be imposed on householdproduction, whether by the producers themselves or by the analyst” (ibid: 560). In thiscase these terms refer to one group of people performing two roles (ibid). Friedmann(1978:562) points out that personal consumption and the net product are “structurallyidentical” under household production as the money remaining after renewal of the meansof production represents “a single sum belonging to the household”. Thus within thehousehold decisions regarding the timing of consumption (immediate or deferred) orexpansion of the enterprise are subjective. So when competition requires the enterprise toexpand the money used is subtracted from the amount potentially available for personalconsumption by the household (ibid).

Where the household experiences conditions of intense competition this flexibility ofpersonal consumption allows members to consume less and work harder to preserve theenterprise. When these efforts are insufficient to preserve their enterprise, however,households may either reduce their productive consumption, which further underminestheir competitive position, or have individual members working for wages outside theenterprise to supplement income (Friedmann, 1978:563).

In a later article Friedmann (1990: 208) discusses the impact of simple commodityproduction on members of the farm household. She comments that family relationshipsare undermined by market forces as men, women, and children calculate “the relativegains” of staying on the farm or entering the labour market. When the farm itself comesunder increasing competitive pressure, the opportunity cost of the obligations ofpatriarchal household production may become increasingly high. Thus “the survival of thefarm may well depend on the ability to invoke familial obligations for women andchildren to participate in labour in the present and for the children to inherit and ensurethe continuity of the farm (ibid)”. While property is recognised as a source ofindependence from the need to be employed by others, it also binds family members tothe family enterprise.

This theme is also addressed by Wenger and Buck (1988). They state “that thecontinuing presence of domestic relations of production (i.e., those involving the unpaidlabour of men, women, and children), even within those areas organized primarily bycapitalist production and after total communities based on the domestic mode havedisappeared is the basis of a socially important, but terminologically inelegant, ‘interstitialdomestic reserve’ of labour (Wenger and Buck, 1988: 465)”. The feature of this unpaidgroup of labourers (usually a minority of the population) is that they move daily betweendifferent modes of production. This daily movement between different modes ofproduction is associated with a specific set of generational and gender roles, and is“interstitial” because it occurs in a context dominated by wage labour and commodityexchange. It occurs when kin, usually women and children, perform agricultural tasksoutside the wage-commodity-capital nexus, and subsidise the wages of other familymembers who sell their labour in the capitalist labour market. Thus heads of farmhouseholds (usually male) participate in the monetary economy, with the rest of the familybeing only partially involved. There are also cases where the wage labourer is female, andother family members perform the subsidisation role (ibid).

Wenger and Buck (1988: 466) also recognise that the unpaid involvement of womenand children in self-provisioning and cash-crop production has special significance inagriculture. The value subsidy provided by their labour benefits commodity wholesalers.The transfer of value in this case not only takes place within a locality but within theboundaries of a small farm. There are three elements to this subsidy: the unpaid labour of

women and children, the wages of family members from external sources which are usedto help meet the costs of cash crop production, and the production of food by familymembers to be consumed directly by the family without any monetary payment to theproducer. Wenger and Buck (1988: 466) maintain that in many localities the return fromthe production of cash crops would be insufficient to reproduce and maintain the requisitelabour without the subsidy from these three sources. They consider that although formalevidence about the participation of women and children in subsistence and cash-cropproduction is limited, there seems to be widespread involvement of these types of familymembers in these activities (Wenger and Buck, 1988: 466-467).The Nature of Unwaged Work in New Zealand

The association of work with earning has had a powerful effect on the way differentactivities are perceived by members of society. The way in which meanings are ascribedto words is not value neutral; rather it is a process whereby value and status are attributedto certain activities, while others are considered worthless or remain invisible. Thedefinition of words such as ‘work’ are also normative, conferring worth not only inpractical terms, but also in moral terms. Women’s ‘unpaid work’ in the house, forinstance, may be considered less worthy and less deserving than ‘paid work’, or it may notbe recognised at all (McKinlay, 1992A: 70). This tendency to value highly certain kindsof work and to downgrade others may also influence the rural community’s perception ofthe ‘unpaid work’ contribution made by women and other members of the extendedfamily to their farm operation.

McKinlay (1992A) has addressed the issue of how the meaning of work has so oftenbeen limited to ‘paid work’, and how the work undertaken in the home and communityhas been unrecognised, a point reinforced by the research of Ann Else (1996), whocontends that work is structured around paid and unpaid (home and community) work.One explanation, McKinlay suggests, is to be found in the assumptions people makeabout roles within the family. She maintains that “from the early years of the twentiethcentury, relationships within the family were increasingly defined in terms of the male‘breadwinner’, with his wife and children as ‘dependants’. The roles of the malebreadwinner and his dependent wife are not value free (McKinlay, 1992A: 70).

McKinlay also discusses the New Zealand pilot time-use study published by theDepartment of Statistics in 1991. This survey found that labour force activities accountfor 15 percent of the time of New Zealanders, domestic activities for 13 percent, and childcare and the care of other dependants one percent, when using conventional measurementmethods. One of the innovations to time-use methods introduced in this survey, however,was a measure of secondary activities. It was recognised that mothers spend a great dealof their time doing household chores as well as caring for children, and when secondaryactivities were added to the analysis, labour force activities accounted for 11 percent oftotal time, domestic work 10 percent, and caring for children and other householdmembers, 11 percent. Thus when other unpaid work activities, such as work in thecommunity were included, unpaid work occupied slightly more of the working time ofNew Zealanders than labour force participation (McKinlay, 1992A: 77). It is clear fromthe results of this survey that gender remains a significant factor which influences whodoes unpaid work. While men predominate in paid work, women perform more of theunpaid work. Unpaid work accounted for 20 percent of a 24 hour day for women and 12percent for men, while paid work accounted for 22 percent of a 24 hour day for men, andonly 8 percent for women (ibid: 77-78). The statistics compiled from the pilot survey areindicative only, but they are generally consistent with patterns in overseas studies (ibid:78).

The last areas of work to be incorporated into the formal sector of the New Zealandeconomy, according to McKinlay (1992B: 126), are the traditional female responsibilitiesof domestic and community work. Women are still mainly responsible for housework andhousehold management as well as for the care of young children and those who are sick ordependent. Voluntary work involves a wide range of service provision outside the home,and ranges from casual assistance to participation in programmes organised by largevoluntary organisations. Also included in the informal sector is the unpaid work of familymembers in small family businesses or on farms (ibid: 126).Unwaged Work in Agriculture

As Keating (1991) has pointed out, recognition of the farming unit requires thecontribution of all members of the family to be acknowledged. She suggests that a generalprinciple for analysts to follow is to recognise the role of both women and men as primaryproducers.

Although there is a growing literature focussing on various aspects of the farm workof women (see McClintock and McCrostie Little 1994), both overseas and local studiesinvestigating the unpaid work of other family members in agriculture are rarecommodities.

Several North American studies address various aspects of unwaged work inagriculture. Strange (1988: 34) explains that children learn to farm through anapprenticeship process in which technical and management skills are learnt during theireveryday work activities on the farm. They are recognised as an asset to the farm and areheld accountable for their actions.

Laband and Lentz (1983: 166), however, suggest that young farm women do notreceive the type of ‘hands-on’ training that young farm men are likely to acquire. Generalfarm skills, such as familiarity with machinery, and farm-specific skills such as how aparticular plot of land responds to weather conditions, are part of the human capital of afarm. If young women do not learn these skills, they will have fewer farm-related skills touse. Therefore, during the early high demand stage of the farm, they may be unable toperform some farm tasks because of lack of skills. Older women either have come toterms with their limitations, or have learned what they need to know through years ofinvolvement in farm activities. Women are furthered handicapped by lack of access toinformal information that is shared by men farmers and by a lack of access to trainingbecause of child-rearing and household duties.

Six of the seven families interviewed by Salamon and Davis-Brown (nd) reportedregular labour contributed by family members. Over the course of several generations thelabour supplied by kin has saved production costs, and a rich oral tradition about financialand farm management has been transmitted from one generation to the next, to ensure thefarm holding remains in the family (Salamon and Davis-Brown, nd: 9-10).

Errington (1988:4) reports that farm families now provide most of the labour input(63 percent) to the agricultural industry in England and Wales. He considers that during aperiod of high unemployment it is likely that farmer’s children who previously wouldhave been employed off the farm may return to the family farm as an ‘employmentrefuge’. And he notes that this phenomenon and the ‘disguised employment’ of familymembers makes the process of measuring the “impact of policy change by monitoringunemployment statistics and measuring farm family incomes” more difficult because“neither group will appear in the published unemployment statistics while many of theformer group and all of the latter will be reducing the per capita farm family income(Errington, 1988: 6)”. Children returning to the farm may be unpaid or paid less than therates for hired labour, and thus their labour contribution could help ensure the survival of

a family farm whose economic viability was marginal.There are only few studies of agricultural work in New Zealand that make any

significant comments about the nature of unwaged labour in our particular context. Noneof these studies specifically investigated this issue; only addressing it in pursuit of a topicof greater interest to the researchers.

Fairweather (1992) analysed agricultural statistics collected by the Dept of Statisticsfor the period 1984-1990. His analysis revealed that the number of unpaid familymembers employed on farms increased from 33,138 to 36,352 persons (an increase of3,214) during this period (Fairweather, 1992: 31). This increase in unpaid family labourwas fairly evenly balanced between men and women and occurred in both full time andpart time (less than 30 hours per week) categories. Male unpaid family membersemployed on farms increased by 9.6 percent and females in the same category by 8.1percent during this period (ibid: 32-33). According to Fairweather (1992:34) thesignificant change in the family labour component is “the growing presence of women asfull-time working owners and unpaid members of family”.

While Fairweather’s study provides a brief description of the national trends inagricultural employment over the past few years, the data available about the nature ofunpaid work at the individual farm level is even sparser.

Kaplan (1979), for instance, conducted a study of 38 farms in the Mangamahu Valleynear Wanganui during the late 1970s. He found that sons of the owners received between$40 and $100 per week before tax for wages, while workers earned between $65 and$130, and the wages of managers ranged between $100 and $140 per week. Almost all ofthe owners’ sons received free board and lodging, and those few living in a separatedwelling received free meat, telephone, firewood, electricity etc. Some of them were alsogiven petrol or the use of farm and family vehicles for recreational use (Kaplan, 1979:60).

In the late 1980s Benediktsson et al. (1990) investigated the participation of RaglanCounty farm households in the labour force. They discovered that the basic work teamson most farms consisted of the farmer and his/her spouse with some assistance from theirchildren. The contribution of the younger children usually arose from an extension of theirplay activities (Benediktsson et al., 1990: 39). At the beginning of the decade one-third ofthe farms employed permanent non-family labour, but by 1989 only one-tenth of them hadpermanent employees. While total inputs of labour to farm production decreased duringthis period, much of the shortfall was supplied by family labour (ibid:77).

Keating and McCrostie Little (1994), in a study of farm succession and retirementpractices among farm families in the South Island, report some findings about the labourcontribution of older men. They found that men expect to continue to contribute somefarm labour until their seventies, although the proportion of work they expect to beperform averages less than 10 percent of all of the work on the farm. Retiring generationmen aged 41-45, for example, provided from five percent to as much as 100 percent of thelabour. Yet it does appear that men’s contribution of labour narrows with age, eventhough some men aged 71-75 expect to be doing 30 percent of the farm work (Keatingand McCrostie Little, 1994: 35-36).

A recent study by Taylor and McCrostie Little (in press), which focussed on off-farmemployment, also discovered that various family members made significant labourcontributions to the operations of the farm. Seventeen couples (of the 60 interviewed)reported that the extended family - parents, grandparents and siblings - provided labourduring the early phase of their farm careers. This assistance was not only provided bymale kin, although the help of mothers and sisters was usually confined to the domestic

sphere (Taylor and McCrostie, in press: 109). Several couples also reported that membersof their family ‘minded the farm’ so they could take a holiday. Sixteen couples, however,had noticed a decrease in the level of assistance they received from members of theextended family as a result of the ageing and/or decease of their parents (ibid: 110).

ConclusionContemporary research into farm work lacks data about the total labour input to farm

and household. The central issue, should not be whether the work was paid or unpaid, butrather the analysis of labour on farms, taking into account the work of farm men andwomen, their children, their extended family, and non-family members.

References CitedAlston, M (1991) Womens Place in the Future of Agriculture; in Alston, M (ed.) Family

Farming in Australia and New Zealand Centre for Rural Research; Wagga Wagga: 93-100.

Anderson, Diane M (1992) ‘Unrecognised and Undervalued: Farm Women’s WorkRoles”; unpublished Research Essay for BA (Hons); University of Otago; Dunedin.

Anderson, Diane M (1993) ‘The Gender Division of Domestic Household Labour onFamily Farms’ unpublished MA Thesis, University of Otago, Dunedin.

Austrin, Terry (1994) Work; in Spoonley P, Pearson D and Shirley I (eds) New ZealandSociety: A Sociological Introduction (2nd ed) Dunmore Press; Palmerston North: 237-252.

Baxter, Vern and Mann, Susan (1992) The Survival and Revival of Non-Wage Labour ina Global Economy Sociologia Ruralis 32(2/3):231-247.

Begg, Margaret (1991) ‘Dairy Farm Women’ in Fairweather, John (ed.) Proceedings ofthe Rural Economy and Society Section of the Sociological Association of Aotearoa(NZ) Discussion Paper No.129, AERU, Lincoln College, Canterbury: 27-39.

Benediktsson, Karl; Manning, Sarah; Moran, Warren; and Anderson, Grant (1990)Participation of Raglan County Households in the Labour Force OccasionalPublication No. 27, Department of Geography, University of Auckland, Auckland.

Berkowitz, Alan D and Perkins, H Wesley (1984) ‘Stress among farm women: Work andfamily interacting systems’ Departments of Psychology, Anthropology and Sociology;Hobart and William Smith Colleges Geneva, NY.

Bokemeier, Janet and Garkovich, Lorraine (1987) ‘Assessing the Influence of FarmWomen’s Identity on Task Allocation and Decision Making’ Rural Sociology52(1):15-56.

Bouquet, M (1982) ‘Production and Reproduction of Family Farms in South-WestEngland’ Sociologia Ruralis 22(3/4):227-244.

Brandth, Berit and Haugen, Marit (1992) ‘Gender Differences in Modern Agriculture’paper presented to the 7th World Congress of Rural Sociology August 1992.

Cloud, Kathleen (1988) ‘Farm Women and the Structural Transformation of Agriculture:A Cross-Cultural Perspective’ in Haney W G and Knowles, J B (eds.) Women andFarming: Changing Roles, Changing Structures Westview Press Boulder andLondon:281-299.

Coughenour, C M and Swanson, L (1983) ‘Work Status and Occupations of Men andWomen in Farm Families and the Structure of Farms’ Rural Sociology 48(1):23-43.

Darque, Martin B (1988) ‘The Division of Labour and Decision-making in FarmingCouples: Power and Negotiation’ Sociologia Ruralis 28(4):271-292.

de Vries, Wilma (1990) ‘Pluriactivity and changing household relations in the Land vanMass en Waal, The Netherlands’ Journal of Rural Studies 6(4);423-428.

Elbert, Sarah (1988) ‘Women and Farming: Changing Structures, Changing Roles’ inHaney W G and Knowles, J B (eds.) Women and Farming: Changing Roles,Changing Structures; Westview Press Boulder and London: 245-264.

Else, Ann (1996) False Economy Tandem Press, North Shore City.Errington, Andrew (1988) ‘Disguised Unemployment in British Agriculture’ Journal of

Rural Studies 4(1):1-7.Fairweather, John (1992) Agrarian Restructuring in New Zealand Research Report No.

213 Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit; Lincoln University.Fairweather, John R and Gilmore, Soraiya (1993) Farming in Hurunui and Clutha

Counties: current attitudes and practices compared to survey results in 1986 ResearchReport No.219 Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit; Lincoln University.

Fink, Deborah (1986) ‘Open Country, Iowa: Rural Women, Tradition and Change’ StateUniversity of New York Press, Ithaca.

Fink, Deborah (1988) ‘Sidelines and Moral Capital: Women on Nebraska Farms’ inHaney W G and Knowles, J B (eds.) Women and Farming: Changing Roles, ChangingStructures Westview Press; Boulder and London:55-70.

Friedmann, Harriet (1978) ‘World Market, State and the Family Farm: Social Bases ofHousehold Production in the era of Wage Labour’ Comparative Studies in Society andHistory 20(4):545-586.

Friedmann, Harriet (1990) ‘Family Wheat Farms and Third World Diets: A ParadoxicalRelationship between Unwaged and Waged Labor’ in Collins, Jane L and Gimenez,Martha (eds.) Work Without Wages: Domestic Labor and Self-Employment withinCapitalism State University of New York Press; Albany. pp.193-213.

Garcia-Ramon, M D and Canoves G (1988) ‘The Role of Women on the Family Farm:The case of Catalonia’ Sociologia Ruralis 28(4): 263-270.

Garcia-Ramon, M; Vilarino, M; Baylina, M; and Canoves, G (1993) ‘Farm Women,Gender Relations, and Household Strategies on the Coast of Galacia’ Geoforum 24 (1):5-17.

Garkovich, Lorraine and Bokemeier, Janet (1988) ‘Agricultural Mechanization andAmerican Farm Women’s Economic Roles’ in Haney W G and Knowles, J B (eds.)Women and Farming: Changing Roles, Changing Structures Westview Press; Boulderand London:211-228.

Gasson, Ruth (1980) ‘Roles of farm women in England’ Sociologia Ruralis 20(3/4):129-180.

Gasson, Ruth (1992) ‘Farmer’s Wives - Their Contributions to the Farm Business’Journal of Agricultural Economics 43:74-87.

Gasson, Ruth and Winter, Michael (1992) ‘Gender Relations and Farm HouseholdPluriactivity’ Journal of Rural Studies 8(4):387-392.

Grigg, R (1987) ‘A woman farmer’s perspective’ in Wallace, L T and Lattimore, R (eds.)Rural New Zealand- What Next? Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit, LincolnCollege.

Hill, Francis (1981) ‘Farm Women and Vocational Education’ in Rosenfield, S (ed.)Brake Shoes, Backhoes, and Balance Sheets - The Changing Vocational Education ofRural Women Rural American Women Inc Washington DC:67-92.

Inhetveen, Heide (1990) ‘Biographical approaches to research on women farmers’Sociologia Ruralis 30(1):100-114.

James, Kerry (1982) ‘Women on Australian Farms: A Conceptual Scheme’ TheAustralian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology 18(3):302-319.

Kaplan, Paul F (1979) Social Aspects of Productivity: Hill Country Sheep-Beef Farms inthe Mangamahu Valley Department of Sociology Massey University Palmerston North.

Keating, Norah (1991) ‘The Future of the Farm family in Prairie AgriculturalCommunities’ in Martin, J (ed) Alternative Futures for Prairie AgriculturalCommunities University of Alberta Extension Press, Edmonton.

Keating, N C and McCrostie Little, H (1991) Generations in farm families: transfer of thefamily farm in New Zealand Research Report No. 208 Agribusiness and EconomicsResearch Unit Lincoln University.

Keating, N C and McCrostie Little, H (1994) Retirement and Succession in FarmFamilies in New Zealand (South Island) MAF Policy Technical Paper 94/7 Ministry of

Agriculture and Fisheries Wellington.Keating, Norah and Munro, Brenda (1988) ‘Farm Women/Farm Work’ Sex Roles 19(3/4):155-168.Laband, D L and Lentz, B F (1983); ‘Occupational Inheritance in Agriculture’ American

Agricultural Economics Association 65:311-314.Lasley, Paul and Fellows, Jaqueline (1990) Farm Family Adaptations to Severe Economic

Stress: Regional Summary, RRD 154, North Central Regional Center for RuralDevelopment, Iowa State University, Ames.

Le Heron, R; Roche, M; Johnston, T; and Bowler, S (1991) ‘Pluriactivity in NewZealand’s Agro-Commodity Chains’; in Fairweather, J (ed.), Proceedings of the RuralEconomy and Society Section of the Sociological Association of Aotearoa (NZ)Discussion Paper No.129, Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit; LincolnUniversity, Canterbury.

Little, Heather McCrostie (1982) unpublished report to the New Zealand PlanningCouncil.

Little, Heather McCrostie and Taylor, C N (1998) Farm Succession MAF PolicyTechnical Paper 97/4.

Little, J (1987) ‘Gender Relations in Rural Areas: The Importance of Women’s DomesticRoles’ Journal of Rural Studies 3:335-342.

Lloyd, David W (1974) ‘A Preliminary Review of Rural Social Conditions with particularreference to the Manpower Position on Farms’ Report prepared for the AgriculturalProduction Council, Wellington.

Lyson, Thomas A (1990) ‘A Note on the Increase of Female Farmers in the United Statesand New Zealand’ The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology 26(1):59-67.

Maunier Patricia, Moran Warren, Anderson A Grant (1985) Dairy Farming and Land UseChange in Northland Occasional Publication No.18, Department of Geography,University of Auckland.

McKinlay, Robin (1992A) ‘Women and Unpaid Work’ in Briar, C; Munford, R and Nash,M (eds.) Superwoman Where Are You Dunmore Press Palmerston North.

McKinlay, Robin (1992B) ‘Women in the Informal Sector in New Zealand: A case for aTime Use Survey’ paper presented to meeting of the International Network forResearch and Action on the role of Women in the Informal Sector, Indonesia, 2-5November 1992 United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation.

McKinnon, N; Bryden, J M; Bell, C; Fuller, A M; and Spearman, M (1991) ‘Pluriactivity,Structural Change and Farm Household Vulnerability in Western Europe’ SociologiaRuralis 31 (1):58-71.

McMath, M (1991) ‘Socialisation’ in Park, J (ed.) Ladies a Plate - Change and continuityin the Lives of New Zealand Women Auckland University Press Auckland: 35-59.

Moran, Warren; Blunden, Greg; and Greenwood, Julie (1992) ‘The role of FamilyFarming in Agrarian Change’ Department of Geography University of Auckland.

Pahl, R E (1984) Divisions of Labour Basil Blackwell Ltd, Oxford.Pearson, J (1979) ‘Note on Female Farmers’ Rural Sociology 44(1):189-200.Picchio, Antonella (1992) Social reproduction: The political economy of the labour

market Cambridge University Press Cambridge.Pomeroy, Ann (1986) ‘A sociological analysis of structural change in pastoral farming in

New Zealand’ PhD Thesis, Department of Sociology, University of Essex.Pomeroy, Ann (1988) ‘The Politics of Inequality: Farming Women’ Paper presented to

the Annual Conference of the Sociological Association of Australia and New ZealandCanberra 1988.

Pomeroy, Ann (1993) ‘The Contribution of Women to the Rural Economy’ Paper

presented to the Rural Women Stepping Out Conference Lincoln University.Redcliff, Nanneke and Whatmore, Sarah (1990) ‘Household, Consumption and Livelihood: Ideologies

and Issues in Rural Research’ in Terry Marsden, Philip Lowe, Sarah Whatmore (eds.) RuralRestructuring: Global Processes and their Responses David Fulton Publishers London: 182-197.

Reimer, Bill (1986) ‘Women as Farm Labour’ Rural Sociology 51(2):143-155.Rivers, Mary-Jane (1992) The Contribution of Women to the Rural Economy: Scoping

Report MAF Policy Technical Paper 92/4 Ministry of Agriculture and FisheriesWellington.

Rosenfield, Rachel Ann (1985) ‘Farm Women, Work, Farm, and Family in the UnitedStates’ University of South Carolina Press Chapel Hill and London.

Salamon, S and Davis-Brown nd ‘Middle-Range Farmers Persisting Through theAgricultural Crisis’ Department of Human Development and Family EcologyUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Saupe, William E and Eisenhauer, Janet (1990) Family Farm Adaptations to SevereEconomic Distress Wisconsin, RRD 154-12, North Central Regional Center for RuralDevelopment, Iowa State University, Ames.

Shaw, Deirdre (1993) ‘The work of farming women’ MA Thesis in Politics University ofWaikato.

Shortall, S (1992) ‘Power Analysis and Farm Wives: An Empirical Study of PowerRelationships Affecting Women on Irish Farms’ Sociologia Ruralis 32(4):431-451.

Smith, Joan (1984) ‘Nonwage Labor and Subsistence’ in Smith, Joan; Wallerstein,Immanuel; and Evers, Hans-Dieter (eds.) Households and the World Economy SagePublications: Beverly Hills/London/New Delhi pp.64-89.

Strange, Marty (1988) Family Farming: A New Economic Vision University of Nebraska.Symes, David G and Marsden, Terry K (1983) ‘Complementary Roles and Asymmetrical

Lives: Farmers’ Wives in a Large Farm Environment’ Sociologia Ruralis Vol. XXXIII3/4: 229-241.

Taylor, C N and Little, H McCrostie (1995) ‘Means of Survival: a study of off-farmemployment in New Zealand’ Taylor Baines and Associates, Christchurch.

Taylor, C Nicholas; Little, H McCrostie and McLintock, W (1997) Entreprenuership inNew Zealand Farming: A Study of Alternative Enterprises on Farms MAF PolicyTechnical Paper 97/7, Ministry of Agriculture, Wellington.

Taylor Baines (1996) ‘Rabbit and Land Management Programme Social and InstitutionalMonitoring, End of Programme Evaluation’ Research Report to Ministry ofAgriculture.

Walton, Valerie (1991) ‘Women’s economic contribution to the farm’ in Fairweather, J(ed.) Proceedings of the Rural Economy and Society section of the SociologicalAssociation of Aotearoa (NZ) Discussion Paper No.129, Agribusiness and EconomicResearch Unit: Lincoln University:19-26.

Wenger, Morton G and Buck Pem Davison (1988) ‘Farms, Families, and Super-exploitation: An Integrative Reappraisal’ Rural Sociology 53(4):460-472.

Whatmore, Sarah (1991) ‘Life Cycle or Patriarchy? Gender Divisions in Family Farming’Journal of Rural Studies 7(1/2):71-76.

Appendix 2: Study Exploring Farm Family Labour Scoping Questionnaire

Section A: Farm Enterprise (Principal farm operator to answer1)

A.1 Type of farm

Tick Comments

SheepBeefMixed stockCroppingMixed croppingStud ...................Other ...................Include all farm enterprises, small, medium or major

A.2 Size of farm (effective area)

(a) Main farm ............................... (ha)

(b) Other farms ............................... (ha)

A.3 Farm operation

PartnershipSole ProprietorCompanyTrustOther................

A.4 Composition of ownership(give proportions, e.g. husband 75%, wife 15%, son 10%, father, other relative, or

other)

Land: .......................................................................................................

Stock: .......................................................................................................

Plant: .......................................................................................................

A.5 Length of ownership

Years operated ..............

A.6 Farming Experience of Principal Farm Operator (interviewee)

(a) Who is\are the principal farm operator\s ...........................................

(b) If more than one, who is responding to thisinterview

...........................................

(c) Years of farming experience ...........................................

(d) Works fulltime on farm (Y\N)

(e) Usual hours per week ...........................................

(f) If part-time, usual times of day\week ...........................................

A.7 Farm Income

(a) Total Gross Farm Income (1995/96) $....................

(b) Total Before Tax Surplus (1995/96) $....................

A.8 Non-farm Income

(a) Off-farm employment income 1995\96

Male Female

Type of work

Total income (before tax)

(b) Non-agricultural enterprise income 1995\96

Male Female

Type of enterprise

Total income

A.9 Liabilities

Long Term Liabilities at 31.3.96 $ ........................

A.10 Total Assets at 31.3.1996

(a) Total assets (estimate incl Buildings: Land: Plant: Vehicles) $ ........................

(b) Latest Govt Valuation $ ........................

A.11 Household Drawings

(a) 1995\96 $ ........................A.12 Full Time Paid Employees (does not include principal operator or familymembers)

(a) Numbers (No. Male ......., No. Female ........)

(b) Usual tasks performed:

Male employees

Female employees

A.13 Part Time Paid Employees (less than 30 hours/week) (does not includeprincipal operator or family members)

(a) Numbers (No. Male ......., No. Female ........)

(b) Usual tasks performed:

Male employees

Female employees

A.14 Casual and Seasonal Paid Employees and Contractors

(a) Numbers (No. Male ......., No. Female ........)

(b) Usual tasks performed:

Male employees

Female employees

A.15 Contractors

(a) males yes\no females yes\no

(b) Usual tasks performed:

A.16 Change in Paid Employment

Has the amount and type of paid employment changed on this farm in the last tenyears

Yes No

Comment:

Section B: Farm Household (Principal farm operator and/or partner tocomplete)

Principal farm operator

B.1 AgeB.2 SexB.3 Secondary EducationB.4 Tertiary Education2

Note, if no spouse\partner go to B.11, if no children either, go to Section C

Spouse\secondary farm operator

B.5 AgeB.6 SexB.7 Secondary EducationB.8 Tertiary EducationB.9 Date of Marriage

B.10 Other Farm Household/s

(a) Are there any other households involved in the farm business Yes\No

(b) If yes, describe

B.11 Farm Work of Spouse/Secondary Farm Operator (Include any householdwork e.g. cooking, clerical, washing, that it is considered supports the farm)

(a) Which of the following tasks are done (on the farm or in the house)

(b) What equipment is used on the farm

(c) Which tasks are preferred

(d) Which tasks are disliked

(e) Estimate usual hours per week in total on all related farm work

(f) Usual time during the day\week

(g) Is the work seasonal Yes\No

(h) If yes, describe

(i) Do you receive any renumeration for work on the farm ($ & in kind)

Money Yes\No In kind Yes\No

(j) If yes (to either money or kind), describe

(k) How has your work changed with your life\farm cycle (Children, OFE, NAG, etc)

B.12 Household Work of Spouse/Principal Farm Operator (Include allhousehold work, e.g. cooking, clerical, washing)

(a) Which of the following tasks are done in the house

(b) What equipment is used in the house work

(c) Which tasks are preferred

(d) Which tasks are disliked?

(e) Estimate usual hours per week in total on all household work

(f) Usual time during the day\week

(g) Is the work seasonal Yes\No

(h) If yes, describe

(i) Do you receive any renumeration for work in the household ($ & in kind)

Money Yes\No In kind Yes\No

(j) If yes (to either money or kind), describe

(k) How has your work changed with your life\farm cycle (Children, OFE, NAG, etc)

B.13 Children

Child 1 Child 2 Child 3 Child 4 Child 5

(a) Age

(b) Sex

(c) School Education

(d) Tertiary Education

(e) Living at Home(yes or no)

Note: current or highest level of education as appropriate — use P/S and (b) for boardingB.14 Farm Role of

(a) Do any of the children have a farm role Yes No

(b) If yes, describe their tasks and whether there is any remuneration in cash or kind(fill in the child no. as corresponding to above)

Child No. .............. Usual hours per week ..............

Tasks

Remuneration (cash or kind)

Child No. .............. Usual hours per week ..............

Tasks

Remuneration (cash or kind)

Child No. .............. Usual hours per week ..............

Tasks

Remuneration (cash or kind)

Section C: Work of Other Family Member

This section should only be completed for a family member who is neither the spouse northe children resident on the farm of the principal farm operator (i.e. includes those livingoff farm). If there is no such person, go to Section D. Use additional sheets if necessary.

Other family member

C.1 Relationship to Principal Farm OperatorC.2 AgeC.3 SexC.4 Tertiary EducationC.5 Usual OccupationC.6 Usual ResidenceC.7 Does this person have a farming

background?

C.8 Farm Work of Other Family Member

(a) Which of the following tasks are done, equipment used

(b) Estimate usual hours per week ..............

(c) Usual time\s during the day\week

(d) Seasonal: Yes No If yes, describe

(e) Is there any renumeration for this work on the farm?

Money: Yes No In Kind: Yes No

(f) if yes (either), describeSection D: Unwaged Non-Family Worker

This section should only be completed for an unwaged, non-family worker. If there is nosuch person, go to Section E. Use additional sheets if necessary.

Other non-family workerD.1 Social Relationship to Principal

Farm OperatorD.2 AgeD.3 SexD.4 Usual OccupationD.5 Does this person have a farming

background?

D.7 Farm Work of Unwaged Non-Family Member

(a) Which of the following tasks are done, equipment used

(b) Estimate usual hours per week ..............

(c) Usual time\s during the day\week

(d) Seasonal: Yes No If yes, describe

(e) Is there any renumeration for this work on the farm?

Money: Yes No In Kind: Yes No

(f) If yes (either), describe

(g) Is there any reciprocation by way of labour or machinery? Yes No

(h) If yes, describe

Section E: Further Information on the Farm Enterprise

E.1 Other Contributions to the Farm Enterprise

Apart from labour, what other contributions are or have been made to the farm enterpriseby the above (spouse\partner, children, other family members, non-family members)?

Note: possibilities might include finance\assets, equipment, skills and knowledge, etc.

(a) Contribution by spouse\partner

(b) Contribution by children

(c) Contribution by other family members

(d) Contribution by others (describe)

(e) Were there differences of opinion between principal operator and spouse inanswering this Question? Yes No

If yes, decribe

E.2 Participation in Decision Making and Management of the FarmEnterprise (not Principal Operator)

Complete box: (a) Major, (b) Minor, (c) Shared, (d) None, or NAProduction Marketing

Financial

Spouse\partner

Children

Other familymember(describe)

Non-familymember(describe)

E.3 New Technology

What new technology has been acquired for farm or household that affects the workcontribution to the farm of:

(a) principal farm operator

(b) spouse\partner

(c) children

(d) any paid workers

(e) any paid workers

E.4 Stress Arising from Role Conflict Between Farm Enterprise and OtherRoles

Do the following experience any stress from suchconflict:

Yes\No

(a) principal farm operator

(b) partner or spouse of principal farmop. (if applicable)

(c) children (if applicable)

(d) other family member (if applicable)

(e) non-family member (if applicable)

(f) Comments (key stressor, for who —use letter)?

E.5 Importance of Work Contributions to Farm (for Major Operator)

Rank importance (Very important, Important, Unimportant) of the work contributionof the following to the:

farm business household

(a) partner\spouse

(b) children

(c) other familymember\s

(d) non-familymembers\s

(e) note any commentson workcontributions

Section F: Rural Community (Females only, i.e., female principal farm operatoror female spouse\partner)

F.1 How Long Have You Resided in this Community?

Number of years

F.2 How do You see Present Community Attitudes to Women Doing FarmWork?

A = strongly in favourB = in favourC = neutral\indifferentD = resistant

E = strongly resistant

In general

Of neighbouring farm males

Of neighbouring farm females

Of stock & station agents

Of agricultural contractors

Of farm consultants

Of accountant

Of bank manager

F.3 Changes in Attitudes

(a) Since you started farming, have you found community attitudes to women doingfarm work generally are (tick):

More positive

More negative

Unchanged

(b) Comments on women in farming:

Male

Female

1 Identify this person or persons now as there has to be one at the interview.2 Includes courses of three months or moreYes\No — if yes, describe

Yes\No — if yes, describe

Appendix 3: Comments - A Proposed National Survey of Farm WorkThe main field research would comprise interviews with farm couples, and take

place in three phases.Phase One

The questionnaire would be developed, piloted and finalised during this initialresearch phase.

The sample would be selected. It is likely to be stratified, with respondents selected

at random from a number of study areas. Several study areas are envisaged, in order tocover a range of predominant farm types, and types of rural locale. Some of the studyareas should be in the North Island, and at least one should be a dairying area. Smallfarms and lifestyle blocks would be excluded.Phase Two

Given a random sample of farms and the experience of the scoping study, the mostfeasible approach would appear to be an interview in person with the major farm operatorand spouse/partner wherever possible. This approach has been a major influence on thedesign of the scoping questionnaire and has been successful in other studies by theauthors.

The approach will require the use of trained interviewers, drawn through anorganisation such as Federated Farmers. The complexity of the questionnaire will belimited by this approach, and the numbers it is hoped to sample. It is expected that at least300 interviews would be conducted nationally.

In order to obtain some triangulation of data, a number of semi-structured interviewswill be conducted in each study area by the principal researchers. These interviews willinclude farm consultants, accountants, other farm service organisations, and ruralcommunity women and men. There will be a particular focus on changes in the nature offarm work.Phase Three - Feedback (facilitation) and reporting

A summary report would be prepared for circulation to respondents and othersinterested in the research, followed by small workshops or discussion groups in the studyareas.

The final report would then be prepared.Methodology issues

There was no evidence from the scoping interviews that there would be benefitsinterviewing family members separately. Indeed there are also benefits from the A“chemistry” of interviewing couples together. Triangulation though qualitative interviewswith individuals, male and female, would provide additional data in the next phase ofwork.

There is a need to distinguish between major farm types, particularly sheep-beef,cropping, dairy and horticulture - as the culture/farming system is substantially differentbetween them.

The research shows the strong influence of family life cycle on patterns of work,confirming the results of our previous research. So a national survey will need to bestratified to cover a range of ages – i.e., people in different phases of their farm-familycycle.

There should be comparisons with non-farm rural businesses and urban familybusinesses, but this could be a later phase of work or would suit a comparative study.