Peasantry and Entrepreneurship As Frames For Farming: Re Ections On Farmers' Values and Agricultural Policy Discourses

Peasantry and Entrepreneurship As
Frames for Farming: Reﬂections on

Farmers’ Values and Agricultural
Policy Discourses
Miira Niska,* Hannu T. Vesala and Kari Mikko Vesala
Abstract
This article takes a frame analytic approach to the popular peasant–entrepreneur typol-
ogy and focuses on the much-studied topic of farmers’ values. Peasantry is often thought
to represent traditional or ‘indigenous’ style of farming, while entrepreneurship is asso-
ciated with values injected and promoted by the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). In
this article, peasantry and entrepreneurship are approached as frames for farming, i.e.,
social constructions that can be used to make sense of farming. The aim is to study
whether farmers themselves frame farming in line with the peasant ethos and whether
one can detect the impact of the policy discourses in farmers’ framings. The study utilises
value survey data from Finland and concludes that even though Finnish farmers’
framings do not straightforwardly reflect the peasant–entrepreneur typology, they are
highly compatible with the multifunctionality policy discourse. The results call for
further attention to the novel framings new peasantry and ecological entrepreneurship
that are compatible with the multifunctionality discourse.
Introduction
W ithin the last 30 years, researchers have tried to grasp the diversity in farming
with typologies that classify farming strategies and farmers into distinct
groups. The most discussed typology is the contrast between peasant (or yeoman)
farming1 and entrepreneurial farming (e.g., Davis-Brown and Salamon 1987;
Salamon 1992; Austin et al. 1996; van der Ploeg 2003, 2009). Entrepreneurship is
often perceived as the policy-driven strategy promoted by CAP, while peasantry is
typically considered the traditional farming strategy (e.g., Silvasti 2001, 2009; van der
Ploeg 2009). However, the development of autonomous peasantry in Finland in the
eighteenth century has also been viewed as a political project2 (Granberg et al. 2001,
© 2012 The Authors. Sociologia Ruralis © 2012 European Society for Rural Sociology.
Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK
Sociologia Ruralis, Vol 52, Number 4, October 2012 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9523.2012.00572.x
454 Niska, Vesala and Vesala
p. xxii; Granberg and Peltonen 2001, p. 287), and entrepreneurship has been viewed
as an indigenous aspect of farming in North America (Dudley 2003).
A politically relevant question several studies have dealt with over the years is
whether farmers still represent peasantry or whether the CAP has succeeded in
transforming the farmers into agricultural entrepreneurs. The results have been
slightly inconsistent. Whereas several researchers suggest that the traditional farming
and self-concepts are still dominant among farmers (Katila 2000; Silvasti 2003,
2009; Burton and Wilson 2006), others argue that farms and farmers are increas-
ingly entrepreneurial (Bryant 1999; Carter 2001; Gonzales and Benito 2001; Vesala
et al. 2007; Vesala and Vesala 2010).
Although peasantry and entrepreneurship are widely used concepts in the farm
context, they refer to a variety of features of both farms and farmers. Researchers have
made lists of differences between peasant and entrepreneurial farming. The features
connected with peasantry include continuity, agrarian way of life, risk avoidance and
small farm size, for instance. The features connected with entrepreneurial farming
include, for example, high market dependency, scale enlargement, profit maximisa-
tion, risk taking and large farm size (see Salamon 1992, p. 93; van der Ploeg 2009,
p. 114). However, regardless of the feature, peasantry and entrepreneurship are con-
sidered contradictory farming strategies and farmer categories.
A straightforward interpretation of the interrelationship between the CAP and the
peasant–entrepreneur typology is that the CAP aims at transforming peasants into
entrepreneurs. The interrelationship, however, seems more complex. The CAP inte-
grates competing discourses of productionism, neoliberalism and multifunctional-
ism (e.g., Potter and Tilzey 2005; Dibden et al. 2009; Erjavec and Erjavec 2009).
Although there is a general agreement that neoliberalism promotes entrepreneurial
farming (see, e.g., Halpin and Guilfoyle 2004; Phillipson et al. 2004), the connection
between productionism, multifunctionalism and the peasant–entrepreneur typology
is less evident.
The connection between the multifunctionalism and the peasant–entrepreneur
typology is an especially intriguing one. Multifunctionalism highlights the tasks of
agriculture beyond food and fibre production such as landscape, natural values, rural
employment and rural vitality (see, e.g., OECD 2001; Buttel 2006, p. 224; Zander
et al. 2007; Renting et al. 2008). The discourse has been presented as the shorthand
for those contesting neoliberal agriculture (Dibden et al. 2009). The European Union
protects European agriculture against the neoliberal free trade with the justification
that farms are multifunctional. Since neoliberalism promotes entrepreneurship on
farms, it would seem natural that multifunctionalism promotes peasantry and
opposes entrepreneurship on farms. Multifunctionalism, however, emphasises
on-farm business diversification as a farm strategy: farms are encouraged to broaden
their field of operation from mere production into processing and marketing, and
provision of tourism, leisure or care services (e.g., van der Ploeg et al. 2002; Renting
et al. 2008). If peasantry refers to traditional farming, multifunctionality discourse
does not promote peasantry.
Van der Ploeg (2009) is among the researchers who connect multifunctionalism
to peasantry. Van der Ploeg (2009, p. 114) argues that multifunctionalism is indeed
a crucial feature of peasantry but not of entrepreneurial farming. However, he does
Sociologia Ruralis, Vol 52, Number 4, October 2012
Peasantry & entrepreneurship as frames for farming 455
not talk about traditional peasantry. He talks about new peasantry, which essentially
diverges from the old one. Although there is continuity between old and new peas-
antry, such as land and interaction with nature being major issues, van der Ploeg
(2009, 2010) also stresses the dissimilarities: major adaptations have been made and
the new peasantry is actively responding to the processes that threaten farmers.
Among these adaptations is, for example, transition from fixed routines to dynamic
co-production between men and nature (van der Ploeg 2010).
A further twist in the interrelationship between the multifunctionalism and the
peasant–entrepreneur typology is the concept of ecological entrepreneurship.
Marsden and Smith (2005; see also Marsden 2006) connect multifunctionalism to
entrepreneurship and talk about ecological entrepreneurship, a process where sus-
tainable development of rural areas is facilitated3. According to Marsden and Smith
(2005), farms contribute to sustainable rural development with environmentally
friendly agriculture, where economic benefits are pursued, for example, via direct
marketing. It seems natural to connect on-farm business diversification with entre-
preneurship, and argue, for example, that the development of agro-tourism business
signifies entrepreneurship on farm. Unlike entrepreneurship in general, ecological
entrepreneurship adheres to multifunctionalism and contributes to community
sustainability.
In this article, we do not pursue offering a single fixed meaning for peasantry and
entrepreneurship. Rather, our aim is to acknowledge and study the ambiguity of the
typology. The approach we utilise in the study is frame analysis (Bateson 1972;
Goffman 1986), and our focus is on one crucial and much studied difference between
peasant and entrepreneurial farming, i.e., farmers’ values4. Although researchers
have given plenty of attention to agricultural regimes, the farmers’ perspectives have
been considered to a lesser extent (e.g., Burton 2004; Burton and Wilson 2006). In
this study, our focus is on the question of how farmers frame farming in relation to
the peasant–entrepreneur typology. Do farmers frame farming as traditional peas-
antry or is it possible to detect the impact of the policy discourses in farmers’
framings? In the following, we proceed with discussing the values commonly con-
nected with peasant and entrepreneurial farming. Thereafter, we discuss frame analy-
sis as an approach and as a tool for interpreting the empirical study. Finally, we
discuss and conclude our findings.
Values of peasant and entrepreneurial farming
Farmers’ values have been a topic of several studies within the last 40 years. One of
the most cited studies is by Gasson (1973) who divides farmers’ values into instru-
mental, social, expressive and intrinsic ones. Instrumental values imply that farming
is a means of obtaining income; social values imply that farming is done for the sake
of interpersonal relationships; expressive values imply that farming is a means of
self-expression, and intrinsic values imply that farming is treasured because it enables
independence and a specific way of life (Gasson 1973).
Austin et al. (1996) connect Gasson’s (1973) four values with the peasantry–
entrepreneurship typology and argue that while instrumental values correspond
with entrepreneurial farming, social, expressive and intrinsic values correspond
with peasant farming. Peasant farming is thus about interpersonal relationships,

self-expression, independence and rural or agrarian lifestyle. There is, however, a
disagreement on the core peasant value. While several studies have highlighted the
social values of tradition and over-generational continuity as the core peasant values
(Salamon 1992, pp. 94–95; Katila 2000; Silvasti 2001, 2003, 2009), others have
emphasised autonomy and the intrinsic value of rural or agrarian lifestyle (e.g.,
Gasson and Errington 1993; Maybery et al. 2005). Van der Ploeg (2009), who talks
about the new peasantry, criticises the emphasis placed on continuity and tradition.
According to van der Ploeg (2009), peasantry is often unfairly presented as stag-
nant instead of dynamic and active. His emphasis is on autonomy and
sustainability.
As discussed above, Austin et al. (1996) only connect instrumental – monetary –
values with entrepreneurial farming (see also Davis-Brown and Salamon 1987;
Salamon 1992; Bergevoet et al. 2004). Agricultural entrepreneurs have been united
with the idea of homo economicus: A rational agent driven by individual economic
profit (van der Ploeg 2003, 2009). In the simplest version, entrepreneurial farming
has been value-wise reduced to profit maximisation, and researchers have argued that
classic values, such as continuity and autonomy, are no longer relevant for these
farmers (Salamon 1992; van der Ploeg 2009, p. 17). However, the intrinsic value of
autonomy is also connected to entrepreneurship on farms (Vesala and Peura 2002;
Dudley 2003, pp. 180–181). This is in line with the fact that autonomy and indepen-
dence are values commonly connected to non-farm entrepreneurship (e.g., Hamilton
2000; Shane 2003; Van Gelderen and Jansen 2006). Individual freedom is the core
value of neoliberalism (Harvey 2005; Busch 2010), and neoliberal agricultural policy
discourse promotes farmers’ freedom to farm according to market demand without
state-interference.
As we noted in the introduction, monetary values and autonomy are not the only
values connected to entrepreneurship on farms. Ecological entrepreneurship refers to
a process where farms contribute to sustainable rural development with environmen-
tally friendly agriculture, where economic benefits are pursued, for example, via direct
marketing (Marsden and Smith 2005). In this outlook, entrepreneurial values are not
reduced to profit maximisation or even to economic values and autonomy. Ecological
entrepreneurship is seen as a way of serving rural vitality and environmental
wellbeing.
Examining studies on farmers’ values, one finds that there seems to be no agree-
ment on the core peasant or entrepreneurial value or values. Value-wise peasantry
might refer to farming that highlights over-generational continuity and tradition or
farming that mainly highlights autonomy and sustainability. Similarly, entrepreneur-
ship might refer to profit maximisation or farming that highlights economic values,
autonomy and societal values5. One would imagine that this value ambiguity makes it
highly difficult to interpret whether farmers are value-wise peasants or entrepreneurs.
Previous studies have, however, been relatively unanimous in indicating that value-
wise farmers are peasants: their farming is first and foremost about continuity of the
family estate or the peasant lifestyle (e.g., Gasson 1973; Gasson 1988, p. 140; Salamon
1992; Gasson and Errington 1993; Katila 2000; Silvasti 2001, 2003, 2009; Bergevoet
et al. 2004; Hangasmaa 2011).
Frame analytic approach
In this article, we approach the peasant–entrepreneur typology and farmers’ reality

from the frame analytic perspective. Frame and framing are theoretical concepts
originally presented by Bateson (1972) and Goffman (1986). For Bateson, frame is a
communication concept associated with meta-messages that inform the receiver how
other messages should be interpreted. Bateson analysed play as an example of a
metacommunicative frame, which defines the nature of on going interaction.
Goffman (1986) connects the frame concept to the analysis of action. According to
him, people observe and interpret activities by situating them in frames. Thus, the
frames guide their understanding of what is going on in particular occasions. Primary
frames can be divided into natural frameworks and social frameworks. Natural frame-
works are physical (e.g., it is raining), whereas social frameworks incorporate an agent
who has an aim to do something (e.g., a person is growing crops). Secondary frames,
such as a play, are used to reframe actions which have already been situated in some
primary frame. Goffman sees that frames are both contiguous and overlapping.
Frames can also be altered. Key refers to a set of conventions by which a given activity
is transformed into something patterned on this activity and yet seen as something
else (Goffman 1986, pp. 40–82). As Goffman points out, any situation can be framed
in alternative ways. Frame analysis focuses on analysing the dynamics between
different frames, as well as the processes of framing and reframing. It is a widely
utilised approach, especially in studies of social movements, communication and
political action (e.g., Snow et al. 1986; Entman 1993; Nelson et al. 1997; Crossley
2002).
Instead of fixed categories, we view peasantry and entrepreneurship as frames that
guide policy actors, researchers and farmers understanding of what farming is about.
Although researchers and policy actors commonly assume that farmers are peasants
or entrepreneurs, we argue that no farmer is a peasant or an entrepreneur in essence.
Rather, we postulate that peasantry and entrepreneurship are frames. They may be
viewed as social constructions, which can be utilised by policy actors or farmers
themselves when interpreting and presenting farming. The concepts new peasantry
(van der Ploeg 2009) and ecological entrepreneurship (Marsden and Smith 2005) are
viewed as keyings. From frame analytic perspective, the multifunctionality policy
discourse has generated two novel framings for farming: the new peasantry and the
ecological entrepreneurship. These new concepts are not synonyms for traditional
peasantry or entrepreneurship on farm. Rather, they are transformations of the
peasantry and entrepreneurship frames: the motives of the farming activity have
altered (cf. Goffman 1986, p. 74). While traditional peasantry and entrepreneurship
are considered contradictory or conflicting frames, new peasantry and ecological
entrepreneurship are remarkably compatible framings.
Frame analysis is an interesting approach in situations where people do not share
an understanding of what is going on. Frame disputes refer to situations where
parties have differing views and argue about the proper or acceptable frames (see
Goffman 1986, pp. 301–344). An example of the frame dispute in the farm context is
the competition between the policy discourses of the CAP. Competing agricultural
policy discourses indicate that policy actors do not share a mutual understanding
of the way farming and farmers should be framed. Another possible frame dispute
in a farm context is the alleged dispute between farmers and policy actors. Previous
studies have suggested that while farmers readily frame farming as peasantry,
policy actors prefer to frame farming as entrepreneurship. Next, we will study
farmers’ value preferences from a frame analytic perspective, and focus on the ques-
tion of how farmers frame farming in relation to the ambiguous peasant–
entrepreneur typology.
Empirical study
In order to study farmers’ framings of farming, a value survey collected in Finland in

2006 was utilised6. Survey is a conventional research method for studying the values,
goals and objectives of farmers (see, e.g., Coughenour and Swanson 1988; Perkin and
Rehman 1994; Austin et al. 1996; Willock et al. 1999; Maybery et al. 2005). In this
article the results of the value survey are read from the frame analytic perspective,
instead of the more traditional dispositional reading. In value surveys, the concept of
value usually indicates a relatively permanent and stable inner characteristic of an
individual. As such internal dispositions, values are assumed to be organised by their
relative importance and constitute systems that guide the selection or evaluation of
actions. The dispositional approach to values is dominant in the mainstream
social psychology (see, e.g., Rokeach 1973; Schwartz and Bilsky 1987, 1990; Schwartz
1992).
In this article, however, we do not adopt this dispositional perspective. Instead, in
line with Ahola (1998), we postulate that when people respond to survey questions,
they do not simply reflect their inner states. Rather, they engage in communication
by using language in a social interaction between themselves and researchers.
The survey responses are thus viewed as communicative acts. As Wetherell et al.
(2001, p. 4) point out, presentment of a question and formulation of a response
are both discursive actions, even when the response is a tick or a cross in a survey
questionnaire (see also Burr 1995). From the frame analytic perspective, farmers’
act of supporting or rejecting a value in an interaction situation7 is not simply a
reflection of the farmer’s inner disposition, but a claim to what the farming is all
about.
Data and methods
The data collected in 2006 consist of two respondent groups: farmers and non-farm
small business owners. In this article, however, we focus on farmers’ responses only.
The data were based on random samples. The sample of diversified farmers
(n = 2200) included several lines of diversification (e.g., tourism, food processing,
energy production8). The sample of conventional farmers9 (n = 600) included equal
numbers of dairy farming, arable crops, and other livestock. Both samples were based
on the Farm Register from the Information Centre of the Ministry of Agriculture and
Forestry and the Register from Statistics Finland. The response rate of the farmers
altogether was 35.7 per cent (n = 740, diversified farmers n = 469, conventional
farmers n = 271).
The postal survey included a section in which respondents were asked to evaluate
the importance of certain values or principles of their farm businesses. The literal
formulation of the question was: What are the guiding principles of your farm
business? How important do you consider these values/principles are in your busi-
ness? The list presented after the questions included 15 value variables (see Table 1).
The list includes value variables connected to traditional peasantry and new peasantry,
and variables connected to entrepreneurship and ecological entrepreneurship. The
importance of each value variable was rated with a Likert-type five point scale (1 = not
at all important, 2 = somewhat important, 3 = moderately important, 4 = fairly impor-
tant, 5 = extremely important). Each value variable was rated individually and the
respondents were not asked to rank the variables.
Several questions were addressed in the analysis of the survey data. First of all, we
wanted to find out the relationship between the variables. A factor analysis was
conducted in order to see whether the one-, the two-, or the three-factor solution is the
most suitable for the data. The one-factor solution has been suggested by previous
studies, which assume peasant and entrepreneurial values to be contradictory.
However, the two-factor solution is suggested, for example, by Austin et al. (1996)
who argue that peasant and entrepreneurial values constitute their own factors. The
three-factor solution is suggested, for example, by Maybery et al. (2005) and Perkin
and Rehman (1994). Maybery et al. (2005) claim that although environmental values
correlate positively with the peasant values they nevertheless form their own factor.
Perkin and Rehman (1994) assert that while entrepreneurial monetary values and
peasant lifestyle values form separate factors, autonomy and continuity values
together form a third factor. Our main interest is on the estimated importance or the
Table 1: Means and standard deviations of individual vari-

ables, percentage of farmers who rated the variable as fairly
(4) or extremely (5) important
M (Std.) % (4 or 5)
Economic profitability 4.33 (0.77) 86.9
Vitality of rural areas 4.27 (0.96) 81.3
Autonomy in work 4.26 (0.79) 85.5
Respect for nature 4.05 (0.84) 77.2
Earning a better living 4.01 (0.85) 75.2
Financial independence 3.99 (0.90) 72.6
Rural development 3.89 (0.99) 68.5
Wellbeing of employees 3.86 (0.99) 69.5
Equality of all workers 3.54 (1.13) 54.8
Taking care of Finns’ needs 3.52 (1.10) 54.6
Continuing families’ traditions 3.34 (1.23) 48.3
Continuing parents’ work 3.25 (1.29) 46.4
Maximising profit 3.19 (1.03) 39.8
Common good of the nation 3.01 (1.08) 33.6
Employing others 2.99 (1.25) 36.4
Note: n = 638.
popularity of the values. On the basis of the factor analysis, sum-variables are formed,
and the evaluated mean importance of each value is discussed.
Results
The mean importance and the standard deviation of each individual value variable are
presented in Table 1. In addition, the percentages of farmers who rated the variable as
fairly (4) or extremely (5) important are presented.
In order to find out whether the background variables interconnected with the
evaluated importance of value variables, we related the mean importance to age,
gender and farming style10. Age correlated positively with the variables ‘equality of all
workers’, ‘common good of the nation’ and ‘employing others’, and negatively with the
variable ‘economic profitability’. The older farmers thus evaluated workers’ equality,
national common good and employment more important than the younger farmers.
Younger farmers evaluated profitability more important than the older farmers.
Women and diversified farmers evaluated wellbeing of employees more important
than men and conventional farmers. Diversified farmers also highlighted the impor-
tance of rural development and employment more than the conventional farmers (see
Appendix Table A1).
To study the relationships among the value variables, a factor analysis was con-
ducted. The results are presented in Table 2.
The analysis was not constrained. It revealed that 66.2 per cent of the total item
variance is explained by four factors with eigenvalues over 1.0. The first factor
Table 2: Factor analysis (Principal Axis Factoring, Varimax rotation)
Value variable Economy Autonomy Continuity Societal Communalities

Earning a better living – 0.74 0.60
Economic profitability 0.69 0.57
Maximising profit 0.61 0.40
Autonomy in work 0.64 0.42
Financial independence 0.61 0.51
Continuing families’ traditions 0.93 0.93
Continuing parents’ work 0.86 0.81
Rural development 0.79 0.70
Taking care of Finns’ needs 0.78 0.64
Equality of all workers 0.66 0.46
Common good of the nation 0.64 0.47
Employing others 0.63 0.46
Vitality of rural areas 0.32 0.59 0.53
Wellbeing of employees 0.57 0.43
Respect for nature 0.35 0.52 0.40
Total variance explained (%) 66.40
Note: Only loadings above 0.30 are displayed. All bold type indicates the items that are included in the
sum-variables.
Note: n = 591.
(economy) was defined by three value variables which all relate to economic goals of
farming. The factor explained 8.4 per cent of variance and had an eigenvalue of 1.56.
The second factor (autonomy) was defined by two value variables, both relate to
autonomy. The second factor explained 4.3 per cent of variance and had an eigenvalue
of 1.17. The third factor (continuity) was also defined by two value variables. Both
relate to the value of over-generational continuity. The third factor explained 10.2 per
cent of variance and had an eigenvalue of 1.91. The last factor (societal) was defined by
eight value variables that relate to societal values. The fourth factor explained 32.5 per
cent of variance and had an eigenvalue of 5.29.
It was the four-factor solution which was most suitable for the data. Instead of clear
peasant and entrepreneurial value factors, it was possible to identify two individual
value factors and two social value factors. We named the individual factors as
economy and autonomy, and social factors as continuity and societal. Although, the
economy factor could be named as entrepreneurial value factor and the continuity
factor as peasant value factor, in line with the previous studies, the autonomy factor
and the societal value factor indicate that farmers’ values do not simply divide into
entrepreneurial and peasant ones.
Previous studies on farmers’ values have often identified a specific peasant lifestyle
value factor that includes outdoor life in rural surroundings and autonomy (e.g.,
Gasson 1973; Perkin and Rehman 1994; Maybery et al. 2005). Theoretically, the
autonomy value factor could have been named as the lifestyle value factor: besides
autonomy, also vitality of rural areas and respect for nature load on this factor.
However, as can be seen in Table 2, both variables load notably better on the societal
value factor than the autonomy value factor. Thus the present names were considered
more suitable.
The reliability analysis (Cronbach’s alpha) produced coefficients higher than 0.60
and thus indicated internal consistency among the variables comprising each factor.
The results of the reliability analysis are presented in Table 3.
In order to study which values were the popular ones in our data, the mean
importance of sum-variables, formed on the basis of the factor analysis, were calcu-
lated. The means and standard deviations of the sum-variables are shown in Table 3.
The differences between the sum-variable means are statistically significant (see
Appendix Table A2). The correlations between all items and also between all
Table 3: Cronbach’s alpha, means and standard deviations of the sum-variables, partial
correlations of the sum-variables
Economy Autonomy Continuity Societal

Cronbach’s alpha 0.75 0.66 0.93 0.87
Mean (Std.) 3.85 (0.73) 4.13 (0.73) 3.29 (1.22) 3.64 (0.76)
Economy 0.19** -0.32** -0.58**
Autonomy -0.18** -0.52**
Continuity -0.42**
Note: n = 638, except Autonomy n = 637.

Note: ** p < .01.
sum-variables were positive, which indicated that response style had affected the
answers. In order to control this effect, a total mean of all items was calculated and
after that, partial correlations between the sum-variables were calculated. The total
mean was used as a controlling variable. The partial correlations between the sum-
variables are presented in Table 3.
Based on the mean expressed importance, ‘autonomy’ is the most popular value
among Finnish farmers. The second most popular value is ‘economy’ and the ‘soci-
etal’ values are the third in line. In Table 3 it is remarkable that ‘over-generational
continuity’ is clearly the least popular value in our data. The two individual value
sum-variables ‘economy’ and ‘autonomy’ correlate positively, while the two social
value sum-variables ‘continuity’ and ‘societal’ correlate negatively. It should also be
noted that in Table 3 the two values usually connected to peasantry ‘autonomy’ and
‘continuity’ correlate negatively.
Discussion: frame analytic interpretation of the results
From the frame analytic perspective, the results of the quantitative analysis are
noteworthy. First of all, the cross-loadings of the variables ‘vitality of rural areas’ and
‘respect for nature’ are intelligible (see Table 2). Both rural and natural values can
be framed in two ways. The wellbeing of rural areas and nature can be valued
because they ensure a pleasant lifestyle for the farmer and his/her family (indi-
vidual value). Another possibility is to value rural areas and nature because they are
considered to have intrinsic value and should thus be protected for societal reasons
(social value).
Our results illustrate the ambiguity of the peasant–entrepreneur typology. The
outcome can be interpreted as an indication that Finnish farmers frame farming:
1 as peasantry and not entrepreneurship

2 as entrepreneurship and not peasantry
3 neither peasantry nor entrepreneurship
4 both peasantry and entrepreneurship.
If peasantry signifies new peasantry (farming is about autonomy and sustainability),

and entrepreneurship signifies profit maximisation, Finnish farmers mainly frame
farming as peasantry. Farmers declare that they treasure autonomy as well as rural and
natural values along with profitability, whereas a few declared that they value economy
in the sense of profit maximisation. However, if peasantry signifies traditional peas-
antry and entrepreneurship signifies ecological entrepreneurship, we are able to argue
for the opposite: Finnish farmers mainly frame farming as entrepreneurship. Farmers
declare that they treasure rather precisely those values connected with ecological
entrepreneurship: profitability, autonomy and rural and natural wellbeing. The tradi-
tional peasant value of over-generational continuity is notably less valued.
The results can, however, also be interpreted as an indication that Finnish farmers
frame farming as neither peasantry nor entrepreneurship or as both peasantry and
entrepreneurship. In the former case, peasantry signifies traditional peasantry (over-
generational continuity) and entrepreneurship signifies profit maximisation. In the
latter case, peasantry signifies new peasantry (autonomy and sustainability), and
entrepreneurship signifies ecological entrepreneurship (profitability, autonomy and
rural and natural wellbeing).
Either way, our results indicate that Finnish farmers framed their farming in line
with the multifunctionality policy discourse. The most popular values for farmers
were autonomy, profitability and rural and natural wellbeing. The farmers thus
claimed that their farming is about autonomy, profit and wellbeing of nature and rural
areas. Value-wise the farmers might be called either new peasants (van der Ploeg
2009) or ecological entrepreneurs (Marsden and Smith 2005).
Conclusions
In this article we studied the peasant–entrepreneur typology from a frame analytic

perspective (Goffman 1986). We viewed peasantry and entrepreneurship as frames
that guide farmers’, researchers’ and policy actors’ understanding of what farming is
about. The concepts ‘new peasantry’ and ‘ecological entrepreneurship’ were viewed
as ‘keyings’, transformations of the peasantry and entrepreneurship frames. In
the empirical study concerning farmers’ value preferences, we focused on the ques-
tion of how farmers frame their farming in relation to the peasant–entrepreneur
typology.
The results showed that farmers emphasise economy, autonomy and societal
values, whereas continuity is a relatively less important value for the farmers. These
value preferences, however, do not fall neatly and exclusively within the frames of
peasantry and entrepreneurship. On the one hand, continuity as peasant value and
profit maximisation as a particular kind of entrepreneurial value were not ranked
high. Thus, both entrepreneurship and peasantry were rejected in some form. On
the other hand, autonomy and economy (excluding profit maximisation) reached
top ranking. Both of these can be framed as entrepreneurial values but notably also
as peasant values. Thus, a certain overlap in frames would seem to pertain to the
most highly ranked values. It might be so that autonomy and economy were ranked
high by the farmers in part because these values can be placed within both entre-
preneurship and peasantry frame and justified by them. Both of these frames are
part of the cultural knowledge shared by farmers. The other side of the coin is that
politicians and researchers should be careful not to assume that for farmers these
values would automatically imply one frame or another.
More light to this overlap in frame and the policy relevance of the overlap can be
shed by taking into account the high ranking of societal values in our data, which (in
addition to low ranking of profit maximisation) seem to suggest that entrepreneur-
ship understood as a neoliberal and individualistic frame is neither the only nor
perhaps even a proper way of reading the data. Multifunctionality as a policy discourse
provides an alternative reading in which entrepreneurship is associated with societal
values concerning, e.g., rural and environmental issues. In this way entrepreneurship
can be keyed into a slightly, but significantly different frame, compared to the one
constructed in neoliberal discourse. Viewing our results, it seems justified to con-
clude that when framing their farming as entrepreneurship, Finnish farmers are
sensitive to the multifunctionality discourse. Whether this also means ‘sensitivity’ to
the peasantry frame is another issue. If so, one would expect to find a keyed version
of the peasantry frame as well.
Researchers have called for a more systematic consideration of the grass root level
actor perspective in the analysis of agricultural change (e.g., Burton 2004; Burton and
Wilson 2006). Our study, however, shows that it is not always a simple and unam-
biguous task to try to translate farmers’ perspective into theoretical concepts describ-
ing the social and political structures in which they are embedded. This is illustrated
by the overlap between entrepreneurship and peasantry frames. Perhaps the main
conclusion to be drawn from our study is that the peasant–entrepreneur typology as
such does not sufficiently capture the complicated relations between farmers’ values
and policy discourses. Frame analytic perspective uncovers the need to elaborate on
the typology and distinguish keyed versions, or reframings, of both entrepreneurship
and peasantry in order to analyse how different actors make sense of farming under
current policy regimes and debates.
In this respect, our results call for further attention to the concepts of new peas-
antry (van der Ploeg 2009) and ecological entrepreneurship (Marsden and Smith
2005). Whereas peasantry and entrepreneurship have most commonly been per-
ceived as contradictory farming strategies and farmer categories (e.g., van der Ploeg
2009), and thus conflicting frames for farming, new peasantry and ecological entre-
preneurship are remarkably compatible with each other. For the purposes of future
research, these concepts are potentially very helpful in questioning entrepreneurship
and peasantry as clear-cut and stable frames, and in conceiving the role of societal
values besides individual and economic values in the framing of farming.
Notes
* Corresponding author.
1
Although researchers have discussed the possible differences between peasant and yeoman,
in this article we understand these two concepts as synonyms.
2
Granberg et al. (2001, p. xxii), for example, noted that peasants are not a traditional social
group that exists somehow outside history and policy.
3
The concept is sometimes used as a synonym for ecopreneurship, which refers to entrepre-
neurship motivated by natural values (e.g., Hockerts 2006). In this article, we follow the
ideas of Marsden and Smith (2005).
4
Studies on farmers’ values have commonly used the concepts of values, objectives and goals
relatively interchangeably. In this study, we use the social psychological concept of values.
5
The concept ‘ecological entrepreneurship’ has the same accentuation as the widely discussed
concept social entrepreneurship. Besides the individual values, social entrepreneurship is also
seen to create social values (see, e.g., Austin et al. 2006; Steyaert and Hjort 2006; Chell
2007).
6
The data were collected in the project Changing Rural Entrepreneurship, funded by the
Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.
7
In this study, the situation of interaction takes place between Finnish farmers and research-
ers in the form of a questionnaire. It should be noted that besides face to face communica-
tion, interaction also takes place via telephone, media, postal questionnaires etc.
8
The lines of business were: tourism, food processing, handicraft, wood processing, energy
production, machine contracting, fur farming, production of metal ware, health services,
transportation and retail trade in farm products.
9
Here the term conventional farmer refers to farmers who have not diversified their farm
business. The term is also used to refer to farmers who instead of sustainable or ecological
farming practise large-scale, intensive production (Beus and Dunlap 1991; Petrzelka and
Korsching 1996).
10
With farming style, we refer to the distinction between conventional farmers and diversified
farmers.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a grant from the Finnish Entrepreneurs’ Foundation (Yksityi-
syrittäjäin säätiö).
References
Ahola, A. (1998) Haastattelutilanne surveyvastausten rakentajana. Pp. 257–282 in S. Paananen,

A. Juntto and H. Sauli eds, Faktajuttu. Tilastollisen sosiaalitutkimuksen käytännöt (Tampere:
Vastapaino)
Austin, E.J., I.J. Deary, G.J. Gibson et al. (1996) Attitudes and values of Scottish farmers:
‘yeoman’ and ‘entrepreneur’ as factors, not distinct types. Rural Sociology 61 (3) pp. 464–474
Austin, J., H. Stevenson and J. Wei-Skillern (2006) Social and commercial entrepreneurship:
same, different or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 30 (1) pp. 1–22
Bateson, G. (1972) Steps to an ecology of mind (New York: Ballantine Books)
Bergevoet, R.H.M., C.J.M. Ondersteijn, H.W. Saatkamp et al. (2004) Entrepreneurial behaviour
of Dutch dairy farmers under a milk quota system: goals, objectives and attitudes. Agricul-
tural Systems 80 pp. 1–21
Beus, C.E. and R.E. Dunlap (1991) Measuring adherence to alternative vs. conventional agri-
cultural paradigms: a proposed scale. Rural Sociology 56 (3) pp. 432–460
Bryant, L. (1999) The detraditionalization of occupational identities in farming in South Aus-
tralia. Sociologia Ruralis 39 (2) pp. 236–261
Burr, V. (1995) An introduction to social constructionism (London: Routledge)
Burton, R. (2004) Seeing through the good farmers’ eyes: towards developing an under-
standing of the social symbolic value of ‘productivist’ behaviour. Sociologia Ruralis 44 (2) pp.
195–215
Burton, R.J.F. and G.A. Wilson (2006) Injecting social psychology theory into conceptualisa-
tions of agricultural agency: towards a post-productivist farmer self-identity? Journal of Rural
Studies 22 pp. 95–115
Busch, L. (2010) Can fairy tales come true? The surprising story of neoliberalism and world
agriculture. Sociologia Ruralis 50 (4) pp. 331–351
Buttel, F.H. (2006) Sustaining the unsustainable: agro-food systems and environment in the
modern world. Pp. 213–229 in P. Cloke, T. Marsden and P.H. Mooney eds, The handbook of
rural studies (London: Sage)
Carter, S. (2001) Multiple business ownership in the farm sector. Differentiating monoactive,
diversified and portfolio enterprises. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &
Research 7 pp. 43–59
Chell, E. (2007) Social enterprise and entrepreneurship. Towards a convergent theory of the
entrepreneurial process. International Small Business Journal 25 (1) pp. 5–26
Coughenour, C.M. and L.E. Swanson (1988) Rewards, values, and satisfaction with farm work.
Rural Sociology 53 (4) pp. 442–459
Crossley, N. (2002) Making sense of social movements (Buckingham: Open University Press)
Davis-Brown, K. and S. Salamon (1987) Farm families in crisis: an application of stress theory
to farm family research. Family Relations 36 (4) pp. 368–373
Dibden, J., C. Potter and C. Cocklin (2009) Contesting the neoliberal project for agriculture:
productivist and multifunctional trajectories in the European Union and Australia. Journal of
Rural Studies 25 (3) pp. 299–308
Dudley, K.M. (2003) The entrepreneurial self: identity and morality in a Midwestern farming
community. Pp. 175–191 in J. Adams ed., Fighting for the farm (Philadelphia, PA: University
of Pennsylvania Press)
Entman, R. (1993) Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communi-
cation 43 pp. 51–58
Erjavec, K. and E. Erjavec (2009) Changing EU agricultural policy discourses? The discourse
analysis of commissioner’s speeches 2000–2007. Food Policy 34 pp. 218–226
Gasson, R. (1973) Goals and values of farmers. Journal of Agricultural Economics 24 pp. 521–542
Gasson, R. (1988) The economics of part-time farming (Harlow: Longman)
Gasson, R. and A. Errington (1993) The farm family business (Wallingford, CT: Cab International)
van Gelderen, M. and P. Jansen (2006) Autonomy as a start-up motive. Journal of Small Business
and Enterprise Development 13 pp. 23–32
Goffman, E. (1986) Frame analysis. An essay on the organization of experience (Boston, MA:
Northeastern University Press)
Gonzales, J.J. and C.G. Benito (2001) Profession and identity. The case of family farming in
Spain. Sociologia Ruralis 41 pp. 343–357
Granberg, L., I. Kovách and H. Tovey (2001) Introduction. Pp. xiii–xxxvii in L. Granberg, I.
Kovách and H. Tovey eds, Europe’s green ring (Aldershot: Ashgate)
Granberg, L. and M. Peltonen (2001) Peasantisation and beyond in Finland and Scandinavia.
Pp. 285–305 in L. Granberg, I. Kovách and H. Tovey eds, Europe’s green ring (Aldershot:
Ashgate)
Halpin, D. and A. Guilfoyle (2004) Attributions of responsibility: rural neoliberalism and
farmers’ explanations of the Australian rural crises. Rural Society 14 (2) pp. 93–111
Hamilton, B.H. (2000) Does entrepreneurship pay? An empirical analysis of the returns to
self-employment. Journal of Political Economy 108 (3) pp. 604–631
Hangasmaa, L. (2011) Maanviljelyn kulttuurinen kestävyys – määrittelyn ja mittaamisen
haasteita. Maaseudun Uusi Aika 1 pp. 61–70
Harvey, D. (2005) A brief history of neoliberalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
Hockerts, K. (2006) Introduction to part IV – Ecopreneurship: unique research field or just
‘more of the same’? Pp. 209–213 in J. Mair, J. Robinson and K. Hockerts eds, Social
entrepreneurship (New York: Palgrave MacMillan)
Katila, S. (2000) Moraalijärjestyksen rajaama tila: maanviljelijä-yrittäjäperheiden selviytymisstrate-
giat. Acta Universitatis Oeconomicae Helsingienisis A-174 (Helsinki: Helsinki School of
Economics and Business Administration)
Marsden, T. (2006) The road towards sustainable rural development: issues of theory, policy
and practice in a European context. Pp. 201–212 in P. Cloke, T. Marsden and P. Mooney eds,
Handbook of rural studies (London: Sage)
Marsden, T. and E. Smith (2005) Ecological entrepreneurship: sustainable development in local
communities through quality food production and local branding. Geoforum 36 pp. 440–451
Maybery, D., L. Crase and C. Gullifer (2005) Categorising farming values as economic, conser-
vation and lifestyle. Journal Of Economic Psychology 26 pp. 59–72
Nelson, T., Z. Oxley and R. Clawson (1997) Towards a psychology of framing effects. Political
Behaviour 19 (3) pp. 221–246
OECD (2001) Multifunctionality: towards an analytical framework (Paris: Organisation for Eco-
nomic Co-operation and Development)
Perkin, P. and T. Rehman (1994) Farmers’ objectives and their interaction with business and
life styles: evidence from Berkshire, England. Pp. 193–212 in J.B. Dent and M.J. McGregor
eds, Rural and farming systems analysis. European perspectives (Wallingford, CT: CAB
International)
Petrzelka, P. and P.F. Korsching (1996) Farmers’ attitudes and behaviour toward sustainable
agriculture. Journal of Environmental Education 28 (1) pp. 38–44
Phillipson, J., M. Gorton, M. Raley et al. (2004) Treating farms as firms? The evolution of farm
business support from productionist to entrepreneurial models. Environment and Planning
C: Government and Policy 22 (1) pp. 31–54
van der Ploeg, J.D. (2003) The virtual farmer (Assen: Royal van Gorcum)
van der Ploeg, J.D. (2009) The new peasantries. Struggles for autonomy and sustainability in an era
of empire and globalization (London: Earthscan)
van der Ploeg, J.D. (2010) The peasantries of the twenty-first century: the commoditisation
debate revisited. The Journal of Peasant Studies 37 (1) pp. 1–30
van der Ploeg, J.D., A. Long and J. Banks eds (2002) Living countrysides: rural development
processes in Europe: the state of the art (Doetinchem: Elsevier)
Potter, C. and M. Tilzey (2005) Agricultural policy discourses in the European post-Fordist
transition: neoliberalism, neomercantilism and multifunctionality. Progress in Human Geog-
raphy 29 (5) pp. 581–600
Renting, H., H. Oostindie, C. Laurent et al. (2008) Multifunctionality of agricultural activities,
changing rural identities and new institutional arrangements. International Journal of Agri-
cultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 7 (4/5) pp. 361–385
Rokeach, M. (1973) Beliefs, attitudes and values (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass)
Salamon, S. (1992) Prairie patrimony: family, farming, & community in the Midwest (Chapel Hill,
NC: The University of North Carolina Press)
Schwartz, S.H. (1992) Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances
and empirical tests in 20 countries. Pp. 1–66 in M.P. Zonna ed., Advances in experimental
social psychology (San Diego, CA: Academic Press)
Schwartz, S.H. and W. Bilsky (1987) Toward a universal psychological structure of human
values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53 pp. 550–562
Schwartz, S.H. and W. Bilsky (1990) Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of
values: extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
58 pp. 878–891
Shane, S. (2003) A general theory of entrepreneurship. The individual-opportunity nexus (Chelten-
ham: Edward Elgar)
Silvasti, T. (2001) Talonpojan elämä. Tutkimus elämäntapaa jäsentävistä kulttuurisista malleista.
Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia 821 (Helsinki: SKS)
Silvasti, T. (2003) The cultural model of ‘the good farmer’ and the environmental question in
Finland. Agriculture and Human Values 20 pp. 143–150
Silvasti, T. (2009) Giving up the family farm – an alternative story of the structural change
in agriculture in Finland. Finnish Journal of Rural Research and Policy 2 pp. 21–
32
Snow, D.A., E.B. Rochford, S.K. Worden et al. (1986) Frame alignment process, micro-
mobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review 51 pp. 464–
481
Steyaert, C. and D. Hjort (2006) Introduction: what is social in social entrepreneurship? Pp.
1–20 in C. Steyaert and D. Hjort eds, Entrepreneurship as social change. A third movements in
entrepreneurship book (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar)
Vesala, H. and K.M. Vesala (2010) Entrepreneurs and producers: identities of Finnish farmers
in 2001 and 2006. Journal of Rural Studies 26 (1) pp. 21–30
Vesala, K.M. and J. Peura (2002) Yrittäjäidentiteetti monialaisilla maatiloilla. Maaseudun
tutkimus- ja koulutuskeskus julkaisuja 78, Mikkeli (Helsinki: University of Helsinki)
Vesala, K.M., J. Peura and G. McElwee (2007) The split entrepreneurial identity of the farmer.
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 14 (1) pp. 48–63
Wetherell, M., S. Taylor and S. Yates eds (2001) Discourse theory and practice: a reader (London:
Sage)
Willock, J., I.J. Deary, G. Edwards-Jones et al. (1999) The role of attitudes and objectives in
framer decision making: business and environmentally-oriented behaviour in Scotland.
Journal of Agricultural Economics 50 (2) pp. 286–303
Zander, P., A. Knierim, J.C.J. Groot et al. (2007) Multifunctionality of agriculture: tools and
methods for impact assessment and valuation. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 120
pp. 1–4
Miira Niska*
Department of Social Research
P.O. Box 54
University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki
Finland
e-mail: miira.niska@helsinki.fi
Hannu T. Vesala
Finnish Association on Intellectual and Development Disabilities
Viljatie 4 A
00700 Helsinki
Finland
e-mail: hannu.vesala@kvl.fi
Kari Mikko Vesala

Department of Social Research
P.O. Box 54
University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki
Finland
e-mail: kari.vesala@helsinki.fi
Appendices
Table A1: Means of individual value variables and background variables gender, age and
farming style
Women Men F (p) Conventional Diversified F (p) Age

M M farmers M farmers M
Economic profitability 4.35 4.28 0.26 4.49 4.35 0.79 -0.10*
Vitality of rural areas 4.18 4.27 0.39 4.21 4.30 1.53 -0.01
Autonomy in work 4.45 4.19 3.77 4.26 4.25 0.02 -0.01
Respect for nature 4.18 3.97 2.10 4.11 4.01 2.30 0.00
Earning a better living 3.75 4.00 2.93 3.98 4.03 0.58 -0.02
Financial independence 4.08 4.00 0.27 3.97 4.01 0.26 0.04
Rural development 3.98 3.91 0.17 3.76 3.98 7.72** 0.04
Wellbeing of employees 4.3 3.83 8.31** 3.75 3.98 8.31** -0.01
Equality of all workers 3.83 3.45 4.18* 3.57 3.52 0.30 0.11**
Taking care of Finns’ 3.63 3.44 1.02 3.50 3.53 0.13 0.06
needs
Continuing families’ 3.28 3.32 0.04 3.29 3.37 0.55 0.04
traditions
Continuing parents’ 3.20 3.21 0.00 3.28 3.23 0.20 0.03
work
Maximising profit 3.23 3.15 0.23 3.12 3.23 1.76 0.06
Common good of the 2.98 3.09 0.46 2.99 3.03 0.21 -0.12**
nation
Employing others 3.28 2.96 2.17 2.81 3.11 8.93** 0.08*
Note: Women n = 76, men n = 551–562.

Note: Conventional farmers n = 246–250, diversified farmers n = 380–388.
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Table A2: Statistical differences of sum-variable means (One-sample t-tests)
Economy Autonomy Continuity

Autonomy t(636) = -8,569
p < 0.001
Continuity t(637) = 10,617 t(636) = 16,457
p < 0.001 p < 0.001
Societal t(637) = 5,935 t(636) = 13,728 t(637) = -7,661
p < 0.001 p < 0.001 p < 0.001
Note: n = 638, except Autonomy n = 637.

Peasantry and Entrepreneurship As Frames For Farming: Re Ections On Farmers' Values and Agricultural Policy Discourses

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Peasantry and Entrepreneurship As Frames For Farming: Re Ections On Farmers' Values and Agricultural Policy Discourses

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Peasantry and Entrepreneurship As

Frames for Farming: Reﬂections on

Miira Niska,* Hannu T. Vesala and Kari Mikko Vesala

Values of peasant and entrepreneurial farming

with peasant farming. Peasant farming is thus about interpersonal relationships,

Frame analytic approach

In this article, we approach the peasant–entrepreneur typology and farmers’ reality

In order to study farmers’ framings of farming, a value survey collected in Finland in

Data and methods

Table 1: Means and standard deviations of individual vari-

Table 2: Factor analysis (Principal Axis Factoring, Varimax rotation)

Value variable Economy Autonomy Continuity Societal Communalities

Economy Autonomy Continuity Societal

Note: n = 638, except Autonomy n = 637.

Discussion: frame analytic interpretation of the results

1 as peasantry and not entrepreneurship

If peasantry signifies new peasantry (farming is about autonomy and sustainability),

In this article we studied the peasant–entrepreneur typology from a frame analytic

Ahola, A. (1998) Haastattelutilanne surveyvastausten rakentajana. Pp. 257–282 in S. Paananen,

Kari Mikko Vesala

Women Men F (p) Conventional Diversified F (p) Age

Note: Women n = 76, men n = 551–562.

Table A2: Statistical differences of sum-variable means (One-sample t-tests)

Economy Autonomy Continuity

Note: n = 638, except Autonomy n = 637.

You might also like