El juicio de lesividad en el Estado mexicano; su vigencia en la normativa

The following section describes the themes that emerged (Boyatzis, 1998) from the interviews with farmers and their families. Decision pressures were described from four different contexts: those within the individual (intra-individual), between two or more individuals (in person, or through an implied presence), between members within a group (intra-group), and between two or more groups (inter-group).

Eight major themes were garnered from the interview data provided by the farmers and their families. The main themes stemmed from diverse decision-making influences. These influences were well-described during the interviews, but also were consistent with many of those described in previous research on farmer managerial style, cognitive

approaches, and use of technology as discussed in the literature review. The influences will be further considered in terms of their roles in the four overlaying interpersonal contexts of influence on farmers’ decision-making. Through the farmers’ stories about, thoughts on, and prescriptions for decision-making, individual and group processes occurring during decision- making situations are made clear. These processes help to describe the two broad strategies of decision making used by this sample of farmers. These strategies (termed rational-

analytical and intuitive) are formed by knowledge, cognitive style, considerations of fairness, and experience in the wool supply chain as perceived by the farmers in day-to-day,or in the short- and long-term interest of their farms. The strategies are also determined to a degree by the types of decision being made by farmers.

5.3

Introduction to Thematic Farmer Interview Results

The following subsections reveal the themes that emerged during the coding of the interview transcripts. Many of the themes supported the previous findings from the literature, but some new themes surfaced, including the role that the implied presence of former farm family members has on present day farmers (see Section 5.7) and the influence that a

disposition for cognition has on farmer decision making (see Section 5.11). In order to ensure that the themes are well-developed and described accurately, I have included extensive evidence in the form of quotations coming from the transcriptions of the interviews.

5.4

Theme One: Economies and Realities

The first question asked during the farmer interviews was “Tell me what you think about farming sheep and wool?” This question was generally answered in two ways; farmers either reflected that they thought of their farm as a business producing a product, or as a lifestyle to be enjoyed (with several nuanced responses, see Section 5.3.3). These reflections were described as contributing to their general leaning toward a dominant mode of decision making; either rational-analytical, or intuitive.

By aligning the perception the farmers had of their farms, with their descriptions of how they came to decisions, the differences between the main influences and other

considerations for decisions was made clear. The analytical evaluation of potential outcomes, or the use of intuition in order to make particular decisions under uncertain conditions, were behaviours that clearly differed amongst those farmers who considered their farm more of a business or more of a lifestyle.

As a contextual note, meat and wool prices were very low during the period that the research was conducted, potentially introducing a focus on business and financial aspects of the farm first and foremost during this period. That being said, wool prices have been declining for decades while the costs associated with shearing and animal husbandry have been on the rise, and the number of service providers have also been declining. These compounding pressures may have influenced the perceptions that farmers have of wool growing, especially when taking on large debts when entering the industry.

The process of thinking of farming as a business with themselves as the managers, was described by about half of the farmers I interviewed. These farmers, compared with

others in the sample, tended to have less experience on the farm, were new to the particular farm site they were working, or had recently changed from sheep/beef farming to an alternate farm type. Some of these farmers had recently graduated from degree and diploma

programmes in agriculture and farm management. Their newness and focus on financing issues on the farm also suggests that these farmers were under financial pressures which provide their main sources of stress and, thus, are the focus of the main cognitive energy of the farmer. Without the liberty (or luxury) of considering other psychological and social aspects of the farm, strategic farming decisions seemed focussed on relieving debt, and ensuring business success. For example,

“...the biggest challenges in this business are trying to make ends meet

probably, and strategically, to end up with enough money at the end of the year to be getting out of debt and to enjoy your lifestyle.” INTF1

“I mean obviously you have got to be profitable so I guess foremost it is a business. Having said that, it probably has a hell of a poor return for a business but that's a fact of life, we know that.” INTF5

“It is a business, it's a poor business, it's not returning. Several old sayings and you know, we're asset rich and cash poor, and there's nothing truer than that at the moment. We're just not generating cash. I think it's something like 70 percent of farmers aren't going to make a profit this year. And I haven't made a profit for the last five years. So it's not a money making venture at the moment but it is great being self-employed.” INTF6

“Our sheep..., they are not intelligent animals. They are hard-work, hard to handle, heavy, hard work. Working with the wool has no profit, just somethin’ we have to do. Really a pain in the neck and goddamn’ expensive. Costs me more to deal with than I get back so it really doesn’t make sense business- wise.” INTF11

For most of this group of debt-attentive farmers, wool was viewed as a commodity item, almost something of an unpleasant task to undertake. Here they describe the further pressures of being wool growers during a difficult financial time;

“You want to come in at the end of the day and say ‘it’s all worth it’ you know? But we’re digging out a pond with a spoon. Should we just cut our losses? Can’t really enjoy the place when you’re always aware that ends aren’t going to meet and you’re trying to figure out the solution, calculating and cutting costs. Only so much you can do with wool. Doesn’t work out like in the textbooks, the ledger you know? Money comes in after the auction, then out it goes, even faster.” INTF1

“...Only get a couple of paycheques a year for wool so we have to plan smart what to do with it when it comes. ‘Gotta think about all the bills coming in, and how to divide up what we have to pay out. ‘Gotta be practical about the farm. No use dreaming about how things used to be, or trying something new.” INTF6

“It’s frustrating. I studied farm management so I should know how to make it work. The wool - it’s just this small part of the farm, really small, but it takes up so much of my resources, my time, energy, and for what? It doesn’t give any return, but we have to do it.” INTF18

Obvious frustration with financial aspects of growing wool as a part of their farm forces the focus of the decision making of these farmers on feasibility and financial survival. Decisions around strategies for farming were based on maximizing income in order to meet debt requirements. Farmers perceived the shearing of wool as a mandatory chore for animal husbandry purposes, and a ‘must-do’ according to New Zealand agricultural policy (Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, 2008). However, they described the financial aspect of shearing and selling their wool as non-profitable, a waste of time, and a general obstacle to enjoying the farm lifestyle.

Farmers who considered their farms as businesses also relied more on the use of consultants for help in coming to decisions, and the broad diversification of their farms as a main strategy thereby avoiding choosing one alternative among many (specializing in only one crop/stock) which they deemed too risky. They also used negotiation more often (i.e., when considering contracts), and used listing and ranking alternatives as a strategy. Financial and market information is important to these farmers.

In general, the farmers believed their wool businesses were not doing well judging by their financial returns and ability to balance the books (a rationally-based, analytical

approach). They attributed their poor returns to wool market decline, poor marketing of their products, increased cost of managing the wool, and a lack of control over what the final products are actually worth. With follow-up questions on how farmers come to decisions on strategic matters (for instance, the chosen direction for wool sales), the same group of farmers

replied that, for them, the use of consultants, information gathering from multiple sources, paying close attention to market details (i.e., auction reports), and considering how their decisions as managers will advance the farm as a business were most important. I could also discern that the farmers often compared their own outlook and potential for success on their farm, to those in other fields:

“I guess I do a lot of sitting at the table with my reports, HB [pencil] and paper. If a change isn’t going to be financially viable, I mean if you don’t know where the money is going to come from or go to, you just can’t do it. The business will fail. We have to be managers sometimes, not just farmers.” INTF6

“I tend to do things to try and keep costs low. I tend to think that people that get into the system where they have very high inputs and they can't dictate their revenue can paint themselves into a corner a wee bit. You have to be a smart businessman. The bottom line does matter because we could end up carrying too much debt for what we get each year, and only a couple of times each year – it’s not a regular income but you do have regular expenses. I definitely spend a lot of time working the numbers, because in the past, when the raw numbers have been ignored and the carpet was pulled out from under us, we weren’t ready.” INTF14

“The best thing I did for our business was to start listening to the accountants and products guys who kept knocking at my door... There was no way I could have read and learned everything that’s out there to learn about crops and stock and breeding. They’re the experts, why was I fumbling along? I was taking too many risks, now I ask them what I need to know, and decide based on their advice. I reckon’ that’s how good business works. That, and don’t count your chickens.” INTF16

“When I’m tryin’ to decide on somethin’...um... I think about the numbers. I think about where I need to be in a few months, what bills to pay, what unexpected things could be comin’ up. Sometimes I just have to be ruthless. You do in a business right? If the market isn’t performing, you’ve got to get out or do somethin’ major to position yourself for the next big blow.” INTF11 “The prices keep going down, not like wine, not like dairy, they’re booming, but we’ll keep listening to the Board, and to the consultants, they’ve been right before about when things were going to change. They say the others [dairy, wine] won’t last and we have. It’ll swing back.” INTF12S

There were few hints during interviews with this group of farmers that emotive or affective reasons (with the exception of risk aversion and, thereby, fear) for decisions were not actively considered. There was not a broad approach (where the farmer considered their context and experiences) to their management strategies but, instead, rational economic

approaches dominated. Information from what they considered reliable sources was sought, evaluated, and then applied to the decision making scenario. Anchoring on one solution meant that consideration of alternatives (whether alternative options, or ways of thinking about the options) was superficial at best. For example, a farmer discusses why he did not expand his farm by purchasing a nearby parcel of land:

“I was right about not buying the block three years ago, and now its listed again. We thought about buying it, but at the time I thought the price was too high, and [parcel owner] was never a negotiator so we didn’t even bother trying. There were other blocks around. The orchards’ bought it up but it’ll never be worth their time, now they are asking too much again. Yeah, I do sometimes look at the listings at [rural services provider] to see the prices around here, but they are, um... the price is inflated. I know what the land is generally worth, especially when it’s right next door. I wanted to just wait until the market came down to my price. Price was what mattered to me then.” INTF8

Interviewer: “Can you tell me if there were other land characteristics you were looking for?”

Respondent “Well, even if the land would suit finishing, yeah, we have a shortage here, it would attract a higher price, wouldn’t it. So it comes down to price.”

In addition to the focus on one particular criterion for making a decision, and recalculating other characteristics to the price format, this farmer also indicated a reliance on his own (internally-based) judgment for accuracy instead of pursuing other evaluative sources (i.e., assumptions about the willingness of the first owner to

negotiate, and his indication of the high listing prices of the land without mentioning other comparative sources).

This group of farmers mentioned wanting to enjoy the lifestyle, and there were also a few short allusions to the benefits of working for oneself, but the frustration of having to constantly evaluate their financial standing seemed to interfere with consideration of the more social or sentimental components of farming, and growing wool and how these components might play into their farming decisions (as described by the other half of the farmers involved). What these results suggested were that for strategic decisions on the farms, these farmers maintained an identity of “manager” or chief financial officer for the farm. They had

a need to uncover ways to increase earnings through better financial management, often blaming external factors for their current situation, for example changes in policy and regulations, quality of advice from consultants, or market downturns.

“The outside influence on the farm itself was minimal when we first took over and now it is a major thing, I mean, various things like all to do with the regional council, it is just the system that, you know, we are not allowed to do blah blah blah without burning, or anything to do with water, or anything to do with the likes of weeds, or trying to find new markets ourselves...too many hoops to go through now. It’s better to just pay to piper.” INTF1S

“Gotta use the advisers...er... consultants, because we just can’t keep up with all the new products ourselves. But how do you know when what they’re saying isn’t all manure? We have had bad advice come our way before, but we couldn’t have known then. How could you?” INTF6

“There’s so much information out there to gather and analyze before you decide to do something big like change breed, or try cropping. You just have to do it [gather information] to weigh all your options. You have to watch what is happening in the other sectors too. You really have to know what’s

happening in the markets, and they are really unpredictable and can blind-side you. It’s not easy, but you’re running a business and you have to keep that in the forefront all the time. Do what’s going to get you the best return,

regardless.”

Interviewer: “Regardless of what?”

Respondent: “Regardless of your gut or what happened before. Each situation is different and you have to keep in mind all the factors that can contribute, not just how you feel about something. Step aside and think about it from a

business... ummm [pauses] would you follow a hunch if it could mean three hundred jobs are lost? No, just like here, you can’t just change something on a whim and hope in three years your lambing rate will go up, or you’ll get better wool colour. It’s not smart management.” INTF8

More evidence of the rational-analytical based approaches can be found in the rejection of naturalistic decision making among these farmers;

“The solution never comes to you suddenly through some esoteric communal communing with nature or land. I think it's more - for us anyway, I would like to think it's a bit more logical than that.” INTF1

“I list the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’. Simple as that. No waiting for the answer to come or fall from the sky. It just doesn’t, well, only in the movies [laughs].” INTF5 “Maximum gain, minimum effort. That’s what he looks for. He narrows our options down to the ones that will meet most of our needs, then chooses one. When we downsized and started concentrating on the stud farm, it seemed the best choice. We thought about how much work and cost was going to go into deer, or dairy for that matter, and what we had available here now, and thought about what we could actually do if we got off the land entirely, I mean we both

have agricultural degrees, but our options were slim. We had to be realistic and not just imagine that a solution would come our way. With the kids moving on we couldn’t count on them to help either. It seemed the right choice. ” INTF14S

On a social level, this group of farmers considers other farmers and farming

organizations as repositories of information that they can use to help make decisions. They