Exploring the farm enterprise through a business life cycle
Anne MJ Smith Glasgow Caledonian University UK
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the farming enterprise through the lens of business life
cycle theory and in conjunction with the future operating environment. In 2013, changes in the
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) will undoubtedly affect farming business but the extent and nature
of changes at this stage in the development of CAP reform is an unknown. Expectations are that
there will be economic and social impacts on the family farm with increasing demands on decreasing
resources, potentially increasing the economic fragility of some family farms.
The farming enterprise has a tendency to exhibit characteristics that are specific to farming and less
likely to exist in other sectors. One particular characteristic is the inextricable linkage between
business, family and household ownership.
This characteristic creates examples where three
generations of farming family may live and work on the same farm business. Farming unlike many
other sectors is often a multi generational business; there is evidence of farming families existing over
7 generations (Smith, Temple and Edgar, 2008). Furthermore, the very nature of farms being landbased means that they are most likely rurally located sometimes remote resulting in deeply
embedded social structures. This land based characteristic means that any mobility of economic
activity requires a physical and psychological dissembedding of family and social structures. In steep
contrast to this localised habitation the family farm enterprise is increasingly economically sensitive to
global commodity prices. These peculiar operating characteristics mean that a farm enterprise is likely
to behave differently to other sector based businesses over business life cycles. But to what extent
does the family farm exhibit classic patterns of the business life cycle and where does the life cycle for
the family farm begin and end? This paper will consider such patterns under the lens of business life
cycle theory.
A review of business life cycle theory will offer a framework of analysis. Using a case study approach
to examine the life cycle of a farm enterprise this paper will discuss the farm venture, the type of
transitions through life, growth, maturity and decline, renewal and transformation. The discussion
captures issues such as ownership, succession, diversification, policy and education in farming and
considers the subsequent implications by examining them in a new way.
Keywords
Farm Enterprise, agriculture, business life cycles, business growth, sustainability.
Corresponding author: Anne Smith, Glasgow Caledonian University, Department of Management,
Cowcaddens road, Glasgow Anne.Smith@gcu.ac.uk
Introduction
The story of farming enterprise is centuries old, borne through necessity and the need to eat to
survival. As historians delve into the past they are able to reveal and inform society about the
transition from hunters to farming nations and the societal underpinnings that drive change of that
nature (Wibberley, 2008). What is clear is that the organisation of farming has been as much a social
evolution as an economic evolution.
The socio economic view is evidenced over the last two
centuries with records revealing changes in landownership and restructuring of wealth (Dickson,1980;
Smout, 2002) as well as the economic disruptions such as war, disease, famine and globalisation
(Dickson, 1980; Smout 2002). Farming by its very nature is cyclical with transitions into and from
climatical seasons. Nonetheless in recent times the seasonal effects have been manipulated and
flattened through new technology, biotechnology and globalisation. Farming on this level is a global
conversation concerned with food production, energy production and commodity trading (DEFRA
2010). Equally Europe is undergoing reform of the Common Agricultural Policy with key discussions
on production, food security, technologies, supply and trade (European Commission, 2010) Africa and
Asia are realising their demand by increasing trade with countries such as New Zealand and Australia.
‘According to the latest World Bank analysis, global food demand should grow less rapidly over the
next 25 years with weaker population growth. The potential for further increases in food production
appear to be substantial. Africa alone has 23% of the world’s agricultural area but produces only 7%
of the world’s cereal production.’ DEFRA (2010) While the global business of food production and
supply moves forward, the reality for regional family farms is a vast variation in terms of size of farm,
methods of farming and types of farming. Although all farming ultimately contributes to the global
supply of food these variations are important at local levels. Variation encourages innovation and
reflects local geography and local social structures. There are however occasions where local socio
economic frameworks are challenged. Weaknesses identified in Scottish agriculture suggest the need
‘to consider measures to improve the viability and competitiveness of some farms, as well as
encouraging diversification and innovation, and the development of human capital including
collaboration to share resources and add value’, Scottish Government (2010). Data surrounding these
trends show that there is the desire to continue farming and that lifestyle choices are a part of the
socio economic landscape of agriculture. Evidently, trends, change, transitions and cycles are integral
to the farming topography. The purpose of this paper is to discuss and contribute to the rural debate
on farming lifecycles using longitudinal data from a UK farm case study. The subsequent aim is to
better understand the overall sustainability and development of farm enterprise. This paper will
firstly review business life cycle literature with contextualisation from rural enterprise literature.
Thereafter a methodology section presents the approach and design of the study.
Data from
financial trends and narratives on disruptive events and transitions will provide insights and
explanations of the case business life cycle informing a discussion on the beginning and end of a farm
enterprise and the transitions.
Literature Review
Blackburn and Kovalainen (2009) suggest that entrepreneurship literature is in its adolescence and
that researchers should challenge assumptions. Furthermore they suggest that insights might be
achieved through deeper qualitative analysis and explanations ‘why’ involving the exploration of
connections between theories and topics. The business growth topic is no different and often
explored through lifecycles but less explained are the related contextual peculiarities (Carter, 1998,
Carter and Ram, 2002).
Over many years business life cycle theory exhibits some very heavily cited work on stages theory
(Churchill and Lewis, 1983; Scott and Bruce, 1987; Kazanjian and Drazin, 1990; Gersick,, Lansberg,
Desjardins and Dunn, 1999; Lester and Parnell, 2006). Recently, Levie and Lichtenstein (2010)
undertook the most extensive review of lifecycle theory to date and identified in total 104 different
models. This study reduces the vast body of life cycle stages literature into key classifications and
concludes rather dramatically by calling for business life cycle stages theory to be withdrawn from all
entrepreneurship education. Levie proposes that what should be taught is a transitional and dynamic
states model thus impacting directly on the future research agenda of business growth. A transitional
and dynamic states model is an idea that repositions the trajectory for growth and entrepreneurship.
The adaption to transitions is a focus on activity and cognitive practices. Perhaps lifecycles stages
cannot reflect the dynamic states of entrepreneurship although as non dynamic then perhaps it is
better placed to offer a reflective view on growth. A reflective view might provide insight to
contextual nuances as Churchill and Lewis (1983) offer a simplified framework of a business lifecycle
in which to better understand contextual nuance. The simplification of the lifecycle is the essence of
Levie and Liechtenstein (2010) criticism but that same simplification is a useful framework for
contextual and reflective understanding.
The portfolio entrepreneurship study undertaken by Carter (1998) created a series of works that
questioned how we defined the farmer as an entrepreneur and how we classified the farm business.
(Carter and Rosa 1998; Carter 2001; Carter and Ram 2002). McElwee (2006, 2008) revisited these
definitional issues with a detailed taxonomy critiquing Carters thinking on the entrepreneurial farmer.
McElwees (2008) taxonomy focused on the individual, the farmer, earlier work by Carter and Ram
(2002) had reassessed this very issue; the unit of measurement and analysis. They concluded that
future research into portfolio entrepreneurship research should focus on the individual activities of
the entrepreneur however this could be misleading in different contexts. In farming for example the
complexity of income streams and asset ownership complicates the view of a unit of analysis. Carter
and Ram (2002) concede that such complexity requires cognisance of the individual, the enterprise
and the family.
Life Cycles in Agricultural Enterprise
In the context of the farm enterprise Carter and Ram (2002) note that farm business through history
have been pluri active sustaining generations and displaying characteristics of portfolio
entrepreneurship. McElwee (2008) develops the idea with a taxonomy that classifies farmers through
their core activity either farmer or contractor representing a snapshot rather than a dynamic state
(Levie and Liechtenstein 2010). Longitudinal, contextual and reflective studies therefore afford
insights that can support snapshots and wider business growth literature.
There are several studies offering insights to business creation, operation and death (McElwee and
Robson, 2005; Anderson and Vesala, 2006; Robinson, 2008; Smith, McCann and Barlow, 2009).
McElwee et al (2006) reveal how in a new diversification venture the farmer struggled with new
supply chains, new business processes and ultimately the motivation to be something other than a
farmer eventually closing the venture. As a result of this case McElwee et al “006) argue that different
types of skills are required in a diversification business compared to those of a core farm business.
This key finding supports Carters earlier work (1998) suggesting that different skills are required for
different activities and different efforts into activities. This however presents a mono view of activity
and individual farmer. In reality, the farming enterprise supports generations of family and a portfolio
of enterprise activity. (Carter, 1998; Smith, Temple and Edgar, 2008 and 2009). This reality frames the
problem associated with the unit of analysis. As many as seven generations have been evidenced in
studies (Smith, Temple and Edgar, 2008) with further studies providing evidence of many
diversification activities exhibiting creation and death (Carter, 1998, McElwee, 2008; McElwee and
Bosworth, 2010).
However to research a life cycle over generations would create problems
associated empirical data being subject to challenges of recall and hearsay supported only by any
recorded data that is likely to be fragmented. Literature therefore tends to contain studies over
snapshots of time with insights to agricultural business performance viewed by creation of new
income streams, (Carter, 2001; McNally, 2001; Meert et al 2005).
The studies of pluriactivity and
portfolio entrepreneurship do suggest that a lifecycle can reflect either the individual’s efforts or the
total business efforts capturing several generations thus returning to the issue surrounding the unit of
analysis. (Carter and Ram 2002; McElwee 2010). Nonetheless, whether it is the entrepreneur as an
individual viewed through a lifecycle lens or the business activities/portfolio through the life cycle
lens, deeper explanations exist only where interactions with the individual, firm, environment and
social economic contexts are considered (Storey 1994; Jack and Anderson, 2002; Smith, Temple and
Edgar, 2010). Ideas around what people do and the interactions with the environment that stimulate
what they do leads to differences in process and outcomes (Jack and Anderson, 2002; Smith, 2008;
McElwee, 2006).
The following section will consider the socio economic environment of farming
enterprise and some of the key studies that have shaped the understanding of rural enterprise.
The external environment
The European Union (EU) dynamic might be considered to have been the fuel for diversification;
smaller farm units had little financial advantage from the scale now required for viable production (de
Wolf, McElwee and Schoorlemmer, 2007). This re-organisation leads to opportunities to start up new
ventures as the agri-business value chain and supply chain changes (Carter, 2001). Such findings are
supported in economic reports.
‘The value of imports in 2008 was £31.6 billion compared to £13.2 billion for
exports, giving a trade gap of £18.4 billion…. From 2007 to 2008 imports
increased by 14.2% in real terms and exports increased by 12%, though were
lower in real terms than 1995 levels.
Since 1995 the UK trade gap in food,
feed and drink has more than doubled, reflecting changes in competitiveness
and consumer taste. In particular, the impact of BSE, stronger sterling and
foot and mouth disease were key factors limiting exports in the period after
1995.’ DEFRA (2010)
Change, innovation and regulation mean that a farmer struggling to survive as a producer of the
primary economic material has to be sensitive to markets and use their own entrepreneurial ability
to create income though whatever means is available; bed and breakfast, haulage, farm contracting,
fencing, tourism etc. In the end, bio security threats such as Foot and Mouth that all but devastated
parts of the farming community offered many an exit opportunity from the industry; but once again
for many of the families the determination to continue farming, even although it meant starting again
building their herds and flocks. Statistics showing ‘farm exit’ increases from Smith (2008) support
such behaviour but in reality there were greater numbers of ‘farm developments’, suggesting that in
fact those that wanted out got out and those that were left invested and scaled up. Perhaps this
resilience has been born out of need but there is evidence to suggest it has been developed out of
passion (Lobley and Potter, 2004; Harvey, 2004).
Further implications from government
interventions have been highlighted as negative impacts with arguments that the agri industry is
unsustainable and globally damaging. (Blank, 2003; Harvey, 2004). Nonetheless, cycles in agriculture,
reorganisation, redefinitions, restructuring and reshaping appears to be a fair assessment of the
operating climate (Andelman, 1997;Paquette and Domon, 2003; Johnsen, 2004; Lobely and Potter,
2004; Meert et al 2005; Smith, 2008). The result is that the external environment requires change
and adaptation. Farmer interaction is essential and it will affect the shape and activities that form the
life cycle of both individual farm and farmer.
In summary, there is extensive work on life cycles and particularly stages models. The Levie and
Lichtenstein (2010) study provides a step change in the phenomenon of stages and present a dynamic
transitions model arguing that entrepreneurial business is over simplified by a stages approach.
However, the characteristics presented by farming ventures reveal interesting suggestion around
birth and death of ventures with portfolio and pluri activity creating a business life cycle with the
individual farmer creating a personal business life cycle (Carter, 1998). This paper contributes to the
literature by providing a contextual socio economic understanding of farm enterprise and revisits how
to approach farms as a unit of analysis (Carter and Ram, 2002). The following section presents the
methodology applied in the study.
Methodology
The literature suggests that there is a large degree of difficulty in determining when a farm enterprise
is born and when it declines and exits (Carter, 1998). It is unclear whether the business can be the
unit of analysis, the farmer or the farm (Carter, 1998; Carter 2001; Carter and Ram, 2002). For the
purposes of this study the unit of analysis is the ‘farm business’ which is reflected as a partnership
between two family members from two generations of pluri activity; this is what exists as the ‘farm
business’. The other units of analysis were not chosen for the following reasons; the farm as a unit
creates a definitional discussion about ‘a farm’ since so many farms rent land or has rented land and/
or do not undertake any economic activity. The farmer is not adopted as this lifecycle study captures
trading accounts which have been shaped by the activities and interactions of two farmers over two
generations. In conclusion this means the legal structure capturing the economic activity and trading
account is the adopted unit of analysis; the partnership that forms the ‘farm business’.
The
implications of this decision highlight the challenges of contextualising business life cycles.
The time boundaries for this case are from 1952 to current when the farmer now 76, purchased the
farm and where he still retains ownership and business interests in partnership with his son. The case
study is a UK farm based in the west coast of Scotland with a 100 beef suckler herd. The farm
business operates as an equal partnership. The methodology is based on identification of key events
in the case study as well as key events in the wider economic landscape of farming. Events were
based on the respondent’s recall of events (Cope, 2005). Although some of the details can be
supported through farm accounts, others remain anecdotal. Clearly, from case work there are
limitations to what might be learned in the wider sense however, depth of understanding is
achievable through phenomenological approaches in entrepreneurship research; signal and alert and
inform further research (Yin, 1994; Perren and Ram, 2004; Cope, 2005). In order to better understand
the case, audited accounts were retrieved. The accounts available were from 1963 through to and
including 2007. The analysis of financial data was undertaken by identifying the total turnover figure
from each year and the total net profit before tax of each year. Thereafter the data was transformed
using excel into a line graph. The line graph was not adjusted for inflation as patterns were being used
for analysis and not the actual figures. A table was prepared and the respondent was encouraged to
separate ‘on farm’ events from the more economic and ‘external’ events such as European policy
reform. The classification of events in the table was based on McElwee and Bosworth’s (2010)
typology of farm diversification. Finally, the researcher undertook secondary research of various
published reports (European Commission, 2010; DEFRA, 2010; Scottish Government, 2010) in order to
identify dates of widely reported external economic events. The final process in analysis was to
consider the narratives of events with the peaks and troughs contained on the line graphs from the
financial data resulting in a financial and textual lifecycle pattern that may reveal causal effects.
In summary a case analysis has been undertaken using a UK farm and specifically the unit of analysis
and discussion is the life cycle of the ‘farm business, in this instance a partnership. This is an
important definition for any further comparable studies or studies using larger sample sizes (Carter,
1998). The following section presents the key findings and the subsequent discussion will concentrate
on the patterns and key events. Essentially the following section provides a contextual view of life
cycle theory and transitions (Churchill and Lewis,1983 ; Levie and Liechtenstein, 2010).
Findings and Discussion
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the farming enterprise through the lens of business life
cycle theory. Two data sets are combined to present the farm business lifecycle; the financial trends
and key events derived from interviews. The financial trends are presented showing turnover and
profit from 1963 to 2007. The trends reveal peaks which are discussed in conjunction with the key
events. The key events include external and environmental events as well as changes to farm activity.
The key events attempt to provide a socio economic explanation of ‘how’ and ‘why’ by viewing the
interactions between farmer, environment and family (Gersick et al 1999; Carter and Ram, 2002).
Figure 1 Case Financial Trends
The turnover trend shows a gradual increase from birth of the farm business through a growth period
with a dramatic decline in 2007. There are three notable peaks in turnover; Peak 1 1976 – 1979, Peak
2 1990 – 1992, Peak 3 2002 – 2003. Profit trends are stable until late eighties and early nineties when
they show more erratic behaviour. These patterns might be explained through the interaction and
creation of new activity or diversification (Robinson, 2008; Smith et al 2009, McElwee et al 2006;
McElwee, 2008 Carter, 1998, Carter and Ram2002). This idea will be investigated in the following
section. An ever increasing gap between turnover and profit begins at around the same time
suggesting that diversification presents a different operating cost base and might be less predictable
than operating the core farm business (DEFRA 2010). Such conditions require a different skill set from
that of a farm business with no diversification (McElwee, 2008). However it is the context of events
that can provide deeper insight; the following section discusses key events and their socio economic
impact on the farm business life cycle.
Table 1 Case Events
Year
1957-59
1960-69
1970-79
Property
Development
None
reported
None
reported
Case Events: on farm and external
New /change
New/change
of Business
agri- Activity
Business
None
commenced
reported
None
None
reported
reported
Off Farm
Employment
None
reported
None
reported
Land sold for
housing
None
reported
None
reported
None
reported
None
reported
Dairy stopped
None
reported
Fencing
Business
1990-99
None
reported
Sawdust
business
bought
None
reported
Fencing
Business
2000-09
Land retainer
fee for land
bank with
property
developer
Sawdust
haulage
activity
withdrawn
Two new cow
sheds built
Silage worker
1980-89
External
Events
Modernisation
General
restructuring
of land
ownership
Oil prices rises
Bold Changes
in farming
methods
BSE
2003 CAP
reform
2001Foot and
Mouth
Increased
energy
requirements
Table 1 contains analysed events extracted from interviews with both farmers. The events have been
organised using McElwee and Bosworth's (2010) classifications of diversification and presented over a
six decade time period. The three notable peaks in turnover mentioned previously can be pinpointed
around particular events Peak 1 1976 – 1979, might be explained by an income generated from sale
of land. Peak 2 1990 – 1992, might be explained as a new business is purchased and Peak 3 2002 –
2003 might be explained by the additional contracting work with silage and a retainer payment from a
property developer. Furthermore, the troughs encountered post 2005, reflect the exit from a
diversification activity. From this analysis the effects of change in diversification activity clearly
disrupts predictability of the life cycle. Further investigations during the interview reveal that the
reason the sawdust diversification was withdrawn was attributed to changes in market forces and
increasing costs. Increased farm exits (Smith, 2008), and reduced numbers of dairy farms (DEFRA,
2010) meant that overall demand in the industry fell, it should also noted that new technologies and
products replaced the function that sawdust performed. Evidently diversification activity is sensitive
to economic factors just like any other business. Finally, the market that received the sawdust i.e. the
other farmers was not only declining through exits but also through migration and changes in local
social structures (Jack and Anderson, 2002). External events appear to have less of an impact on the
business and perhaps are less disruptive; even with BSE and the ceasing of beef imports the fragility
of the business appears more related to diversification activities. Traditional farming activities, it
appears, are arguably more predictable, probably due the effects of European regulation.
Predictable operating environments are good for small business and farm managers and disruptive
environments are perhaps a better environment for the more entrepreneurial farmer. Thus skill sets
and the entrepreneurial capability for opportunity recognition become a requirement for today’s
farmer.
An emerging pattern is that the farm business life cycle is probably rather predictable in
terms of the highly regulated core business activity such as beef and dairy production. CAP reform in
2013 is unlikely to force a highly disruptive change upon European farmers but rather create a need
for a transition and change (European Commission, 2010). The transition and change is linked to the
operating environment affecting the wider farm business activities and this is where many of the
entrepreneurial, issues reside. The agribusiness life cycle clearly has a portfolio of income involving
core business income and other activity income. Other activity income is well classified by McElwee
and Bosworth (2010) however the socio economic effects, the educational and family interactions are
much less understood (Jack and Anderson, 2002; Smith , Temple and Edgar 2009). This forms the
environment in which transition takes place. Levie and Liechtenstein (2010) argue for dynamic states
which, holds true from this a micro farm business perspective. Knowing that reform is ahead in 2013
and appreciating through contextual studies the interaction and effects of activity then navigating
transitions and so dynamic states are essential to sustainable farm businesses. Where Churchhill and
Lewis (1983) provide a simple model able to support a reflective view of life cycles in this case, a
transition states model is required for future farm business. Essentially dynamic states and transition
is a process for the requirement to better understand how to match assets and capability with market
needs and demand (Ardichvili, Cardozo, & Ray, 2003; Smith, 2008; Levie and Liechtenstein, 2010).
This is the challenge of the socially embedded farmer (Jack and Anderson 2002; Smith, Temple and
Edgar, 2009)
Conclusion
Blackburn, R. Kovalainen, A. (2009) urge researchers to be aware of what is contribution and that
clearly there are extensive limitations and implications of chosen methodologies and research
designs. Contextual studies obviously contribute a contextual result which, from a single case study
provides extensively rich data but arguably not an extensively wide contribution. The case study
presented is unique in terms of reported findings but the patterns and events provide insights to
support exiting literature and shape a new way to look at farm business growth and sustainability.
Future research of agri business should consider transitions and dynamic states. The growing body of
evidence on skill sets and farmer education is an important element of transition however combining
education with business opportunity is more challenging especially when farmers are deeply
embedded in social cultures and structures (Carter 1998; Jack and Anderson, 2002; McElwee, 2008;
Smith, Temple and Edgar, 2009) Future research should consider further the unit of analysis in agri
business research as interactions and generations need to be part of the analysis (Carter 1998;
Gersick et al 1999; Carter and Ram, 2002). Finally, legal structures of farm enterprise appears under
researched and contributions in terms of good practice may assist farms through transitions; the
succession issues, issues of asset ownership and separation of farm from household are all worth
investigation. The life cycle of a farm business is not dissimilar to other micro businesses and the
problems encountered and that affect the peaks and troughs of growth are not dissimilar. However,
peculiarities such as ownership, family and education are highly likely to affect the transition and
dynamic states that are going to be so necessary to the future sustainability of farming (European
Commission , 2010).
References
Andelman, D.A. (1997) ‘The new farm economics (agricultural reform movement)’, Management
Review, December, 86(11), pp.25–27.
Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and
development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 105-123.
Blackburn, R. Kovalainen, A. (2009) Researching small firms and entrepreneurship: Past, present and
Future. International Journal of Management Review, 11 (2) pp 127-148.
Blank, S.C. (2003) ‘Where is American agriculture in its “life cycle”?’, Journal of Agriculture and
Resource Economics, 28(3) pp.396–418.
DEFRA, (2010) Food statistics Pocket book
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/foodfarm/food/pocketstats/documents/foodpocketb
ook2010.pdf accessed May 18th 2011.
Carter, S. (1998) Portfolio Entrepreneurship in the farm sector: indigenous growth in rural areas?
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 10(1) pp. 17-32.
Carter, S. (2001) ‘Multiple business ownership in the farm sector – differentiating monoactive,
diversified and portfolio enterprises’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research,
7(2), pp.43–59.
Carter, s and Ram, M. (2002) Reassessing portfolio entrepreneurship, Small Business Economics, 21
pp 371-380.
Carter, S. and Rosa, P. (1998) ‘Indigenous rural firms: farm enterprises in the UK’, International Small
Business Journal, July–September, 16(4), pp.15–27.
Churchill, N.C, Lewis, V.L (1983) "The five stages of small firm growth", Harvard Business Review,
53 pp43-54.
Cope,J. (2005) Researching entrepreneurship through phenomenological inquiry: Philosophical and
methodological issues, International Small Business Journal, 23(2), pp.163-189.
de Wolf, P., McElwee, G., and Schoorlemmer, H. (2007) The European farm entrepreneur? A
comparative perspective International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business 4(6) pp 679692.
Dickson, T (1980) Scottish Capitalism, Lawrence and Wishart, London.
Gersick, KE, Lansberg, I, Desjardins, M and Dunn, B (1999) Stages and Transitions: Managing Change in
the Family Business, Family Business Review, 12(4), pp 287-297.
Harvey, D.R. (2004) ‘Policy dependency and reform: economic gains versus political gains’,
Agricultural Economics, 31(1), pp.265–275.
Jack, S.L. and Anderson A.R. (2002) The effects of embeddedness on the entrepreneurial process,
Journal of Business Venturing, 17(5) pp 467-487.
Johnsen, S. (2004) ‘The redefinition of family farming: agricultural restructuring and farm adjustment
in Waihemo, New Zealand’, Journal of Rural Studies, 20 (4), pp.419–432.
Kazanjian, R. K., & Drazin, R. (1990). A stage-contingent model of design and growth for technology
based new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(3), 137- 150. ,
Lester, DL and Parnell (2006) The complete cycle of a family business, Journal of Applied Management
and Entrepreneurship, 11 (3), pp3-22.
Levie, J. and Lichtenstein, B. B. (2010), A Terminal Assessment of Stages Theory: Introducing a
Dynamic States Approach to Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34 (2), pp. 317–
350.
Lobley, M. and Potter, C. (2004) ‘Agriculture and restructuring: recent evidence from a survey of
agricultural households in England’, Journal of Rural Studies, 20(4), pp.499–510.
McElwee, G. (2006) Farmer’s as Entrepreneurs: developing competitive skills, Journal of
Developmental entrepreneurship, 11(3) pp 187-206.
McElwee, G. (2008) A Taxonomy of Entrepreneurial Farmers, International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Small Business 5(6) pp465-478.
McElwee, G., Anderson, A. and Vesala, K. (2006) ‘The strategic farmer: a cheese producer with cold
feet?’, Journal of Business Strategy, 27(6), pp.65–72.
McElwee, G. and Bosworth, G. (2010)Exploring the strategic skills of farmers across a typology of
farm diversification approaches, Journal of Farm Management, 13 (12), pp819-838.
McElwee, G. and Robson, A. (2005) ‘Diversifying the farm: opportunities and barriers’, Finnish
Journal of Rural Research and Policy, 4, pp.84–96.
McNally, S. (2001), Farm Diversification in England and Wales – what can we learn from the farm
business survey, Journal of Rural Studies, 17, pp247-257.
Meert, H., Van Huylenbroeck, G., Vernimmen, T., Bourgeois, M. and Van Hecke, E. (2005) ‘Farm
household survival strategies and diversification on marginal farms’, Journal of Rural Studies, 21,(1),
pp.81–97.
Paquette, S. and Domon, G. (2003) ‘Changing ruralities, changing landscapes: exploring social
recomposition using a multi-scale approach’, Journal of Rural Studies, 19(4), pp.425–444.
Perren, L. and Ram, M. (2004) “Case-study method in small business and entrepreneurial research:
Mapping boundaries and perspectives”, International Small Business Journal, 22(1) pp. 83-101.
Rae, D. Carswell., M (2000) Using a life-story approach in researching entrepreneurial learning: the
development of a conceptual model and its implications in the design of learning experiences,
Education and Training, 42(4/5) pp. 220-228.
th
Robinson (2008) Appraising rural entrepreneurship opportunities: a 3D approach, 6
Entrepreneurship Conference, Glasgow University Crichton Campus, Dumfries, May 2008.
Rural
Scott , M and Bruce, R. (1987) Five stages of growth in small business, Long Range Planning, 20(3),
pp. 45-52.
Scottish Government (2010) Scotland Rural Development Programme 2007-2013; Rural Development
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/311173/0098233.pdf
accessed 19th May 2011.
Smith, AMJ. (2008) Blots, bovines, buildings, businesses and brands: monitoring the landscape of rural
assets, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 5(6), pp437-449.
Smith, AMJ, McCann M, Barlow. A (2009) Sustainability of farm diversification ventures: How hot is
ice cream in a cold economic environment? 7th Rural Entrepreneurship Conference Rheged and
Redhills, Penrith, Cumbria.
Smith, AMJ, Temple, BK, Edgar, D. (2009) “A story of process: Exploring social, economic and
emotional embeddedness in a rural business venture.” Institute of Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, ISBE, Liverpool.
Smith, AMJ, Temple, BK, Edgar D. (2008), Business sustainability, development and adaptation:
Lineage and the farm business, 6th Rural Entrepreneurship Conference Centre for Research into
Regional Development (CRRED), Crichton University Campus, Dumfries.
Smout, TC (2002) Understanding the Historical Landscape in its Environmental Setting, Scottish
Cultural Press.
Storey, D. (1994) Understanding the Small Business Sector, Routledge, London.
Wibberley , J (2008) A brief history of agriculture in the UK, 1 Briefing 193
th
www.arthurrankcentre.org.uk/projects/rusource_briefings/firm04/193.pdf, accessed 16 May 2011
Yin, Y.K., (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
European Commission (2010) Europeans, Agriculture and the Common Agricultural Policy, March
2010
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_336_en.pdf accessed 16th May 2011