Improving agricultural performance for the working poverty reduction in the European Union

Abstract

Th e main objective of the paper is to highlight the impact of agricultural performance on working poverty in the EU countries, in the 2008-2013 period, for identifying some measures that need to be taken to increase the agricultural performance so that the in-work poverty reduces. Th e comparative analysis shows that agricultural performance, according to the agricultural indicators analysed and the phenomenon of working poverty vary signifi cantly across the EU countries. Th e correlation and regression analysis results suggest that the high level of employment in agriculture in some EU countries can be mainly explained by the small scale agriculture, a high share of subsistence holdings and a low agricultural labour productivity. Th e results of the multiple regression analysis highlight that working poverty at the EU level is infl uenced positively by the employment in agriculture, and is infl uenced negatively by the economic size farm and land productivity. Moreover, the results show large cross-country diff erences in terms of agricultural performance-working poverty link, fact which emphasizes the need to take specifi c actions to improve effi ciency of the EU agricultural sector for reducing the working poverty. Th e fi ndings of the study can be useful for the policymakers to formulate policies for a decent and productive employment within a sustainable development of agriculture.

Being a poor farmer in a wealthy country: A Swiss case study

“…While these results are not surprising, this research provides original findings based on regression models: working in agriculture implies, all else being equal , a higher risk of being poor when the relative poverty line is set at 60 per cent or even at 50 per cent of median income. This is similar to Herman’s () result showing that for the EU working poverty is positively linked with working in agriculture as self‐employed, salaried or unpaid family workers.…”

Productive Employment for Inclusive and Sustainable Development in European Union Countries: A Multivariate Analysis

“…Corroborating these results with the positive link between vulnerable employment and employment in agriculture (r = 0.644, p < 0.01), it is shown that, in EU countries, during the 2007-2016 period, vulnerable workers, mainly those who work in agriculture, suffered the consequences of working poverty risk. Moreover, this implies that both agricultural productivity and the income for agricultural workers need to increase to reduce working poverty [44]. In order to test Hypothesis H5, we took into consideration the cumulative influence of 14 socio-economic variables selected, the inclusive and sustainable development indicators, productive employment indicators, and indicators which reflect the deficit in productive employment and poverty (see Table 1), employing complex statistical methods of data analysis, principal component analysis (PCA), and cluster analysis, respectively.…”

“…The countries that manage to increase productivity and pull out of poverty are those that were able to diversify away from agriculture and other traditional sectors [16,28,38]. A strong negative correlation between economic development (GDP per capita) and shares of agriculture in GDP [9] and in employment [44] were found, which can be explained by the significant contribution of agriculture to employment, in countries with low economic development. A real challenge facing employment in agriculture is its low quality due to the low productivity in traditional activities [9,44].…”

“…A strong negative correlation between economic development (GDP per capita) and shares of agriculture in GDP [9] and in employment [44] were found, which can be explained by the significant contribution of agriculture to employment, in countries with low economic development. A real challenge facing employment in agriculture is its low quality due to the low productivity in traditional activities [9,44]. There is a strong association between productive structural transformation and job quality, expressed by a high share of wage and salaried workers or, equivalently, a low share of vulnerable employment in total employment [33].…”

“…Vulnerable workers were more affected by relative poverty than wage and salaried workers, who benefit from greater employment security [8,33,45]. The vast majority of the working poor work in agriculture and rural areas [8,44]. Moreover, structural transformation drives profound changes in the labor market, especially shifting from the standard employment relationship (permanent jobs, full-time, employee status, etc.)…”