• Rural NZ
• Assistance / Emergencies
• People issues
  • Access
  • Communication
  • Demographics
  • Education
  • e-Government
  • Rural Health
  • Social research
• Profitability
• Research
• Rural Proofing
• SLM Hill Country Erosion Programme
• Community Irrigation Fund
• Stats & forecasts
• Sustainability
• Legislation
• Media Centre
• Publications
• What's New

---

• Farm Women’s Work
• On-Farm Work Activities
• Economic Diversity of Farm Families

---

3.4 Farm-based employment

Women’s formal participation as members of the farm-based workforce has risen considerably between 1976 and 1994 (table 3.7).

Agricultural census data for 1994 indicates that of the 44,600 farms with one or more working owners, 50% have at least one female working owner. Dairy farming attracts more women owners than sheep/beef production (54% of dairy farms with working owners have at least one female working owner compared to 45% of sheep/beef farms).

1991 population census data on women involved in the agricultural industries shows that dairy farming is the most important industry for women, followed by sheep, then mixed farming. Younger women are involved in dairying, older women with sheep and beef (see appendix 1).

Farm Women’s Work

The overall increase in women’s formal involvement in farm-based employment is reinforced by considerable anecdotal information about women’s increasing involvement in practical farm work, financial management, and more ‘real’ farm partnerships. Several women who were interviewed for this study, or responded to questionnaire which was distributed with the scoping report (Rivers, 1992) commented on the ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors which have caused women to become more involved in active, practical, outside farm work. ‘Pull’ factors include women wanting a change in business or lifestyle, or expanding a previous hobby and interest, or seeing an opportunity or a market gap. ‘Push’ factors in this study relate to women being faced with the decision to either become unemployed or buy the business they worked in, or to which they supplied a product. In other cases there was no work available in the area and the women needed to create opportunities for themselves.

On-Farm Work Activities

Shaw’s (1993) study of farming women in the Waikato involved women keeping 48 hour "time use" diaries (in which every five minutes the actual tasks the woman is engaged in are recorded) to find out how farm women spend their time on, and off, the farm. From additional questionnaire surveys Shaw obtained the opinions of farm women as to how they see themselves, and also how others (the rural service industry, the rural community and society) view these women in their farming role. The majority of women (88%) viewed themselves as farmers, or in a farming occupation if they were non-owners. They undertook multiple tasks and saw their contribution in many ways: physical work on the property, financial, administrative, managerial, supportive and organisational. While the amount of farm labour varied it appeared that women were becoming increasingly involved in agricultural work.

Shaw’s study showed that although women performed the bulk of domestic household labour and felt overworked, they also felt their families appreciated their efforts. Most of the farm women did not think the general public appreciated their work, particularly their non-domestic work. While about two-thirds of the women felt they were accepted in the role of farmer, comments from all the women made it clear that while society accepts men in farming without question, women have had to prove themselves to be as knowledgeable and skilled as their male counterparts. This is a similar finding to research undertaken more than a decade earlier (Craig, 1979).

Information gained from the surveys of rural service industry people suggested the majority have outdated perceptions of the roles of farming women. Women are still faced with rural service people who are rude, insult their intelligence, or just ignore them in farm dealings and discussions (Shaw, 1993).

Anderson’s (1993) time use study of 42 farm families also showed that farm women undertake more domestic work than farm men. In this study women were found to work a total of nine hours more per week than men. The difference in the amount of time men and women spend on work is reflected in the amount of time they each spend on leisure activities. The women studied spent on average 21.4 hours per week on leisure compared to 26.0 hours per week for men and the leisure time of the women was fragmented by domestic work activities. Anderson also found that there was a statistically significant difference in the time spent by older men and women on leisure. While the leisure time of older farm men increases, that of older farm women does not.

The time-use survey also highlighted the importance of broadening our concept of work. In the case of farming, work is commonly defined as that which contributes directly to the production of goods for the agricultural commodity market. Such a definition undervalues women’s unpaid agricultural labour on a daily and generational basis (Anderson, 1993).

Similarly, a study of ten hill farming families in Taumaranui (Nolan, 1992) found that a general downturn in market prices and the economic restructuring of 1984 onwards had led women to contribute more both on and off the farm. Women were often expected to do the work of employees the farm could no longer afford. The women were also expected to continue their domestic work regardless of any increase in their roles and responsibilities, as well as being called on to undertake voluntary work.

Anecdotal evidence along the same lines was reported in an article discussing the rural recovery and the changes made in Taihape:

Glenys Due says: "I think rural women have had to be stronger on the home front to support their husbands." But it wasn’t just a case of standing by their man. Women such as Mrs Due had to supplement farm incomes. Six years ago, the mother of four began travelling 25 km from her farm into Taihape to sell insurance and do voluntary work. "I don’t think we will go back to the pre-1984 days as far as rural women are concerned," she says (Fogarty, 1994).

Comment provided on the scoping report which preceded this one emphasised the diversity and range of work (paid and unpaid) activities undertaken by farm women (Rivers 1992). Some of the comments women made included:

	Women have served a very full and unsung role on many farms. Partnerships as such are now more commonly recognised, but their actual contribution on and off-farm is rarely full seen for what it is. Particularly in recent stressful years it is the women who have recognised when help was needed and got it. Men would work on hoping it would go away ... women will use lateral thinking to develop ideas and work in a network more readily to achieve goals.
	[I now] take the place of boy or cadet for farm work.
	[More women are involved in farm work in our district in the last few years.
	... the farming sector cannot employ a farm worker because of the economic situation. You cut down on work and expenditure and do it all yourself.

Similar experiences were also relayed by women on local authorities and Boards who were interviewed for this study:

	The era of the family farm has passed. There’s not the glamour in farming that there was. The extreme stress of the eighties has affected almost everyone and will leave its legacy. There’s a lot more mobility in farm ownership. They are not being handed down the generations as they used to be. Our kids don’t want the farm. They don’t want to go through the stress we’ve been through.
	Farmers’ wives are making as much contribution as farmers these days — running the business side of the farm, working off the farm to support the finances, labouring on the farm to replace the married couple.

Discussions with Southland women identified that for them 1986 proved to be a turning point year, with the economic recession and the reduction in assistance to farmers taking a huge toll. Not only were many women’s skills used in handling and managing the emotional demands of increasing debt and decreasing returns, but they frequently managed the books, and undertook an increasing amount of physical farm work. Many of the farms which still employed permanent farm workers ceased to do so. One Southland woman talked about their farm having three full-time farm workers 16 years ago. These have been replaced by farm contractors and casual farm labour.

Some used the ‘shock’ of the changes to re-evaluate their lives and start their own farm-based businesses - some in other branches of agriculture such as pig farming, breeding specialist cattle, or a horticultural venture, others in non-agricultural ventures such as farm-stays (see below).

The decreasing viability of family farms and corresponding financial strain of farming were seen as major issues by the women interviewed for this report. Financial strain was seen as being caused by climatic factors coupled with the down-turn in farm prices. One of the district councillors interviewed, who also provided social services in rural areas, said she had noticed a much higher incidence of marriage break-up and other stress-related problems as a result of financial difficulties, at this time. Lower financial returns meant that farmers were less able to employ labour and were working longer hours, while "the women are having to work harder on the farm than they have ever had to before".

Family stress among farm people was seen to be exacerbated by a number of factors including a lack of support organisations such as Marriage Guidance, rape crisis centres, women’s refuges and parent centres; and the moving away of farm women and an influx of urban women (who lacked skills for rural and farm living) which was undermining the traditional support networks. Several of the women interviewed described the major issue facing farm women as burn-out, which was attributed to the terrible onus on women to keep the family farm going at all costs.

While many farm women were going out to work to support the farm in the mid to late 1980s, this situation had changed by the 1990s. Women still went out to work, but increasingly it was to meet their needs, not the farm’s. MAF contract research by Fairweather (1987, 1993) which looked at farm families in North Canterbury show that while more members of farm families sought work off-farm in 1992 than in 1986, the purpose for taking the work had changed. Far fewer people took off-farm work in 1992 as a management strategy for farm survival than in 1986 (Fairweather, 1993: 56). This finding is replicated by more recent research by Fairweather and others (see below).

Economic Diversity of Farm Families

The diverse nature of the activities undertaken by farm families has only recently been documented. Off-farm work in particular has become more visible with the increasing acceptability for women to engage in the paid workforce outside the home (and farm) at all ages, not just in the early child-free years of marriage when women remained in the paid workforce to assist in building up the capital needed to expand the farm business.

Fairweather’s later research (1995) on decisions and constraints involved in the decision of farm women and men to work on or off farm, shows that while lack of farm income can motivate off-farm work, it does not necessarily do so. Fairweather’s report to MAF showed that the reasons given by men and women for working off-farm emphasises non-economic factors. Reasons for off-farm work given by farm women now parallel decisions by urban women.The study also provided information on work roles and the influence of male inheritance in off-farm work decisions. The study highlighted the lack of significance of hired labour in on and off-farm work decisions. Fairweather concludes that farming has increasingly become just one of a number of economic activities undertaken by farm people (Fairweather, 1995).

To a large extent the taking-up of off-farm work reflects the changing roles of women in contemporary society and the rise of multiple income earning and dual career couples. The pattern appears to be increasingly for women to develop off-farm careers while most of the men pursue farm careers. Because few women inherit farms, the typical pattern is for women who have married a farmer to seek a career elsewhere, especially where the farm does not require more than one full-time worker. In this way role conflict is avoided with the husband who has inherited the property, who already has the role of farmer and has chosen farming as a career (Fairweather, 1995: 17). However, given that half the farms with one or more working-owners have a female owner-operator, it is clear that many farm women also undertake many hours of farm work.

Other surveys also highlight the importance of multiple economic activity by farm families. Results from a national analysis of off-farm income undertaken in 1992/93 show that of the 619 farms surveyed, 46% of the sample had income from off-farm work, 57% of the sample had income from off-farm investments, and 73% had income from either off-farm work or off-farm investments or both (Rhodes and Journeaux, 1995). The income from these sources was significant, and ranged from a before tax average of $19,300 for dairy farms to an average of $34,800 for kiwifruit properties (Rhodes and Journeaux, 1995: 17).

The survey found that it was as common for wives as for husbands to farm while the spouse was involved in off-farm employment, except on kiwifruit orchards where the male of the couple tended to work off the farm. Family working off-farm did not usually require a change in work schedules — except on kiwifruit orchards. Where adjustments were required it was usual for the farm couple to work longer hours, or to hire staff. The off-farm income was used predominantly to pay for household expenses, followed by purchases of items for personal use — that is, to achieve a ‘better’ standard of living, rather than to maintain farm viability. Off-farm income was seen as giving both partners of a farming couple an independent income, and spreading the risk should one source of income decline or fail.

These findings about off-farm work were replicated by an in-depth analysis of off-farm employment by 60 farm households in Canterbury and Southland (Taylor and Little, 1995).The research shows clear evidence of ‘pluriactivity’ on New Zealand farms. Pluriactivity is a mix of economic activities by the farm family. Examples in the report were tourism, light manufacturing and crafts, veterinary and other professional services, and a range of commercial activities (Taylor and Little, 1995: 225). The term ‘off-farm employment’ (rather than pluriactivity) was used more often in the report to acknowledge that farming was still the predominant source of income.

This report shows, among other things, that proximity to the labour market of a major city does not affect the overall level of off-farm employment in a district — people take off-farm employment regardless of the location of their property. The study, which particularly focused on women, showed that whether farm resident women worked as farmers, or off-farm, or both, it was to maintain a basic level of income for the family or themselves, or to protect the entity of their family farm, and/or to build their own career (Taylor & Little, 1995: 228-229).

One of the important findings of the study was the identification of the multiple roles filled by farm women. Women were involved in household and family work, farm work, community work, and off-farm work. While other studies have also identified these four roles, they have not described cases where women have combined all four. The researchers noted that women could well be expected to give less time and energy to their farm, family and community work when they took on the additional responsibilities and pressures that accompany off-farm employment. This, however, did not happen. The farm women took on the extra role of off-farm employment without any reductions in their other activities (Taylor and Little, 1995: 229).

The trend toward women of all-ages taking employment off-farm was mentioned by many of the female district councillors and board members interviewed for this report. Off-farm employment was generally seen as bringing a dramatic change to the traditional life of farm women. Women were usually seen to be seeking work off the farm due to financial necessity (though not necessarily to maintain farm viability), although for some it is "women choosing to have a career of their own rather than ‘helping’ on the farm". While some of the women interviewed saw the trend positively (helping rural women to escape the isolation of farm life and giving them a sense of independence many had not had before), most saw it as placing additional stress on women. In addition, the exodus of farm women to work in town each day was seen to be undermining the sense of community in rural areas and making it more difficult for those remaining to keep the networks and community activities going.

An answer to the daily exodus to town for work has been the development of a new range of activities on farm which do not necessarily involve agricultural production. Unfortunately for many women, these entrepreneurial enterprises have added to the work burden of those farm women who have been unable to cast-off or share traditional roles.

Interviews were undertaken with sixty couples located on farms in Canterbury, Manawatu and Wairarapa 1995 (Little et al, 1996). The couples were selected because they ran other economic activities in addition to the farm operation, with emphasis on finding a range of business types rather than a representative sample. The enterprises covered in the research project catered for the local market through to the international marketplace. Some of the enterprises were run completely separately from the farm operation, had no connection with or influence on land use, and were financially and structurally independent of the farm business. Others were part of a deliberate attempt at diversifying the farming operation. Either way, there tended to be considerable flexibility in work arrangements between the farm and the other business, with the spouse responsible for one assisting the spouse responsible for the other, as needed.

The enterprises studied demonstrate the fluidity with which new enterprises can evolve out of the core farming activity, and how one activity flowed out of another. For example:

• Garden tours naturally evolved towards on-site nurseries selling specialist plants admired in the garden. The establishment of a nursery then led into starting up an outlet for ‘Devonshire’ teas and a gift shop which stocked home produced designer foods, lavender or specialist oils.
• A garden open to public viewing evolved from craft classes and the need for students to ‘stretch their legs’ during lunch breaks. From the garden evolved a nursery, and from the craft classes evolved a craft retail outlet.
• Hunting and guiding tours arose from farm stays.
• A tree nursery developed into a complete delivery, planting, pruning and maintenance service.

Non tourist ventures included enterprises which added value to horticultural, viticulture and agricultural production; light manufacturing; ‘up market’ fashion; agricultural and non-agricultural consultancy services; craft production; and general services to the agricultural and rural communities (Little et al, 1996). While half of the enterprises had a gross annual income of less than $50,000 others ‘grossed’over $100,000.

Contact for Enquiries

Rural Affairs Coordinator
Sector Performance Policy
MAF Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND

Phone: +64 4 894 0675
Fax: +64 4 4 894 0745
Contact this person