Putting the farmer into context – factors influencing the learning of entrepreneurial skills

In the main stage interviews with farmers, internal, relational and external factors were mentioned which influence learning in a positive or negative way (for more details see Vesala & Pyysiäinen, 2008). A further very significant conclusion of the main stage was that most factors can be experienced as both hindering and stimulating. Often, it is the context that determines whether a factor is experienced as hindering or stimulating. Various aspects of that context are discussed in this section.

Influence of cultural / social context

The cultural / social context is especially important here. The local / regional culture has a considerable influence on farmers’ attitudes and behaviour. Regional and national culture can have an influence on how CAP is interpreted and is also important in relation to discourses on entrepreneurship and the framing of farmers’ roles. Morgan and colleagues explained in the previous chapter that the cultural framing of farmers’ roles might be a reason for the differences between Tuscan and English regional institutional settings. The same could be said about different discourses of entrepreneurship10. As described earlier in this chapter, there are several possibilities regarding how the concept of entrepreneurship can be understood. It might be that farmers’ discourses about entrepreneurship differ from policy makers’ or extensionists’ views of entrepreneurship. The article by Burton et al (2008) analyses how the cultural context can influence such discourses. They use Bourdieux’s theory of capital as a framework, focusing specifically on ‘embodied cultural capital’ in order to explain why farmers’ attitudes towards voluntary agri-environmental schemes have not changed essentially in the last two decades. Cultural capital as defined in this article involves the labour of assimilation (self-improvement) on the part of the investor and cannot be transmitted instantaneously, as can property or money. In this sense, it forms a kind of symbolic capital within a specific group. They argue that ‘for farmers, embodied cultural capital is constructed through the performance of everyday activities and is manifest primarily in the level of farming skill possessed by the farmer. Becoming a ‘good farmer’ is a project of self-improvement involving practice (…) to improve the mechanical, motoric and managerial skills required to effectively manage farmland.’ The context in which these skills are seen as proper way of farming is generated by the farming community, which shares the same symbolic capital. If this symbolic capital is different in the farming community from, say, government groups, they argue, real changes in attitudes do not occur. Burton et al suggest in their conclusions that this might actually be the case in agri-environmental schemes.

To return to different discourses about entrepreneurship: the importance of non-economic values and goals in farming has been studied in recent years (Renting et al., 2005), which in some cases presents a contrast to some entrepreneurial concepts. Introducing further the issue of identity, we found that in the Swiss interviews of the main stage, farmers’ identity in connection with entrepreneurial skills plays an important role in determining which skills are developed and why. It was noticeable that most farmers had a vision which influenced the decision about what they wanted to achieve on their farms and, in consequence, the strategic orientation of their farming business (see Jäckel & Rudmann, 2008; Rudmann, 2007). Identity as a determinant of motivation and thus behaviour (Kaufmann, 2004) is therefore also important in relation to entrepreneurial skills, as well as in relation to the framing of farmers’ roles (Oostindie & Renting, 2007).

Thus, it can be argued that it is important to understand farmers’ views (or identity) in connection with discourses about entrepreneurship. This is addressed further in the recommendations section below.

History and policy

It is evident that the state and economic history also play a role in determining the situation of farmers’ skill levels. Poland and other Eastern European countries are the best example. As described in chapter 6, Eastern European countries have suffered from less favourable circumstances than other European countries. However, elsewhere as well agricultural policy since the second World War has not been in favour of entrepreneurship (stimulated production orientation of farmers). However, there are also indications to suggest that differences in skill levels are influenced not so much by the national setting but that region or production branch are more important factors within the cultural, historical, political and physical context. A common example is the Dutch horticultural sector. This sector has been operating in a free market for much longer than other sectors. This has created a very different, more entrepreneurial culture in horticulture. In addition, one could argue that horticulture is more industrialised, given that it excludes most external (climatic) conditions from the production process inside greenhouses. A third difference that could affect entrepreneurship in horticulture is the higher risk level: large investments and quick write-offs, combined with greater market uncertainties compared with other sectors.

The role of CAP is immanent in these aspects. CAP can guide the direction of farmers’ development to a certain extent; it is also evident that CAP can be interpreted in various ways by regional and national administrative bodies.

This is perhaps also an appropriate point at which to note that, from the point of view of entrepreneurship (defined as finding new ways to do business in order to succeed), multifunctionality concepts and conventional farming, or cost reduction / differentiation strategies respectively can equally be seen as entrepreneurial. It is the context that includes farmers’ values and strengths which determines which strategy or concept is more suitable. Some regions, for example, might lean more towards differentiation strategies because there is a broader territorial potential. Other regions, by contrast, might be more suited to large, cost extensive farms focusing on a cost reduction strategy.

From the point of view of aspects of the debate other than entrepreneurial skills, multifunctionality might be seen as more important or preferable to support; however, these have not been considered in our study nor in this report.

To summarise: the regional context is important in two ways. In a physical way, it sets the boundaries to the opportunities available for farmers’ activities.

Education and extension

The third external factor mentioned as having an important influence on the development of entrepreneurial skills is the provision of education and extension opportunities for farmers. One overall conclusion from the project as a whole is that not only the existence of such opportunities is important but also mainly the quality in terms of including the entrepreneurial learning principles as summarised in chapter 5. It is noticeable, for example, that extension was not mentioned often by farmers as a possibility for learning entrepreneurial skills. The results of the project do not enable us to say why this is so, but one speculation could be that existing extension programmes do not meet the requirements of entrepreneurial learning. At the same time, experts in workshops of the synthesis stage mentioned existing programmes which include these principles. A second guess would be that extension programmes are not seen by farmers as an opportunity to learn or enhance their own skills. These speculative comments demonstrate that it would be important to give the role of extension further consideration.

A further point which was addressed only rarely by farmers and experts is the role and contribution of research. As research and extension are also part of the knowledge system as a whole, apart from education, it will be included here as well – more from the point of view of our own interpretation of project results than in the form of direct expressions of interviewees or workshop participants.

The importance of education in the narrower sense for the development of entrepreneurial skills, however, is clearly visible and was also expressed by workshop participants in the synthesis stage. Most of their ideas actually pointed in the direction of designing appropriate education programmes. These ideas are also taken into consideration in the recommendations section in the context of the education system.

To summarise this section, we argue that the entire knowledge system, including education, extension and research, has to be addressed in order to optimise the learning environment for farmers’ entrepreneurial skills.