Jordbrukspolitiska stödformer : en studie av SR-, A- och B-stödens lokala effekter 1961-1981

• Main Author: Johnsson, Rolf S.
• Format: Doctoral Thesis
• Language: Swedish
• Published: Umeå universitet, Kulturgeografiska institutionen 1987
• Subjects: Swedish agriculture; structural rationalization; government support; government subsidy; special rationalization (SR); evaluation; agricultural policy
• Online Access: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-67023; http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:isbn:91-7174-311-1

The aim of this study has been to analyse the effects of state subsidies within agriculture. The goal of these policies was to build up long-term sound and profitable farms by means of both general and selective support measures. The investments affecting structure gave rise to the following questions: (a) What were the effects on a farm of a given type of aid? (b) How were the farms and the surrounding community affected? (c) In what respect was a desirable effect achieved, and in what respect were the results problematical? The investigation was carried out in three municipalities in Norrland, and considered three different forms of subsidy (SR-, A- and B-support) which were utilized during the years 1961-1978. In addition to these so-called "subsidized farms", a similar number of "comparative farms" that had not received support were selected. In all, 650 farms were investigated. The evaluation was mainly divided into five areas of interest: (a) Farm reconstruction, (b) Farm development, (c) The farmers, (d) Economic effects, (e) Social effects in the locality. The principal findings were as follows: (1) SR- and A-supported farms were characterized by farmers who were relatively young, had good education and who used a portion of their working-hours for carrying out organizational measures. The comparative farms were distinguished rather by older farmers with less education and with a higher degree of employment outside the farm. (2) All of the SR-and B-supported farms had survived. Some A-supported farms were abandoned, while the number of comparative farms was greatly reduced. (3) All types of subsidized farms exhibited growth in their areas of arable land and forest and in their stock of milk cows, whereas the comparative farms were relatively unchanged. (4) Improved production results within crop husbandry could be derived simultaneously from the increased use of pipe drainage, shorter periods between ploughing, new methods of harvesting, etc. Within all these areas the subsidized farms had higher proportions of improvements than the comparative farms. (5) Since SR-farms in particular (but even A-farms) financed their rationalization measures by means of bank loans, they all became extremely sensitive to risks. In thi s way they all too easily ended up with economic difficulties when major increases in interest rates or changes in costs or revenues occurred. (6) In the short term the rationalization of the size of subsidized farms had little effect on outmigration from the areas concerned. (7) The households were larger on subsidized farms than in the comparative group. This meant that the subsidized farms, which were increasing their relative share of the population, also comprised a stabilizing factor in a locally-dependent service sector. === digitalisering@umu