Introduction
Agriculture for millennia was a basic area of human economical activity and a clearly identifiable form of management. Already Aristotle in the 4th century B.C.E., in his work Politics considered whether "agriculture and general care for food and its acquisition was part of a household discipline or a different kind of science"1. He advocated separateness: “There are many kinds of food, hence and many ways of life”2.
The agricultural farm, its forms, nature and economical and social position have evolved over millennia. There are many different agricultural models today. The multiplicity of types, scale or strategy (proprietary form) allows to point out any common improvement megatrends, including the progressive area concentration, the adoption by agriculture of characteristics of sectors dominant in the economy (especially industry), the increasing dependence of agriculture on the environment, and yet its comparative economical and marketplace marginalisation. From the point of view of the future of agriculture, but besides of the interest of consumers or the alleged food security, the future image of the agricultural strategy and the prevailing agricultural model are key problems.
Agricultural strategy and model of agriculture
The agricultural strategy is the most general arrangement of ownership relations and forms of production organisation in agriculture, as well as forms of organization of the agricultural market3. It is besides a way of developing the agricultural area, the usage of agricultural land and the strategy of organisation of agricultural activities at any phase in the improvement of society, or yet a set of interconnected institutions that form the functioning of agriculture and the usage of land.
The agricultural strategy is part of the state's socio-economic strategy for agriculture and agrarian development4. Agriculture is so a division of the economy in which the strategy is based, and in Poland a household farm (micro scale). This concept refers to the economical strategy of the country, its industrial, commercial and agricultural policies. The government is intended to lead to the implementation of tasks at both macro and micro level, peculiarly as regards the improvement of conditions for the rational and efficient operation of agricultural holdings.
The concept of an agricultural strategy refers to the economical strategy of the country, its industrial, commercial and agricultural policies. The government is intended to lead to the implementation of tasks at both macro and micro level, peculiarly as regards the improvement of conditions for the rational and efficient operation of agricultural holdings.
The agricultural strategy of each country is mostly gradually developed, and the dominant influence on its final form is not only history, but besides geographical and economical and social conditions. This correctness does not naturally mention to events of a revolutionary nature, as was the case in many countries of Central and east Europe after 1945 or earlier in many countries and regions of the world, the most memorable expression of which was the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917. In fact, the economical strategy of agriculture in all socio-economic era is exemplified in the form of an agricultural model. This is simply a circumstantial image of agriculture that shapes selected elements of the agricultural system, specified as land ownership forms (private, collective, state), the mode and structure of agricultural land use, the way agricultural space is developed and the production techniques used, in peculiar the degree of dependence on industrial inputs. The agricultural model is the actual basis for agricultural production in microscales, otherwise at farm level. In practice, it is reflected in the functions (their layout and intensity) carried out by the basic economical units, specified as farms5.
Evolution of the agricultural model
The agricultural strategy of the successive epochs, followed by the dominant agricultural model, was influenced by many changing circumstances and phenomena. But they were always fundamental processes from the point of view of a given historical period. In the Roman Empire, there were win-win wars, in the mediate Ages – large geographical discoveries, in the modern age – colonialism, and modern times – a capitalist strategy with attributes specified as marketplace mechanics and competition and profit pressures, which in the last decades of the 20th century launched globalisation processes. To find the way of the evolution of the agriculture of the future, it is worth identifying the changes that have been subject to the basic model for each era, reflecting the political dimension of the agricultural strategy of the given era and its associated conditions. They have developed on given continents and in different epochs, but in a sense their “biological” expression has always been the process of concentration of land – otherwise – concentration of area farms and growth of their average area (arable land field).
The “biological” expression of the continents afraid and the different eras of agricultural models has always been the process of concentrating the area and expanding their average area.
For example, the colonization of the territory of North and South America stripped the indigenous inhabitants of most arable land. As a result, the commercial agricultural sector was created, which consisted of settlers, mainly from the "old" European countries. akin processes took place in Africa and South Asia. On the another hand, the agriculture of Europe's countries at the time may have been subject, not so violent but to constant changes in concentration of land. It developed first under feudal rights and then under the influence of marketplace processes. The countries of this continent have been powerfully prior to another regions of the planet outside North America (USA, Canada), having undergone an industrialisation process, linked to the outflow of the agricultural population to another activities (mainly industry), which mostly has a affirmative impact on both the agricultural structure and agricultural productivity, driven by a capital substitution of labour. This is how American, Asian or European agriculture models have been developed, including the European Agricultural Model, which has been shaped to the top degree by the EEC/EU common agricultural policy. However, the differences between these models do not contradict the existence of common features, similarities or even far-reaching identity. The main axis of their differences is the dilemma: a household farm or an industrial agricultural company (in the past it is frequently besides a household company, but for any time a corp – in this case – called agroholding).
Modern state
Both the number and structure of farms are constantly evolving. Naturally, it does not follow the same pattern in all countries and regions – it is simply a consequence of the interplay of many factors, including:
– political (implemented in relation to agriculture national and regional policies),
– social (city-rural relation arrangement),
– economical (agricultural function in the economy of the country and region),
– demographic (growth dynamics, the nature of the labour market, the request of non-agricultural departments for agricultural labour),
– environmental-natural (agricultural land resources, including per individual employed in agriculture, areas possibly useful in agriculture, irrigation needs).
According to FAO data, there are 566.6 million farms in 167 countries worldwide6. Definitely the most (approximately 74%) are located in Asia (including China – 35.0% and India – 24.0%). At the same time there were 2.522.3 million farmers in the group of countries covered by this respect. This means that on average little than 1.8 hectares of cultivated land per farmer per planet scale. According to various estimates, there are between 475 and 500 million farms in the planet below 2 ha, of which 410 million (72.0 % of the total) have little than 1 ha.7. These under 2 ha account for as much as 97.9% of all farms in China, 95.1% in Egypt and 94.8% in Vietnam. In the other pole are countries specified as Denmark, Ireland and Sweden, where the share of specified farms is successively 1.7%, 2.2% and 3.4%.8. The average farm area in individual countries besides varies in the immense range, i.e. from 3.240 ha in Australia, 580 ha in Argentina, 290 ha in Uruguay and 270 ha in Canada, to 0.3 ha in Bangladesh, 0.7 ha in Vietnam and 0.8 ha in Indonesia and Egypt.
The evolution in the agrarian structure of individual countries and continents over the last 50-70 years has been highly diverse. From the FAO data of 108 countries, from 1960 to 2000, the average farm area decreased in 63 of them (58.3%), increased in 38 (35.2%) and did not importantly change in 7 countries (6.5%). In peculiar regions, changes were multi-directional. Thus, the average farm area decreased in 100.0% of the surveyed countries of North Africa and the mediate East, 80.0% of the countries of East Asia and the Pacific region, 78.9% of the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, 66.7% of the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, and 18.9% of the countries of Europe (except Cyprus and Malta) and not 1 country of North America (USA, Canada).
The evolution in the agrarian structure of individual countries and continents in fresh decades has been highly diverse. From the FAO data of 108 countries, the average farm area decreased in 63 (58.3%) from 1960 to 2000, increased in 38 (35.2%) and did not importantly change in 7 (6.5%).
The image of agriculture in the planet present is more diverse than it was half a century ago. The changes are as follows:
– in Europe and North America, the average size of the farm grew steadily between 1950 and 2000
– as a consequence of the progressive area concentration,
– in Asia and Africa, the average size of the farm in most countries of the region fell steadily from 1950 to 2000 as a consequence of the deconcentration process (for example, in South Asia, the average size of the farm fell from about 2.6 ha in 1960 to 1.3 ha in 2000)9,
– in Latin America at the time, the changes were varied – from fast concentration in countries specified as Argentina and Uruguay, through comparative stabilisation in Brazil, Colombia or Ecuador, to deconcentration in Chile, Mexico, Paraguay or Guatemala; overall, the average size of the farm in the region decreased from around 80 hectares per farm in 1960, to 50 hectares in 1990 and then partially increased in subsequent decades,
– In many countries of Latin America, east Europe and Central Asia, where there is simply a comparatively large number of agricultural land, there has been an increase in large-scale agriculture (large-area farms) between 1970 and 2010. This is seen e.g. in Ukraine, where there are about 100 farms (agroholdings) with an average area of 5000 ha, and the 10 largest of them occupy the full area of 2.65 million ha10. full agroholdings account for 29.0% of all agricultural land (UR) Ukraine11. In Germany, agroholdings account for about 11.0% of the UR area, including 37.0% in Thuringia, 28.0% in Saxony, up to 1-3% in the old lands12,
– in the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, the drive to decision to large-area agriculture in the 1970s and 1980s has mostly failed; tiny farms have remained the primary agricultural model in the region,
– Between 1960 and 2000, the average size of the farm decreased in most low and low-average income countries, increased in any countries with higher average incomes and in almost all high-income countries.13,
– Between 1930 and 2000, the average size of the farm and the median average size at global level (sample 106 countries, with the number of countries changing from year to year) decreased; this means a decrease in the average size of farms in most regions of the world, but Europe, Australia, fresh Zealand, USA, Canada, Argentina and Uruguay14,
– there are crucial differences in the distribution of farm sizes between rich and mediocre countries. The average farm size is higher in countries with higher average GDP per capita (in 20% of the poorest countries in the world, the average farm size is 1.6 ha, while in 20% of the richest countries is 54.1 ha); in countries with higher average incomes, farms occupy 70% of the land, while in the poorest countries 70% of the land occupy little than 5 ha).15.
The global agricultural model has been subject to accelerated diversification in 2 opposing directions since the mid-20th century, i.e.: progressive area concentration and deconcentration. The concentration is stimulated by the advanced price of labour, the advanced capital possible and the rapidly shrinking resources of agricultural land. Deconcentration on the another hand, insufficient request from non-agricultural departments and deficiency of capital.
In summary, the planet agricultural model has been subject to accelerated diversification in 2 opposing directions since the mid-20th century, i.e.: a progressive area concentration in Europe, North America, Australia and parts of Oceania and selected countries of South America and Africa, and deconcentration in another parts of the world, mainly in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and most Latin American countries. However, these processes, although different in their direction and nature, are stimulated by the same set of reasons, including the relation between resources and prices of basic factors of agricultural production, specified as labour, land and capital. The concentration is stimulated by the advanced price of labour, the advanced capital possible and the rapidly shrinking resources of agricultural land as a consequence of the improvement of civilization. Deconcentration of large labour resources, insufficient request from non-agricultural departments and deficiency of capital. What will the agricultural model of the future look like? Should a gradual unification be envisaged, or alternatively a progressive regional differentiation to strengthen the dual nature of agriculture in the world?
The future of the dual model
Considering the global form of the agriculture of the future, 2 basic models are expected to compete fundamentally:
- (a) agricultural corporations (agroholding), primarily utilizing the competitive advantage of the marketplace mechanism
- (b) a household (private) agricultural holding with the advantage of the former, but increasingly supported by state interventionism16.
There is simply a clear division of views and views in the literature of the subject. On the 1 hand, since the 1960s, the importance of tiny farms has been consistently stressed. Their advantage over large farms concerns issues specified as: the fast consequence to fresh markets and technologies, peculiarly after the success of the alleged Green Revolution (a much greater advancement by Asian countries compared to Latin America and its highly uneven agrarian structure), the growth in productivity of tiny farmers, which fosters better improvement outcomes in terms of overall economical growth and occupation creation, the improvement of tiny agriculture with a disproportionately higher impact on poorness simplification than another sectors, the advanced inequality in land ownership, typical of the corporate agriculture model, which reduces investment in public goods17.
On the another hand, the limited success of tiny farmers' efforts to improve productivity in certain regions of the world, e.g. sub-Saharan Africa, and the visible advancement in the improvement of agricultural production in countries that have set up large farms, even those with comparatively low levels of improvement specified as Argentina and Brazil, have led any governments to a more favourable view of the improvement of large-scale mechanised agriculture. The emphasis on large farms was reinforced by the clear export competitiveness of agroholdings in Latin America and east Europe (Ukraine) and the increased interest of organization investors in agriculture as a origin of business (in part in consequence to the global food crisis in 2007-2008), although experience with promoting the advantages of large-area farms was frequently negative. Calling for greater efficiency of large farms utilizing modern production methods has frequently been an excuse to get further areas of land, usually without their production use, as is presently the case in many African countries. These practices deprive the local population of basic sources of life and take the form of alleged landgrabbing, which any even identify with a fresh form of colonialism.
Moreover, while large farms have played a dominant function in plantation cultivation in the past, typical agricultural production, unlike industry, is not characterised by specified crucial economies of scale. While larger individuals have an advantage in accessing globalised markets today, the persistence of household farmers in overcoming many problems, including their ability to temporarily reduce their own needs or collective action combined with advanced individual engagement in their farms, makes the agricultural sector in many regions of the planet inactive dominated by private farms.
Area concentration processes in many European, North and South American countries over the last 70 years have been stimulated mainly by 3 factors: fresh technologies facilitating labour replacement, shortages or insufficient availability of labour in many border, peripheral and non-urban areas, and increased force on the integration of supply chains and fast standardisation and certification of agricultural products. Many smaller farms were incapable to comply with the fresh requirements of agricultural markets and were limiting or giving up their activities. The problem was besides the alleged income deprivation of farmers, which resulted in the failure to keep track of the agricultural sector behind the productivity of processing and service departments, commonly known as the agrarn issue18.
While larger farms have an advantage in accessing the globalised markets today, the persistence of household farmers in overcoming problems combined with a advanced individual commitment makes the agricultural sector in many regions of the planet inactive dominated by private farms.
Whether these factors will influence further regional concentration and the emergence of ever-increasing agricultural holdings in selected countries and regions depends on phenomena specified as the dynamics of demographic growth and the ability of non-agricultural sectors to effectively absorb labour from agriculture, the degree of liberalisation of national agricultural policies in the field of land trade, the availability of land possibly suitable for agricultural production in areas with very low population density, the resources of land uncultivated or suitable for agricultural use, and, above all, the force of environmental issues linked to the simplification of the exploitation of natural goods.
The last challenge concerns the issue of agricultural sustainability, including a circumstantial economical and environmental sustainability conflict in agriculture and the inability to reconcile the 2 contradictions within the marketplace mechanics (at least in the current state of technological advancement and economical imperatives, i.e. the request for profit/income). Agricultural sustainability studies show a crucial contradiction in the simultaneous accomplishment of economical and environmental objectives by farms in different agricultural models and types.
Balancing agriculture, as well as another sectors of the economy, specified as energy, is now becoming an increasingly crucial precedence for economical and social policy both on a single country and in the global system. The relation between this nonsubjective and food safety remains an additional problem for agricultural sustainability. As experience has shown in many countries, environmental sustainability measures stay in a certain conflict with the size of agricultural production produced and yet with food safety. For these reasons, the relation between objectives: food safety and environmental protection (food safety versus protection of environment) remains a real social and economical problem.
Area concentration processes in many European, North and South American countries over the last 70 years have been driven mainly by 3 factors: fresh technologies replacing labour, insufficient availability of labour in many border, peripheral and unurbanised areas, and increased force on the integration of supply chains and fast standardisation and certification of agricultural products.
So what is in favour of small-scale farms as the dominant agricultural model of the future? Historically, the vast majority of countries which achieved fast economical growth in the early stages of improvement have invested in agriculture, as a core sector at the time. Although today's realities are different, tiny farms inactive have an advantage in the vast majority of regions and countries of the planet in the production volume per unit of land (1 ha). This is peculiarly evident in regions where the earth is simply a uncommon origin compared to the labour force, e.g. on the most populous continent (in Asia). The winning of tiny farms can be ensured by 2 strategies implemented simultaneously, i.e. maximising agricultural production per unit area and the individual employed and effective distribution, which, in view of the tiny scale of unit production, forces collective shares of farmers operating in smaller areas19.
Changes in farm size are caused by demographic change. They reduce the amount of land available to the household until non-agricultural opportunities grow adequate to absorb all fresh members of the family. Asia as a full has already exceeded this turning point, so its average farm sizes (in the position of 2050) may increase, while Africa will proceed to decline, which poses circumstantial challenges in both peripheral (rural) and industrialised areas.20.
Summary
What can be seen as a real image of the future agricultural model, and what is more desirable? Modern processes are under strong force from globalisation. The last decades, especially after 2000, have been abounding in events weakening her strength to strengthen the position of national states and their policies. This surely applies to agriculture and food safety strategies implemented by individual countries.
The modern image of the agricultural sector is the dual form of its model: the increasingly corporatised agriculture of Europe, North America and partially of South America, Africa and Oceania, and the continued household agriculture of another regions of the world, including Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, Pacific and Caribbean countries. The future evolution of this model will be a consequence of 2 opposing processes.
What is in favour of tiny farms as the dominant agricultural model of the future? They inactive have an advantage in the vast majority of regions and countries of the planet in the production volume per unit of land (1 ha). They can be won by 2 strategies implemented at the same time: maximising agricultural production per area and individual employed, and effective distribution, which forces collective forms of farmers' shares.
The stronger globalisation is, the greater the impulse to concentrate the area in agriculture and the progressive dominance of agricultural corporations. In the same direction, there will be a simplification in natural growth in the most populous countries in the world. In turn, the more labour-efficient technological progress, the little agricultural labour request and increased force on area deconcentration and the widening of the importance of tiny household farms in many regions of the world. In the same direction, there will be an increased threat of armed conflicts and a willingness to build national food safety strategies, reducing participation in planet trade in agricultural and food products.
Today's agricultural sector is dual: increasingly corporatised agriculture of Europe, North America and partially of South America, Africa and Oceania, and inactive household farming of another regions of the world. The stronger globalisation is, the greater the impulse to concentrate the area and the progressive dominance of agricultural corporations. In turn, the more labour-efficient technological advancement is, the more force on regional deconcentration and the more crucial tiny household farms.
The trend that will dominate the global economy will set the way for future changes in agriculture. Models: balanced, vertical, carbon, precision, etc. will alternatively stay marginal, even between 2050 and 2050. This means that the dual agricultural model is likely to stay the primary 1 for a long time, and depending on the phenomena occurring, erstwhile its corporate form will be strengthened, and in another periods the household form will be strengthened.
1 Aristotle, Policy, crowd. L. Piotrovich, in: Works All, t. I, Warsaw 2003, p. 12, http://biblioteka. Kiętowski.pl/aristoteles/polityka.pdf [Online access].
2 Ibid.
3 A. Stelmachowski, Polish agricultural law against the background of European Union legislation, Legal Publishing home PWN, Warsaw 1999, p. 19.
4 N. Janowska, Constitutional agricultural framework and real property management policy in Poland, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poznań 2023.
5 S. Kowalczyk, R. Sobiecki, The European Agricultural Model against global challenges, ‘Agricultural Economics Issues’ 2011, No. 329(4), p. 35, http://www.zer.waw.pl/EUROPE-MODEL- AGRICULTURE-WOBEC-EXCLOSURE, 83444,0.2.html [on-line access].
6 Agriculture included in the estimates of 167 countries represents 96% of the planet population, 97% of the agricultural population and 90% of the world's agricultural land. The data taken into account in the estimation comes in the vast majority from 2000-2010.
7 S.K. Lowder, J. Skot, T. Raney, The Number, Size, and Distribution of Farms, Smallholder Farms, and household Farms Worldwide, ‘World Development’ 2016, No 87, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X15002703#b0140 [online access].
8 Our planet in Data, https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ share-farms-skillholders?tab=table [on-line access].
9 S.K. Lowder, J. Skot, T. Raney, The Number, Size, and Distribution of Farms..., pp.
10 The global Competition Center on Large Scale Agriculture (LaScala), TOP 10 Ukrainian Agricultural Land Users2021, 7.10.2021, https://www.largescaleagriculture.com/home/news-details/top-10-Ukrainian-agricultural-land-users-2021/ [on-line access].
11 A. Kravchuk, M. Neboha, J. de los Reyes, Offshoring prosperity. Agroholdings and taxation accessibility in Ukraine, ‘TNI Longreads’, https://longreads.tni.org/offshoring-prosperity-Ukraine [on-line access].
12 O. Zinke, Die Reichsten Bauern in Deutschland – sind überhaupt keine Bauern, ‘Agrarheute’, 29.12.2023, https:// www.agrarheute.com/management/agribusiness/ reichsten-bauern-deutschland-ueberhaupt-keine-bauern-614805?utm_campaign=ah-sa-nl&utm_source=ahnnl&utm_medium=newsletter-link&utm_term=2023-12-30 [Online access].
13 Breakdown of countries by planet Bank classification into the following groups: low-income countries (low-income countries), countries with lower average income (lower middle-income country), countries with higher average incomes (Upper middle-income countries) and high-income countries (high-income countries). The qualification thresholds for individual groups are changing.
14 S.K. Lowder, J. Skot, T. Raney, The Number, Size, and Distribution of Farms..., dz, cit.
15 T. Adamopoulos, D. Restuccia, The size distribution of farms and global production differences, The American economical Review 2014, No 104(6).
16 There is no terminology in the literature on the household farm (family farms) which is usually identified with a small-scale holding (smallholder farms). In addition, a small- holding is besides a comparative concept and very circumstantial in different political and economical arrangements, which is why the definitions of tiny agricultural holdings vary widely from country to country.
17 K. Deininger, D. Byerlee, The emergence of Large Farms in Land Abundant Countries: Do They Have a Future?, ‘World Development’ 2012, No 40(4), https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X1100108?via%-3Dihub [on-line access].
18 S. Kowalczyk, R. Sobiecki, Agrarn issue. From Farming to Sustainable Farming, Oficina Wydawnictwo SGH, Warsaw 2021.
19 P. Hazel, C. Poulton, S. Wiggins, A. Dorward, The Future of tiny Farms: Trajectories and Policy Priorities, ‘World Development’ 2010, No 38(10), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X10001038 [on-line access].
20 W. A. Masters, A. Andersson Djurfeldt, C. De Haan, P. Hazel, T. Jayne, M. Jirström, T. Reardon, Urbanization and farm size in Asia and Africa: Impacts for food safety and agricultural research, ‘Global Food Security’ 2013, No. 2(3), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ abs/pii/S2211912413000254 [online access].
