Table of Contents-
Introduction: Farming and Society – A Symbiotic Relationship
Farming is more than just the act of growing crops and raising livestock; it’s deeply intertwined with society, shaping the way we live and affecting many aspects of life, both positively and negatively. How we organize farming can impact the environment, economy, employment, and even our communities. Conversely, the laws, social expectations, and policies around us also influence how agriculture evolves. This article delves into how farming influences society and vice versa, offering insights into strategies to create a more balanced and efficient agricultural system.
Section 1: External Effects of Farming – The Good and the Bad
Farming practices ripple through society, leaving behind what are known as externalities. These can be both positive and negative. For example, sustainable farming methods can enhance biodiversity and contribute to better food quality. On the flip side, poor water management or excessive chemical use can harm ecosystems.
Actionable Tip: Focus on water and energy efficiency in farming practices to minimize negative environmental impacts. Explore technologies or farming methods that optimize resource use, such as drip irrigation or crop rotation.
Section 2: The Push-Pull of Agricultural Economics
The organization of agriculture also plays a massive role in how resources like land and water are managed. Mega-farms often consume these resources in bulk, leading to “land grabbing” or “water grabbing,” which can squeeze smaller farms out of the market. This is part of what’s referred to as the “agricultural treadmill” – a cycle where small farms struggle to compete with large, capital-heavy operations.
Actionable Tip: Farmers can combat the “treadmill” effect by collaborating on cooperative farming models or implementing cost-effective, eco-friendly practices that don’t require large-scale capital investment.
Section 3: Endogenous Solutions vs. Technological Fixes
Typically, when problems in agriculture arise, governments and industries seek exogenous solutions like new technology, regulations, or market interventions. However, these top-down approaches can be costly and unsustainable for small farms. There’s a growing movement towards endogenous solutions—those that come from within the farming system itself, such as better manure management or optimized feeding practices that reduce emissions naturally.
Actionable Tip: Instead of rushing to adopt expensive technology, consider reorganizing farming practices. Simple changes like adjusting feed or rotating crops can have a big impact without requiring large financial investments.
Section 4: Recognizing and Tackling Agricultural Problems
When addressing farming challenges, it’s essential to understand whether they stem from a widespread issue or are unique to certain farms. This requires gathering data on farming practices and analyzing trends to determine which areas need attention. Collaboration among farmers can help reveal valuable insights and solutions that aren’t immediately apparent.
Actionable Tip: Before investing in new technology, assess the unique challenges of your farm. Work with other local farmers to compare practices and share knowledge—solutions may lie in small-scale, collective innovation rather than one-size-fits-all tech fixes.
Section 5: Action Research and Collaborative Farming Innovation
Innovative farming can start at the grassroots level through action research—experiments conducted by farmers to test new methods and share the results with the wider community. These “field laboratories” are vital in creating scalable solutions that can address both environmental and economic challenges within agriculture.
Actionable Tip: Organize community action research projects to test new farming techniques. Engage local farmers, share results widely, and push for policy changes that support innovative, sustainable farming solutions.
Conclusion: Key Takeaways for Sustainable Farming
- Agriculture’s organization impacts society: Farming can shape environmental quality, resource management, and the economy.
- Focus on internal solutions: Before adopting expensive tech, explore improvements from within the farming process.
- Collaborate and innovate: Group farming experiments can lead to widespread solutions, benefiting small farms.
- Tackle problems with data: Recognize patterns in farm practices to find targeted solutions.
- Action research can lead to change: Innovative experiments by farmers can push policy and industry towards better practices.
Infographic Summary for Canva:
- Farming Shapes Society: Positive and negative external effects.
- The Agricultural Treadmill: Balancing small farms vs. large-scale operations.
- Endogenous Solutions: Simple farm practices over expensive technologies.
- Action Research: Small farms collaborating for innovative solutions.
- Key Focus Areas: Water efficiency, biodiversity, and reducing emissions naturally.
The Interplay of Farming, Society, and Capital: Unlocking Sustainable Agricultural Practices
Farming has always been intertwined with society, impacting our environment, economy, and communities in both positive and negative ways. The choices farmers make not only shape their own livelihoods but also ripple through society—affecting everything from water use to biodiversity and energy consumption. On the flip side, society’s norms, legislation, and technological advancements also guide and sometimes constrain how farming evolves. By understanding this two-way street, we can explore how changes in farming practices can address larger societal challenges.
Let’s break down some key insights into how farming impacts society and vice versa, and look at a few techniques that can make agriculture more sustainable and productive.
1. Farming and its Externalities: Positive and Negative Impacts
When farming is reorganized or shifts focus, its effects—referred to as externalities—can either benefit or harm society. Some changes, like promoting biodiversity or reducing fossil fuel use, are positive. Others, like overusing water resources or generating excess waste, create negative externalities.
By identifying these externalities, we can make informed decisions about farming practices to ensure that positive effects outweigh the negatives.
Actionable Tip:
- Focus on enhancing positive externalities, such as improving water use efficiency or promoting biodiversity. Adjustments in crop rotation, manure management, and water-saving irrigation techniques can make a big difference.
2. Water Use: Efficiency vs. Scarcity
Water is a crucial resource in agriculture, but how it’s used can vary dramatically between farming systems. For instance, in the Northern Frisian Woodlands (NFW), farmers proposed an innovative solution by improving manure quality, which ultimately reduced water wastage and nutrient runoff. Their traditional method of surface applying manure was met with resistance, but by changing how they fed cattle and applied manure, they created a more balanced and efficient water use system.
Similarly, in Portugal, a study found that traditional agro-pastoral systems efficiently matched water supply and demand by using natural irrigation cycles. In contrast, modern high-tech milk production created water scarcity by over-relying on water-hungry crops like maize during dry seasons.
Actionable Tip:
- Where possible, integrate water-efficient techniques such as rainwater harvesting, natural irrigation, and improving soil health to retain more moisture. This can help balance supply with demand, especially in water-scarce regions.
3. Energy Use in Farming: The Shift from Net Producers to Net Consumers
Over time, agriculture has shifted from being a net producer of energy to a net consumer. The more modern and mechanized the farming system, the greater the reliance on fossil fuels. For instance, in the Netherlands, fossil energy use in agriculture grew significantly between 1950 and 2015. Peasant-based agriculture was efficient in energy usage, while modern entrepreneurial farming, with its heavy use of machinery, fertilizers, and external inputs, consumed much more energy.
In contrast, when compared to China, Dutch dairy farming consumed more energy per unit of milk produced, although it required less labor. This comparison highlights that there are alternative, more energy-efficient ways of farming, some of which may require rethinking labor practices and energy inputs.
Actionable Tip:
- To reduce energy consumption, consider switching to renewable energy sources like solar or wind power for farm operations, and reduce reliance on external inputs by promoting practices like composting or precision agriculture.
4. Biodiversity and Landscape Management: A Delicate Balance
The way landscapes are managed and the level of biodiversity in farming areas are key non-economic aspects of farming. When farming practices are focused solely on maximizing output, they can degrade the environment and reduce biodiversity. However, by carefully integrating farming with natural ecosystems, farmers can maintain productivity while supporting wildlife and natural processes.
For example, traditional agro-pastoral systems that integrate livestock with crop farming create habitats for various species and improve soil health, enhancing both biodiversity and productivity.
Actionable Tip:
- Encourage biodiversity by planting hedgerows, preserving wetlands, or rotating crops. These practices support beneficial insects, birds, and other wildlife, which in turn can improve yields and reduce pests.
5. The Agricultural Treadmill: Dependency on Capital and Technology
Many farmers find themselves caught on what’s called the “agricultural treadmill.” As they adopt new technologies and methods, they often become more dependent on external inputs—capital, machinery, and chemicals—leading to increased costs and decreased control over their operations. Large farms tend to benefit most from this system, while smaller farms struggle to keep up.
Actionable Tip:
- Avoid over-reliance on expensive external inputs by exploring alternative methods like agroecology, which focuses on natural processes and cycles. Scaling down capital-intensive practices can reduce costs and improve resilience.
Conclusion: Key Takeaways for Sustainable Farming
Understanding how farming interacts with society is crucial for building a more sustainable agricultural future. By making mindful changes to practices, farmers can balance productivity with environmental stewardship and social responsibility. Here’s a summary of actionable points:
- Water Use Efficiency: Use smart irrigation and improve soil health to balance water supply and demand.
- Energy Consumption: Transition to renewable energy and reduce fossil fuel dependence.
- Biodiversity: Promote natural habitats and crop diversity to enhance ecosystem services.
- Positive Externalities: Focus on practices that create positive societal impacts like reducing pollution or enhancing local biodiversity.
- Capital Dependency: Be cautious of becoming overly reliant on expensive technology and external inputs. Consider adopting low-cost, high-benefit practices.
These steps can help farmers maintain control over their land and livelihoods while contributing to a healthier, more sustainable society.
Infographic Summary for Canva:
- Water Use Efficiency: Rainwater harvesting, soil moisture retention, natural irrigation.
- Energy Use: Switch to renewable energy; reduce fossil fuel reliance.
- Biodiversity: Integrate hedgerows, crop rotation, preserve wetlands.
- Positive Externalities: Reduce pollution, enhance local biodiversity.
- Agricultural Treadmill: Minimize capital dependence, promote agroecology.
Landscapes and Biodiversity
Farming is an activity that critically requires and affects space. The co-production of humans and nature, with few exceptions, is fundamentally rooted in spatial contexts. Farming needs space, sometimes constructs it, and nearly always molds and remolds it into specific spatial patterns known as landscapes. These landscapes are often unintended outcomes of this co-production, although their maintenance can become an explicit objective. Due to the diverse ways co-production unfolds, there is a remarkable variety of landscapes that coexist, often displaying impressive beauty.
The Sierra of Manantlán in Mexico exemplifies this concept. It is a richly textured, colorful, and densely populated landscape filled with contrasts and abundant resources. Furthermore, it boasts impressive biodiversity that stems from the resource diversity resulting from the co-production of humans and nature. Peter Gerritsen (2002) collaborated with peasant producers from the Cuzalapa community to create a map reflecting their perception of the For farmers practicing a form of shifting cultivation, this landscape is far from monotonous. The landscape reflects nature transformed by peasants who, through their interactions, became intimately familiar with it, its characteristics, and its biodiversity.
Farmers perceive and categorize these differences using a classification scheme based on vegetation type, altitude, and previous usage (see Table 5.4 in Gerritsen, 2002). This classification enables them to observe and actively construct an organization of space that relies on the time horizons underlying various units, specific ecological characteristics of the area, and farmers’ decision-making In revealing the many interactions and flows within this landscape, Gerritsen notes:
“The barbechos [fields in recovery] are always at a lower altitude than the robleras [oak forests]. That is why they can collect the pudrición [the flow of decomposing leaves, topsoil, etc.] of the roblera, allowing the milpa [field dedicated to maize cultivation] to thrive. Some decomposition also reaches the irrigation fields through the rivers…
Through their farming practices, different landscape elements located at varying altitudes—each with specific vegetational patterns—are interconnected through a rotation scheme that specifies the sequence of use for different fields. Figure summarizes the rotation scheme used in Cuzalapa. Farmers around the world often utilize such schemes, which can range from simple to highly sophisticated systems spanning long timeframes. In many cases, rotation is communally regulated to prevent pests, diseases, and damage from wild or domesticated animals.
The rotational use of land implies ongoing seasonal and yearly alterations in a given field (a fixed space): each year brings different activities, contributing to a diversity that optimally supports biodiversity (see also Text Box 6.1).
Text Box 6.1: A Blossoming Mountain
In spring, the summit of Monte Subasio, located near Assisi in Umbria, Italy, is completely covered with orchids, including the Orchis purpurea (Lady Orchid) and Orchis italica (Mediterranean). The number and diversity of orchids are astonishing, giving Monte Subasio an Eden-like appearance, seemingly untouched by humans. However, the presence of these orchids is critically dependent on farmer-induced ruptures. Grazing by Chianina cattle (especially heifers) facilitates nutrient transport from the top of Subasio to lower valleys, leading to systematic soil impoverishment that is ideal for orchid growth (see Figure ). Additionally, trampling of the topsoil and control of shrub growth support the reproduction of this beautiful flora and its impressive biodiversity. Without grazing, this richness would vanish.
Whenever agriculture develops into contrasting styles, landscapes are shaped into a diversified whole, with various landscape types coexisting. This phenomenon was beautifully illustrated by Jeroen Bosch and Johan Meeus, two talented landscape architects, who created a series of drawings depicting different Dutch landscapes in the late 1980s
- Drawing #1 depicts a small-scale dairy farm in wet peat areas, complete with a bridge connecting the farm to the main road. At that time, milk was collected in churns, but now it likely would be organic milk destined for a small organic dairy. The landscape is multifaceted and colorful, featuring grazing, hay production, and abundant meadow bird life.
- Drawing #2 portrays a multi-functional farm, characterized by horticultural production, dairy farming, fruit cultivation, and energy production (via a mill). This idyllic agro-pastoral landscape is rich in diversity.
- Drawing #3 presents a wide-open landscape with long sightlines, representing a typical extensive dairy farm of that era, marked by the characteristic ‘head-neck-body’ architecture of farm buildings.
- Drawing #4 illustrates an industrialized farm that began to emerge during that time, dominated by new architectural designs, monotonous grasslands (merely ‘parking lots’ for cows), and large silos for storing concentrates.
Landscapes are not only products of decades or centuries of co-production but also evolve to become structural elements that condition and shape the farming labor process. In a way, specific landscapes function as a social relation of production, influencing the farm labor process and indirectly regulating the distribution of the wealth produced.
The Northern Frisian Woodlands are home to one of the most beautiful hedgerow landscapes in northwestern Europe. These hedgerows were established by local peasants in the early 19th century following Napoleonic rule, when commons were divided into individual plots. The hedgerows serve to delineate fields, provide wind erosion protection, shelter and dietary supplements for grazing animals, supply timber and firewood, and conceal poaching rifles. Today, the hedgerows are highly valued for their rich biodiversity (both flora and fauna).
Methods Box #13: Slotting in Landscape and Biodiversity
Following Ruiz and Gonzalez-Bernaldez (1982), Rene de Bruin developed an elegant method to explore the interrelations between farming styles and landscapes. He carefully selected pairs of photographs showing contrasting landscapes at various levels. The first pair depicted a standardized, productive monocrop alongside a more diverse field with different grass varieties and visible cow dung. The second pair compared farm buildings in their immediate surroundings: again, two opposing images. The third pair related to the broader landscape: one showing many small fields separated by hedgerows and another depicting an open landscape with large fields. De Bruin asked farmers which image, out of each pair, best suited farming, compiling their responses to depict landscapes favored by different farmers. The underlying assumption was that, through numerous decisions over time (e.g., whether to eliminate or maintain hedgerows), the real landscape would gradually be molded towards the most favored version.
In discussing the role of living nature at different levels, including the landscape, Paul Swagemakers (2008) developed a technique similar to that in Methods Box #8. He presented respondents with two contrasting images illustrating the relationship between farming and nature. In one image, nature and farming exist in two separate boxes; in the other, the boxes partially overlap. As in Methods Box #8, these images are rough and schematic representations of a complex issue. However, they serve as invitations to describe how these elements relate, interact, and develop in real life, providing an opportunity to discuss cultural repertoire and practical approaches.
Comparing old and new topographical maps of the Northern Frisian Woodlands (Ploeg, 2003:134–136) reveals a remarkably stable pattern of hedgerows over time. This stability results from tradition, local cultural values that cherish the shelter offered by hedges, the high costs of uprooting them, and recent regulatory schemes. Consequently, farmers in this region have successfully navigated small fields and meadows delineated by numerous hedgerows. One way they achieved this was by developing specific combinations of machinery and labor input, enabling them to operate efficiently in small fields while minimizing costs. This dynamic is illustrated in Figure
Conclusion
The graph in Figure represents the amount of machine costs (depreciation plus running costs) and labor input needed to produce 500,000 kg of milk annually. The different lines illustrate substitution curves created through various farming styles in Friesland. The diversity depicted highlights the malleability inherent in agriculture. Farms can shift along a curve to reduce both direct and indirect fossil fuel use while increasing labor input (as discussed earlier in this chapter). They can also gradually transition towards different styles that embody distinct curves.
Farmers in the Northern Frisian Woodlands primarily operate within (or close to) the circle drawn in the graph, combining low mechanization costs (through relatively small, often secondhand, and well-maintained machinery) with high labor input. This approach allows them to thrive within the characteristic hedgerow landscape. One notable pioneer of this method, Taeke Hoeksma, is depicted in the photograph in figure He believed that farming could be harmonized with the specificities of nature and the landscape, advocating for farmers’ active management of nature and the landscape. Hoeksma’s farm, operated with his two sons (totaling around 2.5 FTE), maintained significantly lower machine costs than comparable farms.
In summary, Taeke Hoeksma successfully adapted his farm’s production process to align with the surrounding hedgerow landscape, resulting in a labor income per 100 kg of milk that was nearly double that of comparable farms (14.80 euros versus 8.53 euros/100 kg milk; Ploeg, 2000, table 1). This adaptation not only optimized labor and production processes but also enhanced the value added retained within the farm.
There is considerable irony in this narrative. In this instance, the landscape (as a materialized social relation of production) hindered the full implementation of the modernization project.
Agrarian Questions
Farming intersects with various critical issues, including employment generation, income, water and energy use, scenic landscapes, biodiversity, social inclusion and exclusion, overall economic development, and cultural heritage preservation. Not all these dimensions are universally relevant; they vary based on the specific time and place, affecting agriculture’s role and impact. Persistent negative impacts—often involving substantial external costs—are termed negative externalities, while positive effects that may be unintended or intentionally produced are known as positive externalities. The key distinction is that these externalities exist outside the farm’s immediate economic environment, contributing to public goods but lacking market remuneration.
Negative externalities often manifest as market failures, which I will address in subsequent chapters. When numerous and severe negative externalities persist, we encounter an agrarian question. Importantly, there is not a singular agrarian question; rather, many exist, each shaped by unique temporal and spatial contexts, requiring different approaches to resolution.
The classical formulation of the agrarian question, primarily derived from Marxist thought, posited that agriculture was not adequately contributing to economic development—specifically, it was failing to sustain capital accumulation and was instead perpetuating rural poverty and misery. The resolution to this dilemma was envisioned through the transformation of peasant farmers into a small class of capitalist farmers, accompanied by large populations of landless laborers who would bolster urban industrial workforces. This process, in turn, would stimulate capital accumulation by generating profits for reinvestment into industry, trade, and banking. The separation of peasants from their land was seen as pivotal for creating expansive labor and land markets.
This classical agrarian question resonated with the realities of 18th and 19th-century England during the Industrial Revolution, as articulated by Lenin (1914/1972). Subsequent Marxist scholars distinguished various modalities of the agrarian question (Byres, 1991; Moyo et al., 2013). For instance, Akram-Lohdi and Kay (2010) built on revolutionary Russian debates, suggesting that agriculture could also foster economic development by increasing peasant family incomes, thus creating a robust domestic market that would enhance industrialization.
Conversely, some scholars argued that the widespread poverty and low economic contributions of agriculture were not due to a lack of capital but rather the exploitation of agriculture by capital interests. They contended that progress would emerge only through the massive expropriation of capitalist farms, redistribution of land to peasant farmers, and the development of cooperatives and productive forces in rural areas. This view advocated for peasant communities to play a progressive role in societal transformation, as championed by figures like Alexandre Chayanov in Russia (1920/1976), José Carlos Mariátegui in Latin America (1925), and Fei Xiao-Tung in China (Fei and Chang, 1945).
I will refrain from delving into the intricate details of this debate, which re-emerged in Latin America during the late 1960s and 1970s as tensions between campesinistas and descampesinistas (Feder, 1977). Instead, I will focus on the multifaceted agrarian questions that emerged by the end of the second millennium and the start of the third.
Regardless of location, farming consistently engages with nature, society, and the farming populace (see Figure ). An optimal balance across these dimensions ensures that agriculture fulfills societal needs, enhances natural environments, and provides adequate incomes to involved parties. However, enduring frictions may arise when agricultural organization and development lead to significant and lasting negative externalities.
The agrarian crises observed in the early 21st century reflect these enduring frictions. Many nations, particularly in the Global South, face food shortages (partly due to significant agricultural exports), while others contend with food quality issues. Environmental degradation is prevalent globally, threatening agricultural production itself, while approximately 70% of the world’s impoverished individuals (earning less than $1 a day) reside in rural areas. Current agricultural practices fail to provide sufficient employment and income for these populations.
The specific mix of negative externalities varies by country and often fluctuates within national borders. Nonetheless, it holds true that contemporary agrarian questions encompass all three dimensions outlined in Figure . These agrarian issues are interconnected; for instance, the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest for soy cultivation links to industrialized pig and poultry farming in countries like the Netherlands and Belgium, which, in turn, contributes to the undermining of local producers in West Africa through the influx of cheap imports from northwest Europe. This high degree of interdependence means that addressing one aspect of the problem may exacerbate issues in another area. Collectively, today’s agrarian crises form a complex Gordian knot, challenging to untangle.
At a broader level, these various agrarian questions collectively constitute a single global agrarian question. Theoretically, this global agrarian question represents a shift from the classical agrarian question. While the classical perspective focused on agriculture’s failure to bolster capital accumulation, the contemporary issue revolves around the unprecedented dominance of capital, which engenders and exacerbates current agrarian questions.
Regardless of the context, agriculture remains subservient to capital through various mechanisms, leading to negative externalities that collectively create the agrarian questions we face today. In certain regions, segments of the farming population have managed to resist this subordination—albeit partially—by developing alternative agricultural production models. These efforts demonstrate potential pathways for addressing agrarian questions and offer promising elements that could contribute to constructing viable solutions for the future.
that stretches from Spain to Eastern Europe, including countries like Hungary, Romania, and Ukraine) where capital groups have been able to acquire land and establish large-scale farming operations. This development is often accompanied by significant social and environmental challenges, including the displacement of smallholders, loss of biodiversity, and increased vulnerability to global market fluctuations.
The economic dynamics underlying these agrarian changes are rooted in the notion of capital accumulation, where capital groups seek to maximize profits by scaling up production and minimizing costs. This trend often leads to the standardization of agricultural practices, prioritizing monoculture and the use of synthetic inputs over traditional, sustainable methods. Such practices can diminish the resilience of local food systems and erode the socio-economic fabric of rural communities.
Cultural and Societal Impacts
The subordination of agriculture to capital does not only manifest in economic terms but also has profound cultural and social implications. The dominance of large agribusiness often marginalizes traditional farming practices and knowledge systems, which can result in the loss of cultural heritage associated with local agricultural methods. Moreover, as local farmers are pushed out of the market, communities may face erosion of social cohesion and identity, as the communal ties that once bound them through shared agricultural practices are severed.
Environmental Consequences
The environmental repercussions of the shift towards capital-centric agriculture are stark. Intensive farming practices can lead to soil degradation, loss of biodiversity, and water pollution, ultimately threatening food security and the health of ecosystems. For instance, the overuse of chemical fertilizers and pesticides in pursuit of higher yields often results in contaminated water sources and decreased soil fertility, creating a cycle of dependency on external inputs that farmers struggle to break.
Furthermore, climate change exacerbates these challenges, as extreme weather events and changing precipitation patterns disrupt traditional agricultural cycles. Capital-driven agricultural systems often lack the adaptability needed to respond to these environmental stresses, which can result in decreased productivity and increased vulnerability for farming communities.
Towards Alternatives
In light of these dynamics, there is a growing recognition of the need for alternative models of agricultural production that prioritize sustainability, social equity, and resilience. Movements advocating for agroecology, food sovereignty, and sustainable agriculture emphasize the importance of local knowledge, biodiversity, and environmentally friendly practices. These approaches seek to empower farmers, enhance food security, and mitigate the negative externalities associated with conventional agriculture.
Moreover, the rise of fair trade and organic certification initiatives aims to create more equitable market conditions for smallholder farmers, ensuring they receive fair prices for their products while promoting sustainable practices. By challenging the prevailing power structures in agriculture and advocating for a more inclusive and equitable food system, these movements represent a critical response to the agrarian questions of our time.
Conclusion
The intersection of farming and capital is marked by complex relationships characterized by power imbalances, economic exploitation, and environmental degradation. As the agrarian questions evolve, it becomes increasingly important to recognize the multifaceted nature of these issues and to explore pathways toward more sustainable and equitable agricultural systems. Addressing the challenges posed by the domination of capital in agriculture requires concerted efforts from policymakers, civil society, and farmers alike, as they work together to forge a more just and resilient food system for all.
Farming and Capital: Continuing the Examination
The various mechanisms through which the subordination of agriculture to capital unfolds can be understood as a series of interconnected processes. The first phase involves the “skimming” of agricultural value by capital groups, particularly those involved in trading, processing, and banking. Central to this process is unequal exchange, wherein the terms of trade consistently favor industrial and non-agricultural sectors over agricultural producers. This imbalance manifests itself through stagnating prices for agricultural products, which struggle to keep pace with rising prices of necessary industrial goods.
State Influence and Economic Pressure
Governments often reinforce these dynamics by maintaining low food prices to support low wages in non-agricultural sectors, enhancing profitability for industrial and service sectors. The dependency of farmers on credit systems also exacerbates these pressures, creating a continuous outflow of value from agriculture to financial institutions. For example, in the Netherlands, the agricultural sector’s total debts amount to approximately €33 billion, with interest payments leading to a significant loss of income for farmers.
Moreover, the expectation for farmers to provide cheap labor to non-agricultural sectors perpetuates this skimming effect. This trend is particularly pronounced in dualistic agricultural systems, such as the Latin American minifundia/latifundia model, where small farmers often need to supplement their incomes outside of farming. Taxation further compounds these pressures, diverting essential funds away from agricultural sustainability.
Value Drain and the Squeeze on Agriculture
The overarching effect of these mechanisms is a persistent downward pressure on farming incomes, as value produced by farmers is siphoned off to benefit non-agricultural sectors. This dynamic, known as the “squeeze on agriculture,” illustrates how, despite slow growth in gross value of production (GVP), the costs associated with producing this value—due to external inputs and technological investments—are steadily increasing. Consequently, the value added (VA) to agricultural production suffers.
This phenomenon gives rise to what is often referred to as the “treadmill” effect, where farmers, facing declining incomes, respond by expanding their operations. However, this expansion necessitates further investments in technology and resources, leading to greater material dependency on capital. The paradox is stark: the more farmers invest in seeking solutions to the squeeze, the more entrenched they become in it.
Decision-Making and Policy Biases
Beyond the material aspects of capital-farming relations, a significant shift occurs in decision-making processes. As farmers become increasingly reliant on external capital, decisions regarding farming practices and technologies are increasingly influenced by external agencies, including agribusiness and governmental regulations. This regimentation often prioritizes corporate interests over those of farmers, limiting their autonomy.
Agricultural policies can further entrench these dynamics by constructing biases that favor certain farming styles over others. Policies that support large-scale agricultural operations, for example, systematically disadvantage family farms and peasant agriculture. The design of these policies often reflects a narrow horizon of relevance, excluding small-scale and traditional farming practices. This bias not only affects resource allocation but also influences the types of research conducted in agricultural sciences, reinforcing the notion that small farms are obsolete.
Concluding Insights on the Dynamics of Farming and Capital
The intricate interplay between agriculture and capital underscores a complex landscape characterized by both material and structural inequalities. As farmers navigate the pressures of market forces, state policies, and technological dependencies, the overarching narrative reveals a continuous cycle of exploitation. The mechanisms of skimming, material dependency, and biased policies not only sustain the subordination of farming to capital but also shape the future trajectories of agricultural practices and rural livelihoods.
In summary, understanding these dynamics is crucial for addressing the challenges facing modern agriculture and for envisioning a more equitable future for farming communities. By recognizing the systemic nature of these issues, stakeholders can begin to advocate for policies and practices that empower farmers and promote sustainable agricultural development.
A Permanent and Many-Sided Disarray in Farming
The exploitation of farming by capital manifests in complex ways, introducing significant and interrelated challenges. This ongoing exploitation leads to three principal problems:
- Decreasing Incomes and Poverty Anxiety: Farmers face chronic income declines, heightening fears of poverty. This persistent financial instability prompts many farmers to seek ways to increase their productivity and profitability, often at the expense of their resources and the sustainability of their practices.
- Unsustainable Production Practices: In their efforts to extract more value from co-production, farmers may resort to practices that compromise the quality of resources, threatening the ecological balance and sustainability of agriculture. This pursuit of maximizing output can lead to overexploitation of soil, water, and biodiversity.
- Deteriorating Relationships with Society: The reorganization of agricultural production—such as relocating vegetable farming to countries like Morocco—coupled with the industrialization of food, creates new issues at the intersection of society and agriculture. As a result, the nutritional quality of food may decline, and traditional landscapes may be replaced with monotonous, industrialized agricultural zones.
Systematic Disarticulation of Agriculture
The disarray in agriculture is emblematic of a broader issue: the agrarian question is not merely a product of agriculture’s conflicts with capital; rather, it stems from the subordination of agriculture to capital’s interests. Different regions, such as Peru, Brazil, Europe, and China, may experience unique agrarian challenges, but they share a common thread of farming’s subjugation to capital.
This subordination can be the result of various factors: direct capital intervention, state policies, or the actions of certain farming segments seeking integration and control. Regardless of the specific cause, the end result is a continuous draining of agricultural value. This process is rooted in a multitude of interchangeable mechanisms, making resistance difficult, albeit not impossible.
The Response to Value Appropriation
Historically, the response to capital’s appropriation of agricultural value has been a push for further technological advancements aimed at increasing production efficiency. However, this approach has limitations:
- Exhaustion of Current Methods: Many existing technologies and practices are reaching a point of diminishing returns. While they can enhance production per labor unit, they often lead to increased material dependency, greater skimming of profits, and ultimately a negative impact on farmers’ incomes.
- Exclusion and Rural Exodus: The push for technological development tends to exclude smaller and less capital-intensive farms from the benefits of innovation, leading to a rural exodus as those unable to compete leave agriculture.
- Threat to Natural Resources: The current technological modalities often compromise the quality of natural resources, fostering unsustainable agricultural practices that jeopardize long-term viability.
Addressing Subordination to Capital
Despite these challenges, addressing the subordination of agriculture to capital is feasible through various strategies. Some of these potential solutions will be explored in subsequent chapters. Emphasizing alternative approaches can help reestablish a balance between farming and capital, ensuring that agricultural practices support both economic viability and sustainability.
Recognizing the systemic nature of these issues is critical in advocating for policies that empower farmers, promote ecological health, and enhance food sovereignty. Engaging with the complexities of modern agriculture can lead to transformative practices that resist the tendencies of capital to exploit and drain value from the farming sector, fostering a more equitable agricultural landscape for future generations.
About Us
Welcome to Agriculture Novel, your go-to source for in-depth information and insights into the world of agriculture, hydroponics, and sustainable farming. Our mission is to educate, inspire, and empower a new generation of farmers, hobbyists, and eco-conscious enthusiasts. Whether you’re interested in traditional farming practices or modern innovations, we aim to provide comprehensive guides, expert tips, and the latest updates in agriculture and urban farming.
At Agriculture Novel, we believe in the power of knowledge to transform the way we grow, sustain, and nourish our world. Explore our articles on topics like Fruit Growing Guide, Hydroponics, Plant Deficiency Guide, and more.
Thank you for joining us on this journey towards a greener, more sustainable future!
About Agronique Horizon
At Agronique Horizon, we specialize in delivering comprehensive digital marketing and web development solutions tailored for the agriculture and hydroponics industries. From custom website design and app development to social media management, we provide end-to-end support for brands aiming to make a meaningful impact. Our team also offers innovative solutions for the real estate sector, bringing precision and visibility to your projects. Learn more about our services here and discover how we can elevate your digital presence
