at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Historical Geography 38 (2012) 329e339

Contents lists available

Journal of Historical Geography

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jhg

Estonian family farms in transition: a study of intangible assets and gender issuesin generational succession

Ann Grubbström a and Helen Sooväli-Sepping b,*

aDepartment of Social and Economic Geography, Ekonomikum, Box 513, SE-751 20 Uppsala, SwedenbCentre for Landscape and Culture, Estonian Institute of Humanities, Tallinn University, Narva mnt 25, 10120 Tallinn, Estonia

Abstract

This paper, based on interviews, highlights intangible assets in the intergenerational transfer of farms in two Estonian municipalities from a long-termand gender perspective. The study stretches from the interwar period in the twentieth century up to the present. It has been shown that emotional bondsto the land are generally strong in Estonia. This paper aims to highlight how such bonds and feelings may influence decisions on generational succession.The results of the study indicate that family farming and land transfer have had a significant and persistent role in Estonian society, even during the Sovietperiod under its collectivised system of agriculture. Transfers of intangible assets were important during Soviet rule, for example, the transfer ofknowledge about the pre-Soviet property and the value and importance of the farmhouse. Today, family farming is gradually declining in importance, butolder traditions of farm and farmhouse transfer can still be found, such as early decisions on who is to be the successor. This is evident among activefarmers but also among former farmers with strong emotional bonds to the land. Traditional gender roles tend towards men’s knowledge still generallybeing more highly valued in the decision about who is to be the successor to the family land.� 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Generational succession; Intangible assets; Gender; Family farming; Social transformation; Eastern Europe

Decisions regarding land succession within family farming arecrucial for the survival of the farm and the possibility of keeping theland within the family. The transfer of a farm involves both physicalassets such as land and houses, and more intangible assets. Earlierresearch has highlighted knowledge of the farm or ‘farm-specificcapital’ when discussing intangible assets as part of family farmtransfer.1 In this paper, we also emphasise the values and feelingsconnected with the farm succession decision. The values and feel-ings that we want to stress are associated with the tradition offamily farming in Estonia, and the customary practice of letting theland go to a son rather than a daughter. A long-term perspective isused to gain an understanding of the changes in values and idealsduring the period investigated.

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: ann.grubbstrom@kultgeog.uu.se (A. Grubbström), helen.soovali@tl

1 M. Lobley, Succession in the family farm business, in: The Oxford Farming Conference, Oinheritance, Economic History Review 44 (1991) 477e499.

2 H. de Haan, In the Shadow of the Tree: Kinship, Property and Inheritance among Farm FHanding over the reins: a comparative study of intergenerational farm transfers in EnAgricultural Economists, Zaragoza, 29e31 August 2002.

3 Some examples are: R.D. Bohac, Peasant inheritance strategies in Russia, Journal ofational transfers of headships over the life course in an Eastern European peasant commuproperty, and family in Eastern Europe, 1500e1900, History of the Family 7, 3 (2002) 375eLithuania (1864e1904), Continuity and Change 20 (2005) 111e142. Ü. Tarkiainen, Rur1880e1914, in: P. Wawrzeniuk (Ed.), Societal Change and Ideological Formation among th

0305-7488/$ e see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jhg.2012.03.001

International research on land succession shows that the role offamily farming has been strong and persistent in Western Europethroughout the twentieth century.2 Studies that deal with landsuccession in Eastern Europe are relatively rare.3 Studies of farminheritance practices until recently have been literally non-existentin Estonian academic research. Topics related to inheritance havebeen widely discussed by legal scholars, but rarely froma geographical, historical or gender perspective. Hence, little isknown about the patterns of inheritance in rural areas. One reasonis that this topic was not an accepted field of study in the Sovietperiod. Studies of families, their lifestyles and practices were notencouraged in the social sciences: delving into the past withrespect to the former state order was treated with suspicion and

u.ee (H. Sooväli-Sepping).

xford, 2010; L. Kennedy, Farm succession in modern Ireland: elements of a theory of

amilies, D. Phil. Thesis, University of Wageningen, 1994; A. Errington and M. Lobley,gland, France, Canada and the USA, in: Conference Papers, European Association of

Interdisciplinary History 16 (1985) 23e42; C. Wetherell and A. Plakans, Intergener-nity, 1782e1850, History of the Family 3 (1998) 333e349; K. Kaser, Male domination,395; V. Pilinkaite-Sotirovic, Relationships between generations in post emancipational property, inheritance, and the modernization of the Estonian agrarian sectore Rural Population of the Baltic Area 1880e1914, 2008, 121e139.

A. Grubbström, H. Sooväli-Sepping / Journal of Historical Geography 38 (2012) 329e339330

regarded as a direct threat to the system.4 The second half of thetwentieth century has often been excluded in studies of landsuccession within family farming in Eastern Europe and our studywill therefore add to earlier research by looking further into thisperiod.

Family farming was widespread and had an important role inEstonia during the interwar period. Soviet collectivisation in 1944decimated family farming to small household farms, called plotfarms.5 However, it was often still possible to decide who wouldtake over the farmhouse and plot farming even though all land hadbeen nationalised. Plot farms were important to preservingpeople’s experience of farming during the Soviet period.6 In thisway, the tradition of family farming could be maintained. Peopleoften transferred knowledge about their pre-Soviet property to thenext generation.7 This shows that property owned before the Sovietperiod was still considered to be something that belonged to thefamily rather than to the state andwas important to the family evenduring the Soviet period. But since there were no property rightsduring this period, the transfer of intangible assets, for example, inthe form of knowledge and social relationships, may have been ofgreater significance.8

After Estonia’s re-independence one of the intentions of therestitution and privatisation process in the early 1990s was toprovide opportunities to recreating family farming. The owners ofa property in 1940, or their descendants, could apply to get back allland that had previously belonged to the property. Hedin’s studyexplains that the most important motive for regaining familyproperty was emotional, for example feelings of responsibilitiestowards earlier generations.9 Holt-Jensen and Raagmaa also showthis in their recent case study of Vormsi, which indicates thatlandowners wanted to hold on to the family land even though itwas impossible to start farming again.10 Van Dijk suggests that thespecial historical connection to land implies that emotional valuesassociated with land ownership are more important in Central andEastern European countries than in Western European societies.11

This is also shown by Jörgensen and Stjernström in their investi-gation of forest owners in Estonia.12 However, how such values andfeelings associated with the land might influence the land succes-sion decision has not yet been studied.

Earlier studies show that in general are land transferred fromfather to son. Daughters mainly gain access to a farm throughmarriage or as a result of the absence of sons.13 Parents often havedifferent expectations of their sons and daughters and introduce

4 T. Peil, Emerging, submerging and persisting ideas: is there social and cultural geog5 H. Palang and H. Sooväli-Sepping, Are there counter-landscapes? On milk trestles a6 R. Abrahams, After Socialism: Land Reform and Social Change in Eastern Europe, Oxfo7 P. Maandi, The silent articulation of private land rights in Soviet Estonia: a geograp8 I. Asztalos Morell, The importance of cultural, economic and social capital in the gene

in Hungary, in: Á. Neményi (Ed.), Trends in Land Succession, Cluj, 2009, 97e133.9 S. Hedin, Back to family land? A study of land restitution in the former Swedish

regionstudier 54, diss, Department of Economic and Social Geography, Uppsala, 2003.10 A. Holt-Jensen and G. Raagmaa, Restitution of agricultural land in Estonia: consequen(2010) 129e141.11 T. Van Dijk, Complications for traditional land consolidation in Central Europe, Geof12 H. Jörgensen, and O. Stjernström, Emotional links to forest ownership: restitution of95e111.13 L. Ferrer Alòs, When there was no male heir: the transfer of wealth through womeB. Wyss, Gendered interest and motivation of the younger generation in agriculture andParticipation and Rural Restructuring, Research in Rural Sociology and Development 13 (British family farming patriarchal way of life, Journal of Rural Studies 25 (2009) 1e11.14 C. Wang, Daughter exclusion in family business succession: a review of the literatu15 III Põllumajandusloendus 1939. a. vihik I, Riigi Statistika Keskbüroo, Tallinn, 1940.16 M. Aasmäe, T. Pae, T. Tamla (Eds), Jõelähtme: teejuht rändajale ja koduloohuvilisele, T17 Hedin, Back to family land? (note 9), 78.18 G. Hoppe, I spåren av Sovjetmilitären. Resultaten av 50 års verksamhet i Baltikum176e197.

them to farm life in different ways.14 By investigating the Estoniancase, wewant to further discuss how gender issues have influencedthe decision regarding who to appoint as the successor of the farmandwhat values and feelings guide considerations based on gender.

In this paper, we investigate intangible assets by highlightingthe values and feelings that are associated with the transferprocess. Firstly we want to examine how values and feelings con-nected to the tradition of family farming influenced the transferprocess; and secondly the feelings and values associated with thegender of the successor and how this influenced the transferdecision. Thirdly, we discuss how these ideas, values and feelingshave changed over the course of the twentieth century.

Case study areas

With a view to shedding light on land succession, two municipal-ities were selected as case study areas: Jõelähtme outside Tallinnand Noarootsi, situated in the coastal region of North West Estonia(Fig. 1). Agriculture has historically been significant for people’slivelihoods in both areas. Jõelähtme has been an important agri-cultural region due to its location close to Tallinn, Estonia’s capitalcity. Up until the 1990s, the main form of employment was agri-culture. Noarootsi had, compared to Jõelähtme, poorer conditionsfor agriculture, with generally meagre soils. The activities of thepopulation in Noarootsi and in the northern part of Jõelähtme havebeen closely linked to the sea, and traditionally agriculture andfishing were combined.

In 1939, the population of Jõelähtme was 1169, in Noarootsi2246.15 The Jõelähtme region suffered a significant decline in pop-ulation after collectivisation in the 1950s. There were not enoughjobs available in the countryside and theyouthof Jõelähtme escapedto Tallinn, since to work on the collective farm was perceived asa dead end.16 Noarootsi was then affected by extensive populationloss in connection with the Second World War and the subsequentoccupations. A considerable part of the population in Noarootsi wasSwedish. In 1943e1944, about 1257 Estonian Swedes from Noar-ootsi left Estonia because of the threat of a second Soviet occupa-tion.17 Most of them went to Sweden and their former farms weresometimes taken over by people moving in from other parts ofEstonia. As a coastal border area, Noarootsi was also heavily mil-itarised during the Soviet occupation with restrictions to visit thearea.18 A lot of people moved to the cities and those who stayedworked on the kolkhozes and had small plot farms of their own.

raphy in Estonia?, Social and Cultural Geography 7 (2006) 463e492.nd invisible power lines, Landscape Research, 2011, 1e16, first article.rd, 1996.hical perspective, Geoforum 40 (2009) 454e464.sis of farm family enterprises during the transition from state socialism to capitalism

settlement areas of Estonia after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in: Geografiska

ces for landscape development and production, Norwegian Journal of Geography 64

orum 38 (2007) 505e511.land and use of a productive resources in Põlva County, Estonia, Fennia 186 (2008)

n in Catalonia (the pubilla), Continuity and Change 20 (2005) 27e52; R. Rossier andfarm succession, in: I. Asztalos Morell and B.B. Bock (Eds), Gender Regimes, Citizen2008) 193e216; L. Price and N. Evans, From stress to distress: conceptualizing the

re, Journal of family and Economic Issues 31 (2010) 475e484.

allinn, 2011.

med exempel från Estland, in: G. Hoppe (Ed.), Öster om Östersjön, Motala, 2000,

Fig. 1. Jõelähtme and Noarootsi municipality.

A. Grubbström, H. Sooväli-Sepping / Journal of Historical Geography 38 (2012) 329e339 331

After the collapse of collective farming in the early 1990s, manyfarm owners in Jõelähtme and Noarootsi took up small-scalefarming. A large number of those farmers quit farming since itwas unprofitable. It should also be mentioned that the Estoniangovernment did not provide extended economic support for the re-establishment of farmsteads.19 At present there are only a fewfamily farmers and three large-scale farmers working in each of thetwo municipalities studied. Most of the agricultural land of theformer family farms is leased to the big farms. Today, farmlandproperties, along the coast in particular, are attractive as secondhomes.

Estonia’s only designated heritage area outside the city, RebalaHeritage Reserve, is situated in Jõelähtme. Restrictions on land usein the heritage area have preserved agricultural settlement andhindered large-scale real estate development in the municipality,as has happened in the neighbouring municipalities of Tallinn.20

The coastline in Noarootsi is partly set aside as a nature reserve,which also restricts land use and the possibility to sell land.However, the restrictions do not impact agricultural activity.

The choice of Jõelähtme and Noarootsi as study areas enabled ustomeet individuals with different experiences of farming, includingfamily farmers, plot farmers, large-scale farmers and thosewho hadleft farming altogether. This choice of areas also made it possible tofurther explore how discussions about land succession havechanged as family farming is disappearing and to discuss how thespecific conditions of these areas have affected decision-making ata time of generational change.

Methods

In this paper, processes of transfer are seen as a complex of socio-spatial relationships between people, their farms and lands. As

19 I. Alanen, Baltic agriculture after the de-collectivisation, in: L. Granberg, I. Kovách (E20 H. Sooväli, H. Palang and S. Tint, Rebala Heritage Reserve (North Estonia): historicaÀrbol, H. van Londen, A. Orejas (Eds), LANDMARKS: Profiling Europe’s Historic Landscapes21 S. Mann, Understanding farm succession by the objective hermeneutics method, So

the focus of the study is on intangible assets in land succession,interviews were conducted in order to gather information thatwould make it possible to understand and analyse these relation-ships. The interviews were considered to be useful in providingdeepened insight into farming traditions, gender and the transfer ofintangible assets in land succession. As Mann points out, qualitativemethods make it possible to uncover the underlying forces that caninfluence land transfer to the next generation.21

A total of 47 semi-structured interviews provide the basis of theanalyses in this paper. The selection criteria for finding respondentswere that the chosen respondents would have a long family historyand experience of farming on the farm in question. The group ofinterviewees involves both former family farmers and those whohave continued to operate and even expanded their family farms. Itwas also important that both female and male respondents shouldbe represented. To provide further variety in the sample, theinterviewees from Noarootsi municipality came from the coastalarea, whereas the interviewees in Jõelähtme came from inland.

In Jõelähtme municipality, the heads of villages gave us infor-mation about people in their villages that would be suitable for ourstudy. Sampling was done thereafter according to the snowballmethod. All together 10 respondents, of which seven were womenand three men, were interviewed in August 2008. The intervieweeswere between 25 and 70 years old. All of the interviewees hadexperienced plot farming during the Soviet period but six of themdid not continue with family farming after independence. Fourstarted a family farm after Estonian independence in 1991, but twogave it up after a couple of years. An interview with two brotherswho run a large-scale farm in Jõelähtme was conducted in October2009. In Noarootsi, transcripts from an earlier interview-basedstudy with 25 individuals who lived in Noarootsi during theinterwar period were analysed with respect to the research

ds), Actors on the Changing European Countryside, Budapest, 1998, 144e168.l and political challenges in maintaining the landscapes, in: C. Bartels, M. Ruiz del, Bochum, 2008, 43e49.ciologia Ruralis 47 (2007) 369e383.

A. Grubbström, H. Sooväli-Sepping / Journal of Historical Geography 38 (2012) 329e339332

question of this paper.22 Those interviews were conducted with 11women and 14 men during the years 1998e2001 and mainlyconcerned the interwar period. Eight interviews with four womenand four men, respectively, were also conducted with landownersfrom Paslepa village in Noarootsi in 2006. Six of the intervieweeswere farmers at the time of the interview and the other two hadexperience from plot farming during the Soviet period. The selec-tion of interviewees was made with the use of parish registers andcensuses. Two additional interviews with large-scale farmers fromNoarootsi were conducted in June 2009.

The interviews were conducted in Estonian with Swedishtranslation and lasted for approximately 1 hour. The interviewswere designed as oral historieswhere the interviewees told us abouttheir experiences and comprehension of the succession within thefamily line. Sometimes more than one family member participatedin the interview. The majority of the interviews were conducted onthe actual farm, which was important for our understanding of thefamily history. We could see the actual land and buildings and someof the interviewees showed us maps, photos and other documentsthat illustrated their story. The questions concerning generationalchange focused on (a) the three periods of twentieth-centuryEstonian history: the interwar period, collectivisation and re-independence; (b) the gender perspective. The interviews weretranscribed word by word and analysed through coding and theresults have been placed in an historical context. During the inter-views and the analysis, it became obvious that intangible assetswere an important aspect of the transfer process.

The tradition of family farming in Estonia

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the majority of familyfarms in the Russian province of Estonia were owned by BalticGerman landlords. It was not obvious that the next generationwould be allowed to take over their parents’ tenant contract for thefarm. The landlord could evict and move families if the tenantfamily were incapable of fulfilling their obligations under sucha contract.23 A peasant law in 1856 made it possible for peasants topurchase their tenant holdings from their landlords.24 In the 1860s,at the dawn of Estonian national awakening, the press, politics andfiction all encouraged Estonians to become owners of their land.Even though the purchase process was intensified towards the endof the nineteenth century, most of the land was still owned by theBaltic German landlords by 1900.25 It was believed that thepurchase process would bring about the economic and social

22 A. Grubbström, Estonian Swedish ethnic survival: examples from Nuckö in the inte23 J. Kahk and E. Tarvel, Large estates and small holdings in Estonia from sixteenth toexploitations en Europe au moyen age et dans les temps modernes, rapports nationaux (LargReport), Budapest, 1982, 361e377.24 I.L. Evans, The agrarian revolution in the new Baltic states, in: The Slavonic Review: ALondon, 1924e1925.25 J. Kahk and K. Siilivask, History of the Estonian SSR, Tallinn, 1979.26 H. Palang, H. Alumäe, A. Printsmann, M. Rehema, K. Sepp, and H. Sooväli-Sepping, So28, 1 (2011) 19e25.27 M. Kalm, Estonian Twentieth-century Architecture, Tallinn, 2002. Peasant is talupojad28 A. Mark, Talu iseseisvas Eestis, in: B. Kangro, V. Uibopuu (Eds), Eesti talu koguteos sõnpost-Tsarist Estonia, 1918e1940, Journal of Historical Geography 36 (2010) 441e452.29 A. Mägi, Talu eestluse arengus, in: B. Kangro, V. Uibopuu (Eds), Eesti talu koguteos s30 V. Tihhomirov, Kolhoosiasulate planeerimise alused eesti ENSV-s. e Eesti NSV kolhoosimaal hea? Majandi keskasula Eesti NSVs/Is urban life in the countryside good? The centra(2008) 61e88.31 I. Alanen, Mapping the Rural Problem in the Baltic Countryside: Transition Processes indiversification in the Baltic countryside: a local perspective, GeoJournal 70 (2007) 47e5(Traditional) landscape identity e globalized, abandoned, sustained?, in: E. Tiezzi, C.A.ampton, 2003, 925e935; E. Kaur, H. Palang, H. Sooväli, Landscapes in change: opposing32 R. Abrahams, The emergence of new family farmers: the countryside in Estonia in traReform, London, 1992, 133e148.

independence of the people, and thereby ensure economic inde-pendence for the Estonian territory. Farms and farming havethereafter been at the core of Estonian popular nationalistdiscourse into the twenty-first century.26

After the War of Independence, the farms owned by landlordswere expropriated and more than 50,000 new farmhouses weredistributed to Estonian peasants.27 In 1939, there were 140,000farms in Estonia.28 By the 1930s, the idea of the farm had beenconstructed e consciously or unconsciously e as an ideal andperfect form of society. It was a patriarchal system and the peremees(family man) owned and controlled the farm.29 This ideal of thefamily farm continued to nourish the Estonians through the Sovietoccupation e including both those living inside and outside theiron-curtained Estonia. From the 1950s onwards, Communistideology prescribed a new settlement pattern in rural Estonia, andits outcome was standardised multi-storey buildings. It wasbelieved that an apartment with all conveniences in a block of flatsinstead of life in a shabby farmhouse would make Soviet citizenshappy. Farmsteads often remained the place of residence, buta farmhouse situated away from the kolkhoz centre was declared tobe both ideologically a foundation stone of individualism andeconomically an obstacle to large-scale production.30

During the Soviet era, the general trend was that the oldergeneration lived on in the farmhouse and the younger generationmoved either to the newly built apartment blocks in the kolkhoz orto towns and cities. The farmhouse still meant home and wasfrequently visited by the children to help their parents withmakinghay, picking potatoes, renovating the house, and so on. In this way,the connection with the farm persisted from generation to gener-ation. From the beginning of the 1990s and onwards, most familieshave owned their farmhouse and lands, and farming and living inthe countryside has been strongly idealised along the lines ofartworks and fiction, state propaganda and the ideals of theNational Romantic Era, and 1930s Estonia.31 Abrahams emphasisesthat experience and knowledge about farming was widelydisseminated among the population, since the older generation hadexperienced private farming in the interwar period and theyounger generation had participated in plot farming during theSoviet period.32 The step to re-establishing a family farm wastherefore not very great. Some farm owners returned from citiesand towns or kolkhoz settlements to their childhood homes to takeup farming again on restituted land. However, this enthusiasm soonwaned under the new economic circumstances, and a lot of landwas sold, especially near the bigger cities. In 2007, there were about

rwar period, Acta Borealia 24 (2007) 162e175.the nineteenth century, in: P. Gunst, T Hoffmann (Eds), Grand domaine et petites

e Estates and Small Holdings in Europe in the Middle Ages and Modern Times, National

Survey of the Slavonic Peoples, their History, Economics, Philology and Literature, Vol. 3,

cial landscape: ten years of planning valuable landscapes in Estonia, Land Use Policy

in Estonian and could be translated as ‘son of the farm’.as ja pildis, Lund, 1959, 12e22; P. Maandi, Land reforms and territorial integration in

õnas ja pildis, Lund, 1959, 39e46.asulate planeerimisest ja ehitamisest, Tallinn, 1953, quoted in M. Kalm, Ons linnaelul settlements of collective farms in the Estonian SSR, Studies on Art and Architecture 4

the Rural Areas of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, Aldershot, 2004, L. Herslund, Rural9; H. Sooväli, H. Palang, H. Alumäe, M. Külvik, E. Kaur, T. Oja, M. Prede and T. Pae,Brebbia, J.-L. Uso (Eds), Ecosystems and Sustainable Development IV, Vol. 2, South-attitudes in Saaremaa, Estonia, Landscape and Urban Planning 67 (2003) 109e120.nsition, in: D. Lane David (Ed.), Russia in Flux: The Political and Social Consequences of

A. Grubbström, H. Sooväli-Sepping / Journal of Historical Geography 38 (2012) 329e339 333

7000 farmers in Estonia.33 As in other Central and Eastern Euro-pean countries, agriculture is dominated today by a few large-scalefarmers and the number of family farms is gradually declining. Theconcept of the farm has been transformed in the Estonian psyche. Itdoes not just stand for agriculture and active farming: it also meansa country house or second house e often a privilege of the middleclass.

Consequently, farming in Estonia has undergone considerablechanges during the study period: from feudal conditions to free-holder and, during the interwar period, family farming in inde-pendent Estonia, and thereafter the Soviet regime withnationalisation and terror. These historical events have createdspecial conditions affecting family ties and the emotions related tothe land, which are reflected in our interviews.

Transfer of intangible assets

The transfer of land to the next generation includes the transfer ofboth tangible and intangible assets. Bourdieu argues that oneshould not look at only the commercial exchanges but also otherforms of exchange that involve intangible assets such as forexample networks and knowledge.34 In the context of generationalchange within farming, Lobley discusses intangible assets as beingknowledge about the specific farm and its environment.35 Here wewant to highlight the importance of intangible assets at the familylevel, focussing on family relationships, knowledge and values. Inthis case, values could be seen as a reference to what is beneficialfor the family and the farm and something that influences theattitudes and feelings of family members. Asztalos Morell hasinvestigated the conversion of intangible assets during transition inHungary through analyses of life stories. She found that intangibleassets were mobilised to cope with the Soviet collectivisation.Intangible assets could help individuals to copewithmaterial lossesand traumatic events.36 Since there were no property rights duringthe Soviet period in Estonia, intangible assets could compensate forthe lack of formal inheritance. Intangible assets are hard to observeand check,37 especially if they mainly exist within the familycontext. Taken together, this makes it especially relevant to inves-tigate the importance of intangible assets in Estonia under theSoviet regime.

The transfer of intangible assets is seen as a part of the social-isation of the children. The socialisation of the chosen successor isimportant for various reasons. It prepares the successor for takingover the farm, and the successor is often chosen at an early stage.An early decision on a successor creates stability about future plansfor and management of the farm and time for the successor to besocialised into the role of the farmer.38 During this process, the

33 L. Rannamets, Talud hääbuvad, euromõisad õitsevad, Videvik 11 (2007).34 P. Bourdieu, The forms of capital, in: G.G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and35 Lobley, Succession in the family farm business (note 1), 14.36 I. Asztalos Morell, AGER, Collectivization and the transfer of soft capital in two life st37 A. Wyatt, Accounting recognition of intangible assets: theory and evidence on econ38 M. Calus, G. Van Huylenbroeck and D. Van Lierde, The relationship between farm sPotter and M. Lobley, Unbroken threads? Succession and its effects on family farms inFamiljejordbruket i två svenska slättbygder under 1900-talet, Uppsala, 1999.39 Kennedy, Farm succession in modern Ireland (note 1).40 Potter and Lobley, Unbroken threads? (note 38), 294.41 Kennedy, Farm succession in modern Ireland (note 1), 484.42 Pilinkaite-Sotirovic, Relationships between generations in post emancipation Lithua43 M. Smith, J. Davidson, L. Cameron and L. Bondi, Introduction: geography and emotiEmotion, Place and Culture, Aldershot, 2009, 1e18.44 Price and Evans, From stress to distress (note 13).45 Rossier and Wyss, Gendered interest and motivation of the younger generation in a46 B. Brandth, Gender identity in European family farming: a literature review, Sociolo47 Flygare, Generation och kontinuitet (note 38), 330e331.

successor develops farm-specific capital that will help him/her tomanage the farm.39 Potter and Lobley’s research in the UK indicatesthat it is more common for larger and economically successfulfarms to decide on succession at an early stage.40 Kennedy pointsout that if there are many potential successors, this makes itpossible to maintain traditions and norms during the transferprocess.41 Finally, the socialisation process also places expectationson the successor, such as that the elderly parents will be taken careof.42 Such expectations are valid for both for Western and EasternEurope and have their foundation in past and present family life onthe farm but also reflect future plans and strategies.

The socialisation of the successor could also involve the transferof emotional values connected to the farm and the family.According to Smith, Davidson, Cameron and Bondi emotions are ‘anoverlooked territory in between mind and matter, subject andobject’. They also stress that historical geography has taken anemotional turn and that investigations that discuss how emotionalvalues differ in time and place are needed.43 In what follows, wewant to deepen the discourse about the emotional bonds betweenthe individual and the farm and their importance for transferprocesses. We also highlight the specific historical conditions inEstonia that have contributed to the evolution of strong emotionalbonds to the land among many farm owners.

Gender-specific socialisation

One theme that has drawn our particular attention in studyingintangible assets in the land succession is that of gender. InWesternEurope studies show that the gender division of labour on the farmhas been and still is an important basis for the differential social-isation of sons and daughters. During their childhood years,daughters and sons are socialised into a gender identity thatinvolves different duties as well as norms about where those dutiesare performed.44 Rossier and Wyss call this gender-specific social-isation, whereby daughters often accompany their mothers andsons tend to accompany their fathers in their work.45 Daughters aretherefore not prepared for the role of a successor. The traditionaldomain for women was domestic work and for men, fieldwork.Womenwere often looked upon as specialists in their reproductiveduties and consequently the most suitable to take care of childrenand elderly family members.46 A question which arises here is: didthis gender-based division of labour mean differences in the statusof different work? On the basis of her research in twentieth-centurySweden, Flygare claims that women’s work on the farm had a lowerstatus and that women took on men’s work only when there wasa scarcity of male labour.47 It is also argued that women have beenmore flexible, whereas men have rarely participated in work that

Research for the Sociology of Education, Westport, 1986, 241e258.

ories from Hungary. Journal of Depopulation and Rural Development Studies (2012) 9.omic determinants, Accounting Review 80 (2005) 967e1003.uccession and farm assets on Belgian farms, Sociologia Ruralis 48 (2008) 38e56; C.Britain, Sociologia Ruralis 36 (1996) 286e306; I. Flygare, Generation och kontinuitet.

nia (1864e1904) (note 3), 118.ons: emerging constellations, in: M. Smith, J. Davidson, L. Cameron, L. Bondi (Eds),

griculture and farm succession (note 13), 209e211.gia Ruralis 42 (2002) 181e200.

A. Grubbström, H. Sooväli-Sepping / Journal of Historical Geography 38 (2012) 329e339334

belongs to the women’s work domain.48 Research has shown thatthemodernisation of agriculture has led to changes inwomen’s andmen’s work domains. As a consequence of this process, womenbecame more like assistants to their husbands and this conse-quently meant a more hierarchical gender order on the familyfarm.49 Some studies suggest that Estonia became more patriarchalafter 1991 while others suggest that such tendencies also wereapparent during the Soviet period but were just less obvious then.50

Research into the experience of farm women in Estonia at thebeginning of independence showed that generally women weremore tied to the farm than men, since men spent time off the farmmore frequently.51 Our study adds to earlier research by focussingon individual experiences and the feelings associated with ques-tions of gender in connection to farm succession in Estonia. We alsowant to provide new insights into how and why those values andfeelings change over time.

The concept of gender contract can be used at different levelsfrom the individual to the institutional.52 Forsberg and Stenbackahave developed the geographical aspect of this concept when dis-cussing local variations in expectations and conditions for men andwomen.53 Here, we use the gender contract concept to explainrelationships at the individual level, including agreements betweenhusband and wife in their home. We focus on what possibilities thefamilies have had to act within the gender structures of the society,especiallywith respect to traditions concerning thedivisionof labourand family livelihood. The farm is a place where the gender order ofagriculture is expressed in the relationship between man andwoman and their agreement concerning different types of activitiesthat take place in different areas within the property. It is importantto emphasisewhat the gender division of labourmeanswith respectto the status of sons and daughters as potential successors.

Traditions of land inheritance in Estonia

In the Estonian tradition of farm inheritance it was the oldest son ofthe family who should inherit the farm. There are numerousexamples in twentieth-century Estonian fiction of plots based onfamily stories where the male hero is a farm owner, for example,the novels ‘Ukuaru’ and ‘Kõrboja farm owner’. In the absence ofa son, the farm could be transferred to a married daughter. On thebasis of an historical pilot study of the wills of farmers in TarvastuParish, Livonia, Järs claims that the oldest son was most frequentlythe owner of the farm, although the farm could have been inheritedby a younger son or a daughter. Other children received compen-sation for their part of the inheritance in money or in some otherform, for example, education or domestic animals. They could alsobe offered positions as farm hands or skilled labourers on the farmsuch as carpenters. Järs argues that in her area of research, inher-itance practices could be characterised as flexible. She assumes that

48 E.L. Thorsen, Det fleksible kjønn. Mentalitetsendringer i tre generasjoner bondekvinner,and M. Isacsson, Det svenska jordbrukets historia e Jordbruket i välfärdssamhället 1945e249 Brandth, Gender identity in European family farming (note 46), 189.50 S. Joons, Estniskt arbetsliv och könsperspektivseende, Øst forum, Samfunn og kultur51 R. Abrahams, Women and rural development in contemporary Estonia, Rural Histor52 Y. Hirdman, Genussystemet, in: Statens offentliga utredningar, Stockholm, 1990, 44;53 G. Forsberg, Regional variation in the gender contracts: gendered relations in labour mSciences 11 (1998) 191e202, S. Stenbacka, Rural identities in transition: male unemploym(Eds), Gender Regimes, Citizen Participation and Rural Restructuring, Research in Rural S54 A. Järs, ‘Selge meele ja targa mõistusega’ Talupojatestamendid etnoloogi pilgu läbi,55 Talundite pärimise seadus 1939.56 T. Peil, and M. Bonow, Community boundaries in the nineteenth-century landscaGeographers Meeting, Turku, Finland, 9e11.06, Turku, 2009, 43.57 A. Grubbström, From farms to second homes: gendered strategies for generationSuccession, Cluj, 2009, 135e153.58 Flygare, Generation och kontinuitet (note 38), 375.

in that respect, her study areamost likely did not differ significantlyfrom other parts of Estonia and Livonia.54 According to the 1939Farm Inheritance Act, it was possible for a wife to inherit the farm ifthis was stipulated in the will. If the wife was not mentioned in thewill, the Act stated that a male beneficiary took precedence overa female beneficiary.55 Recent studies from the Pakri peninsulaconcerning the nineteenth century indicate that both sons anddaughters inherited farms. The variation in inheritance practiceswas considerable, with some of the farms changing hands, the eldersiblings leaving, and with other strategies, including adoption,being used.56 A detailed study of Noarootsi municipality has shownthat a great majority of the farms were transferred to the oldest sonup until the Soviet period. Thereafter it was more often a daughteror a younger son who took over the farmhouse, compared to theearlier period.57

The interwar period: family farming as an ideal

When interpreting the results, it is essential to bear in mind thatthe tradition of family farming is a relatively late phenomenon inEstonia. In several cases, the interviewees’ grandparents or parentswere the first generation of private farmers only. To be able topurchase land instead of working for the landlords was, for mostfarmers, a relief and regarded as a very important step in thefamily’s history. It was therefore of great significance that the farmwas successfully transferred to the next generation. Strategies anddecisions about the transfer of the farm were often openly dis-cussed within the family, and as Flygare noted in her research inSweden, it was decided who would take over the farm at an earlystage.58 The same pattern was traceable among our interviewees,recounting that the oldest son was the obvious successor and thatthis was something that all the siblings were aware of right fromthe time when they were small children.

Issues of farm transfer are frequently discussed under theassumption that it was advantageous to be the successor to thefarm. Although we do not deny the benefits, we also want tohighlight the responsibilities that were involved in the transferagreements. To be a successor did not just mean taking overresponsibility for the farm but also implied taking care of the oldergeneration. Our interviews indicate that in addition it was commonthroughout the twentieth century to keep younger siblings on thefarm or to support siblings with goods from the farm. One inter-viewee recounts her mother’s story:

1920e1000, La

i Russlany 5 (199Y. Hirdmarkets,ent anociologyPro Ethn

pe, in:

al chang

It was a rough time for the first ten years from 1925 to 1935,since they had to toil for the other children as well. My fatherhad to support his four younger siblings while those whowere older could start their own life at once. Since therewereso many people on the farm, it was impossible to have

985, D. Phil. Thesis, University of Oslo, Institutt for Etnologi, 1989, I. Flygaregersberg, 2003.

d og Øst-Europa 15 (2001) 29e37.4) 217e226.an, Genussystemet, in: Demokrati och makt i Sverige, Stockholm, 1990.local politics and everyday life in Swedish regions, European Journal of Sociald everyday practice in the North of Sweden, in: I. Asztalos Morell, B.B. Bockand Development 13 (2008) 83e111.ologia 3 (1993) http://www.erm.ee (accessed 1 October 2009).

Change e Society, Environment and Science in Transition, The Third Nordic

e in Noarootsi, Estonia, 1880e2006, in: Á. Neményi (Ed.), Trends in Land

59 Inte60 Gru61 Inte62 Ma

A. Grubbström, H. Sooväli-Sepping / Journal of Historical Geography 38 (2012) 329e339 335

children of their own. They did not have children until twelveyears after they had married because it was so much work.59

The economic responsibilities that accompanied the landtransfer could be so burdensome that they restricted the succes-sor’s possibilities to have a family life of their own. The chosensuccessors had little chance of changing the plan for generationalfarm succession without gravely disappointing their parents. Theinterviews indicate that, for many children, it was an inevitabledecision and an honour to take over the family farm as Estonianeconomy was based primarily on agriculture at that time. Thesuccessor’s feeling of responsibility is obvious. Generally there wasno scarcity of potential successors in the areas studied before theoutbreak of the SecondWorldWar. However, this situation changeddrastically in Noarootsi when young men within the Swedishminority started to leave Estonia in 1939 because of the threat ofbeing conscripted into the army. The culmination of the departureof the Estonian Swedish population came in 1943e1944. Thosewhostayed on their farms had lost potential successors in manyinstances. Thewar also meant that farms in Jõelähtme lost sons, butnot to the same extent.

The interviewees often talk proudly and with some nostalgiaabout the farm and the work that their parents and grandparentsdid there. They also gave vent to the deep disappointment andfrustration that most farmers felt after having built up somethingvaluable and valued which was then lost after such a short time,when Soviet occupation nationalised farmsteads. This disappoint-ment and frustration are important in understanding the emotionsconnected with the land that sometimes developed within suc-ceeding generations.

Transfer processes during collectivisation: the importance ofintangible assets

At first sight, the abolition of private land ownership as a result ofthe collectivisation and nationalisation processes would seem tohave ended all possibilities to discuss the succession of land.However, we want to argue that it is possible to analyse the takeover of the farmhouse and the small plot farm in the context oftransfer processes. In this section, the discussion concentrates onthe relationship between the owner and the successor and thevalues and knowledge that are transferred.

We found three values associated with family farming to beimportant for parents to transfer to the next generation: firstly theimportance of the house, secondly the importance of takingresponsibility for family members, and thirdly the memory of thepre-Soviet property and farming.Many families had lost fathers andsons in the war. In addition, people who were considered undesir-able by the Soviet rulers were deported to Siberia. During the Sovietperiod, young people also often left the countryside for a moremodern and comfortable life in the city. Taken together, this had thepotential effect of creating a scarcity of potential successors.However, the scarcity of potential successors seems to have beenmore apparent in Noarootsi, since there family members relativelyoften had left the country. This meant that decisions made previ-ouslywith respect to generational changebecamedifficult to realise.Under those circumstances, the tradition that the oldest son shouldinherit the farm could not be upheld and it seems to have beenmorea matter of chance who took over the farmhouse. Parents hadlimited possibilities with respect to choosing a specific child and the

rview with a woman from Jõelähtme.bbström, From farms to second homes (note 57), 147.rview with a woman from Noarootsi.andi, The silent articulation of private land rights in Soviet Estonia (note 7), 10.

most important thingwas simply that the successorwas one of theirchildren so that the house could stay in the family.60 Those fromNoarootsi that took over during Soviet period described this as:‘Someone had to stay’, ‘I was the only one left’, and ‘You couldn’t justleave the house and the farm’. It seems that circumstances weresomewhat better for upholding the traditions of farm transferamong our interviewees in Jõelähtme. Several interviewees wereasked in early childhood if they wanted to take over the house andthere seem to have been more successors to choose from.

The feeling of responsibility towards parents is evident in bothareas studied. The tradition that the successor should take care oftheir parents prevailed. Several of the interviewees mentioned thattheir parents had expressed concern about what would happen tothe house and who would take over the house and the small plotfarm. The relief that the older generation felt when the successorwas settled on is mentioned often. One interviewee described herparent’s concern in this way:

They were really worried.Mymother was sad since none ofthe children wanted to take over the house. It started to fallapart and I said that I promised that the house would not fallinto decay and then my mother got some peace.61

In this case, evidently, the farmhouse was a symbol of familytradition. Children were socialised to take care of the house andtheir elderly parents. It was important that one of the children tookon that responsibility. The child that took over often mentions thehouse and the farm as a symbol of the family roots. The fact that thehouse has been in the family for a long time contributes signifi-cantly to this feeling.

The lengthy Soviet occupation meant that people gave up ideasabout a future in private farming on their pre-Soviet period prop-erty. However, many still hadmemories of the land and agriculturalactivities from the past. In line with Maandi’s research findings inthe Muhu area, these memories were often transferred to the nextgeneration.62 Parents and grandparents had shown their descen-dants’ maps and photographs from the interwar period, talkedabout their former properties using their old traditional names,showed former boundaries and described former cultivationpractices and other activities associated with the land. It was alsopossible to make hay on meadows that had belonged to the familyfarm and while making hay, children learned which piece of landthe family had owned before the occupation. The disappointmentand anger associated with losing the land in the 1940s weresomething children of that time were very much aware of, eventhough it was rarely expressed directly for fear of reprisals. Someexperienced a kind of knowledge transfer about cultivation on thislost property, whereas others felt that their parents had lost allmotivation for this. One man from Jõelähtme describes how hisfather was so deeply disappointed that he never taught his childrenanything about how to run the farm.

After gaining independence: the re-creation of family farming

The privatisation and restitution process that started after Estonianindependence made it possible for people to once again own theproperty that had belonged to the family before 1940. In thisnational awakening, land and farms were regarded as icons of thenew independence. Family farming had indeed survived as an idealand norm during the Soviet period. There was generally quite

A. Grubbström, H. Sooväli-Sepping / Journal of Historical Geography 38 (2012) 329e339336

a high level of interest in the possibility of starting family farmingamong those who had access to restituted land. Each farmwas alsoable to get domestic animals from the state as part of the restitutionprocess. Every farm was entitled to apply for the number of cows,pigs and so forth that they were forced to leave to the kolkhoz inconnection with collectivisation. One woman from Jõelähtme whotook up farming after the completion of restitution processdescribed her feelings and the reactions from her family like this:

63 Inte64 H. J

It was a sense of mission, this farm means everything. Whenwe started all over again with farming, the whole familycame to look. They patted our cows and said that we haddone so well and also that our parents would be happy whenthey looked down from the heaven and saw that the farm hasfound a new life.63

This highlights the high status accorded to family farmingduring this era of new independence. To start farming again wassomething that people admired. In this case of this interviewee,there is also a keen awareness of her feelings of responsibilitytowards her parents and the values associated with the farm.A farm should be operating and producing. However, those whoexpanded a former plot farm with their returned animals as thebasis had problems with milk delivery. They were not paid in full orwere paid late and eventually the milk buyer went bankrupt. Farmsbecame unprofitable and this was the death knell for many smallfamily farms.

Those who continued to farm on a small scale often operatewhat we might call a continuation of the small Soviet plot farm.They are often pensioners and they keep on farming as away to ekeout their small pensions, as hobby or lifestyle and also a way toprevent the land from becoming overgrown (Fig. 2). Most smallplot farmers do not expect that their children will take over thefarm. In these families, the process of preparing the successor forfarming is therefore no longer a part of the socialisation process.However, it is evident that even though the owners don’t see anyfuture in farming, they often have a strong, historically rooted,emotional bond to land. This is also shown in a recent surveyamong landowners in Estonia, where emotional reasons foracquiring land override economic ones.64

In our study, the importance of emotional values becameobvious when the interviewees discussed the next generation shift.They generally do not want to sell the land, in particular not thefarmhouse, and it is important that the property stays in the family.The most important quality of a potential successor is an interest inthe house and the will to spend time there. It is also important thatthe successor is able to take care of the house and renovate it ifnecessary. Since the owners attach strong emotional value to theirproperty, it is of great importance to make plans for its transfer tothe next generation. It is something that they have thought a lotabout and it appears that the old tradition of designating thesuccessor in early childhood still prevails among the interviewedfarmers. One example is a woman in her forties who took over hergrandparent’s property and renovated the house. She has alreadydiscussed the future of the property with her children. Her oldestson who is 14 is not interested, but the younger son wants to takeover the property. The socialisation process here is not intended toprepare the child for the role of farmer but rather to take care of thehouse and to keep the property in the family. If the successor isdecided upon at an early stage, it is likely tomake the successor feelresponsible for meeting parental expectations and less likely to failto live up to the confidence that has been shown.

rview with a woman from Jõelähtme.örgensen, A. Grubbström and O. Stjernström, Private landowners’ relation to lan

Beside the small plot farms that are still in operation, there area few large-scale farmers who run their enterprises as a familybusiness. The long family tradition of farming on the Jõelähtmefarm seems to have been important for the decision to continue andexpand farming activities: ‘Our father is very much into traditionsand he probably had a sense of duty or a mission that meant thatsomeone has to keep the family heritage’. The two brothers alsoexplain how they have contributed to the farm since childhood, andin this way have been socialised into the role of farmer. The large-scale farmers in Noarootsi have not inherited a family farm andboth live in apartments. They have important contacts from thekolkhoz period but very little experience of family farming and thistradition therefore had no influence on their decision to focus onfarming. The large-scale farmers took advantage of the situationwhen many people received farmland through restitution eventhough they had no intention to become farmers. However, manylandowners wanted their land to be actively used and decided tolease out land and sell animals.

For the interviewed large-scale farmers, it is crucial thatsomeone in the family continues to farm the land. However, one ofthe farmers in Noarootsi stressed that he probably didn’t have thesame emotional attachment as he would if he had inherited a farmwith a long family tradition. For the farmers in Jõelähtme, it is ofgreat importance to keep the farm in the family. One of them hasalready shown his two year old daughter the fields and talked aboutthe long family history. He wants his children to know ‘that this iswhere they belong’.

Gendered land transfer

Despite the legal right for women to inherit farms during the firstperiod of Estonian independence, interviews in both Jõelähtme andNoarootsi indicate that a son, and in the first instance the eldestson, was the preferred successor. However, if the eldest sonmarriedawomanwho had inherited a farm, the second sonwas considered.A daughter inherited a farm when something had happened to theson or that there were no sons among the children. Another reasonwhy women inherited land was that the farm had enough land tobe divided among siblings and still create viable holdings. Just as inthe case of sons, it was usually the eldest daughter who inheritedland.

The interviews show that farming was a family project andeveryone had to contribute their labour. However, the division oflabour between men and women was along traditional lines, andaccords with what we know from the rest of Europe. The gendercontracts generally involved women taking care of domestic workand reproductive duties while men spent more time in the fieldsand forests. When working outside together, most duties weregender-specific. This resulted in a gender-specific socialisationprocess, since women were accompanied by the younger childrenin their work and had the older girls as helpers. When sons reachedthe age of six to seven years, they started to accompany theirfathers. The chosen successor was raised in to the role of farmer andwas prepared to eventually take over the position as farmmanager.

The gender contracts were different on farms where the manhad other sources of income than farming. In Noarootsi, where theconditions for agriculture were poor, it was common for farmssituated in villages near the coastline to be involved in fishing andshipping. Women in those villages therefore often took responsi-bility for work that traditionally was in the man’s domain. Theinterviewees from Jõelähtme did not live along the coast but it was

d and forest in two Estonian counties, Journal of Northern Studies 2 (2010) 33e54.

Fig. 2. One of the interviewees in front of her greenhouse. Photo by the authors.

A. Grubbström, H. Sooväli-Sepping / Journal of Historical Geography 38 (2012) 329e339 337

still possible to identify different forms of gender contracts there. Itcould not really be described as a local phenomenon. Instead thegender contracts depended on the situation on each farm. Onewoman interviewed describes the situation in her home: ‘It wasa bit different at this farm since my father worked as a veterinarianand often went away. My mother therefore took care of the farmand the animals’.65 In those families, the daughters had moreknowledge about work that was traditionally regarded as men’swork. Because of this, they were also better prepared to inherit thefarm.

During the Soviet period, the gender contracts on farms seem tohave continued as before, although the man’s domain wasdramatically reduced due to the nationalisation of land. It was stillthe responsibility of the successor to support their elderly parentsbut the actual care of elderly relatives waswomen’s work. There areno indications that men increased their sphere of activities, takingover domestic chores and the care of children and the elderly.Because the number of potential successors had dramaticallydeclined, especially in Noarootsi, it wasmore often a younger son ora daughter that took over the farm. Some of the interviewees saidthat traditions changed and people were more willing to leave thefarmhouse to a daughter. Others told us that they have the tradition

65 Interview with a woman from Jõelähtme.66 Interview with a woman from Jõelähtme.67 Interview with man from Jõelähtme.68 Interview with a woman from Jõelähtme.69 Interview with man from Noarootsi.

of male successors. Our interpretation is that the ideal pattern ofhaving a son as successor still persisted beneath the surface. Onewoman, the youngest of three sisters, says that she was very muchaware of the fact that her father was waiting for a son to be born,but his wish was not fulfilled. It was then decided that she wouldtake over the farm and she was prepared for her role as successorby accompanying her father in his farmwork outside. For example,she was taught how to slaughter animals, which was definitelyconsidered to be a man’s work.

Another interesting strategy that some parents practised was tothink two generations ahead when deciding on a successor.Sometimes they used land transfer to women as a step towardshanding over the farm to amale successor: ‘My sonwas the apple ofhis grandmother’s eye. Grandmother had expectations and I think itwas therefore I inherited the farm, that she wanted the farm to bepassed on to him’.66 In this family, they had discussed how upsettheir male ancestor would have been if he knew that a woman hadinherited the farm. Making plans for what would happen at futuregeneration shifts seems to be quite common and is, in a way, a formof the old tradition of creating stability by designating the successorat an early stage.

The interviewees say that today it is not important to them if theproperty is inherited by a son or a daughter, as long as they areinterested and can take care of the farmhouse. Again, in reality alsohere we find variety in answers. One man from Jõelähtme explainswhy he chose his son as his successor:

I think one has to know how to repair the house or, if you area business man/woman and can afford to hire someone to doit. But my daughter is not a business woman so she cannottake care of the farmhouse.67

This criterion for being a suitable successor in fact could bedisadvantageous to daughters. They are often brought up to beinterested in domestic and reproductive duties, which do notinclude the know how needed for renovating a house. The individ-uals interviewed often stress that nowadays women andmen sharethe work but when we asked about domestic chores, they oftenreadily admit that such work is considered to be women’s work.

In the large-scale farming families, the man seems to be the onewhomanages the business side of things and the wives are more orless described as helpers. Two of the wives interviewed have paidemployment outside the farm and one works in a store that isowned by the family. The large-scale farmers interviewed in Jõe-lähtme describe the mother’s role on the farm thus: ‘Her hobby issheep; she has no obligations on the farm’.68 Domestic work is notperceived as obligations on the farm, and it is clear that they do notthink that indoor work is included in the ‘farm work’. Spontane-ously, the large-scale farmers interviewed in Noarootsi mentiona specific son who they would like to see as their successor. Thesesons accompany their fathers in their work and show ‘an interest ofanother level’ than the other children.69

Concluding discussion

Our analysis indicates that there are three ideals that have persistedin different forms and strengths throughout the period studied:firstly the ideal and tradition of an active family farm; secondly thatthe farm, in the first instance, should preferably be transferred to

A. Grubbström, H. Sooväli-Sepping / Journal of Historical Geography 38 (2012) 329e339338

a son; and thirdly that the successor should be decided on at anearly stage. These ideals, together with their emotional attachmentto the farm, have been important for parents when they haveworked out strategies intended to achieve the successful transfer oftheir land to the next generation.

The tradition of active family farming

Family farming became a norm and ideal during the interwarperiod. Many farmers had recently become landowners and hadinvested time and money in building up the family farm. Asuccessful land transfer was therefore central and it is shown thatthere was generally no scarcity of willing successors to the farm inthe areas studied up to the Second World War. We argue that it isfruitful to discuss transfer processes in Eastern Europe during theSoviet period as well. During the Soviet occupation, intangibleassets like values and knowledge became more significant in thetransfer process. One important value was the farmhouse asa symbol of family history, which led to the expectation that one ofthe children must stay and take care of the farmhouse. Theemotional value of the farmhouse was intimately connected withthe family, and children were expected to take care of their elderlyparents and the successor was assigned the main responsibility forthis. A value that emerged in the interviews was that the farmshould be active and operational. Besides the actual plot farming,such a value could be transferred in the form of memories of andknowledge about the pre-Soviet property and farming activities.

We also want to highlight that children’s experiences of theirparents’ deep disappointment and frustration over the loss of landare important for the evolution of feelings of attachment to the farm.The values and emotions discussed above are the essence of theemotional bonds that many people have with their property, andalso in part the explanation for the enthusiasm that Estonians haveshown for recreating family farming on restituted land. Emotionalbonds encourage owners to transfer landwithin the family and alsoimply that land should be actively used. If it is not used by theowners themselves, it can be leased out to large-scale farmers.

The farm should preferably be transferred to a son

The responsibilities connected with transfer agreements not onlyconcerned the agricultural enterprise but also taking care of elderlyrelatives and often supporting and/or taking care of youngersiblings. In line with the argument of Rossier and Wyss,70 weidentified a gender-specific socialisation process whereby sons,especially the successor, are socialised to take care of the agricul-tural enterprise by accompanying their fathers in their work, whichwas mainly performed outdoors. Daughters accompanied theirmothers in their reproductive duties which weremostly carried outwithin the farmhouse, or outdoors as helpers to the men. Gendercontracts that differ from the traditional gender division of labourhave been identified, for example, in areas like Noarootsi where thetradition of men being involved in fishing and shipping meant thatwomen, in the absence of men, did men’s work. This different kindof gender contract could also be found at the individual farm level ifthe husband did paidwork off the farm. As Thorsen shows, this onlyconcerned women taking over men’s work e not the other wayaround.71

70 Rossier and Wyss, Gendered interest and motivation of the younger generation in a71 See also Thorsen, Det fleksible kjønn (note 48), 470.72 Abrahams, Women and rural development in contemporary Estonia (note 51), 224.73 Potter and Lobley, Unbroken threads? (note 38).74 Jörgenssen, Grubbström and Stjernström, Private landowners’ relation to land and f

When daughters inherited farms, it seems, it was mostlybecause of the absence of potential male successors. It was not thatparents had anything against their daughters taking over the farm;it was just that sons, as an effect of gender-specific socialisation,were considered to be more suitable for the role of farmer. Duringthe Soviet period, it became more common for daughters to besuccessors. The nationalisation of land made the ability to managethe farm less important and the man’s work domain was dramat-ically curtailed. It could therefore be stressed that a daughter’sability to take care of her parents would make her equally attractiveas a successor. However, the interviews indicate that the ideal ofa son as a successor was frequently still the prevailing one.

At present, when agriculture has declined in importance,parents want a successor who is interested in the farmhouse andhas the knowledge needed to renovate and take care of it. Thiscapability is often found among sons and they are therefore stillpreferred even though nowadays it is becoming more common fordaughters to inherit the property. Our interviews with large-scalefarmers indicate that men seem to be in charge of the farm enter-prise. The division of farm work is still gendered and the gendercontracts can be described as traditional. At the beginning ofindependence, Abrahams showed that women seemed to be moretied to the farm than men.72 However, if women are increasinglyemployed in off-farmwork, the men could be the ones who end upbeing more isolated.

Early decision on a successor

Earlier research indicates that large farms more often than smallerfarms decided on a successor at an early stage.73 This seems not tobe true in Estonia, at least not before the outbreak of the SecondWorld War. There were many potential successors and enthusiasmfor the newly privatised farmwas generally strong. It was thereforepossible to choose a successor at an early stage even on small farms.We also have several examples which show that this ideal persistedeven during the Soviet period, despite the scarcity of potentialsuccessors. Today, the tradition that the successor should take careof their elderly parents is no longer as strong. Our interpretation isthat once the obligations to take care of the farm and elderlyparents were no longer interlinked, it became easier to refuse,against the parents’ wishes, to become the successor to the farm.However, in the case of active farmers and those with strongemotional bonds to the property, our research indicates that it isstill an ideal to designate the successor at an early stage. Alongsidethe tangible assets, parents transfer intangible assets such as valuesand knowledge. The intention is to socialise children to acceptresponsibility for the farm and to carry on family traditions.

In what ways can these results be read in a wider context?Eastern Europeans in general have been dependent on small-scalesubsistence production for a long period.74 This could result ina deeper attachment to farming and an interest in keeping farmingactive on the property. The loss of land during the Soviet occupationcould have further enhanced that interest through the feeling ofresponsibility to earlier generations. It is important to bear in mindthat sincewewere interested in the transfer of intangible assets, wehave only talked to those who have a long family history on theirfarm and therefore the interviewees were likely to have evolvedstrong emotional feelings and attachment to the farm. However, in

griculture and farm succession (note 13), 209.

orest in two Estonian counties (note 64), 52.

A. Grubbström, H. Sooväli-Sepping / Journal of Historical Geography 38 (2012) 329e339 339

Estonia the restitution process in the 1990s made it possible toapply for the return of the same farm and land as the family ownedbefore the Soviet occupation. This was not the case in many otherCentral and Eastern European countries, for example, Hungary andPoland. As mentioned above, it has been shown that the majority ofthe landowners in Estonia who made the decision to apply for thereturn of their land valued emotional motives over economicmotives. This would indicate that our findings could have relevancefor quite a large group of farm owners in Estonia. It is also likely thatfarmers with a strong emotional attachment to the farm are keenerthan others to hold to traditional values such as designating thesuccessor at an early stage. Our study also adds to earlier researchby highlighting intangible assets in the transfer process. Thetransfer of memories and values, like the importance of the houseand of taking care of family members, is important to the feelings ofresponsibility that arise among successors. It is also highly relevantto place this in a gender perspective, since gender-specific

socialisation teaches children that areas of responsibility varybetween women and men. In the traditional gender contract, theresponsibilities that men have are more highly valued when itcomes to deciding who will inherit the farm.

Acknowledgements

The study has been funded by the Swedish Research Council(VR 2004-2742), the European Union through the EuropeanRegional Development Fund (CECT), and the Estonian Ministry ofEducation and Research targeted financing research programme(SF0130033s07) Landscape Practice and Heritage. We would like tothank Ray Abrahams for constructive suggestions on an earlierversion of the paper and Mats Morell, Ildikó Asztalos Morell, IréneFlygare for helpful comments. Wewould also like to thankMr. TauriTuvikene for providing a map for the paper.