Likelihood of Succession and Farmers’ Attitudes towards their Future Behaviour: Evidence from a Survey in Germany, the United Kingdom and Portugal



Published Jun 4, 2011
Miguel Sottomayor Richard Tranter Leonardo Costa


Most authors have referred to the likelihood of having an identified successor in the family as an influential factor affecting several family farm management decisions. Here, we investigate this relationship for a selection of such decisions: the timing of farmers’ retirement; the willingness of farmers to change their current mix of activities; their readiness to adopt new farm activities; and their attitude towards intensifying production. The categorical data analysed, mostly Likert scales, came from a postal survey carried out in 2001–2002 of a sample of 13,516 German, British and Portuguese farmers, with just over 4,600 valid responses. Statistical association between the variables was examined by computing the ?2 statistic and testing for the null hypothesis of no association between the various pairs of variables.

The main conclusions are that the likelihood of having a successor was positively related to the planned length of active farmers’ lives, to farmers’ adoption of new activities, and to farmers’ willingness to intensify production in the future. The likelihood of having a successor was also found to be negatively related to the intention of leaving farm land idle. However, no empirical evidence was found of a statistically significant relationship between the likelihood of succession and farmers’ readiness to change the mix of their future farm activities.

How to Cite

Sottomayor, M. , Tranter, R. and Costa, L. 2011. Likelihood of Succession and Farmers’ Attitudes towards their Future Behaviour: Evidence from a Survey in Germany, the United Kingdom and Portugal . The International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food. 18, 2 (Jun. 2011), 121-133. DOI:
Abstract 41 | PDF Downloads 29


Barkley, A. (1990) The determinants of the migration of labour out of agriculture in the US, 1940–1985, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 72, pp. 567–544.
Blanc, M. and Perrier-Cornet, P. (1993) Farm transfer and farm entry in the EC, Sociologia Ruralis, 33, pp. 319–335.
Burrell, A.M. (1989) The microeconomics of quota transfer, in: A.M. Burrell (ed.) Milk Quotas in the European Community, Wallingford: CAB International, pp. 100–118.
Calus, M., Van Huylenbroeck, G. and Van Lierde, D. (2008) The relationship between farm succession and farm assets on Belgian farms, Sociologia Ruralis, 48, pp. 38–56.
Daugb jerg, C., Tranter, R., Jones, P., Little, J., Costa, L., Knapp , T., Sottomayor, M. and Swinbank, A. (2005) The visibility of agricultural subsidies and market illusions in the CAP: some evidence from farmers’ views in Germany, Portugal and the UK, European Journal of Political Research, 44, pp. 749–766.
Errington, A. (1998) The intergenerational transfer of marginal control in the farm-family business: a comparative study of England, France and Canada, Journal of Agricultural Extension, 5, pp. 123–136.
Errington, A. and Gasson, R. (1994) Farming systems and the farm family business, in: J.B. Dent and M.J. McGregor (eds) Rural and Farming Systems Analysis, Wallingford: CAB International, pp. 181–192.
Errington, A. and Lobley, M. (2002) Handing over the Reins: A Comparative Study of Inter-generational Farm Transfers in England, France, Canada and the USA. Paper presented at the Agricultural Economics Society Annual Conference, Aberystwyth, April.
Fennell, R. (1981) Farm succession in the European Community, Sociologia Ruralis, 21, pp. 19–42.
Gasson, R. and Errington, A. (1993) The Farm Family Business. Wallingford: CAB International.
Glauben, T., Tietje, H. and Weiss, C.R. (2002) Intergenerational Succession on Family Farms: Evidence from Survey Data, Working Paper EWP. Kiel: Department of Food Economics and Consumption Studies, University of Kiel.
Harrison, A. (1981) Factors influencing Ownership, Tenancy, Mobility and Use of Farmland in the UK, Information on Agriculture 74. Luxembourg: Commission of the European Communities.
Hennessy, T.C. and Rehm an, T. (2007) Factors affecting occupational choice of farm heirs, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 58, pp. 61–75.
Hine, R.C. and Houston, A.M. (1973) Government and Structural Change in Agriculture. Report prepared by the Universities of Nottingham and Exeter for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London.
Hutson, J. (1987) Fathers and sons: family farms, family businesses and the farming industry, Sociology, 21, pp. 215–229.
Kimhi, A. and Nachlieli, N. (2001) Inter-generational succession on Israeli family farms, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 52, pp. 42–58.
Marsden, T., Munton, R., Whatmore, S. and Little, J. (1989) Strategies for coping in capitalist agriculture: an examination of the response of farm families in British agriculture, Geoforum, 20, pp. 1–14.
Potter, C. and Lobley, M. (1992) Ageing and succession on family farms: the impact on decision making and land use, Sociologia Ruralis, 32, pp. 317–334.
Potter, C. and Lobley, M. (1996) The farm family life cycle, succession paths and environmental change in Britain’s countryside, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 47, pp. 172–190.
Stiglbauer, A. and Weiss, C. (2000) Family and non-family succession in the Upper Austrian farm sector, Cahiers d’économie et sociologie rurales, 54, pp. 5–26.
Tranter, R., Costa, L., Knapp , T., Little, J. and Sottomayor, M. (2004) Asking farmers about their response to the proposed Bond Scheme, in: A. Swinbank and R. Tranter (eds) A Bond Scheme for Common Agricultural Policy Reform, Wallingford: CABI Publishing, pp. 127–148.
Tranter, R.B., Swinbank, A., Wooldridge, M.J., Costa, L., Knapp , T., Little, G.P.J. and Sottomayor, M.L. (2007) Implications for food production, land use and rural development of the European Union’s Single Farm Payment: indications from a survey of farmers’ intentions in Germany, Portugal and the UK, Food Policy, 32, pp. 656–671.
Viagg i, D., Ragg i, M. and Gomez y Paloma, S. (2011) Understanding the determinants of investment reactions to decoupling of the Common Agricultural Policy, Land Use Policy, 28, pp. 495–505.