Factors Affecting the Household Succession in Agricultural Occupation in Nakhon Ratchasima Province, Thailand
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Sample Size and Data Collection
2.2.1. Collection of Quantitative Data
2.2.2. Collection of Qualitative Data
2.3. Binary Logistic Regression Model of Statistical Analysis
2.3.1. The Model Used in This Study
2.3.2. Selection of Dependent and Independent Variables
3. Results
3.1. Household Data
3.2. Factors Affecting the Household Succession in Agricultural Occupation
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Office of Agricultural Economics. Agricultural Commodity Situation, 2014; Agricultural Statistics Report Number 401; Office of Agricultural Economics, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives: Bangkok, Thailand, 2014. (In Thai)
- National Statistical Office. The 2014 Survey of the Older Persons in Thailand. National Statistical Office, Ministry of Social Development and Human Security, Thailand; National Statistical Office, Ministry of Information and Communication Technology: Bangkok, Thailand, 2014; p. 245.
- Kasikorn Research Center. 2015 Farm income to suffer, pushing household debt higher. In K-Econ Analysis; Kasikorn Research Center: Bangkok, Thailand, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Office of Agricultural Economics. Agricultural Statistics of Thailand 2016; Office of Agricultural Economics, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives: Bangkok, Thailand, 2016.
- Jingjit, R. Smart Farmers; Trade Policy and Strategy Office, Ministry of Commerce: Bangkok, Thailand, 2013. (In Thai) [Google Scholar]
- Bureau of Agricultural Development Policy and Planning. Study on Agricultural Labor Shortages in the Northeastern Region, Thailand; Office of Agricultural Economics, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives: Bangkok, Thailand, 2014. (In Thai)
- Kaur, A. Labour migration trends and policy challenges in Southeast Asia. Policy Soc. 2010, 29, 385–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bertoni, D.; Cavicchioli, D. Farm succession, occupational choice and farm adaptation at the rural-urban interface: The case of Italian horticultural farms. Land Use Policy 2016, 57, 739–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burton, R.J.; Fischer, H. The succession crisis in European agriculture. Sociol. Rural. 2015, 55, 155–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dumas, C.; Dupuis, J.P.; Richer, F.; St.-Cyr, L. Factors that influence the next generation’s decision to take over the family farm. Fam. Bus. Rev. 1995, 8, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glauben, T.; Tietje, H.; Weiss, C.R. Intergenerational succession in farm households: Evidence from Upper Austria. Rev. Econ. Househ. 2004, 2, 443–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glauben, T.; Petrick, M.; Tietje, H.; Weiss, C. Probability and timing of succession or closure in family firms: A switching regression analysis of farm households in Germany. Appl. Econ. 2009, 41, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kerbler, B. Factors affecting farm succession: The case of Slovenia. Agric. Econ. 2012, 58, 285–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leonard, B.; Kinsella, A.; O’Donoghue, C.; Farrell, M.; Mahon, M. Policy drivers of farm succession and inheritance. Land Use Policy 2017, 61, 147–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mishra, A.K.; El-Osta, H.S. Factors affecting succession decisions in family farm businesses: Evidence from a national survey. J. ASFMRA 2007, 70, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Suess-Reyes, J.; Fuetsch, E. The future of family farming: A literature review on innovative, sustainable and succession-oriented strategies. J. Rural Stud. 2016, 47, 117–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morais, M.; Binotto, E.; Augusto, J.; Borges, R. Identifying beliefs underlying successors’ intention to take over the farm. Land Use Policy 2017, 68, 48–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kimhi, A.; Nachlieli, N. Intergenerational succession on Israeli family farms. J. Agric. Econ. 2001, 52, 42–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ochoa, A.M.A.; Oliva, V.C.; Sáez, C.A. Explaining farm succession: The impact of farm location and off-farm employment opportunities. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2007, 5, 214–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cavicchioli, D.; Bertoni, D.; Tesser, F.; Frisio, D.G. What factors encourage intrafamily farm succession in mountain areas? Evidence from an alpine valley in Italy. Mt. Res. Dev. 2015, 35, 152–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joosse, S.; Grubbström, A. Continuity in farming-Not just family business. J. Rural Stud. 2017, 50, 198–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiswell, H.M. The Importance of Next Generation Farmers: A Conceptual Framework to Bring the Potential Successor into Focus. Geogr. Compass 2014, 8, 300–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Department of Agricultural Extension. Data on Basic Agricultural Structure of Nakhon Ratchasima; Department of Agricultural Extension, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives: Bangkok, Thailand, 2014. (In Thai)
- Nakhon Ratchasima Provincial Statistical Office. Nakhon Ratchasima Provincial Statistical Report: 2016; National Statistical Office, Ministry Of Information and Communication Technology: Bangkok, Thailand, 2016.
- Yamane, T. Statistics, An Introductory Analysis, 2nd ed.; Harper and Row: New York, NY, USA, 1967; ISBN 978-0060473211. [Google Scholar]
- Panpeng, J.; Ahmad, M.M. Vulnerability of Fishing Communities from Sea-Level Change: A Study of Laemsing District in Chanthaburi Province, Thailand. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations. Definition of Youth; Office of Agricultural Economics, United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Gujarati, D. Essentials of Econometrics, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2006; ISBN 978-0072970920. [Google Scholar]
- Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 3rd ed.; Saga: London, UK, 2009; ISBN 978-1847879073. [Google Scholar]
- Silva, J.L.; Mohamad, S.H.A.; Uli, J.; Abu Samah, B. Socio-demography factors that influence youth attitude towards contract farming. Am. J. Appl. Sci. 2010, 7, 603–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foltz, R.D.; Marshall, M.I. Family Business Decision-Making: Factors and Influences on Choosing a Successor. In Proceedings of the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association’s 2012 AAEA Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA, USA, 12–14 August 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Hyttia, N.; Kola, J. Finish citizens’ attitude towards multifunctional agriculture. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2006, 9, 1–22. [Google Scholar]
- Abdullah, A.A.; Sulaiman, N.N. Factors That Influence the Interest of Youths in Agricultural Entrepreneurship. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2013, 4, 288–312. [Google Scholar]
- Bradley, E.W. Toward Understanding Task, Mission and Public Service Motivation: A Conceptual and Empirical Synthesis of Goal Theory and Public Service Motivation. In Proceedings of the 7th National Public Management Research Conference, Georgetown Public Policy Institute, Washington, DC, USA, 9 October 2003; pp. 9–11. [Google Scholar]
- Ryan, M.R.; Deci, L.E. Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. Am. Psychol. 2000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Passel, S.; Nevens, F.; Mathijs, E.; Van Huylenbroeck, G. Measuring farm sustainability and explaining differences in sustainable efficiency. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 62, 149–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lobley, M.; Baker, J.R.; Whitehead, I. Farm succession and retirement: Some international comparisons. J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev. 2010, 1, 49–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Furlong, A.; Biggart, A. Framing ‘Choices’: A longitudinal study of occupational aspirations among 13-to 16-year-olds. J. Educ. Work 1999, 12, 21–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hennessy, T.C.; Rehman, T. An investigation into factors affecting the occupational choices of nominated farm heirs in Ireland. J. Agric. Econ. 2007, 58, 61–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kimhi, A. Optimal timing of farm transferal from parent to child. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1994, 76, 228–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leavy, J.; Smith, S. Future farmers: Youth aspirations, expectations and life choices. Future Agric. Discuss. Pap. 2010, 13, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- Corsi, A. Family farm succession and specific knowledge in Italy. Riv. Econ. Agrar. 2009, 64, 13–30. [Google Scholar]
- Brandth, B.; Overrein, G. Resourcing children in a changing rural context: Fathering and farm succession in two generations of farmers. Sociol. Rural. 2013, 53, 95–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burton, R.J. An alternative to farmer age as an indicator of life-cycle stage: The case for a farm family age index. J. Rural Stud. 2006, 22, 485–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gasson, R.; Errington, A.J. The Farm Family Business; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 1993; ISBN 0-85198-859-8. [Google Scholar]
- Laband, D.N.; Lentz, B.F. Occupational inheritance in agriculture. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1983, 65, 311–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cassidy, A.; McGrath, B. The relationship between ‘non-successor’ farm offspring and the continuity of the irish family farm. Sociol. Rural. 2014, 54, 399–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darnhofer, I.; Bellon, S.; Dedieu, B.; Milestad, R. Adaptiveness to enhance the sustainability of farming systems. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 30, 545–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Price, L.; Evans, N. From stress to distress: Conceptualizing the British family farming patriarchal way of life. J. Rural Stud. 2009, 25, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stiglbauer, A.M.; Weiss, C.R. Family and non-family succession in the Upper-Austrian farm sector. Cah. Econ. Sociol. Rural. 2000, 54, 5–26. [Google Scholar]
- Burton, R.J.; Walford, N. Multiple succession and land division on family farms in the South East of England: A counterbalance to agricultural concentration? J. Rural Stud. 2005, 21, 335–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gale, H.F. Why did the number of young farm entrants decline? Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1993, 75, 138–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goetz, S.J.; Debertin, D.L. Why farmers quit: A county-level analysis. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2001, 83, 1010–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramos, G. The continuity of family agriculture and the succession system: The Basque case. J. Comp. Fam. Stud. 2005, 36, 367–375. [Google Scholar]
- Storm, H.; Mittenzwei, K.; Heckelei, T. Direct payments, spatial competition, and farm survival in Norway. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2014, 97, 1192–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Comer, S.; Ekanem, E.; Muhammad, S.; Singh, S.P.; Tegegne, F. Sustainable and conventional farmers: A comparison of socio-economic characteristics, attitude, and beliefs. J. Sustain. Agric. 1999, 15, 29–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vanslembrouck, I.; Huylenbroeck, G.; Verbeke, W. Determinants of the willingness of belgian farmers to participate in agri-environmental measures. J. Agric. Econ. 2002, 53, 489–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vogel, S.; Hofreither, M.E.; Schneeberger, W.; Weiss, E. Factors of farm enlargement plans in the Austrian Mountain Regions. Bodenkultur 2004, 55, 73–81. [Google Scholar]
- Milovanović, S. The role and potential of information technology in agricultural improvement. Econ. Agric. 2014, 2, 471–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aker, J.C. Dial “A” for agriculture: A review of information and communication technologies for agricultural extension in developing countries. Agric. Econ. 2011, 42, 631–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cox, S. Information technology: The global key to precision agriculture and sustainability. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2002, 36, 93–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rigi, K.; Farahmand, M.; Sheikhpour, S.; Moradi, H.; Keshtehgar, A. Role of information technology in agricultural development. J. Novel Appl. Sci. 2014, 3, 203–205. [Google Scholar]
- Janssen, S.J.C.; Porter, C.H.; Moore, A.D.; Athanasiadis, I.N.; Foster, I.; Jones, J.W.; Antle, J.M. Towards a new generation of agricultural system data, models and knowledge products: Information and communication technology. Agric. Syst. 2017, 155, 200–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, M.; Zhang, N. Information technology alters the roadmap to agricultural modernization. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2002, 36, 91–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Code | Data Entry |
---|---|---|
Personal Factors | ||
1. Sex of informants | SEX | 1 = Male, 0 = Female |
2. Age of informants | AGE | Age (year) |
3. Marital status of informants | STATUS | 1 = Single, 0 = Others |
4. Educational level of informants | EDU | 1 = Lower than Bachelor’s degree, 0 = Bachelor’s degree or above |
5. Main household income-generating occupation | WORK | 1 = Farmers, 0 = Others |
6. Household income from agriculture | INCOME | Amount (Baht/Year) |
7. Experience in agricultural work of informants | EXP | 1 = Having had some experience in helping the family in agriculture, 0 = NEVER had experience in helping the family in agriculture |
8. Household debts | DEBT | 1 = Yes, 0 = None |
Agricultural production factors | ||
1. Number of agricultural labor in households | LABOR | Number (persons) |
2. Agriculture areas owned | LAND | Area (Rai; 1 Rai = 1600 sq m) |
3. Water supply sufficiency | WATER | 1 = Sufficient, 0 = Insufficient |
4. Soil fertility | SOIL | 1 = Fertile, 0 = Not fertile |
5. Benefits gained from government’s policy support systems | POLICY | 1 = Yes, 0 = Never |
Positive attitude toward agricultural occupation | ATT | Score (1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Undecided, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly agree) |
Variables | Frequency | Percentages |
---|---|---|
Household labor engaged in agriculture (n = 400) | ||
1–2 | 175 | 43.8 |
3–4 | 147 | 36.8 |
Over 5 | 78 | 19.4 |
Agriculture land owned (rai) (n = 368) | ||
Less than 10 | 134 | 36.4 |
11–20 | 114 | 31.0 |
21–30 | 33 | 9.0 |
31–40 | 29 | 7.8 |
41–50 | 23 | 6.3 |
Over 50 | 35 | 9.5 |
Agriculture land rented (rai) (n = 83) | ||
Less than 10 | 37 | 44.6 |
11–20 | 30 | 36.2 |
21–30 | 6 | 7.2 |
31–40 | 2 | 2.4 |
41–50 | 2 | 2.4 |
Over 50 | 6 | 7.2 |
Household income from agriculture (THB per year) (n = 400) | ||
Less than 100,000 | 238 | 59.5 |
100,001–200,000 | 82 | 20.5 |
200,001–300,000 | 32 | 8.0 |
Over 300,000 | 48 | 12.0 |
Household debts (n = 400) | ||
No | 142 | 35.5 |
Yes | 258 | 64.5 |
Soil fertility (n = 400) | ||
Fertile | 228 | 57.0 |
Not fertile | 172 | 43.0 |
Water supply sufficiency (n = 400) | ||
Sufficient | 148 | 37.0 |
Insufficient | 252 | 63.0 |
Benefits gained from government policy support (n = 400) | ||
Never | 99 | 24.8 |
Yes | 301 | 75.2 |
Types of government policy support (n = 400) | ||
Never | 128 | 32.0 |
Yes | 272 | 68.0 |
Experience of informants in agricultural work (n = 400) | ||
Never | 86 | 21.5 |
Yes | 314 | 78.5 |
Agricultural occupation succession of young farmers (n = 400) | ||
No | 151 | 37.8 |
Yes | 249 | 62.2 |
Test Statistics | Value | Significance |
---|---|---|
Number of Observations | 400 | |
−2 Log-Likelihood | 161.135 | |
Cox & Snell R2 | 0.296 | |
Nagelkerke R2 | 0.435 | |
Chi-square | 125.386 *** | 0.0000 |
Percent Correct Prediction | 82.25 |
Variable | Coefficient | Standard Error | p Value | Marginal Effect |
---|---|---|---|---|
Constant | −5.6357 * | 2.1972 | 0.0103 | −0.7536 |
SEX | −0.0170 | 0.3067 | 0.9557 | −0.0022 |
AGE | −0.0123 | 0.0671 | 0.8544 | −0.0016 |
STATUS | −1.4005 ** | 0.4712 | 0.0030 | −0.1510 |
EDU | 0.0802 | 0.3071 | 0.7940 | 0.0107 |
WORK | −0.1483 | 0.1764 | 0.4006 | −0.0198 |
INCOME | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.4803 | 0.0000 |
EXP | 1.8880 *** | 0.4092 | 0.0001 | 0.3634 |
DEBT | −0.0666 | 0.3246 | 0.8373 | −0.0088 |
LABOR | 0.3602 *** | 0.0939 | 0.0001 | 0.0481 |
LAND | 0.0157 | 0.0083 | 0.0604 | 0.0021 |
WATER | −0.7662 * | 0.3437 | 0.0258 | −0.0970 |
SOIL | −0.0740 | 0.3292 | 0.8220 | −0.0099 |
POLICY | 0.1860 | 0.3059 | 0.5432 | −0.0254 |
ATT | 1.5731 *** | 0.3632 | 0.0001 | 0.2130 |
© 2018 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Rayasawath, C. Factors Affecting the Household Succession in Agricultural Occupation in Nakhon Ratchasima Province, Thailand. Agriculture 2018, 8, 109. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture8070109
Rayasawath C. Factors Affecting the Household Succession in Agricultural Occupation in Nakhon Ratchasima Province, Thailand. Agriculture. 2018; 8(7):109. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture8070109
Chicago/Turabian StyleRayasawath, Chacattrai. 2018. "Factors Affecting the Household Succession in Agricultural Occupation in Nakhon Ratchasima Province, Thailand" Agriculture 8, no. 7: 109. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture8070109