Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 363–375

Pluriactivity in the Moshav:family farming in Israel

Michael Sofer

The Levinsky College of Education and Department of Geography, Bar Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel

Abstract

In the past several years, pluriactivity has become quite widespread among moshav farming households, especially those located

within Metropolitan Tel Aviv’s rural fringe. Agricultural income has been on the decline and other sources of income haveappeared. This paper has a threefold aim: To identify major patterns of income sources among Moshav’s households; to explain theunderlying causes for choosing pluriactivity as an income-producing strategy; and to explain the reasons for the specific choice of

pluriactivity patterns adopted.An analysis of the activities of moshavim1 located in the Sharon Region indicates that the further the moshav from the

metropolitan area, the greater the role of agriculture in total family income. Within a pluriactivity strategy, the main additionalsources of income are wage employment and small business activity, carried out either on or off the moshav. The main factors

stimulating the increase in pluriactivity are the decline in agricultural income and the desire to take advantage of vocational training.This trend is supported by other factors, such as the availability of premises for alternative uses as well as the ease of operating abusiness from the home.

The divergence in pluriactivity patterns may indicate that the frequency of mixing agriculture with other income sources may be atemporary option adopted by households for which agriculture has been a mainstay. Those households may shift away fromagriculture in the short or mid-term. We would argue that at present, for the majority of those no longer devoted solely to

agriculture, pluriactivity is also aimed at helping to sustain agricultural activity. In such cases, farmers utilise the resources acquiredfrom non-agricultural employment for investment in agriculture, including the upgrading of equipment and other assets. # 2001Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Pluriactivity; Moshav; Family farming; Israel; Non-agricultural business

1. Introduction

Transformations in the structure and appearance ofrural settlements, patterns of land use, and employmentamong members of farming households have becomeintrinsic to the rural space throughout the Westernworld. Israel’s rural space has also been experiencing thecorresponding rapid and meaningful socio-economicchanges over the last decade, particularly in the moshav,one of the country’s unique types of agriculturalsettlements. In the moshav, one of the most significantchanges has been the intensification of pluriactivity onthe household level. The growth in the number offarming households relying solely on agriculturalincome has been reversed, with the search for additionalsources of income becoming widespread. As cooperativeproduction diminishes, and as individualism and free

market orientations spread, moshav households areintensifying their participation in the wage labourmarket, renting farm premises to outside entrepreneurs,and engaging in on-farm industrial and service activities.Often, income from these sources exceeds income fromagriculture. Within the context of Israel’s dynamiceconomy, the family’s labour resources}their avail-ability, skill composition, and distribution by gender}are enabling households to base their incomes onvarious sources of employment.

The paper has a threefold aim: To identify majorpatterns of income sources among moshav households;to explain the underlying causes for choosing pluriac-tivity as an income producing-strategy; and to explainthe reasons for the specific choice of the pluriactivitypattern adopted. The data, gathered among six mosha-vim located in the Sharon Region of Israel, provide theempirical foundations for an attempt to characterise thephenomenon of pluriactivity within this region and to1 Moshavim is plural for moshav in the Hebrew language.

0743-0167/01/$ - see front matter # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 7 4 3 - 0 1 6 7 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 1 2 - 2

comprehend the moshav’s household survival strategywithin the current economic environment. The paper isdivided into five parts. The first presents the theoreticalframework of pluriactivity, including examples fromvarious countries. The second part describes the moshavand the transitions it has undergone. The factorscharacterising the employment structure of the regionstudied are presented in the third part, while the fourthexamines the causes driving employment structuretransformations. In the concluding part, the mainfindings are discussed and an attempt is made todelineate the long-term implications of economic changefor the individual rural household as well as for Israel’srural space.

2. Pluriactivity: its background and selected examples

2.1. Background

The analysis of changes in the rural areas of Westerneconomies emphasises, among other processes, thephenomenon of pluriactivity; that of household partici-pation, simultaneously, in diversified, non-agriculturalemployment whether on or off the family farm.According to the literature (Hart, 1984; Healy andIlbery, 1985; Gasson, 1987, 1988a; Fuller, 1990;Marsden, 1990; Grossman, 1993; Bateman and Ray,1994) the main causes of these transformations are:

(1) Increased efficiency of the agricultural sector andproductivity per unit of input, resulting in reduceddemand for labour coupled with burgeoning foodsurpluses, events that have triggered a policyencouraging exit from the agricultural sector.

(2) Deteriorated terms of trade for the agriculturalsector, expressed in the rising costs of inputs and therelative fall in the prices of outputs, a processculminating in declining net income from agricul-ture.

(3) Changes in the demographic and occupationalprofiles of agricultural settlements in response tothe movement of urban populations into ruralcommunities.

(4) Heightened receptivity among farming householdsto alternative sources of income, a result of theacquisition of vocational training and advancededucation.

(5) Regulatory policies that circumscribe the flexibilityrequired by farming households to respond tochanging economic conditions.

(6) Transportation infrastructure improvements thathave enhanced the relative advantages offered byrural locations as sites for non-agricultural activitiesand facilitated the access of rural residents to urban-based employment.

These factors have culminated in a process ofrestructuring similar to that undergone by othereconomic sectors. Restructuring is expressed, amongother things, by the entry of farming householdmembers into non-agricultural areas of activity whetheron or off the farm. The ensuing effects include theindustrialisation of the rural community and itssurroundings, the penetration of commercial and servicesector businesses into rural villages, and the rise incommuting to urban centres of employment (Gasson,1988a, b; Ilbery, 1991; Grossman, 1993; Sofer andNe’eman, 1998; Eikeland and Lie, 1999).

The concept pluriactivity (which might be moreproperly termed pluri-income) refers to the farminghousehold conceived as an economic unit in which allhousehold members contribute to its income throughemployment in agriculture and/or non-agriculturalactivities, whether on or off the farm. This conceptexpresses the efforts made by farming householdsthroughout the world to survive as economic entities(Marsden et al., 1986; Ilbery, 1991; Davis et al., 1997).Its application permits a more accurate analysis of thefarming household’s strategy for economic survival(Evans and Ilbery, 1993), considering that the householdis, at present, the only feasible unit available forgathering income and employment statistics (Hill,1999). Its scope is rising in direct proportion to therelative decline of agricultural income, and it isincreasingly taken as a strategic response to theconstraints imposed by local market conditions.

By varying their sources of income, farming house-holds often bring about the proletariatisation of theirown labour. However, contrary to the classic processthat severs the link between labour and other factors ofproduction, proletariatisation in the present circum-stances supports the socio-economic differentiation ofthe farming household. In essence, the continuedexistence of the farming household is dependent uponthis differentiation, viewed as the household’s ability toreallocate its internal labour force and to expand itsparticipation in the labour market (Marsden, 1990;Marsden et al., 1996).

2.2. The spread of pluriactivity

The scope of pluriactivity in Europe is significant:More than 60% of the family farms operating through-out the European Union are involved in pluriactivity.This means that in the majority of Europe’s farminghouseholds, at least one adult earns income fromnon-agricultural employment either on or off the farm(Gasson and Winter, 1992). In some areas, this trendis progressing gradually, whereas in others it isaccelerating rapidly. In the Grampian region ofScotland, the phenomenon increased by almost50% between 1980 and 1991 (Edmond et al., 1993).

M. Sofer / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 363–375364

Alternatively, in Norway, it has spread slowly (Eikelandand Lie, 1999), probably because the majority offarming households have combined farm and non-farm income much earlier (Jervell, 1999). Pluriactivityhas reached significant levels in Wales, where only 7%of the households surveyed earn their livelihoodexclusively from agriculture (Bateman and Ray, 1994),and in New Zealand, where almost 60% of the farm-ing households, especially those occupied in raisinglivestock or growing apples, supplement theirincomes from non-agricultural sources (Le Heron et al.,1994). Pluriactivity has characterised rural house-holds for some time in Malta (Short and Tricker,1994), is accelerating within the urban fringes ofJapan (van der Meer, 1990), and is quite prevalent inRumania, especially at present, as the Rumanian farmundergoes intensive structural transformation (Soferand Bordanc, 1998).

A comprehensive study conducted in Western Europehas disclosed two major variables that characterisethe economic activity of those farming householdsthat resort to pluriactivity: the degree of dependenceon commercial non-agricultural as opposed to agricul-tural activities, and the relative strength of regionalnon-agricultural labour markets (Fuller, 1990). Thispattern has been recently re-emphasised by Hill (1999).Findings indicate the presence of spatial andseasonal disparities in the presence of pluriactivitythroughout Western Europe, as clearly shown forFrance (Campagne et al., 1990). In peripheral regionscharacterised by small-farm production, one finds asignificant degree of pluriactivity accompanied bylow levels of income and little labour mobility. Inthese regions, pluriactivity represents a strategy forthe very survival and continued ownership of thefamily farm. One outstanding feature of this processis the farming household’s entry into the touristindustry, particularly in sparsely populated areas.By comparison, for more than a decade, thedominate feature of London’s rural fringe, particularlyin the south, has been the penetration of non-agriculture-related small businesses run from aban-doned farm buildings. Some of these businessesoriginated outside the rural settlement but laterrelocated to these sites, although a large proportionwere founded within the villages themselves (Short,1995). In addition, a main feature of the fringeof metropolitan areas is off-farm wage labour as animportant source of income, and the risingshare of women occupied in such work (Jervell, 1999).In these areas, pluriactivity represents a stage inthe sector’s capitalist development: Farming is exhibit-ing clear tendencies toward capital accumulation aswell as growing disengagement from agriculture asits economic base (Marsden et al., 1986; Campagneet al., 1990).

3. The Moshav in Israel

3.1. The essence of the moshav

The moshav2 is a planned smallholders’ cooperativesettlement (about 410 of which are spread throughoutthe country) that emerged in the 1920s. Generally,numbering about 60–100 families, farmers in thesesettlements work their individual parcels of land anddraw income from their farms’ yields. The amount ofland allocated differs for each moshav, according toregion and type of agricultural branch dominant,although it is equitable within each moshav. Farmersusually own three different plots. Plot A, where thehouse and farm buildings are located and, if largeenough, can allow for very intensive agriculturalproduction to take place. Plot B, which is the mainfarming unit and may be divided into two or moresections. Plot C, which is a communally cultivated plot,the profits from which are equally divided amongmoshav’s households.

The original principles of the moshav and itscooperative character should be emphasised (Rokach,1978; Schwartz, 1999):

(1) State-owned land allocated to settlement and farmers:To encourage farming as well as to tie the settlers tothe land and to their community, land was leasedfor a 49 years period, at paltry sum, with anautomatic option for renewal or transfer to heirs.

(2) Self-labour: The farm was planned to sustain itselfsolely from agriculture. Originally, settlers benefitedfrom subsidised investments in the form of financialsupport for the construction of housing and thepurchase of production infrastructure. The meansof production at the disposal of the settler wereallocated such that each individual householdwould be able to carry out most of the farm workwithout recourse to hired labour.

(3) Equal income opportunity: The means of productionallocated to the farmer were considered to besufficient to provide what was estimated as anaverage urban household income, thought suitableto support the family.

(4) Cooperative organisation and mutual assistance: Acooperative association was formed to deal withthe joint purchasing and marketing activities.Furthermore, mutual financial commitments, initi-ally made by moshav members for the purposeof providing crisis relief was later used as collateral

2 Another form of agricultural settlement found in Israel, the moshav

shittufi, is a collective smallholders’ settlement where production is

carried out communally but where family life is self-contained. About

44 such settlements operate at present. This form of settlement is not

discussed in this paper.

M. Sofer / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 363–375 365

by individual households to underwrite their owneconomic activities. In addition, mutual assistancewas given to the farmer by other moshav memberswho would help work his land when he was unableto do so.

3.2. Transformations in the moshav

For a number of years, the moshav has beenundergoing a series of socio-economic transformationsin response to the declining role of agriculture withinIsrael’s economy, the reduction of state support toagriculture, and the attrition of the ideological appeal ofthe ‘‘rural settlements system’’. The changes have takenthe form of decooperativisation, modified income andoccupational structures, suburbanisation, loss of muni-cipal autonomy (Schwartz, 1999), and altered forms ofland cultivation and land holding.

The reduction in agricultural employment, theentry of urban populations into rural communitiesby purchase of farm holdings without their entryinto farming activities, and the penetration of non-agricultural activities into the moshav have tran-spired relatively quickly. For several years, rural areasin Israel have witnessed a steady decline in theproportion of the work force employed in agriculture,from 15% in 1960 to about 2.9% in 1997 (Ministry ofAgriculture, 1999). Like other industrialised Westernstates, Israel’s agricultural sector has been influenced bytwo major factors. Advances in agrotechnology havecontributed to reduction in labour requirements (Shor-esh, 1989), and rising productivity per unit of input hasinduced a spiralling growth in supply, far exceeding theleisurely growth in demand for agricultural products.Deteriorating terms of trade have been expressed indecreasing real prices of agricultural output andsignificantly diminishing profitability for the agriculturalsector at large and for the individual farming house-holds in particular.

Decooperativisation has replaced cooperativisation,which was recognised as an obstacle to the spirit ofindividual entrepreneurship. This trend was expressed inthe flight of moshav members from communal market-ing and from exclusive dependence on the ‘‘moshavassociation’’ as the source of credit (Schwartz, 1999),even redistribution of the communally owned land,accomplished by giving to household self-cultivationrights to plot C has appeared. The question of mutualguarantees, which has forced moshav members to paythe debts of other members, has been abolished inalmost all moshavim. In many others all cooperationbetween members has ceased, with the settlement nowfunctioning as a village of purely individual small-holders.

Recently, the changing conditions confronted bythe farming household have encouraged attempts to

increase the scale of operations, by increasing landresources and labour inputs. In the past, these attemptswere blocked by the moshav cooperative principles.According to the regulations, moshav members couldnot enlarge their holdings through purchase of landfrom other farms, a practice found to be an obstacle toupgrading agricultural activities and income. Landinputs have now been enlarged, which has allowedsome farmers to cultivate large plots of land bysubleasing parcels (plot B, usually for modest sums)from neighbours who prefer to limit the land theycultivate or to discontinue farming altogether. Thelatter phenomenon, which is generally accompaniedby the transfer of production and water quotas tothe sublessee, permits more efficient utilisation ofmachinery.

The use of self-labour has gradually been replacedby wage labour; as of the early 1990s, cheap foreignlabour that has assisted in decreasing production costsand released household members to engage in non-agricultural occupations. The increase in capital re-sources was accomplished by investment in advancedtechnology, especially labour-saving technology, de-pending on the branch and its characteristics. Thechoice of strategy has been subject to the effects ofvariables such as attributes of the agricultural branch,the size of the individual farm and its domestic labourforce, the non-agricultural skills of the household’smembers, the farmer’s interest in continuing agriculturalproduction, as well as the settlement’s location andsocio-economic foundations.

Of late, the same process has stimulated, to differingdegrees of intensity, the penetration of non-agriculturalactivities, usually on plot A (Grossman, 1993; Shermanand Keidar, 1993; Ilberg, 1994; Sofer and Ne’eman,1998). Against this background, a number of trendshave evolved in the rural space, since the early 1990s. Atthe macro level, increased demand for residential andindustrial land, and a change in government policiestowards the protection of farming land in the wake of asignificant rise in land values, have facilitated andaccelerated the transfer of agricultural land resourcesto other uses. At the farm level, land (especially plot B)has been set aside for unlimited periods, an outcome ofindividual decisions. Both trends have intensifiednegative environmental impacts with respect to land,water and air resources, and the general quality of rurallife (Grossman, 1993; Ilberg, 1994; Sofer and Gal, 1996;Gal, 1998).

As elsewhere, Israel’s moshavim have been beset bythe effects of urban sprawl, a process intensifiedfollowing the entry of urban population having non-agricultural occupations and limited interest in farming(Applebaum, 1986). Their entry, usually through thepurchase of farm holdings, has had a considerableimpact on rural employment patterns, due to the

M. Sofer / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 363–375366

fact that they derive the bulk of their income from non-agricultural sources, mainly white-collar jobs or urban-based businesses, located outside the moshav. Improve-ments in transportation, which have encouraged com-muting from the moshav to urban employment centres,have facilitated the shift in residence from the town tothe countryside on the one hand, and the adoption ofurban employment patterns by the moshav householdon the other (Grossman, 1993). At the same time, as aresult of accelerating internal pressures, the moshavimhave intensified demands for revision of the regulationspermitting only immediate heirs}rather than all mem-bers of the younger generation}to construct housing onthe family plot. The official institutional response hasbeen to relax the strictures and to permit extension ofthe moshav beyond its original boundaries (Ministry ofAgriculture and the Jewish Agency, 1987; Applebaumand Keidar, 1992). In consequence, a residentialrevolution has been initiated, with a growing numberof moshavim welcoming dozens of households thatregard the moshav as a commuter’s dormitory suburb.This population is not, however, the subject of thepresent study.

In such circumstances, for those farmers whochose not to intensify their agricultural operations,the major income-augmenting mechanism availableto them was employment, whether full or part time,off the family farm and/or outside the moshav itself(Haruvi, 1989; Kimhi, 1994). This could also be doneby dividing the household’s labour resources amongseveral activities, with some family members continuingto operate the farm while others opened a business onthe property or worked off the moshav. The degree towhich this strategy was adopted appears to be depen-dent upon the economic opportunities available withinthe vicinity of the moshav. For example, the magnitudeof non-agricultural business as a proportion of totalhousehold activities is relatively higher in the easternfringe of Metropolitan Tel Aviv (Sofer and Ne’eman,1998). This region is considered highly attractive as alocation for non-agricultural businesses, particularlymanufacturing and warehousing linked to the metropo-litan market.

Beyond the factors noted, a number of additional,fundamental forces have been motivating moshavmembers to turn to outside employment for severalyears (Applebaum and Margulies, 1985). Amongthese we can list, the weakening identification withfarming as a preferred way of life, particularlyamong new immigrant households who lack anyagricultural traditions or empathy for such a lifestyleas early as the 1950s. More recently, the location ofthe moshavim that may lie in regions marked bymeagre land resources and few employment alter-natives, even within the agricultural sector, has becomeimportant.

4. Pluriactivity and pluri-income in the moshav

4.1. Methodology

At the outset of this paper, it was hypothesised thatpluriactivity and its patterns are influenced by thedecline in agricultural income, the composition of thehousehold and its members occupational training,access to wage labour markets, the duration of propertyownership, the total acreage cultivated, and themoshav’s distance from the metropolitan area. To testthe influence of these variables, Lev HaSharon andEmeq Hefer, two regional councils located in the SharonRegion, which lies at the northern fringes of Metropo-litan Tel Aviv (Fig. 1), where chosen. Both also comeunder the influence of the city of Netanya (Sofer, 1982).The moshavim surveyed in the present study (the datawere gathered in 1996) are located within the boundariesof these two regional councils, three in each council(Fig. 1). In order to obtain a representative sample foreach council (Emeq Hefer is situated further north), thechoice was made according to the moshav’s distancefrom Netanya as well as the year it was founded. Thesample therefore includes veteran moshavim, establishedprior to 1948, the year the State of Israel wasestablished, as well as younger moshavim, foundedsubsequently. Within the six moshavim surveyed, about40% of the households that own agricultural land wereinterviewed. The households surveyed were divided intothree categories: (1) households whose livelihoods arebased entirely on agriculture; (2) households combiningagriculture with other income-producing activities; and(3) households occupied either in exclusively non-agricultural activities or for whom agriculture representsa marginal source of income.

4.2. General characteristics

In the Sharon Region, citrus orchards cover aconsiderable portion of the cultivated land. For themajority of moshavim, the land cooperatively farmed(Plot C) is devoted to citrus. In addition, citrus grovesoccupy part of the individually cultivated areas (Plot B)in a number of farms. Among Emek Hefer’s moshavim,Plot B often contains greenhouses (primarily for flowers)and fruit trees, whereas among Lev HaSharon’smoshavim, Plot B may include a wider range of crops,including field crops such as wheat and potatoes, as wellas orchards. Plot A in both subregions contains henbatteries, dairies, and flower nurseries whenever ownershave turned to this branch.

Table 1 presents data on some major characteristics ofagricultural activity on the regional level. The land ineach moshav is divided equally among the households,although variations do appear between the moshavim.Among the more veteran moshavim, established prior to

M. Sofer / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 363–375 367

1948, properties are a bit larger than among themoshavim established after 1948. But the more sig-nificant differences between the moshavim rest in howthey exploit the land. In the majority of moshavim,more than 50% of the households cultivate their landdirectly although a significant percentage of farmers(about 30% in the Lev HaSharon region and about 40%in the Emek Hefer region) sub-lease their property totheir moshav neighbours. Accordingly, several farmerswork especially large parcels of land, thereby exploitingscale economies and using their equipment moreefficiently.3 As a result, an inter-regional comparison

of the data on the amount of land cultivated andthe level of wage labour employed underscores thegreater tendency to participate in agriculture amongEmek Hefer versus Lev HaSharon moshavim. It isinteresting to note that about half of the moshavhouseholds (a larger number in Emek Hefer than inLev HaSharon) employ wage labourers, the majority ofwhom are wage earners from foreign countries. Aselsewhere, the number of wage labourers varies byseason and sector.

4.3. The characteristics of the moshav household’s incomestructure

The sample population consisted of agriculturalproperty owners whose income from the time themoshav was founded and for considerable periodsthereafter was based, in the main, on a singlesource}agriculture. The data collected shows that thecurrent situation is quite different, and underscores thefact that about half of all moshav families enjoy incomefrom two sources, usually with each household headearning income from a different source. About 15% ofthe households have three or more sources of income. Itshould be emphasised that a situation may arise inwhich a household enjoys four sources of income

Fig. 1. Location map showing the regional councils and the moshavim.

Table 1

Major characteristics of moshav agricultural activity

Region Average

area

per farm

Area

cultivated

by owner

Farmers

renting

out land

Farmers

employing

wage labour

(dunams)a (%) (%) (%)

Emeq Hefer 27.0 61.4 40.7 62.6

Lev HaSharon 27.4 53.3 30.6 35.3

Total average 27.2 58.0 35.8 49.4

a 10 dunams=1 hectare.

3 Some farmers cultivate more than 200 dunams. Ten dunams equal

one hectare.

M. Sofer / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 363–375368

although only one source provides the bulk of itsearnings.

Table 2 presents the sources of income by frequencyand by region. It is important to note that the individualfarmers were asked to relate to the general distributionof the sources of income; however, this distribution maychange yearly, especially if agriculture is the main sourceof income. It should also be made clear that fluctuationsin the income earned from agriculture represent themain factor influencing the role of other sources ofincome within total household annual income. Table 2thus presents two types of data: (a) the percentage ofhouseholds enjoying any earnings from each source ofincome within their total annual income; and (b) thepercentage of households in which earnings from anyparticular source contributes to at least 50% of totalannual income. The data indicate that agriculturecontinues to be the most frequently enjoyed source ofincome within the regions surveyed, and that itcontributes to the annual income of more than 80% ofthe households surveyed, although only about 36% ofthe households derive more than 50% of their incomefrom this source. The second important source is wagelabour, practised almost exclusively outside the moshav.This source contributes to the income of more than two-thirds of all the households, and is the major}but notexclusive}source of income for over one-fourth of thehouseholds. An inter-regional comparison of the datahighlights the fact that relatively speaking, agriculture

remains the most important source of income in EmekHefer whereas in Lev HaSharon, non-agriculturalemployment plays a similar role as a source of income.The latter may include ownership of a business, whetheron the individual’s grounds or elsewhere on the moshav.

Table 3 presents average annual household income,by each source, for the whole region. These datareinforce the findings, where agriculture and wagelabour together represent about 73% of the total annualincome earned by the households surveyed. Furtherexamination of the data reveals that households forwhom the major sources of income is one of thefollowing four, agriculture, wage labour, on- and off-farm business, this particular source provides almost50% of total annual income.

The degree of importance of agriculture as a source ofincome is illustrated in Fig. 2, which displays thedistribution of the three main sources of income forthe total number of sampled households. They areorganised in descending order of importance startingwith these fully engaged in agriculture. This displayreinforces the identification of three types of farmowners. The figure indicates that for about 12% ofmoshav households, income from agriculture representsclose to 100% of total annual income. For about 20% ofthe households, agriculture represents between 61% and90% of total annual income. All those households thatderive more than 60% of their income from agriculturecan be categorised as ‘‘farming’’ households. The others

Table 2

Share of households enjoying income sources by region (in percentages)

Source of income Emeq Hefer Lev Hasharon Total households

Share of HHa

enjoying an

income source

Share of HH for

whom source is

over 50% of income

Share of HH

enjoying an

income source

Share of HH for

whom source is

over 50% of income

Share of HH

enjoying an

income source

Share of HH for

whom source is

over 50% of income

Agriculture 82.4 40.7 77.7 30.6 80.1 35.8

Wage labour or salary

employment

63.7 26.4 78.8 27.1 71.0 26.7

Leasing of land 29.7 1.1 27.1 0.0 28.4 0.6

Renting of premises 19.8 0.0 5.9 1.2 13.1 0.6

Off-farm business 17.6 4.4 16.5 8.2 17.1 6.3

On-farm business 7.7 2.2 25.9 14.1 16.5 8.0

Other 14.3 2.2 7.1 3.5 10.8 2.8

a HH=households.

Table 3

Distribution of average annual household income by source (in percentages)

Source of income Agriculture Wage or salary

employment

On-farm

business

Off-farm

business

Renting of

premises

Leasing

of land

Other Total

Average 38.8 33.8 8.6 7.9 2.6 3.5 4.3 100.0

Average for those

enjoying this source

48.4 47.5 52.4 46.2 20.2 12.3 39.7

M. Sofer / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 363–375 369

belong to either the ‘‘mixed’’ (for whom agriculturerepresents between 11% and 60% of their total income)or the ‘‘non-farming’’ categories (for whom agriculturerepresents up to 10% of their total income). The lattercontains some households who depend solely on wageemployment or non-agricultural business for theirincome.

As shown by Fig. 2, the majority of cases, the second-most important source of income for ‘‘farming’’ house-holds, is wage employment. The relative contribution ofother sources of income is marginal. We would arguethat for these households, the time available formanaging a business on the farm is highly limited. For‘‘mixed’’ households in which agriculture remains theprimary source of income, the second-most importantsource of income is also wage labour employment,which contributes 40%, on average, of total annualincome. It is quite probable that a significant proportionof these households is in a state of transition, away fromdependence on agriculture as the main source of income.By comparison, the most significant income sourceamong ‘‘non-agricultural’’ households is wage labouremployment (representing about 50%, on average, oftotal annual income for the households in this category),immediately followed by some form of businessoperated on or off the farm.

An analysis of the data gathered reveals that severalfactors may influence the scope of the proportion ofincome earned from agriculture: the length of propertyownership, the total acreage cultivated, and the divisionof labour between the two heads of the household.There is a positive relationship between length ofownership and income derived from agriculture. Agri-culture represents a significant source of income (reach-ing about 60% of total income) among veteran moshavhouseholds for which two subgroups can be identified.The first contains households owning their property for

20–30 years. Part of this group is composed ofdescendants of the original owners, individuals whoinherited the land in the 1970s and who are continuingto work on it. The second subgroup is composed of themoshav’s most senior households, whose memberssettled on the moshav with its establishment more than50 years ago. For the remaining households, the averagecontribution of income from agriculture represents lessthan 50% of annual income. Among the latter, thedominant category consists of households who haveowned moshav farm for a relatively short time, usuallyless than 10 years, and for whom income fromagriculture represents a very small contribution to totalincome, averaging only 16%. Many of these householdshave chosen to live on a moshav in order to improvetheir quality of life while continuing to earn theirlivelihoods from employment in non-agricultural occu-pations off the moshav.

We also anticipated that a close positive relationshipwould be found between the total acreage cultivated bythe household and the proportion of income earnedfrom agriculture. The data confirm this direct relation-ship: The larger the land area worked, the greater therelative importance of income from agriculture for thehousehold’s livelihood. Accordingly, we predicted thatthe amount of cultivated land available to household,and the income earned from that land, would reflect thehousehold’s interest in pursuing agriculture. The corre-lation between the amount of land cultivated and theincome earned from agriculture persists up to the level atwhich income from agriculture represents 70–80% oftotal income. At this level, we find a significant numberof cases in which farmers work their neighbours’ land inaddition to their own. Nevertheless, an alternativescenario was likewise revealed, one in which highlyintensive farming (e.g., flower nurseries) represents theprimary or sole income-providing factor for the house-hold. In these instances, agricultural activity does notrequire large land tracts; hence, not all the propertyavailable to the household is cultivated.

With respect to the third variable, an analysis of theallocation of income-earning responsibility between thetwo heads of the household, the husband and wife,reveals that there are no significant differences betweenEmek Hefer and Lev HaSharon. In general, husbands inboth regions usually takes jobs based on a wider rangeof sources of income than do wives. Commonly, thehusband earns the household’s primary income,while the wife provides secondary household income(Table 4). This hold for all type of income other thanincome earned from wage labour. This trend isespecially strong when agriculture represents the pri-mary or secondary source of income (73% and 83%,respectively). We should note here that agricultureexhibits a seasonal dimension in its use of labour;therefore, the wife may join her husband in the fieldsFig. 2. Distribution of the main sources of moshav household income.

M. Sofer / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 363–375370

during the busy season, a period when labour shortagesmay arise.

Although the decision to take an outside job tominimise economic risks may be made by both spouses,the woman’s contribution to household income is feltmainly in her earnings from wage labour employment,whether that source of income is of primary orsecondary importance (Table 4). Wage employmentprovides a steady, stable stream of income. We canguardedly state that the wife’s contribution enables thehusband, and thus the household, to continue toparticipate in agriculture, an occupation entailing highlevels of risk as well as fluctuating levels of income. Thisobservation leads us to tentatively suggest that withoutthe wife’s income contribution, the number of house-holds occupied in agriculture would fall below presentlevels. Although it is still too early to state thishypothesis with any degree of confidence, it should beconsidered.

5. The reasons for transformations in the employment

structure on the moshav

5.1. The reasons for adopting pluriactivity

A number of reasons have been identified for whymoshav households adopt pluriactivity. It should beemphasised that we deal here only with households thathave shifted away from full-time occupation in agricul-

ture. Urban households whose members have non-agricultural occupations but that have chosen to settleon a moshav are excluded from the discussion. The datapresented in Table 5 summarise the responses to a seriesof questions requesting household members to rankorder their reasons for choosing pluriactivity. Therespondents were offered 10 possible reasons, and wereasked to score at least one of them on a scale of 6 to 1, indeclining order of importance.

The data stress that the fundamental reason forturning to pluriactivity is declining income fromagriculture. Even if this reason varies in its perceivedimportance at different points in time and with respectto different agricultural branches (some branches aremore profitable than others) and individual behaviour(some households respond more quickly than others),pluriactivity certainly appears to be an economicallyrational strategy. In cases where one or more householdmembers has acquired some type of vocational training,respondents also attach considerable importance to thedesire to take advantage of their non-agriculturalvocational training by seeking employment. The mereavailability of alternative sources of labour (wagelabourers, family members, and the younger generation)is a relatively unimportant factor in this decision.Scrutiny of the frequencies of the two highest rankedanswers, ‘‘very important’’ (value of 6) and ‘‘important’’(value of 5), as assigned to each of the reasons offered,confirms these conclusions. In addition, the disparitiesin the importance of each reason between the tworegions is very small, with one exception: An outsideentrepreneur’s offer to rent a moshav’s premises,generally ranked relatively low, is twice as importantin Lev HaSharon than it is in Emek Hefer.

5.2. Income from agriculture and the establishment ofbusinesses on the farm

The moshav households surveyed in the present studyoperate dozens of non-agricultural businesses on theirfarms, usually on plot A. Although this phenomenon isnot entirely new, it would be interesting to examine ifshifts in the level of income earned from agriculture haveinfluenced decisions to establish a business on a farm’spremises. Among the businesses operating off the farm

Table 4

The distribution of primary and secondary sources of income by provider}husband or wife (in percentages)

Source of income Primary source of income Secondary source of income

Husband Wife Husband Wife

Agriculture 73.1 26.9 83.0 17.0

Wage labour or salary employment 42.3 57.7 22.6 77.4

On-farm business 77.7 22.3 63.6 36.4

Off-farm business 77.3 22.7 60.0 40.0

Table 5

The relative importance of the reasons for adopting pluriactivity

Reason Degree of importance

Decrease in agricultural income 5.4

Exploitation of non-agricultural vocation 4.3

Unused premises or land 3.8

Unwillingness to practice agriculture 3.4

Accumulated agricultural debts 3.3

Availability of wage labour 2.6

Excess labour resources within the household 2.3

Lack of younger generation 2.3

Pressures of external entrepreneur 2.1

Other 4.9

M. Sofer / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 363–375 371

that contribute to the households’ income, some wereestablished by farmers and some were established beforesettling on the farm. These businesses are ignored herepartly because of the difficulties impeding acquisition ofsatisfactory information. Given that no data on the leveland percentage of income earned from agriculture priorto opening a business are available, we must limitourselves to examining current data.

Fig. 3 presents the reasons for establishing a businesson the farm expressed in the frequency of the rankings‘‘very important’’ or ‘‘important’’ assigned by the threetypes of households: that is, the farming household(income from agriculture makes 61% and above of totalincome), the mixed household (11–60%), and the non-farming household (10% and less). The figure clearlyindicates that households for which agriculture is notthe primary source of income consider the variousreasons for their decision to open a business on the farmto be more important than do those farming householdsfor which agriculture is the primary source of income.The most frequently given reason for opening a businesson the farm is the decline in income from agriculture.This response was given almost 10 times more often bymixed and non-farming households than by farminghouseholds. Notably, taking advantage of non-agricul-tural vocational training, unwillingness to continueworking in agriculture, and the availability of unutilisedassets were ranked as very important or importantcomparatively more frequently by non-farming house-holds. Similar to the previous set of responses, littleimportance was assigned to the availability of labour

within the household or to offers made by outsideentrepreneurs. We should admit, though, that twovariables not considered in the present research,personal characteristics and preferences, might alsohave some influence on those decisions.

Table 6 presents the average rankings assigned byproperty owners from Lev HaSharon and Emek Heferwho have established such businesses, to the specificreasons for locating a business on their farm. The levelsof importance range from values of 6 or very important,to 1 or unimportant. The respondents were offered a listof eight possible reasons, and asked to select and scoreat least one. The table indicates that there is no singleoutstanding reason for locating a business on the farmpremises. The availability of factors of production (land,empty farm buildings, and infrastructure), as well ascomfort, expressed in the proximity to the home,received the highest rankings. The expansion needs ofbusinesses formerly located off the farm were rankedrelatively low. The difference between the two regionalcouncils was found in the greater importance given tolow taxes and the absence of institutional control(regulation) in the Lev HaSharon versus Emek Hefer.With respect to these responses, we should rememberthat a larger number of businesses have been establishedin the Lev HaSharon region. Our initial conclusionsindicate that farmers from Lev HaSharon moshavimmay be more aware of the economic potential ofbusinesses located on their farms and thus may be moreconscious of the factors, including future changes inland use, that might influence such a decision.

Fig. 3. The reasons for operating a business on the farm by type of household.

M. Sofer / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 363–375372

6. Summary and conclusions

Pluriactivity represents the income-earning patternmost prevalent among farm-owning moshav householdsin Israel’s Sharon region. Although agriculture’s im-portance has declined, it has not disappeared as a majorsource of income. Nevertheless, other sources of income,especially income from wage labour earned off themoshav, are equal and growing in importance. Non-agricultural income sources are identical for farming aswell as for mixed and non-farming households. How-ever, for farming households, wage labour is thesecondary source of income, whereas for non-farminghouseholds it is the main source. The non-agriculturalbusinesses owned and operated by the householdssurveyed in this study are found more frequently amongLev HaSharon moshavim than among Emek Hefermoshavim. As may be expected, the frequency ofbusinesses operated on moshav premises is three timesgreater among non-farming than among farming house-holds.

Under worsening terms of trade, the tendency tocontinue farming is steadily weakening. Non-agricultur-al vocational training is being obtained and the desire torealise the acquired skills is substantially increasing therange of potential sources of income. The findingsindicate that the unwillingness to farm in such asituation, combined with access to other economicopportunities, especially wage employment and startinga business either on or off the farm, encourage thechange in the type and extent of farm activities pursued.Although the penetration of non-agricultural businessinto the moshav is a relatively recent phenomenon,generally the outcome of initiatives taken by localentrepreneurs, the process is influenced by externalfactors as well, particularly the pressures brought tobear by outside entrepreneurs, low taxes, and limitedinstitutional controls. With increasing distance from themetropolitan area, going north, and even within theregion represented in this study, a relative decline in thestrength of the phenomenon is felt. All these changeshave been possible due to the fact that moshav farmers

adjusted their farm and the principles of operation oftheir cooperative settlement to the changing conditions.

One issue raised by the research and requiring moreintensive study is the relationship between the structureof income and participation in agriculture. The house-hold division of labour, characterised by the husbandworking the farm while the wife and members of theyounger generation work off the premises, guarantees asteady livelihood. This arrangement permits owners tomaintain farming activities despite agriculture’s decreas-ing contribution to total household income. We canreasonably assume that such a description applies mostaccurately to ‘‘mixed’’ households. Stated cautiously, inthis type of household, the wife, who is not ‘‘married’’ tofarming to the same degree as before, plays animportant role in securing the income that permits thecontinuation of agricultural activity on the farm. Stateddifferently, the persistence of agriculture, as a mode ofemployment may be dependent on the household’s non-agricultural sources of income, mainly employment inwage labour, which in a significant number of casesresults from the wife’s entry into the labour market.Thus, the wife’s disengagement from farm workengenders a steady flow of income that guarantees thehousehold’s basic livelihood and permits the husband tocontinue taking risks by operating the farm at a greateror lesser level of activity.

These conclusions raise the question of how the Israelimoshav is different from agricultural settlements inother Western countries. At first glance, it appears thatthe moshav is experiencing the same transformationswitnessed throughout Europe, although the rate andmanner in which they are transpiring is unique toIsrael’s rural space. In Europe, the second-mostimportant source of income for farming households isoff-farm wage employment or social receipts (Hill,1999), with a not insignificant amount of pluriactivitygeared toward tourism as well as recreational and leisuretime activities; off-farm entrepreneurship is generallyunimportant. In the moshavim examined in this study,tourism is absent (rural tourism is prevalent mainly inIsrael’s north) and social receipts are negligible. Israel’srural population then diversifies in its employmentactivities along a number of routes, with wage labourin urban centres and operating a business on and off themoshav representing the favoured alternatives.

In its current form, pluriactivity on the moshav isperceived as a strategy that permits the farming house-hold to persist its operations in the agricultural sector. Itmay well be that a number of households, especiallythose participating in agriculture to a limited degree, willadopt pluriactivity for a short period, to eventuallycease doing so. This situation would not necessarilyinvolve the demise of family farming in Israel but it canbring about a strong decline in the number of farms, areduction in the land farmed, and even the loss of what

Table 6

The relative importance of the reasons for locating a business on farm

premises

Reason Degree of importance

Availability of land 5.6

Convenience 5.5

Availability of unused premises 5.4

Existence of infrastructure 5.2

Lack of institutional control 4.8

Low taxes 4.7

Expectation of changes in land use 4.1

Ability to transfer and expand external business3.2

M. Sofer / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 363–375 373

is unique to the family farm tradition: familial con-tinuity. Pluriactivity may also permit the family farmslocated in the vicinity of metropolitan areas to survive asa framework providing an alternative lifestyle but onethat is influenced by their geographic location and localmarket conditions. Hence, in Israel the farm’s char-acteristics may vary by region. We would suggest thatthe existence of several types of pluriactivity providesevidence for the continuing construction of complexrelations of production based on agriculture. Theseprocesses may induce the proletariatisation of a segmentof the farming household’s members. Alternatively, wecan state that in the majority of those farming house-holds that do not confine themselves to agriculture,pluriactivity supports their farming activity. Farmersare, therefore, being supported in their attempts toinvest in agriculture, which includes the upgrading ofequipment and other resources, by the capital that theyor their family members acquire from non-agriculturalactivity.

How will tomorrow’s rural space look? How willtomorrow’s moshav look? We have no immediateanswers to these questions. Local development is linkedto external forces and influenced by socio-political noless than economic factors. Israel’s rural space is beingrestructured in response to processes that createdisparities along many dimensions; the moshav, likeother types of settlement, is not immune to theirinfluence. Questions pertaining to the distribution ofthe powers that may affect these external and internalfactors, as well as to how these relationships impingeon the moshav, remain to be addressed in futureresearch.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the Committee for thePromotion of Research, the Levinsky College ofEducation, and the Institute for Educational ProgramResearch and Development (MOFET) for funding theresearch upon which this paper is based. I would like tothank the two anonymous referees whose valuablecomments helped to improve the paper.

References

Applebaum, L., 1986. Migration of urban families to the Moshav in

Israel 1968–1978. Ph.D. Thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem,

Jerusalem (in Hebrew).

Applebaum, L., Keidar, F., 1992. The Expansion Program of Moshav

Communities: A Follow Up Study. Development Studies Centre,

Rehovot (in Hebrew).

Applebaum, L., Margulies, J., 1985. The Israeli Village towards the

Year 2000: The Changing Structure of Rural Communities.

Settlement Studies Centre, Rehovot (in Hebrew).

Bateman, D., Ray, C., 1994. Farm pluriactivity and rural policy: some

evidence from Wales. Journal of Rural Studies 10 (1), 1–13.

Campagne, E., Carrere, G., Valceschini, E., 1990. Three agricultural

regions of France: three types of pluriactivity. Journal of Rural

Studies 6 (4), 415–422.

Davis, J., Mack, N., Kirke, A., 1997. New perspectives on farm

households incomes. Journal of Rural Studies 13 (1), 57–64.

Edmond, H., Corcoran, K., Crabtree, B., 1993. Modelling locational

access to markets for pluriactivity: a study in the Grampian region

of Scotland. Journal of Rural Studies 9 (4), 339–349.

Eikeland, S., Lie, I., 1999. Pluriactivity in rural Norway. Journal of

Rural Studies 15 (4), 405–415.

Evans, N.J., Ilbery, B.W., 1993. The pluriactivity, part-time farming,

and farm diversification debate. Environment and Planning A 25,

945–959.

Fuller, A.M., 1990. From part-time farming to pluriactivity: a

decade of change in rural Europe. Journal of Rural Studies 6 (4),

361–373.

Gal, R., 1998. Agricultural crime in the moshavim near the Green Line

and its negative impacts on the continued control of the nation’s

land. Karka 45, 7–22 (in Hebrew).

Gasson, R., 1987. Family farm in Britain. In: Galeski, B., Wilking, F.

(Eds.), Family Farm in Europe and America. Westview Press,

Boulder, pp. 5–37.

Gasson, R., 1988a. Farm diversification and rural development.

Journal of Agricultural Economics 39, 175–182.

Gasson, R., 1988b. The Economics of Part-time Farming. Longman,

London.

Gasson, R., Winter, M., 1992. Gender relations and farm household

pluriactivity. Journal of Rural Studies 8 (4), 387–397.

Grossman, D., 1993. Non-agricultural penetration of the

moshav in the eighties - effects on land use. Karka 37, 44–59

(in Hebrew).

Hart, J.F., 1984. Population change in the Upper Lake States. Annals

of the Association of American Geographers 74, 221–243.

Haruvi, N., 1989. Trends in the structure of agriculture and employ-

ment in family farms. Horizons 27, 25–37 (in Hebrew).

Healy, M.J., Ilbery, B.W., 1985. The industrialisation of the

countryside: an overview. In: Healeay, M.J., Ilbery, B.W. (Eds.),

The Industrialisation of the Countryside. Geo Books, Norwich,

pp. 1–26.

Hill, B., 1999. Farm households incomes: perceptions and statistics.

Journal of Rural Studies 15 (3), 345–358.

Ilbery, B.W., 1991. Farm diversification as an adjustment strategy on

the urban fringe of the West Midlands. Journal of Rural studies 7,

207–218.

Ilberg, N., 1994. Non-agricultural Intrusion into the

Moshav. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Bar-Ilan University

(in Hebrew).

Jervell, A.M., 1999. Changing patterns of family farming and

pluriactivity. Sociologica Ruralis 39 (1), 100–116.

Kimhi, A., 1994. Participation of farm owners in farm and off-farm

work including the option of full-time off-farm work. Journal of

Agricultural Economics 45 (2), 232–239.

Le Heron, R., Roche, M., Johnston, T., 1994. Pluriactivity an

exploration of issues with reference to New Zealand’s livestock

and fruit agro-commodity systems. Journal of Rural Studies 25 (2),

155–171.

Marsden, T.K., 1990. Towards the political economy of pluriactivity.

Journal of Rural Studies 6 (4), 375–382.

Marsden, T., Munton, R., Ward, N., Whatmore, S., 1996. Agricultural

geography and the political economy approach: a review.

Economic Geography 72, 361–375.

Marsden, T.K., Whatmore, S., Munton, R., Little, J., 1986. Strategies

for coping in capitalist agriculture: an examination of responses of

farm families in British agriculture. Geoforum 20, 1–14.

M. Sofer / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 363–375374

van der Meer, C.L.J., 1990. Japanese Agriculture: A Comparative

Analysis. Routledge, London.

Ministry of Agriculture, The Authority for Planning and Rural

Development, 1999. Report on the Economic Status of Agriculture

and Rural Settlements, 1998. The Ministry of Agriculture,

Jerusalem (in Hebrew).

Ministry of Agriculture, The Authority for Planning and Rural

Development, and The Jewish Agency, 1987. Blueprint for

Agricultural and Rural Development, 1987–1991, A Program for

Agricultural Development Beyond the Year 2000. The Ministry of

Agriculture, Tel Aviv (in Hebrew).

Rokach, A., 1978. Rural Settlement in Israel. The Jewish Agency for

Israel, Department of Rural Settlement; The World Zionist

Organization, Division for Rural Settlement, Jerusalem.

Schwartz, M., 1999. The rise and decline of the Israeli moshav

cooperative: a historical overview. Journal of Rural Cooperation

27 (2), 129–166.

Sherman, N., Keidar, F., 1993. Non-Agricultural Businesses in

Moshav-type, Planned Agricultural Settlements. The Center for

Development Studies, Rehovot (in Hebrew).

Shoresh, D., 1989. The nature of the crisis in the moshavim. Horizons

27, 39–48 (in Hebrew).

Short, B., 1995. Restructuring the Rural Economy of South East

England: New Businesses in Redundant Farm Buildings, Research

Papers in Geography No. 18. University of Sussex, Brighton.

Short, D., Tricker, A., 1994. Technical change and the survival of

family farming in Malta: public and private goals in resource

management. Journal of Rural Studies 10 (2), 211–221.

Sofer, M., 1982. Netanya as a central place in the Sharon. In:

Shmueli, A., Brawer, M. (Eds.), The Book of Netanya. Eretz,

Tel-Aviv University and Am Oved, Tel-Aviv, pp. 217–233,

(in Hebrew).

Sofer, M., Bordanc, F., 1998. Opportunities, constraints and

pluriactivity in rural Romania during the transition period:

preliminary observations. GeoJournal 44 (4), 283–296.

Sofer, M., Gal, R., 1996. Enterprises in village Israel and their

environmental impacts. Geography 81 (3), 235–245.

Sofer, M., Ne’eman, U., 1998. Occupational transformation in moshav

households on the fringe of the Tel-Aviv metropolitan area: causes

and trends. Horizons 48–49, 59–83 (in Hebrew).

M. Sofer / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 363–375 375