IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v23y2024i1p56-62.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Farmers' Perceptions of Obstacles to Business Development

Author

Listed:
  • Lotte Yanore
  • Jaap Sok
  • Alfons Oude Lansink

Abstract

This article examines perceived obstacles to business development of Dutch dairy farmers and compares them to Dutch broiler farmers and Swedish farmers. Understanding farmers' perceived obstacles is crucial for developing effective policies to support sustainable and resilient farms. Data were collected using a survey and analysed using factor and regression analysis. The study finds that rules and regulations are the most significant obstacle for all three groups of farmers. Dutch dairy farmers also face challenges related to land availability, permits and leasing, while Dutch broiler farmers have concerns mostly about foreign competition. Financial obstacles are significant but considered less important than regulatory and land‐related challenges. Farm characteristics, such as intensity of operation, off‐farm income, location, succession status and farmer's patience were statistically related to the perceived obstacles of Dutch dairy farmers. The associations found suggest that dairy farmers operating their businesses more intensively face more financial, social capital and land availability obstacles. It was also found that younger farmers or farmers with successors score higher on perceived obstacles concerning policy and land availability. Recommendations include improving information provision, simplifying regulations, and engaging stakeholders to reduce policy obstacles. Also, policies should consider farmers' unique needs and should be implemented in a decentralised way. Cet article examine les obstacles perçus au développement économique des producteurs laitiers néerlandais et les compare à ceux concernant les éleveurs de poulets de chair néerlandais et les agriculteurs suédois. Comprendre les obstacles perçus par les agriculteurs est crucial pour élaborer des politiques efficaces visant à soutenir les exploitations agricoles durables et résilientes. Les données ont été collectées à l'aide d'une enquête et analysées à l'aide d'une analyse factorielle et économétrique. L'étude révèle que les règles et réglementations constituent l'obstacle le plus important pour les trois groupes d'agriculteurs. Les producteurs laitiers néerlandais sont également confrontés à des défis liés à la disponibilité des terres, aux permis et aux baux, tandis que les éleveurs de poulets de chair néerlandais sont principalement préoccupés par la concurrence étrangère. Les obstacles financiers sont importants, mais considérés comme moins importants que les défis réglementaires et fonciers. Les caractéristiques de l'exploitation, telles que l'intensité de la production, les revenus extérieurs, l'emplacement, le statut de succession et la patience de l'agriculteur, étaient statistiquement liées aux obstacles perçus par les producteurs laitiers néerlandais. Les associations trouvées suggèrent que les producteurs laitiers qui exploitent leur entreprise de manière plus intensive sont confrontés à davantage d'obstacles liés aux aspects financiers, au capital social et à la disponibilité des terres. Il a également été constaté que les jeunes agriculteurs ou les agriculteurs ayant des successeurs obtiennent de meilleurs résultats en ce qui concerne les obstacles perçus relatifs aux politiques et à la disponibilité des terres. Les recommandations incluent l'amélioration de la mise à disposition d'informations, la simplification des réglementations et l'engagement des parties prenantes pour réduire les obstacles relatifs à l'action publique. En outre, celle‐ci doit tenir compte des besoins spécifiques des agriculteurs et être mise en œuvre de manière décentralisée. Dieser Artikel untersucht die von niederländischen Milchviehbetrieben wahrgenommenen Hindernisse für die Unternehmensentwicklung und vergleicht diese mit niederländischen Geflügelmastbetrieben und schwedischen Betrieben. Das Verständnis der von den Landwirtinnen und Landwirten wahrgenommenen Hindernisse ist entscheidend für die Entwicklung wirksamer politischer Maßnahmen, um nachhaltige und widerstandsfähige Betriebe zu unterstützen. Die Daten wurden mit einer Umfrage erhoben und mit Hilfe von Faktoren‐ und Regressionsanalysen analysiert. Die Studie zeigt, dass Regeln und Vorschriften für alle drei untersuchten Gruppen das größte Hindernis darstellen. Niederländische Milchviehbetriebe sehen die Verfügbarkeit von Land, Genehmigungen und Pacht als Herausforderung, während niederländische Geflügelmastbetriebe vor allem Bedenken wegen der ausländischen Konkurrenz haben. Finanzielle Hindernisse sind zwar von Bedeutung, werden aber als weniger wichtig angesehen als regulatorische und flächenbezogene Herausforderungen. Für Betriebscharakteristika wie die Intensität, außerbetriebliches Einkommen, Standort, Nachfolgestatus und die Geduld konnte ein statistischer Zusammenhang mit den von den niederländischen Milchviehbetrieben wahrgenommenen Hindernissen festgestellt werden. Die ermittelten Zusammenhänge deuten darauf hin, dass intensive Milchviehbetriebe, mit mehr Hindernissen in den Bereichen Finanzen, Sozialkapital und Verfügbarkeit von Land konfrontiert sind. Des Weiteren konnte gezeigt werden, dass jüngere Landwirte oder Landwirtinnen oder Betriebe, in denen die Hofnachfolge geklärt ist, höhere Werte bei den wahrgenommenen Hindernissen in Bezug auf die Politik und die Verfügbarkeit von Land erzielen. Zu den Empfehlungen gehören die Verbesserung der Informationsbereitstellung, die Vereinfachung von Vorschriften und die Einbindung von Interessengruppen, um politische Hindernisse abzubauen. Außerdem sollte die Politik die besonderen Bedürfnisse in der Landwirtschaft berücksichtigen und dezentral umsetzen.

Suggested Citation

  • Lotte Yanore & Jaap Sok & Alfons Oude Lansink, 2024. "Farmers' Perceptions of Obstacles to Business Development," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 23(1), pages 56-62, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:23:y:2024:i:1:p:56-62
    DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12420
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12420
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1746-692X.12420?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Viaggi, Davide & Raggi, Meri & Gomez y Paloma, Sergio, 2011. "Farm-household investment behaviour and the CAP decoupling: Methodological issues in assessing policy impacts," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 127-145, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marconi, V. & Raggi, M. & Viaggi, D. & Lefebvre, M. & Gomez y Paloma, Sergio, 2015. "The impact of the 2013 Common Agricultural Policy reform on farmer's investment decisions: an ex-ante evaluation," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212225, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Elisa Gatto & Alba Marino & Guido Signorino, 2013. "Biodiversity and risk management in agriculture: what do we learn from CAP reforms? A farm-level analysis," ERSA conference papers ersa13p805, European Regional Science Association.
    3. Santeramo, Fabio Gaetano & Cioffi, Antonio, 2012. "The entry price threshold in EU agriculture: Deterrent or barrier?," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 691-704.
    4. Viaggi, Davide & Raggi, Meri & Puddu, Marco & Bartolini, Fabio, 2013. "Farm/Household-level Simulation Results of Testing Policy and Other Scenarios," Working papers 157113, Factor Markets, Centre for European Policy Studies.
    5. Lefebvre, Marianne & Raggi, Meri & Gomez Y Paloma, Sergio & Viaggi, Davide, 2014. "An analysis of the intention-realisation discrepancy in EU farmers’ land investment decisions," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 95(1).
    6. O’Toole, Conor & Hennessy, Thia, 2015. "Do decoupled payments affect investment financing constraints? Evidence from Irish agriculture," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 67-75.
    7. Mittenzwei, Klaus & Britz, Wolfgang & Wieck, Christine, 2014. "Does the “green box” of the European Union distort global markets?," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 3(1), pages 1-20, April.
    8. Zheng, Yanan & Goddard, Ellen W. & Qiu, Feng, 2018. "Exploring the Effect of Disease Outbreaks on Farm Structure Change: A Dynamic Analysis for Canadian Pig Industry," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 273801, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Bartolini, Fabio & Brunori, Gianluca & Coli, Alessandra & Landi, Chiara & Pacini, Barbara, 2015. "Assessing the Causal Effect of Decoupled Payments on farm labour in Tuscany Using Propensity Score Methods," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211200, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Bartolini, Fabio & Viaggi, Davide, 2011. "Factors Affecting the Impact of CAP Scenarios on Farm Structure: An Analysis Based on Stated Intentions," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114244, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Barnes, Andrew Peter & Toma, Luiza & Mathews, Keith & Sutherland, Lee-Ann & Thomson, Steven, 2014. "Intensify, diversify, opt-out: testing farmer stated intentions to past and future CAP reform scenarios," 88th Annual Conference, April 9-11, 2014, AgroParisTech, Paris, France 169724, Agricultural Economics Society.
    12. Reidsma, Pytrik & Janssen, Sander & Jansen, Jacques & van Ittersum, Martin K., 2018. "On the development and use of farm models for policy impact assessment in the European Union – A review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 111-125.
    13. Giannoccaro, Giacomo & Berbel, Julio, 2012. "The Determinants of Farmer’s Intended Behaviour Towards the Adoption of Energy Crops in Southern Spain: an Application of the Classification Tree-Method," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 1(2), pages 1-14, August.
    14. Solazzo, Roberto & Pierangeli, Fabio, 2016. "How does greening affect farm behaviour? Trade-off between commitments and sanctions in the Northern Italy," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 88-98.
    15. Cortignani, R. & Coderoni, S., 2022. "The impacts of environmental and climate targets on agriculture: Policy options in Italy," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 1095-1112.
    16. Giannoccaro, Giacomo & de Gennaro, Bernardo C. & De Meo, Emilio & Prosperi, Maurizio, 2017. "Assessing farmers' willingness to supply biomass as energy feedstock: Cereal straw in Apulia (Italy)," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 179-185.
    17. Fabio Bartolini & Daniele Vergamini, 2019. "Understanding the Spatial Agglomeration of Participation in Agri-Environmental Schemes: The Case of the Tuscany Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, May.
    18. Chopin, Pierre & Doré, Thierry & Guindé, Loïc & Blazy, Jean-Marc, 2015. "MOSAICA: A multi-scale bioeconomic model for the design and ex ante assessment of cropping system mosaics," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 26-39.
    19. Menozzi, Davide & Fioravanzi, Martina & Donati, Michele, 2014. "Understanding Farmers’ Responses To Cap Reform," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182811, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Bartolini, Fabio & Viaggi, Davide, 2012. "An analysis of policy scenario effects on the adoption of energy production on the farm: A case study in Emilia–Romagna (Italy)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 454-464.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:23:y:2024:i:1:p:56-62. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.