Tweedekamer.nl

Opinions Krijn J. Poppe

From shock therapy to working together with the farmer

June 4, 2024 - Krijn J. Poppe - 2 comments

It is time for a positive column about the agricultural chapter of the outline agreement for the Schoof cabinet. In recent weeks, the media was full of critical comments about a 'douceurtje' of red diesel in 2027, symbolic politics surrounding the naming of LVVN (now still LNV) and the idea that you can change Brussels' minds with courage. As far as I'm concerned, something positive could have been said about the switch from theory X to theory Y.

For those who are unfamiliar with Theory The human side of enterprise by the American professor Douglas McGregor. In 1960 he stated that you can look at employees, or perhaps more generally at people, in two ways. The managers of Theory There is a natural tendency to skirt around the edges. If you want people to do something for you, you have to bribe them with a salary, otherwise nothing will happen. Other incentives don't work.

Not to be commanded and bullied
McGregor contrasted this with his Theory Y. People are good people and are willing to work hard for the company. Managers do not always have to command and bully. You shouldn't pay people too little, that is demoralizing, but people really not only work for the highest salary, but are also motivated by other things. You keep employees at work not only with the annual salary increase, but also with agreements about the workplace, development opportunities through courses or interesting projects. Or with flexibility in working hours.

Theory X is still very much alive, as The Economist recently noted. Including at the bottom of the labor market with migrant workers who do the dirty work. But Theory Y seems to be winning. Especially now that good personnel are becoming increasingly scarce.

Shock therapy from the previous coalition
I think that you also see something of X and Y in thinking about the relationship between government and farmers. The shock therapy of the previous coalition regarding the size of the livestock and the emphasis on legality in files such as the Allowance Affair and earthquake damage represent theory X, in which the government then resorts to punishment. On the farmers' side, the focus on the argument that only food prices count - as low as possible due to little environmental legislation for the consumer and competitive position and as high as possible for the farmer due to a shift of margin from retail to the farm - is also a simple view from Theory X: only money motivates.

The coalition parties hint at a somewhat richer palette of instruments. People want to help people more in their livelihoods. Society longs for a sense of community. Farmers need to take more control of their own businesses. To this end, means regulations are replaced by goal regulations. Every company has its own emission requirements. The accountable substance balance and other indicators will soon be started. Emission measurements will become company-specific as much as possible and innovations to reduce emissions will be promoted. There will be long-term contracts for nature management and ecosystem services, which will create more financial security for these entrepreneurs.

Work more with motivation and knowledge
It is these elements in the Outline Agreement that I consider positive and that many media ignore in their analysis. Working more with the motivation and knowledge of the farmers (say: Theory Y) seems like a benefit to me. Many farmers are also willing to invest in sustainability and nature if they are helped and challenged to do so. The problem of scarce space in this country is not diminishing, nor are the demands regarding clean water and climate policy.

The structural development towards fewer companies with more technology will accelerate. These are such strong social and economic developments that even a government has little control over them. The challenge for the business community now is to help implement and firmly anchor these positive points in the first 100 days of the Minister of LVVN. Because the question remains whether the government will reach 2028 and then be allowed to continue for another period, thanks to the nice things for people already announced for 2027.  

Photo: Formateur Richard van Zwol (l) and prospective Prime Minister Dick Schoof

Krijn J. Poppe

Krijn Poppe worked for almost 40 years as an economist at LEI and Wageningen UR and now holds a number of advisory and management positions. For Boerenbusiness he dives into his bookcase and discusses current developments on the basis of studies that have become classic.
Comments
2 comments
Subscriber
Hub Rich June 6, 2024
This is in response to it Boerenbusiness article:
[url = https: // www.boerenbusiness.nl/column/10909188/van-shocktherapie-naar-samen-werken-met-de-boer]From shock therapy to working together with the farmer[/url]
Hello Krijn, Good points you raise about theory X and Y. Positive incentive is better. But will the new policy be very much in the direction of Y (will it all be possible to obtain derogation and reduce N rules?) And was the policy of the past cabinet really X? I see a parallel with the situation around 1970 when Mansholt saw that the policy with good grain prices for which unlimited supplies could be supplied got stuck in grain/butter mountains. His plan to bring about restructuring by farmers who wanted to stop schemes for retraining for professions where there were plenty of opportunities was furiously rejected by agriculture (Mansholt, der Bauermörder). The plan fell through. Restructuring is possible, but without accompanying social policy. I find it tragic that in agriculture the (understandable) emotion against halving the livestock population is so strong. While in my opinion the only sector that has an interest in a reduction in the livestock population (through restructuring that the government is willing to pay for) is livestock farming. If the livestock population had been a quarter or a third lower from the year 2000, an average livestock farm could have been left with a nice bungalow through free manure sales. I see 2 dangers for (any) lobby: being too weak or being too strong. Agriculture now feels like it is finally being listened to. Well...
Subscriber
gerard June 7, 2024
waste of livestock, how do you get rid of the soy that remains after the milk has been extracted? A person cannot eat it and a cow makes milk from it. There are 27 million pets, that is not too much in this country, we have shipbuilding. already ruined, we no longer have gas to sell, do you also want to get rid of the pearl of agriculture with 100 billion in income, but yes, with a good salary, it is a bit easy to just honk the horn rather than take your money out of the market and get your hands dirty
You can no longer respond.

What are the current quotations?

View and compare prices and rates yourself

Opinions Krijn J. Poppe

Governance is difficult due to our individualistic culture

Opinions Krijn J. Poppe

Dairy farmer gloomy, although sector is doing well

Opinions Krijn J. Poppe

Time to make choices, also for agriculture

News Speech from the Throne

'Food security important in uncertain world'

Call our customer service +0320(269)528

or mail to support@boerenbusiness.nl

do you want to follow us?

Receive our free Newsletter

Current market information in your inbox every day

Login/Register