AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATION costs of production on arable land. The fundamental dispropor tion is seen—that while in October, 1927, the price of farming products only stands at 4o% above the pre-war index, commod ities are 67% higher and labour, the largest item of the farmer's expenditure, is 76% higher.
The low agricultural prices are not due to over-production, for as far as can be estimated the gross output from the land of the world, actually lower in some items, has not kept pace with the growth of population since 1914 (see later, section World Agri culture). That this shortage has not resulted in higher prices is due to the destruction of the purchasing power of so many of the countries of the world, through war and revolution and the de pression in industries. The efforts that so many states are making towards a deflation of their currency is regarded by many econ omists as the immediately operative factor, depressing prices for all producers and destroying the confidence upon which industrial activity depends.
The other element in the equation—the relatively high cost of labour—cannot be met in England by a reduction in the wage rate, which in agriculture is already below that prevailing in other industries. Indeed, bad as is the state of trade, men are leaving farming for any other occupation that offers; many farmers are complaining of the shortage of labour, and in certain cases where profits are assured, as in sugar-beet growing, labour from Ireland is being imported. Any local call for men immediately draws agricultural labourers from their following and when any general The obvious advantages that can be obtained by buying and selling on a wholesale scale and the great success attending co operative effort among farmers abroad, particularly in Denmark, has for many years caused agricultural co-operation (see CO OPERATION) to be pressed upon the British farmer. The work of propaganda and advice was undertaken by the Agricultural Or ganization Society, which was founded on the model of the successful Irish Society initiated by Sir Horace Plunkett. The A.O.S. was a voluntary organization supported by subscriptions from its affiliated societies, but it enjoyed a considerable amount of subvention from the Development Fund from 191 o to its demise in 1924. The earlier efforts at co-operation chiefly aimed at the formation of purchase societies to supply the farmers' requirements for fertilizers, feeding stuffs and other materials. Though many of these ventures had but a brief existence some have become strong trading corporations, such as the Eastern Counties Farmers' Co-operative Society at Ipswich. A wholesale society, launched during the war with the object of bulking the purchases of individual societies, came to disaster. Little prog ress was made with societies for the sale of farmers' produce, though a number of egg-collecting depots were and still are flourishing. Dairy societies had a somewhat chequered existence; in some cases as soon as they attained local success they attracted the attention of one of the big dairy firms and after a period of fierce competition either succumbed or were bought out. Eventually the Agricultural Organization Society, despite all the devoted work given to it and the subventions it had enjoyed, found it necessary to dissolve. It had never received any wide measure of support from farmers, and as the National Farmers' Union had become the representative organization of the farmers of England and Wales and was prepared to take over the care of co-operative action amongst its members, the old society gave way to the National Farmers' Union. At the same time the Government under the Agricultural Credits Act made provision for loans to Agricultural Co-operative Societies on the basis of a loan of 20S. for each 20s. share taken up by members, of which no more than 5s. need be initially called up. The history of these latter ventures has not been altogether encouraging. At the same time there was a movement for the setting up of co-operative bacon factories on Scandinavian models. Seven such societies were started, of which only f our are working to-day. Two active wool-selling agencies have been established, one in the south-east and one in the northern counties, both of which are steadily progressing. In 1925 on the termination of the hop control, a wartime organization, a new voluntary organization was formed to continue the collective sale of hops and has succeeded in en listing some 9o% of the hop-growers of the country. While other examples could also be named, speaking generally, agricultural co-operation has made but little progress among the farmers of England.
The reasons are not far to seek. In the first place the larger English farmers make their purchases on a big enough scale to secure terms comparable with those offered by the co-operative society. When such men joined a purchasing society they were apt to use it merely to beat down the terms offered by their merchants. The smaller farmers followed the lead of the big men or were unable to forgo the credit they obtained from the merchants. Again the firms dealing in agricultural necessaries were very firmly entrenched in Great Britain; many of them were bigger and more efficient than a newly-started co-operative society could be, and having capital behind them did not shrink from competition. They had the great advantage too of being able to offer credit, and their agents being generally drawn from the farmer class had friends and connections among the men with whom they wanted to do business.
The existence of a near-by market is the great obstacle to agricultural co-operation for the sale of produce. Nearly all the examples that are so freely quoted of the success of farmers' or ganizations—the bacon factories of Denmark or the fruit selling associations of California—rest upon the fact that only an ex port trade is available and that farmers cannot engage individ ually in such a trade. They are driven to organize because the alternative is the control of a wholesale trader who cuts the pro ducers' returns to the minimum that will keep them in business. For these and other reasons the true co-operative spirit has been lacking, and British farmers have not shown that loyalty to the principle of combination which would induce members to stick to their society even at the cost of some loss to themselves. When there is an old-established market at hand it is almost im possible for a co-operative business to give the farmer better re turns at once. Psychologically, too, defaulters and men who stand outside a combine have a powerful disintegrating influence upon it. They share in all the benefits if the combine succeeds in raising the general level of price, they take no risks and get paid at once, while members may be waiting for a portion of their returns because the society has only succeeded in raising prices by withholding part of the crop from the market. The "out siders" would not be human if they did not boast about their advantages, and English farmers are as yet too easy-going and too much merged in the general community to counter with a social boycott. Similar occurrences in certain of the British Dominions have resulted in legislation to force recalcitrants into any combination which has secured the adhesion of three quarters or four-fifths of the producers; but such procedure is quite alien to the English farmers' declared policy of "No Con trol." Yet the acceptance of voluntary control is the essence of co-operative organization, and by virtually compelling farmers to produce the article wanted by the market, rather than that which they fancy, exerts a powerful educational influence. On the other hand if he does not accept the voluntary control of his own organizations the British farmer is likely to drift into subjection to the much less sympathetic control of big businesses which will make of him a tied producer.
Thus the prospects of agricultural co-operation do not appear bright, though the situation is not without hope; a sense of the necessity for combination is growing. Nothing can be gained by preaching co-operation at large, but little by little particular in stances are making good, especially where the association only attempts to sell and not to manufacture the raw material pro vided by the farmer. An alliance may be possible with the great co-operative organizations among consumers, which indeed have hitherto been spending their efforts in organizing foreign rather than home producers. But it is only by combination of some sort, from within or from without, that British farmers can hope to retain a remunerative share of the best of all agricultural markets —that of Great Britain. See AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATION.