INTERNATIONAL JOUR:NAL OF · .

. AGRARIAN AFFAIRS ·'· l · .. VoLIIl,No. 5,· June 1963 · · :."' ,',I '

';~) • ~· "-< • , ~' -~ o-~ - '~ ·~~,,2~,~\· .· Agriculture_.·•.· . and i·he Europea~.···. . ' Common ..-Market. I

Produced l;>y the University of Oxford Institute of Agrarian Affairs in conjunction with the International Association oJAgricultural Economists

Price: I Os. 6d. net

OXFORD UNIVERSI'~Y PRESS LONDON By M. CEPEDE, G. JEGOUZO, A. and J. MADEC and J. VEZIN

Centre Europeen de Recherches d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, Paris-Rennes

LABOUR MOBILITY WITHIN AG RI CULTURE, AND THE EFFECTS OF THE E.E.C.

HE migration of agricultural labour forces to and from other T sectors of activity is the subject of an important literature. 1 Migration within agriculture has been less considered. However, there exists statistical evidence of this mobility. The migration of hired workers is important. Most of this is of a temporary and seasonal character. In the l 929 Enquete Agricole there were 3 million permanent workers and l million seasonal workers in French agriculture. The latter figure was broken down as.follows: Males Females Family workers 75,136 48,193 French hired workers 476,245 288,172 Foreign ,, 55,873 47,357 Total 607,254 384,322

In 1954 out of a little more than l million wage-earning male workers in France, 431,000 were seasonally employed. 2 It is difficult to tell how many were working from their normal home, or were without such home (nomads) and how many were only working temporarily for a neighbour. Nevertheless we find that the 'Office National d'Immigration' registered the same year 26,900 foreign seasonal workers3 (excluding grape-pickers-mostly Spaniards-in the south­ ern vineyards, of whom there were 41 ,ooo in 1960 and 34,000 in 196! ). Bretons go to work on a seasonal basis not only 'en Beauce' but also in the Channel Islands (Le Bihan). Over and above, we have the migration of 'permanent' hired workers which is not easy to estimate in the case of foreigners. In 1960, 10,400 foreign agricultural hired workers were reported as having entered France. More than 90 per cent. were from Italy and Spain. 1 Cf., for example, Bit, Pourquoi les travailleurs abandonnent la terre, Geneve, 1960; Febvay, La Population agricolefranfaise, Etudes et Conjoncture, Paris, aout 1956; Pressat, La Structure et ['evolution de la population agricole, r957, entre r954 et r964 en France, Population, Paris, avr.-juin 1957. 2 F. Langlois, Les Salaries agricoles en France, Paris, 1962. 3 Cf., for example, P. Legendre, Economie rurale, Paris, juillet 1958. 278 AGRICULTURE AND THE EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET Such foreign immigration is in no way a new thing, since from 1921 '°' to 1929 an average of around 60,000 foreign agricultural workers entered France, most of them being temporary immigrants. At that time most came from Central Europe (Poland and Czechoslovakia), Italy, Spain and Belgium. The causes of such movements are fairly obvious, and deserve perhaps only some brief comments. ~ Seasonal employment and resulting seasonal migration are the consequences of the irregularity of employment in agriculture during the year. Such irregularity can be imposed by natural conditions, such as the long winter under-employment in mountain areas. The same climatic conditions which produce a lag in plant growth also enable workers from the upper mountains to go to the plains for harvest and be back in their homeplace in time for their own harvesting period. This lag which is frequently the consequence of differences in latitudes allows for long-range migrating trips for seasonal workers. Previously these journeys were made mainly for harvesting; today they are undertaken mainly for sugar-beet cultivation. Types of farming and farm structures may either smooth or exag­ gerate the irregularities of the seasonal labour demand and thus limit or increase the need for seasonal migrant workers. In France three crops call principally for a seasonal labour force: these are sugar-beet, wine and rice. For sugar-beet the percentages of work done by different groups of workers were as follows :1

Spring Autumn I954 I956 I958 I954 I956 I958 Local 'a la tache' 40·8 29·4 23·1 42·0 26·04 21 ·1 Permanent workers 28·0 26·1 15·5 27·0 24·5 21·9 'Camberlots' 1"2 l ·5 o·6 2·0 1°6 2·0 Bretons 9·8 9·6 6·6 lO·O 7·8 6·9 French total 79·8 66·6 45·8 81·0 59·9 51"9 Belgians 4·5 5·2 5·5 5·3 3·6 4·7 Italians 14"5 21·8 31·9 13·5 25·9 27·8 Spaniards . l"O 5·1 13·5 .. 7·1 13·3 Foreign total 20·0 32·1 40·9 18·8 36·6 45·8

Undetermined 0·2 l ·3 3·3 0·2 3·5 2·3

In Germany, Wigodzinzki and Skalweit have shown the differences

1 Cf., for example, P. Legendre, op. cit. M. CEPEDE, G. JEGOUZO, A. AND J. MADEC, J. VEZIN 279 -. in the percentage of temporary employment between large and small farms and between those with or without sugar-beet:

Percentage of temporary with without employment in sugar-beet sugar-beet Large farms 32% 21% Small farms 14% 6·4%

Some rationalization of sugar-beet production may smooth such variations. Curt Canarp1 gives striking examples for Sweden:

Work needed per hectare of sugar-beet (Hours of work)

Man Tractor Horse

1930 728 3 222 1940 621 6 168 1950 521 15 49 1960 335 57 0

The same author gives the following table for seasonal variations in labour demand within Swedish agriculture:

Persons at work according to hours of work

Holders and members of their families Hired labour Aug. r96r Nov. r96r Feb. r962 Aug. r96r Nov. r96r Feb. r962 Total 325,000 300,000 270,000 210,000 175,000 130,000

Percentage working hours: Less than 21 hours 9·5 13·0 17·3 9·4 4·0 4·7 22 to 34 8·5 13·6 16·2 9·4 7·4 9·4 35 to 44 12·5 13·5 16·2 24·9 28·4 32·8 45 and more 69·5 60·1 50·3 56·3 60·2 53·1

Obviously seasonal employees, especially migrants, are those who are engaged to meet the peaks in labour demand. Consequently rationalizing sugar-beet cultivation leads to a limitation of seasonal employment of migrant workers. Curt Canarp gives the following figures per recruitment area of labour for sugar-beet cultivation. 'From the table it can be seen that the decreased demand for recruitment makes it possible to find labour within the county. 1 Curt Canarp, Mobility of the Population between Agricultural Regions. Working document for EPA Project N. 7/14-11, OECD, Paris, 16/18 May 1962. 280 AGRICULTURE AND THE EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET

I954 I96I Recruitment area Spring Autumn Spring Autumn Own county (cultivation county) 2,300 1,800 1,500 800 Outside own county: Noorland, Dalarna and Varmland 800 900 . . .. Rest of Sweden 1,500 1,700 200 200 Denmark 600 800 500 200 Finland 600 ...... Total 5,800 5,200 2,200 1,200

Recruitment from more remote regions-northern Sweden and Finland-has ceased. There is, however, some recruitment from Denmark, mainly for the beet cultivation in Skane.' 1 The same phenomenon does not occur in France because the num­ ber of foreign seasonal workers is in fact increasing and Italian and Spanish labour is tending to replace and even supplement seasonal Belgian beet-harvesters:

Immigration of seasonal beet-harvesters

I954 I955 I956 I957 I958 Belgians. 7,966 5,433 5,255 4,324 4,540 Italians 15,173 18,691 24,137 26,253 30,300 Spaniards 374 I,I 14 3,953 8,320 11,450 Total 23,513 25,238 33,345 39,297 46,300

This increase in immigration does not correspond to a parallel increase in the areas under beet but is the result of seasonal foreign labour replacing French labour or, more precisely, of Italian and Spanish labour replacing French and Belgian labour:

1955 374,000/hectares under beet-25,238 foreigners 1956 316,000/ " -33,345 1957 347,000/ " -39,207 1958 365,000/ " -46,300 Surveys carried out show that foreigners worked 45 per cent. of the area under beet in 1958 as against 20 per cent. in 1955· The needs of agriculture are not sufficient to explain the move­ ments-even seasonal movements--of agricultural workers. Besides the factors attracting labour, account must be taken of factors dis­ couraging labour. These are, in general, inadequate income and temporary under-employment. 1 Op. cit. M. CEPEDE, G. JEGOUZO, A. AND J. MADEC, J. VEZIN 281 Seasonal agricultural workers are in fact recruited to a large extent from among farmers and the members of their families. There are, of course, travelling agricultural workers also, but they too are often of rural origin. 1 Variations in the number of Breton agricultural workers travelling to the Beauce area for a season were very clearly related to periods when the incomes of Breton agricultural families were excep­ tionally low. In studying the movements of agricultural wage-earners from one area to another and from one country to another, either seasonally or permanently, it should be noted that for the purpose of employment statistics, any worker who is not seasonal is considered permanent. By contrast in the study of the phenomenon of migration, account has to be taken of temporary movements, and also of movements covering one or several years depending on the extent to which the agricultural worker is anxious to return to his country of origin. In such circumstances, the son of a farmer in a poor area can 'hire himself out' for a number of years before, in his turn, establishing himself or taking over the family farm in his own area. This can no more be considered permanent migration than if he had been a seasonal worker returning to his village every year. The same is true of temporary migration irrespective of whether it involves a change in the sector of activity. For a 'peasant' family which has a clear aware­ ness of its own village, as also for a Swiss 'bourgeois' family, the links with the local community to which the family belongs are more clearly defined than those normally binding an individual to his place of residence or birth. A member of a Scots clan will recognize his kin­ ship with the clan even if he is born in Singapore or Wellington. To take an example, in a family in central France, neither the grandfather, the father, nor the son was born in the village which they all claimed as their village. The grandfather was born in the mountains a hundred kilometres from the village, because his mother had gone up there with the flocks for the summer; the father was born on the French Riviera because it was winter and his parents had seasonal employment in handicrafts there and returned 'home' only in the spring; the son was born in northern France because his parents were government officials there at the time. Quite possibly other members of the family further back were also born outside the village. This example seems typical of a form of civilization, just as a trading farmer encountered thousands of kilometres away from his place of birth always looks upon 1 Vexliard, Le Clochard, Paris, 1957. 282 AGRICULTURE AND THE EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET himself as being from a particular village in the Basque country, in Auvergne, in Epirus or Lebanon where he hopes to return to get married or retire in his old age. This explains how 'peasants' can migrate to find extra seasonal or even temporary work for a longer period without the sedentary character of the peasant civilization being called in question. It is also easy to understand that temporary migrants having been unable to return or having become progressively 'acculturated', become perma­ nent migrants. It is true that in the past permanent migratory movements of 'peasants' occurred, but they were almost always imposed by national or local authorities on their peasants. .. In a feudal society, the landowner, feudal lord or even the king, as I the sovereign holder of the fiefs of the kingdom, were 'shepherds of the peasants' and sometimes organized movements from over-popu­ lated to under-populated districts. 1 Clearly, farmers also migrated from one area to another in the same way as industrial entrepreneurs or traders set up concerns and aban­ doned them. But here we are confronted with what is no longer a 'peasant' society but one that belongs to a different world. It has been observed that the Anglo-Saxon Farmertum must be distinguished from the continental Bauerntum and has characteristics in common almost only with transitional peasant societies (Ubergrenzbauerntum), them­ selves usually strongly influenced by capitalist structures (hoch­ kapitalisti'sches Bauerntum). 2 None the less, and particularly in France, migrations do occur of 'peasants' leaving so-called areas of departure to establish themselves in so-called areas of reception. 3 The A.N.M.R. (Association Nationale des Migrations Rurales), now A.N.M.E.R. (Association Nationale des Migrations et Etablis­ sements ruraux), tries to canalize the migratory movement of farmers from one area to the other. The classification norm for these regions has been the ratio of supply and demand for farms. The areas of departure-with high demand and low supply-are in general the regions with high population pressure and unemployment (the west­ ern part of the country) and the regions which are best provided with

1 Michel Cepede, Migrations et etablissements ruraux dans le cadre des aminagements fonciers. Bulletin FNOMER, fevrier 1962, Paris. 2 Hans F. K. Gunther, Das Bauerntum als Lebens- und Gemeindeschaftsfonn, Berlin, 1939. 3 J. Pautard, Migrations rurales et economies regionales Migrations Rurales. rer Congres de la Societe europienne de Sociologie rurale, Louvain, 1958. M. CEPEDE, G. JEGOUZO, A. AND J. MADEC, J. VEZIN 283 capital (mainly the Paris Basin), even if they are regions with a low index of active agricultural population per 1 ,ooo hectares of cultivated land. In recent years, the areas of departure have also included Morocco, Tunisia, and, more recently, Algeria. The areas of recep­ tion are the regions in which agricultural land is still available and sometimes abundant, mainly in central, south-western and south­ eastern France. In assisting people to migrate along these lines, it is hoped to arrive at a better distribution of the rural population over the country, so that the productive resources can be better employed. Such migration is of recent origin and is a new and interesting ~ I sociological phenomenon. It is in no way comparable to the move­ I ments of American owner-farmers or tenant-farmers, nor to move­ ' ments of 'wandering or shifting farmers' (fermiers baladeurs) in the areas of large-scale capitalist tenant-farming. Nor does it resemble the establishment of foreign farmers in French agriculture which was considered of great importance between the two world wars. 1 It should, however, be noted that the number of foreign farmers remains small: less than a thousand arrivals in 1928, and 200 in 1929 and in 1930. If certain groups (particularly of Italians in the south-west) had not formed homogeneous cores with their own structure thus giving rise to serious political problems, even the immigration of Belgian Flemish farmers would probably have done no more than raise local storms in tea-cups. In 1955 the estimated number of foreign farmers established in France was 41,000 or 1·8 per cent. of the total number of farmers listed in the census. The problems which may arise in connexion with the right of establishment within the framework of the European Economic Com­ munity must be examined in the light of these observations. One cannot necessarily conclude from the fact that France with 10·56 hectares per active farmer is the only country with significantly more land per active farmer than the average of the E.E.C. (6·49), that there will be a rush of farmers less well provided with land (Netherlands, 3·98 ha.; Italy, 4·31 ha.; Belgium, 4·74 ha.) to establish themselves in France. The Departments of Eure-et-Loir and Ardennes, classed as areas of departure, have less than ninety active farmers per thousand hectares of useful agricultural area (S.A.U. = surface agricole utile), while the Departments of Landes and Alpes-Maritimes which have more than 300 active farmers per thousand hectares S.A.U., and the

1 Mauco, Les Etrangers dans l' Agriculture franfaise, Paris, I 939. 284 AGRICULTURE AND THE EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET Departments of Hautes Pyrenees, Var, Vaucluse, Bouches-du-Rhone, Puy-de-Dome, Gironde, Dordogne and Ariege, which have more than 200, are none the less classed as areas of reception. This shows that many problems apart from the theoretical relationship between the active agricultural population and the number of hectares S.A.U. available arise to facilitate or restrict migratory movements inside 1 agriculture. ! In a true European community the main difference will be that no discrimination should be made against any potential farmer or farm­ worker on the basis of his nationality. But this discrimination, even to the extent at present existing in France, is far less important than the other factors influencing migratory movements. For farm, as well as for industrial, workers the E.E.C. ought to organize information on employment opportunities in order to avoid unreasonable migrations of labour. Such information, together with the non-discriminating policy of the E.E.C., might increase the fluidity of labour and amplify the shift reported above: for example, the replacement of French workers by Italians in the sugar-beet areas. But the facts that not only French but also Belgian workers are replaced by Spaniards as much as by Italians provides evidence that the 'Common Market' has nothing to do with this movement. These movements occurred long before the Community entered into the picture. The E.E.C. is entitled to argue as the lamb did to the wolf in La Fontaine's fable: 'Comment l'aurais-je fait si je n'etais pas nee?' ('How could I do it? I was not yet born!'). The information service may be able to prevent movements which have been taking place as the result of misleading propaganda from private sources of informa­ tion. The E.E.C. may even have adverse effects on the establishment of foreign farmers in France. There are two main reasons for this. First, landlords sometimes give preference to foreign farmers who want to rent a farm because they are not protected by French tenure status (fermage and metayage). These cases are now very rare as conven­ tions have been agreed with most of the western European countries extending to foreign farmers the advantages of the 'status' with the exception of the right to buy the land in preference to any other appli­ cant (droit de preemption). Nevertheless, E.E.C. will evidently close any discrimination against foreign tenants. Secondly, governmental, semi-governmental and private organiza­ tions aiming at fostering emigration of their farmers to France have M. CEPEDE, G. JEGOUZO, A. AND J. MADEC, J. VEZIN 285 sometimes given them strong financial and technical support, which the French farmer was unable to receive for his own establishment, at least at the same level. In the E.E.C. such support should also dis­ appear. The only remaining discriminatory device is the regime of autorisa­ tion administrative which gives a foreigner the right to farm. But in practice such autorisations are granted very liberally and this device has only been used against speculation and establishment of part-time farms which would raise problems both for French farmers and for farmers in general. This regime will end with the transition period provided for by the Rome Treaty. There have evidently been fears that some foreigners, lacking sufficient information or even misled by land merchants, may try to benefit from the large differences in land prices in their countries and in France (where both land prices and rent are very low). These fears have led to two requests: that there should be a further delay in the common agricultural policy of E.E.C. so far as establishing farmers is concerned; and that there should be improvements in legislation ap­ plicable to all 'community nationals' to avoid speculation in farm land and rent, and to prevent eviction of family farmers by big landowners and farmers. Such measures would be desirable with or without E.E. C. Movements inside agriculture are almost certainly very small in comparison with inter-occupational migrations. The former are, how­ ever, far from negligible. The statistics available are scarce and in­ adequate but it is known that: 1. According to the results of the general census of agriculture, there were 2·26 million farms in France in 1955. The census also shows that farmers usually have risen to the position of manager by the age of thirty-one. It can be estimated that every year rno,ooo farmers become managers. Of every hundred farm managers who take over a farm for the first time, twenty to thirty will change farms at least once, assuming that the future behaviour of farmers does not deviate from that observed in 1955. This means that every year a minimum of 25,000 to 35,000 farm managers change farms. This figure covers owner-farmers, tenant-farmers and share-croppers (metayers), irrespective of status. 2. According to Dumant (Revue du Ministere de /'Agriculture), an average of 70,000 farms change hands on the land market every year of which 48 per cent. seem to be taken over by a member of the family already in charge. Therefore, only 30,000 farms pass into other hands c 1400 x 286 AGRICULTURE AND THE EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET and become subject to the economic laws of the market. When the purchaser is a person already working on the farm, however, there is clearly no movement of population-if it is assumed that sales of farms normally involve a certain mobility of farmers. Mobility among farmers is not negligible, but for lack of data it is not possible to com­ pare it with mobility within the framework of the land-tenure system. 3. According to the general census of agriculture of 1955, farmers who have changed farms at least once may be divided into two groups: (a) those who have been farm managers for less than twenty-five years and have taken over farms larger than those managed by farmers with the same seniority but who have never changed farms (areas increased by an average of 40 per cent. with a corresponding increase in the number of workers per farm); (b) those who have been farm managers for more than fifty years and who are established on relatively smaller farms, thereby restricting their activities and tending to live in semi-retirement. It would be interesting to know to what extent 'peasant farmers' are involved in such migratory movements, but this is difficult to estimate. Until very recently, it seemed certain that when a young peasant farmer had to leave the family farm without hope of return, he would be unable to establish himself elsewhere and would not be prepared to lose his 'peasant farmer' status, as farm manager or as son of a farm manager, and become a wage-earner, that is unless he changed sector. If he could not be faithful to 'his land', why be faithful to 'the land' ?1 If he had to become a wage-earner, he preferred to move to the town rather than stay in the country. It is, however, known that migratory movements occur within the agricultural sector even in areas with a peasant farming structure. The survey carried out in certain cantons2 of the departement of Morbihan by a team from the Centre Europeen de Recherches d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales at Rennes provides valuable data regarding farmers' children born between 1931 and 1935 who were from twenty-five to thirty years old at the time of the survey (March 1962). The four cantons chosen were those whose principal towns are Le Faouet, Pluvigner, Elven and La Gacilly. The term 'Area' employed in the tables (see pp. 290-3) giving the

1 M. Cepede and M. Vignerot, Introduction to France, paper prepared for the European Conference on Rural Life, Geneva, 1939. 2 Translation note: Administratively France is divided into departements, cantons, and communes. M. CEPEDE, G. JEGOUZO, A. AND J. MADEC, J. VEZIN 287 results of the survey covers the four departments of the Breton penin­ sula plus the Department of Loire Atlantique. The term 'other occupa­ tions' covers the liberal professions, the higher and middle-grades of management, tradesmen, artisans, employees officials (army and police in particular) and service personnel. The figures show that there is a certain mobility of farmers' children remaining within the agricultural sector inside the area, but beyond this a phenomenon of 'geographical immobility' occurs with important differences from one canton to another.

1. Those who remain in agriculture in the area are more mobile at La Gacilly and Le Faouet and much less so at Elven and Plu­ v1gner. Out of 100 boys remaining in agriculture in the area: 24 per cent. left their canton from La Gacilly I9 per cent. ,, Le Faouet IO per cent. ,, Elven 6 per cent. ,, Pluvigner

2. Farmers' children remaining in agriculture, however, are dis­ inclined to leave the area: For Ioo boys: IO left the area from Le Faouet 3 ,, Elven 2 ,, ,, ,, Pluvigner 2 ,, ,, ,, La Gacilly 3. The figures are no higher for girls except in the case of those leaving the area: Le Faouet Pluvigner Elven La Gacilly Left their cantons 29 per cent. I4 per cent. I9 per cent. 23 per cent. Left the area . 7 per cent. 3 per cent. 3 per cent. 2 per cent.

In view, however, of the diversity of the situations arising, I generalization is hazardous, and many local surveys of this kind would be required as a basis for valid conclusions. Let us then return to the special activities of A.N.M.E.R. which, between 1949 and 1961, established approximately 9,000 families, amounting to 43,000 individuals, who took over 325,000 hectares of land, 45 per cent. of which was uncultivated. (Between 1945 and 1955, 480,000 hectares which had earlier been under cultivation were aban­ doned and lay fallow or were reafforested.) It is true that A.N.M.E.R. was established with a view to generaliz­ ing the experiment made with the migration of Bretons to Aquitaine,

1 Mauco, Les Etrangers dans l'Agriculturefranfaise, Paris, I939· 288 AG RI CULTURE AND THE EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET but its purpose is very different. The main underlying reason for the migration of the Bretons was an agreement between Breton land­ owners on the one hand, who were concerned at seeing so large a rural population on land that would not support it, with a consequent risk of movement to the cities and the landowners in Perigord and Gascogny on the other hand who, because of movement to the cities, coupled with a low birth rate could no longer find tenants for land already abandoned. The landowners thus acted as 'shepherds of the peasants' and brought about organized migrations. Under A.N.M.E.R. migration is voluntary and organized by the profession itself. Peasant populations are, however, sedentary­ indeed so sedentary that if they leave their profession, it makes such a break that they are unable to find a new structure in a new profession in a new place and become wanderers rather than nomads. 1 This is why many of them do not even consider geographical migration with­ out a change of occupation. In the absence of special vocational training, a large part of what is sometimes termed the peasant's traditional knowledge of the working of the land is closely linked to the conditions of his native soil. Workers and artisans have never been faced with the same problems and can move freely from town to town. The reason for this is that their link with their social environment has been professional and corporate. The journeymen could go from town to town and find other workers of the same occupation in his 'mother Guild'. These men were held together by professional solidarity, and had made the same journeys and known the same masters throughout Europe or at least throughout France. The normal structure of social bonds in agriculture, however, is not based on the profession but on local geographical factors. An agri­ cultural 'corporation' in the sense given to the term in the Middle Ages does not, and never has existed. If it can today be suspected that farmers are in fact more mobile than other workers, the reason is that geographical structures are developing in towns while vocational structures are forming in agri­ culture. This occurs as soon as a certain awareness of belonging to a professional group-the agricultural group-grows up. It is then possible for vocational services to be established which are responsible for the migrant, for his departure and his reception. This is the highly

I Vexliard, Le Clochard, Paris, 1957. Michel Cepede, Migrations et etahlissements ruraux dans le cadre des amenagements fanciers. Bulletin FNOMER, fevrier 1962, Paris. M. CEPEDE, G. JEGOUZO, A. AND J. MADEC, J. VEZIN 289 original role of A.N.M.E.R.-namely, that rural migration can now be envisaged and can be seen to occur. It is even valid to ask whether it does not involve a larger number of individuals than urban migration. However paradoxical the phenomena of migrations within agri­ culture may seem to be at first sight, their existence cannot be denied. They do not simply involve temporary movements of agricultural wage-earners, but permanent voluntary movements of true peasant farmers. These are becoming a sociological phenomenon of rural life in modern times. TABLE r. Occupations chosen by farmers' children born between I93I and I935 in four French cantons

Number of children covered by the census: Canton: Le Faouift Pluvigner Elven La Gacilly Total Boys: 637 466 348 381 r,832 Girls: 612 400. 324 412 r,748 1,249 866 672 793 3,s80 MALES Remaining Departing Not remaining Commune Depart- Paris Elsewhere Total in commune but of origin Canton ment Area area in France Abroad departed unspecified Tot.ol Agriculture Farmers 29·60 32·8 36·70 38·0 O'IO 0·30 o·os 0·4s 0·10 38·ss Farm wage-earners 4·00 4·7 s·40 s·6 0·40 0·90 0·30 1·60 0·30 7·so Total agriculture . 33·60 37·s 42·10 43·6 o·so 1·20 0·35 2·os 0·40 46·os Workers outside agricultural sector 7·40 9·2 13·20 1s·1 s·70 1'00 0·40 7·10 o·so 22·70 Other occupations . 2·30 3·2 6·30 7·9 3·ss r·6s 0·20 s·40 r·os 14·3s Without occupation or occupa- tion unspecified l'OS 2'1 4·7s 6·4 4·00 1 ·rs 0·75 s·90 4·60 16·90 Total 44·3s s2·0 66·3s 73·0 13·7s s·oo 1·70 20·4s 6·ss 100·00

FEMALES

Agriculture Farmers 19·00 24·80 30·20 31·40 o·os 0·4s 0 o·so 0·3s 32·2s Farm wage-earners o·6s 0·70 0·80 o·8s ----0·10 0·2s 0·3 o·6s 0 1 ·so Total agriculture . 19·6s 2s·so 31·00 32·2s o·rs 0·70 0·3 I'IS 0·3s 33·7s Workers outside agricultural sector 1·00 r·2s 1·7s 2·00 o·6s o·os 0 0·70 0 2·70 Other occupations . . 1'80 2·90 s·70 7·40 4·90 o·6s O'I s·6s o·ss 13·60 Without occupation or occupa- ti on unspecified 6·2s 9·so 17·ss 22·so 12·90 4·40 1'8 19·10 8·3s 49'9S Total 28·70 39·1s s6·oo 64·1s 18·60 s·8o 2'2 26·60 9·2s 100·00 TABLE 2. Occupations chosen by farmers' children born between I9JI and I9J5; canton of Pluvigner

Number of children covered by the census, Boys: 466, Girls: 400

MALES Remaining Departing Not remaining Commune Depart- Paris Elsewhere Total in commune of origin Canton ment Area area in France Abroad departed but unspecified Total Agriculture. 47·00 49·50 52·50 52·50 0·43 0 0·43 0·86 0·21 53·57 Working outside agricul- tural sector 12"20 15"70 19·80 21·00 2·60 1"29 0·43 4·32 0·21 25·53 Other occupations 2·80 3·40 6·00 6·00 1"70 l"l5 0 2·85 1"50 10·35 Without occupation or occupation unspecified 0·80 2·60 7·10 7·10 x-07 1"70 0 2·77 1"29 u·16 Total 62·86 71·20 _85:4~ 86·60 5·80 4·14 0·86 10·80 3·21 lOO·oo

FEMALES

Agriculture . 22·50 26·00 32·00 32·20 0 0·75 0 0·75 0·25 33·20 Working outside agricul- tural sector 0·75 l·oo 1"75 1"75 0 0 0 0 0 1"75 Other occupations 2·20 3·25 5·50 5·50 1"50 0 0 1"50 0 7·00 Without occupation or occupation unspecified u·oo 18·50 34·20 36·00 5·00 3·50 0 8·50 13"20 57·70 Total 36·45 48·75 73·45 75·45 6·50 4·25 0 10"75 13·45 lOO·oo TABLE 3. Occupations chosen by farmers' children born between I93I and I935; canton of Elven Number of children covered by the census: Boys: 348, Girls: 324

MALES Remaining Departing Not remaining Commune Depart- Paris Elsewhere Total in commune of origin Canton ment Area area in France Abroad departed but unspecified Total Agriculture . 31·60 35·90 42·80 43·00 0·86 0 0 0·86 0·57 44·43 Working outside agricul- tural sector 4·20 7·00 12·10 15·80 9·75 I 'I 5 0·29 I I '19 1·44 28·43 Other occupations 1·44 2·58 9·50 10·90 3·16 3·16 0·29 6·61 I 'I 5 18·66 Without occupation or occupation unspecified 0·86 2·00 3·70 4·02 0 0·86 0 0·86 3·45 8·33 Total 38·10 47·48 68·10 73·72 13·77 5·17 0·58 19·52 6·61 100·00

FEMALES

Agriculture. 24·10 35·80 40·50 41·50 0 0 0 0 1·54 43·65 Working outside agricul- tural sector 0·30 0·61 1·54 1·54 0·61 0 0 0·61 0 2·15 Other occupations 2·44 4·32 I I 'IO 14·50 2·78 0·30 0 3·08 0·61 18·19 Without occupation or occupation unspecified 2·47 4·00 10·90 16·30 12·00 2·16 0·92 15·08 4·32 35·70 Total 29·34 44·73 64·04 73·84 15·39 3·07 0·92 19·38 6·47 100·00 TABLE 4. Occupations chosen by farmers' children born between I93I and I935; canton of La Gacilly Number of children covered by the census: Boys: 381, Girls: 412

MALES Remaining Departing Not remaining Commune Depart- Paris Elsewhere Total in commune of origin Canton ment Area area in France Abroad departed but unspecified Total Agriculture. 26·50 28·60 34·40 37·60 0 0·79 0 0·79 0 38·39 Working outside agricul- tural sector 4·72 4·72 7·08 10·50 2·89 0·79 0 3·68 0·79 14·97 Other occupations I ·31 2·36 4·20 6·05 7·09 2·10 0 9·19 o·79 16·03 Without occupation or occupation unspecified 1·84 2·62 5·00 9·70 14·45 0·79 0·52 15·76 5·25 30·71 Total 34·47 38·30 50·68 63·85 24·43 4·47 0·52 29·42 6·83 100·00

FEMALES

Agriculture. 19·70 24·48 29·60 31·60 0·24 0·48 0 0·72 0 32·32 Working outside agricul- tural sector 2·42 2·42 2·91 3·64 0·48 0·24 0 0·72 0 4·36 Other occupations 0·24 1·21 2·42 5"35 5·82 0·97 0 0 I "21 13·35 Without occupation or occupation unspecified 5·10 7·04 8·25 16·50 19·40 9·00 2·42 0 2·67 49·99 Total 27·46 35·15 43·18 57·09 25·94 10·69 2·42 1·44 3·88 100·00