Dr Aleksander Grzelak

Poznań University of Economics

Department of  Macroeconomics and Agriculture Economics,

 

Changes in productive resources in Polish farming in 1990-2006

 

1.     Introduction

 

Between 1990-2006 significant changes in Polish economy took place connected with the system transformation as well as with the EU integrative processes. It influenced the changes in productive resources of farming households which is the main purpose of this paper.  It can be expected that market processes favour the flow of productive resources to economically stronger entities which causes their efficiency increase however it must be stressed that changes within this domain should be adequate to the labour market situation improvement. It results from the necessity to render the extra farming labour resources. Moreover this flow is especially efficient within the area structure improvement in conditions when smaller farms exist along with the economically stronger entities. For in the situation of small farms functioning, self-providing the changes in this sphere seem to be insignificant  and additionally it is connected with a relatively high transactional costs (land unification). Hence the problem of productive resources changes is directly related with an economic situation of agriculture and its position in economy. In situation of a big significance of globalisation processes it determines also the world-wide competitiveness.

In the paper the statistical data from CSO as well as the results of Common Agricultural Inventory (CAI). Dynamic analysis of researched phenomena was used supported by the historiosofical assessment.

 

2. Area structure of agricultural farms

 

Between 1988-2006 the number of farms of the area above 1 ha decreased in total by 15%, which in the comparison with their number (1,8 million in 2006) is not a significant number (table 1) however another research[1] shows that in 90s the farms collectivity it decreased quicker than in 80s, however slower than in 70s. It resulted inter alia from the exclusion of arable lands from agricultural production, mostly those of a low quality. Only in 1995-2006 their area dropped by 1,5 million ha (by 11,2%).

Table 1

The number of agricultural households in Poland and their area according to the area groups in 1988-2006

 

Years

1-7

7-15

15 and more

Total

 

 

Number of agricultural households (in thousands)

 

 

1988

1476,2

559,3

132,2

2167,6

 

1996

1390,1

475,6

175,6

2041,4

 

2002

1362,9

392,4

196,4

1951,7

 

2006

1229,6

359,1

197,8

1786,7

 

2006/1988

0,83

0,64

1,50

0,82

 

 

Area of arable area (in thousands ha)

 

1988

5130,6

5712,7

2694,0

13537,3

 

1996

4391,9

4805,4

5062,2

14259,5

 

2002

4063,8

3948,1

6450,0

14461,9

 

2006

3699,2

3634,0

8194,5

15527,6

 

2006/1988

0,72

0,64

3,04

1,15

 

Source: Own elaboration on the basis of CAI results in 1998, 1996, 2002 and CSO data in 2006

 

Alongside we observed an increase (in 1996-2002)  of bigger farms, i.e. above 15 ha and the smallest ones 1-2 ha (by 12,2%), while the number of others decreased. The phenomena were accompanied by the changes in land area occupied by particular farm area groups. They resulted inter alia from legal solutions which allowed for a lower insurance in KRUS also for the people not involved in farming. Moreover the increase in a number of small farms was connected in the conditions of a labour market barrier with the safety for agricultural families. In turn an increase of the biggest farms number was a consequence inter alia of restructure of a state-owned farming sector and decreasing areas used by the farms of 2-15 ha as a consequence of limiting the agricultural activity. As the effect of those processes the area of an average farm grew (total area) from 7,1 ha in 1990 to 8,6 ha in 2006. Although as some researchers indicate[2], if we excluded the farms which do not run any farming production and those producing for themselves then the average area would reach 11,8 ha of arable areas.

After 1990 in Poland we faced polarisation (exfoliation) of area structure of farms in Poland which meant the increase of a the smallest farms’ number, often with incidental contacts with the market, the share rise of the bigger ones[3] and goods production concentration. Those processes were  a result of an economic activity of farms, lack of wider alternative income sources for rural society but first of all the general economic processes[4] including the labour market situation. As some researchers indicate[5] the price relations between agri-food and non-farming goods were significant for the area structure transformation. But it should not be forgotten that the tendency to increase the scale of activity is determined by their development level and form of their adjustment to environment changeable conditions which is a beyond political system rule[6]. It can also be supposed that Single Payment Scheme will not significantly accelerate the area change structure processes. It results from the lack of significant limitations of its beneficiaries[7] in the lower limits as well as the top ceilings of payments. In farms’ polarisation processes an economic strength will become more and more important (the ability to create an excess production value over direct costs).

Area criteria of prices regarding agricultural sector often seem to be questioned and it not always must be connected with so-called faulty structure. The multifunction of farms, ecological production or land substitution by biological and technological advances or knowledge even relatively small farms can be economically lively. There are reasons to suppose that in coming years quality will become more important than volume of production as well as its adjustment to market requirements and filling the market niches. It is worth noticing that between 1996-2002 the area of fallow and wastelands grew by 57%, and a number of farms which showed the area of fallow and wastelands increased from 592 000 (1996) to 1157 000 (2002). On one hand it shows that there is an excess potential in farming, however on the other that the profitability in farming is very low which in turn is a consequence of agricultural position deterioration in inter-sectoral flows. The situation in this scope changed after 2002 when the area of fallow and wastelands dropped to a level from 1996. It can prove that the interest in managing farming lands due to the possibility of using SPS after the EU integration grew.

Regarding the farms’ structure from the point of view of economic value[8] we can state that in 2005 as much as 69,4% of rural households did not exceed the magnitude of 2 ESU. Simultaneously in 1996 96,1% of all farms constituted the farms not bigger than 8 ESU, and those of economic magnitude of 8-40 ESU 3,7%, then in 2005 it was respectively 90,4% and 8,9%[9]. Generally in Poland merely 237000 of farms exceeded the magnitude of 8 ESU (in 2005). On the other hand it constitutes approx. 26% of farms producing only for the market. Those data can show the tendency of polarisation in this scope. It can mean that in bigger farms a product’s concentration occurs. Moreover a smaller number of farms in Poland with a little economic magnitude is noticeable. The difference in this domain in comparison to the EU(15) farms is much bigger in case of area which results form a higher land productivity and consequently more intensive connections with surrounding[10].

 

3. Labour resources

 

In sphere of labour resources in agriculture after 1990 mostly their surpluses should be noticed. As much as 42% employed in agriculture in 2002 assigned for the farm’s labour needs on average 2 hours a day[11]. Whereas in 2005 86% of farms’ users and members of family farms work part-time and merely 14% of mentioned people worked the number of hours of full-time job[12]. Simultaneously 2,6 million people in 2002 worked only on their own farm and in farms with market contacts[13] there were 2 million people. Also a number of farms  maintaining mainly or only on agricultural activity decreased[14]. Those phenomena can show that agricultural activity to a smaller and smaller extent constitutes the main element of rural society income and that there are resources in agriculture which are not used. It did not stimulate any stronger involvement in market processes, though, on the other hand it stabilised the situation on the market. With a larger use of labour-consuming directions of agricultural production e.g. animals’ production, mushroom, vegetables, fruit-farming production supported by pro-export activities, services’ development in the rural areas (especially agro-tourism) there exist possibilities of a more effective use of rural labour resources. It is worth adding that quicker changes of area structure in rural households in Poland could contribute to an unemployment growth and the same increasing the income and social disparity in rural areas. On the other hand employment migration and decreasing population encountering the labour market will decrease the labour resources in agriculture which should stimulate the substitution of that factor by the capital[15].

These are qualifications and knowledge determine the resources’ quality. Farming is an area of activity which demands more and more knowledge. The demand growth for knowledge does not only concerns industrial agriculture i.e. intensive but also ecological or socially balanced[16]. Hence the noticed in inter-inventory time (i.e. 1996-2002) an improvement of educational level of individual farms (a percentage of graduated users of individual farms grew from 2,6% to 5,1%, while with O-level decreased from 43,9% to 32,2%) can in the future be an element which will positively influence management effectiveness and modernisation of farms in Poland. Simultaneously in this time an increase of education level was noticed among farmers form 12,3% to approx. 20%. These tendencies indicate the human potential quality growth in agriculture. It should stimulate a stronger economic activity of farms. However still the situation within this sphere requires further improvement[17]. Low skills decrease the effects of activities in farming, limit the professional mobility and enterprise or marketing activity[18].

 

4. Capital resources

 

In 1990-2006 an increase of a total traction resources grew from 51,7 (traction units per 100 ha of arable areas) in 1990 through 61,5 in 1996 to 64,5 in 2002. Also a number of cow sheds and piggery increased, though it was accompanied by rising the insufficiency of those resources or a change of destination way to non-agricultural activity. In turn the magnitude of new tractors in Poland is approx. 6 times lower than in Germany and 9 times than in France[19]. Moreover it is worth stressing that in inter-inventory period i.e. 1996-2002 a number of combine harvesters grew by 47%, container milk coolers by 214,3%, pipe milk machine by 75,1%, whereas field sprayer tractors by 29,3%. Quoted data show technical progress in Polish agriculture, especially in milk production. However, the needs within this range are much bigger. A number of agencies of agricultural services also grew as well as the value of their services[20]. It is also worth adding that a level of fixed assets use involved in agriculture grew as well. In 1991 this index was on a level of 4,5% than in 2000 reached 66,5%, and in 2006 73,6%, including buildings (65,8%), machines (81,5%), and means of transport (94,4%). It means that a production capital becomes older and older. It especially concerns moveable  elements of assets which makes specialisation processes development difficult. Without renewing the assets it is difficult to talk about the agricultural competitiveness improvement. Hence the necessity exists to of big investments Also the data of PSR which consider the investments in farms indicate so. In 1996 investments reached 53% of goods production value then in 2002 44%. Simultaneously the number of farms which bore the investment expenses decreased in 2002 by 5,5% in comparison to 1996. Also the number of farms which bought ground dropped from 50300 to 48000. This situation influences inter alia a low involvement efficiency in market processes and is connected with low incomes.

It should be noticed that mostly positive phenomena within improvement of mechanical supply in agriculture were not reflected in adequate agricultural incomes growth. It can also mean that in Polish farms there are significant reserves of income situation improvement which can be implemented in the situation of a better agricultural markets’ organisation and institutional surrounding or when a form of inter-neighbour’s form of machine use popularisation[21]. First positive experiences within this scope resulting from the EU integration could prove this observation[22].

The above mentioned phenomena resulted also from a low mobility of production factors involved in agriculture as well as from a small capital inflow to this sector as a consequence f a relatively low links between farms and financial entities, including bank sector. The research show that after 1990 merely 6% of farms constituted the developing where the incomes grew and production resources where modernised[23]. Those were mostly high goods’ farms. However, it is worth noticing that in entities of even higher economic activity possessing total motorisation of works connected with animals breeding (e.g. mechanical disposal of manure and fodder rationing) it was not common[24]. On the other hand it determines the potential of competitiveness improvement of those entities. Simultaneously between 1995-2005 a labour technical drop was noticed as well as a real value of fixed assets and an increase of renewal of fixed assets coefficient[25]. Those tendencies resulted mostly form a prior analysed phenomenon of a fixed assets use increase, little in-flow of new investments along with a limited out-flow of agricultural labour resources. Hence the fixed assets renewal coefficient improvement which level is still insufficient for extended reproduction in agriculture was connected with a quicker decapitalisation of assets than the investments’ drop. We should notice that if the analyses took into consideration the farms of a premarket attitude for instance from the point of view of FADN system (farms of an economic value bigger than 2 ESU) then the situation is much more lucrative. It appears that the investments’ scope for example from the point of view of assets renewing index (relation of investments to fixed assets value) was in 2004 in all groups (according to economic size) on a higher level than an average in the EU(15). It can be expected that it was a result of a bigger investment inclination in those rural households, mostly from own financial means.

In turn in the EU(15) there is a higher consumption share in  farming incomes, the intensive investments’ time took place in the past and additionally investments in a relatively wider scope are financed from credits. It is also significant that relatively lower level of capital satiety in Polish farms , frequently of a significant use level, hence there is a string need of investments[26].

Mentioned tendencies indicate limited labour resource substitution with capital in Polish agriculture during transformation time, though those processes were more visible in bigger rural households of larger production scale. This situation was different in comparison to other non-agricultural sectors which indicates weakening of agricultural competitiveness in this regard and the same market situation deterioration in this period. Only just sine the EU integration this situation has slightly improved. It must be pointed out that there is a differentiation of that situation between various farms’ groups. Moreover in the entities of a more premarket attitude (more than 2 ESU) the situation within researched parameters was much more favourable in comparison to all farms. Also demographic factors are very important in creating the above phenomena – structural pensions programme which accelerates the generation exchange of farms’ managers, relatively high rate of economy growth and considerable emigration level which should contribute to a further technical labour provision improvement and the same the efficiency of this factor.

 

5. Production aspects

 

Changes in connections between farms and market in Poland after 1990 did not contribute to significant changes in land productivity. The harvest level in 2006 was a little lower than in the beginning of 90s (by approx. 11%), of white beets it increased (by approx. 20,5%). It happened in the conditions of a decrease of mineral fertilizers and pesticides use. It shows that there are significant reserves of harvest level growth which result from production technology mistakes or an improper sowing structure[27]. Whereas in case of animal breeding (table 2) those changes were much more visible in the studied period. A decrease of cattle occupation was noticed along with the pigs increase level. However it can be reckoned that tendencies in this scope will permanently change because of a big support on the cattle (and milk) market and profitable beef export perspectives. Because current phenomena (until the EU integration) within this range meant supplanting cattle by pigs which in turn meant a lower use of permanent green grounds because of the imported fodders[28]. 

Table 2

Description of animals’ breeding in Poland in 1990-2006

Specification

1990

1993

1996

1999

2002

2006

 Animals’ occupation per 100 ha of arable land (in LH)

 

 

Cattle

54

42,3

39,1

33,3

35,0

37,0

Pigs

104

108,7

109,1

97,8

116,0

119,0

Basic efficiencies

 

Production of slaughter livestock calculated per meat (in kg per 1 ha of arable land)

169,6

167,4

179,4

191,1

204,7

241,2

Milk production form 1 cow (in l)

3042

3024

3191

3510

3812

4200

Source: Own elaboration on the statistical data of CSO in 1990, 1993, 1996, 1999, 2002 and 2006

 

Also slaughter livestock and milk productivity visibly rose. It resulted from inter alia using new animal races, new techonologies and production concentration. In 1996 there were 30800 of farms keeping more than 20 animals then in 2002 there were 50300 of farms. In case of cows the growth was of four times in this scope, whereas of pigs by 5,2%. That data show that the transformation dynamic was extremely high concerning animal production. Production concentration as a consequence of market processes was mostly on high goods farms[29].

In 1990-2004 as CSO data shows there was no efficiency improvement of other production factors[30] which followed low agricultural incomes, low level of investments or specialisation risk. It is worth stressing that the tendency within production factors efficiency is growing, since the late 90s through increasing production scale, more common biological and technological progress[31]. It was especially visible in 2005-2006 i.e. after the EU integration there was an improvement within efficiency of involved factors as a consequence of agricultural income growth. It can be roughly estimated that there was an approximate increase of labour efficiency on the level of 12%[32]. Despite this fact that factor is still the worst used resource which shows the comparison with other EU member states[33]. This phenomenon is rooted in surplus labour resources involved in this sector. Increasing the investments range in the future can also be connected with the necessity of fulfilling the  cross-compliance rules. Possibly especially small entities will not be able to cope with those challenges which consequently will limit the farms’ number. Simultaneously mentioned above mostly negative tendencies within production resources in Polish agriculture in the period 1990-2004 were the result of underdeveloped mechanisms (as CAP of the EU) regulating the agricultural and rural areas developments.

 

6. Conclusions

 

Considerations presented in the paper impel to following conclusions:

- in the researched period in Poland we dealt with polarisation within the changes of production resources in agriculture. It means that on one hand a group of bigger farms, economically more efficient, improved area structures. We could observe specialisation and production concentration processes. On the other hand in many farms, mostly those smaller ones, of an incidental market contacts, the production resources changes did not indicate increasing or improving their structures;

- agricultural supply of mechanical resources was not reflected in an adequate agricultural incomes’ growth. It can be assumed that on Polish farms there are significant reserves of income situation improvement. It can be indicated by the first positive experience in this scope which result from the EU integration;

- there was a little substitution of labour by the capital. Those processes are more visible in bigger agricultural households.

We can expect that the EU integration will contribute to the acceleration of production resources changes in Polish agriculture. We observe it on first experience from period of 2004-2006. However, it does not mean that in rural areas only big entities will remain. The other farms should seek their chances in connecting agri-food and non-agricultural income sources.

 

References:

1. Gomułka J., Wyniki ekonomiczne polskiego rolnictwa w latach 2003-2004, IERiGŻ, Warszawa 2005.

2. Grzelak A., Związki gospodarstw rolnych z rynkiem w Polsce po roku 1990. Próba określenia intensywności i efektywności, Wyd. AE w Poznaniu, Poznań 2008.

3. Kalińska J., Wrzaszcz T., Produktywność polskiego rolnictwa w latach 1998-2006, „Roczniki Naukowe SERiA”, Tom IX, z.1, Kraków, 2007.

4. Kapusta F., Metodyka badań stanu oraz tendencji zmian ustroju rolnego i struktury agrarnej, „Roczniki Naukowe SERiA”, Tom VII, z.5., 2005.

5. Karwat-Woźniak B., Możliwości rozwojowe chłopskiego rolnictwa na przykładzie gospodarstw wysokotowarowych, [w:] Ekonomiczne i społeczne uwarunkowania rozwoju polskiej gospodarki żywnościowej po wstąpieniu Polski do Unii Europejskiej, A. Sikorska (red.), IERiGŻ, Warszawa 2005.

6. Klementowski A., Rynek usług dla rolnictwa, [w:] Analiza produkcyjno-ekonomicznej sytuacji rolnictwa i gospodarki żywnościowej w 2006,  A. Woś (red.), IERiGŻ, Warszawa 2007.

7. Klepacki B., Efektywność wykorzystania zasobów w rolnictwie polskim na tle rolnictwa dotychczasowych członków Unii Europejskiej, „Problemy rolnictwa światowego”, Tom XI, 2004.

8. Klepacki B., Potrzeby przystosowawcze gospodarstw rolniczych i ich otoczenia instytucjonalnego związane z wejściem do Unii Europejskiej, „Wieś i Rolnictwo”, 2004/2.

9. Klepacki B., Warunek modernizacji rolnictwa, „Życie Gospodarcze”, 1984/17.

10. Kolbusz F., Strategia a rzeczywistość, „Życie Gospodarcze”, 1984/19.

11. Jankowiak J., Bieńkowski J., Zmiany struktury gospodarstw indywidualnych w Wielkopolsce i Polsce w latach 1988-2002, „Roczniki Naukowe SERiA”, Tom VII, z.1., 2005.

12. Józwiak W., Ewolucja polskich gospodarstw rolnych, [w:] Wczoraj, dziś i jutro naszego rolnictwa, FAPA,  Poznań 2004.

13. Józwiak W., Przemiany strukturalne polskiego rolnictwa w ciągu roku od przystąpienia Polski do UE, [w:] Stan polskiej gospodarki żywnościowej po przystąpieniu do Unii Europejskiej, R. Urban (red.), Raport 1, Warszawa 2005.

14. Józwiak W., Mirkowska Z., Zdolność polskich gospodarstw rolnych do konkurowania, „Wieś i Rolnictwo”, 2007/2.

15. Michna W., Polska polityka rolna i rozwoju wsi w warunkach wdrażania Wspólnej Polityki Rolnej, IERiGŻ, Warszawa 2005.

16. Paszkowski S., Rolnicze renty strukturalne jako narzędzia przekształceń agrarnych w rolnictwie polskim, Rozprawy Naukowe, Zeszyt 345, Wyd. AR w Poznaniu, Poznań 2004.

17. Pawlak J., Perspektywy rozwoju rolnictwa po przystąpieniu Polski do UE, „Problemy rolnictwa światowego”, Tom XI, 2004.

18. Wilkin J. (red.), Podstawy strategii zintegrowanego rozwoju rolnictwa i obszarów wiejskich, Wyd. UW, Warszawa 2003, p. 70-71. 

19. Woś A., Ekonomiczna struktura gospodarstw chłopskich. Studium statystyczne, IERiGŻ, Warszawa 2004.

20. Woś A., Strategia polaryzacji, „Życie Gospodarcze”, 1984/4.

21. Woś A., Zegar J., Rolnictwo społecznie zrównoważone, IERiGŻ, Warszawa 2002.

22. Zegar J., Źródła utrzymania rodzin związanych z rolnictwem, IERiGŻ, Warszawa 2006.

 

 

Changes in productive resources in Polish farming in 1990-2006

Summary

The main aim of the paper it the evaluation of a change of agricultural production resources in Poland in 1990-2006. It was stated that in Poland we could observe polarisation within the change of production resources in agriculture. Simultaneously the improvement of mechanical facilities was not reflected in an adequate growth of agricultural incomes. IT can be assumed that on farms in Poland there are significant reserves of income situation improvement. Moreover to a little extent in Polish farming we can observe a substitution of labour resource by capital. Those processes were more visible in agricultural households of a bigger magnitude. It should be expected that the EU integration  will contribute to an acceleration concerning resource changes in Polish farming. It is suggested by the experience of 2004-2006.


[1] S. Paszkowski, Rolnicze renty strukturalne jako narzędzia przekształceń agrarnych w rolnictwie polskim, Rozprawy Naukowe, Zeszyt 345, Wyd. AR w Poznaniu, Poznań 2004, p. 50-51.

[2] W. Józwiak, Ewolucja polskich gospodarstw rolnych, [w:] Wczoraj, dziś i jutro naszego rolnictwa, FAPA,  Poznań 2004, p. 67.

[3] F. Kapusta, Metodyka badań stanu oraz tendencji zmian ustroju rolnego i struktury agrarnej, „Roczniki Naukowe SERiA”, Tom VII, z.5., 2005, p. 41-43.

[4] Por. F. Kolbusz, Strategia a rzeczywistość, „Życie Gospodarcze”, 1984/19, p. 6-7.

[5] B. Klepacki, Warunek modernizacji rolnictwa, „Życie Gospodarcze”, 1984/17, p. 10.

[6] A. Woś, Strategia polaryzacji, „Życie Gospodarcze”, 1984/4, p. 6-7.

[7] J. Jankowiak, J. Bieńkowski, Zmiany struktury gospodarstw indywidualnych w Wielkopolsce i Polsce w latach 1988-2002, „Roczniki Naukowe SERiA”, Tom VII, z.1., 2005, p. 95-96.

[8] Economic farm value i.e. ESU – European size unit. 1 ESU = 1200 Euro of direct surplus achieved on the farm

[9] See Wyniki PSR z lat 1996 i Charakterystyka obszarów wiejskich w 2005 r., H. Dmochowska (red.), GUS, Olsztyn 2006.

[10] See B. Klepacki, Efektywność wykorzystania zasobów w rolnictwie polskim na tle rolnictwa dotychczasowych członków Unii Europejskiej, „Problemy rolnictwa światowego”, Tom XI, 2004, p. 138-139.

[11] See Wyniki PSR z lat 1996 i 200.2

[12] Charakterystyka obszarów wiejskich w 2005 r., H. Dmochowska (red.), GUS, Olsztyn 2006.

[13] The farms produce mainly or mostly for the market.

[14] A. Woś, Ekonomiczna struktura gospodarstw chłopskich. Studium statystyczne, IERiGŻ, Warszawa 2004, p. 14.

[15] W. Józwiak, , Z. Mirkowska, Zdolność polskich gospodarstw rolnych do konkurowania, „Wieś i Rolnictwo”, 2007/2, p. 34-68.

[16] Por. A .Woś, J. Zegar, Rolnictwo społecznie zrównoważone, IERiGŻ, Warszawa 2002.

[17] W. Michna estimates that apart from creating conditions for annual farming to achieve 30000 of graduates of secondary and high schools should covered 0,5 million farmers with a continual education, W. Michna, Polska polityka rolna i rozwoju wsi w warunkach wdrażania Wspólnej Polityki Rolnej, IERiGŻ, Warszawa 2005, p. 99.

[18] Por. A. Grzelak, Związki gospodarstw rolnych z rynkiem w Polsce po roku 1990. Próba określenia intensywności i efektywności, Wyd. AE w Poznaniu, Poznań 2008.

[19] J. Pawlak, Perspektywy rozwoju rolnictwa po przystąpieniu Polski do UE, „Problemy rolnictwa światowego”, Tom XI, 2004, p. 220.

[20] Between 2005 and 1995 real value of agricultural services increased by 27%, A. Klementowski, Rynek usług dla rolnictwa, [w:] Analiza produkcyjno-ekonomicznej sytuacji rolnictwa i gospodarki żywnościowej w 2006,  A. Woś (red.), IERiGŻ, Warszawa 2007, p. 271.

[21] Ibidem, p. 224.

[22] See W .Józwiak, Przemiany strukturalne polskiego rolnictwa w ciągu roku od przystąpienia Polski do UE, [w:] Stan polskiej gospodarki żywnościowej po przystąpieniu do Unii Europejskiej, R. Urban (red.), Raport 1, Warszawa 2005, p. 86.

[23] See W. Józwiak, Przemiany strukturalne polskiego rolnictwa w ciągu roku od przystąpienia Polski do UE, [w:] Stan polskiej gospodarki żywnościowej po przystąpieniu do UE, Raport 1, IERiGŻ, Warszawa 2005, p. 85

[24] B. Karwat-Woźniak, Możliwości rozwojowe chłopskiego rolnictwa na przykładzie gospodarstw wysokotowarowych, [w:] Ekonomiczne i społeczne uwarunkowania rozwoju polskiej gospodarki żywnościowej po wstąpieniu Polski do Unii Europejskiej, A. Sikorska (red.), IERiGŻ, Warszawa 2005, p. 27-28

[25] In 1995 technical labour provision (relation of gross fixed assets value to o1 full employment) was in Poland on the level of 28900, in 2000 21900 and in 2005 24100 (in fixed prices of 1995). In turn the coefficient of fixed assets renewal (relation of investments to gorss fixed assets value) was respectively 1,4%, 1,9%, 1,9%.

[26] W. Józwiak, Z. Mirkowska, Zdolność polskich gospodarstw rolnych do konkurowania, „Wieś i Rolnictwo”, 2007/2.

[27] B. Klepacki, Potrzeby przystosowawcze gospodarstw rolniczych i ich otoczenia instytucjonalnego związane z wejściem do Unii Europejskiej, „Wieś i Rolnictwo”, 2004/2, p. 220.

[28] See J. Zegar, Źródła utrzymania rodzin związanych z rolnictwem, IERiGŻ, Warszawa 2006.

[29] B. Karwat-Woźniak, Możliwości rozwojowe...op.cit., p. 26-26.

[30] Efficiency of production resources was considered in the view of relation of gross added value to the arable area, number of employed or fixed assets value. From the estimations based on the aggregated data of CSO it shows that between 1990-2004 the efficiency of all production factors decreased by approx. 20%. In turn the farms’ data which run the farming accountancy they show inter alia the growth of labour efficiency and decrease of land and capital productivity between 1990-2001, see also J. Wilkin (red.), Podstawy strategii zintegrowanego rozwoju rolnictwa i obszarów wiejskich, Wyd. UW, Warszawa 2003, p. 70-71. 

[31] See J. Gomułka, Wyniki ekonomiczne polskiego rolnictwa w latach 2003-2004, IERiGŻ, Warszawa 2005r., p.23-24 and J. Kalińska, T. Wrzaszcz, Produktywność polskiego rolnictwa w latach 1998-2006, „Roczniki Naukowe SERiA”, Tom IX, z.1, Kraków, 2007, p. 213-214.

[32] See Z. Floriańczyk, Rolnictwo polskie w świetle rachunków ekonomicznych dla rolnictwa (2005-2006), [w:] Analiza produkcyjno-ekonomicznej sytuacji rolnictwa i gospodarki żywnościowej w 2006 r., A. Woś (red.), IERiGŻ, Warszawa 2007, p. 70-79.

[33] B. Klepacki, Efektywność wykorzystania zasobów w rolnictwie polskim na tle rolnictwa dotychczasowych członków Unii Europejskiej, „Problemy rolnictwa światowego”, 2004, Tom XI, p. 138-139.