Academic literature on the topic 'Family farms Government policy Mozambique'

Ottaway, Marina. "Mozambique: From Symbolic Socialism to Symbolic Reform." Journal of Modern African Studies 26, no. 2 (June 1988): 211–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0022278x00010442.

Bowen, Merle L. "Beyond Reform: Adjustment and Political Power in Contemporary Mozambique." Journal of Modern African Studies 30, no. 2 (June 1992): 255–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0022278x00010715.

Chen, Zhigang, Qianyue Meng, Kaixin Yan, and Rongwei Xu. "The Analysis of Family Farm Efficiency and Its Influencing Factors: Evidence from Rural China." Land 11, no. 4 (March 27, 2022): 487. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land11040487.

Shang, Huifang, Xiaoyan Yi, Changbin Yin, Yinjun Chen, and Zewei Zhang. "How Does the Stability of Land Management Right (SLMR) Affect Family Farms’ Cultivated Land Protection and Quality Improvement Behavior (CLPQIB) in China?" Land 10, no. 10 (October 7, 2021): 1052. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land10101052.

Vavřina, Jan, and Marcela Basovníková. "Competitiveness of Family Farms in the Czech Republic in the Context of EU Common Agricultural Policy 2014+." Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis 63, no. 6 (2015): 2171–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.11118/actaun201563062171.

Orlovits, Zsolt, and László Kovács. "The Effect of Land Acquisition Policy on Market Trends in Hungary." EU agrarian Law 7, no. 2 (December 1, 2018): 15–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/eual-2018-0008.

Tsiouni, Maria, Stamatis Aggelopoulos, Alexandra Pavloudi, and Dario Siggia. "Economic and Financial Sustainability Dependency on Subsidies: The Case of Goat Farms in Greece." Sustainability 13, no. 13 (July 2, 2021): 7441. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13137441.

Zawojska, Aldona. "Rola Agencji Nieruchomości Rolnych w przemianach struktury agrarnej w Polsce." Zeszyty Naukowe SGGW - Ekonomika i Organizacja Gospodarki Żywnościowej, no. 55 (March 26, 2005): 19–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.22630/eiogz.2005.55.2.

Maican, Silvia Ștefania, Andreea Cipriana Muntean, Carmen Adina Paștiu, Sebastian Stępień, Jan Polcyn, Iulian Bogdan Dobra, Mălina Dârja, and Claudia Olimpia Moisă. "Motivational Factors, Job Satisfaction, and Economic Performance in Romanian Small Farms." Sustainability 13, no. 11 (May 22, 2021): 5832. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13115832.

Teeraphan, Papontee. "PROBLEMS CAUSED BY SMALL PIG FARM ODOR AROUND THE WESTERN SONGKHLA LAKE BASIN." University Of Bengkulu Law Journal 2, no. 1 (April 22, 2017): 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.33369/ubelaj.2.1.1-13.

One hundred and four horses: A memoir of farm and family, Africa and exile. Rearsby: W F Howes Ltd, 2014.

Myers, Gregory Wilson. Land tenure security and state farm divestiture in Mozambique: Case studies in Nhamatanda, Manica, and Montepuez districts. Madison, Wis: Land Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1993.

La moderna finca familiar: Evolución de la pequeña producción capitalista en la agricultura venezolana entre 1945 y 1983. Caracas, Venezuela: Fondo Editorial Acta Científica Venezolana, 1988.

Schöbi, Felix. Bäuerliches Bodenrecht: Eine Annäherung in drei Aufsätzen. Bern: Stämpfli, 1994.

Zhongguo nong ye gui mo jing ying yu nong ye chan ye hua yan jiu: Yi Heilongjiang ken qu wei li = On China's agricultural scale management and agricultural industrialization : a case study of Heilongjiang land reclamation system. Beijing Shi: Jing ji ke xue chu ban she, 2008.

United States. Congress. House. Committee on Agriculture. Subcommittee on Forests, Family Farms, and Energy. Status of the family farm: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Forests, Family Farms, and Energy of the Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, One Hundredth Congress, first session, August 18, 1987, Logansport, IN. Washington: U.S. G.P.O., 1988.

United States. Congress. House. Committee on Agriculture. Subcommittee on Forests, Family Farms, and Energy. Status of the family farm and prospects for the future: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Forests, Family Farms, and Energy of the Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, One Hundredth Congress, second session, March 18, 1988, Moberly, MO. Washington: U.S. G.P.O., 1988.

Zhuan ye hu zheng ce fa gui zi xun shou ce. Jinan: Shandong ren min chu ban she, 1985.

United States. Congress. House. Committee on Agriculture. Subcommittee on Forests, Family Farms, and Energy. Status of the family farm: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Forests, Family Farms, and Energy of the Committee on Agriculture, House orf Representatives, One Hundredth Congress, first session, August 18, 1987, Logansport, IN. Washington: U.S. G.P.O., 1988.

Argentina) Seminario-Taller "Desarrollo Rural y Agricultura Familiar" (2011 Santa Fe. Desarrollo rural y agroindustria familiar: Publicación del Seminario-Taller "Desarrollo Rural y Agricultura Familiar" realizado los días 24 y 25 de agosto 2011, en la ciudad de Santa Fe. [Santa Fe, Argentina]: Gobierno de Santa Fe, 2013.

"Initially, mine workers would be rather reluctant to invest their wages in means of production (in agriculture and in transport) within the Mozambican rural economy. Up to 1980/81, government policies were not favourable to such investments. However, thereafter, miners were specifically encouraged to plough back their wages into production and commerce. Rural unemployment was widespread and, hence, the conditions for private accumulation were favourable on this count. Generally, miners would invest in transport and commerce, but some did invest in agriculture. Indeed, in the latter years, peasants with resources were allowed to operate on unutilised ex-settler farms. In other cases, the more permanent and better paid state farm workers could use their specific position to strengthen their own farm, often supplemented by hired labour. As mechanics or tractor drivers, etc. they had access to cer-tain resources such as seeds, fertiliser, fuel and consumer goods which they could buy either from the state farm or, not unfrequently, merely take from stocks on the state farms. Border areas were another such case of differentiated access to resources by means of barter trade cross the border. Due to the political criticality of such areas within a general condition of war, the government distribution policy would grant a certain priority to supplying these areas with commodities which would then provide a basis for further barter trade with the neighbouring country. Further, areas located more closely to the main food markets (either towns or plantations) would be subject to a much more dispersed and intensive barter and money trade, thereby raising the producer prices which would benefit those peasants who had sufficient resources to produce surpluses. More distant food producing areas were much more within the grip of the commercial traders who provided the link with the market. Hence, while some strata within the peasantry managed to create some room for themselves by producing for the parallel markets, the majority of rural producers (either as wage labourers or small-scale producers) confronted declining real incomes as a result of the inflation on the parallel markets to which they had to turn not only for industrial commodities but also to supplement their food needs. Hence, their problem was not one of having too much money at hand with too few commodities to buy; rather, they experi-enced an acute shortage of both money and goods. The poorer peasantry were the main suppliers of seasonal labour to the state sector. However, although rural unemployment was high, the supply of labour was by no means elastic. The reasons for this were the following. First, the pattern of labour demand of the state farms and plantations was in most cases highly seasonal and, hence, did not provide an all-round income for the worker. Second, money wages earned on the state farm did not guarantee any access to commodities, and often did so only at speculative prices. For both reasons, the real basis of security of the rural worker still remained his family farm, however fragile that may have been. The state sector may have become dominant in terms of area and in terms of production (regarding monetary output), but it certainly was not the dominant aspect in securing the livelihood of rural producers. In most cases, the pattern of peak demand for labour on the state farms coincided with the peak demand for labour in family agriculture. For example,." In The Agrarian Question in Socialist Transitions, 208. Routledge, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203043493-31.

"in the Limpopo valley harvest labour was needed for rice production at the agro-industrial complexes at the same time that the peasants needed to harvest their own plots. The colonial settlers had relied on force and on the use of task work to cope with this. Hence, the peasants would start very early in the morning to harvest a designated area at the settler farms and subsequently move on to their family plots. The wage would supplement the income and subsistence acquired from the family plot. However, when the state farms tried to introduce an eight-hour working day (instead of task work), they experi-enced an immense withdrawal of labour when it was most needed. The wage did not cover the consumption needs of a family throughout the year and, increasingly, money did not guarantee access to goods or did so only at the cost of accepting catastrophic reduction in the real wage. Similar shortage problems of labour were experienced in the plantation sectors, in food pro-duction in state complexes of Angonia or Zambezia, on cotton farms in the north, etc. The co-operative movement, which was never very strong since it had never received the effective material backing of the state, was further weakened by the fact that the development of parallel markets within the rural economy enfeebled the poorer peasantry even further. The latter would have to be the social force to be mobilised behind the co-operative movement; rather, it became economically weakened as a result of its rapidly deteriorating real incomes and the fact that the existing co-operative movement provided no real alternative. The government policy to link up purchase with sale so as to stimulate rural production did nothing to counteract this process of differen-tiation but, rather, tended to intensify it. Indeed, rural trade between the state and the peasantry was intermediated by private trade. The policy gave them an increased leverage over the peasantry and allowed them to channel more crops into the parallel markets since they effectively traded at terms of exchange which were less favourable than those laid down officially. Furthermore, the impact was that the supply of com-modities became concentrated in the hands of the richer peasantry (who had surpluses to sell) and this gave them leverage over the poorer peasantry. Finally, this process did not take place within conditions of peace but, rather, within an ever-spreading war situation. The South African-backed MNR was gradually spreading throughout the whole country and its acts of brutal oppression of the population and of sabotage and destruction of the whole network of social and economic infrastructure led to the increased destabilisation of the economy and society. To combat this force, a strong alliance between the army and the peasantry was necessary. But this alliance itself became weakened by the worsening of the economic situation of the peasantry. Economic investment was concentrated in bis projects within the state sector and these became the target of MNR attacks. On the other hand, the destabilis-ing effect of the concentration of resources on the state sector and of off-loading the burden of the costs on to the peasantry through the inflationary issue of money, unbacked by material resources, weakened the peasantry economically and intensified processes of differentiation. At the time of the preparation for the Fourth Congress it was not surprising." In The Agrarian Question in Socialist Transitions, 209. Routledge, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203043493-32.

Kimhi, Ayal, Barry Goodwin, Ashok Mishra, Avner Ahituv, and Yoav Kislev. The dynamics of off-farm employment, farm size, and farm structure. United States Department of Agriculture, September 2006. http://dx.doi.org/10.32747/2006.7695877.bard.