ment of both the Polish, EU and global economy. They are justified in the theory of Simon Kuznets and Arthur Lewis. They enter simultaneously into the theory of development economics.
At the end of this part, changes in global production were also shown in Polish agriculture in the years 2000-2016, constituting 4-5 percent of the total output in the national economy (chart 1.6.).
Chart 1.6. Total agricultural production in 2000-2016 (prices in the previous year = 100)
Source: Own elaboration based on CSO.
1.2. The share in employment and labor productivity in agriculture
Chart 1.7 shows changes in the employment structure, including changes in the number of employees in agriculture6. Currently only 10 percent of the to-tal population is still active in agriculture (and at the same time 10 percent of the population living in rural areas). Rural areas (together with forestry) account for 93 percent of Poland’s area and approx. 39 percent of Poland’s population. At the same time, the character of rural areas changes. Their disagrarisation fol-lows, or the process of limiting the impact of agriculture on the economy and farmers on society. This phenomenon has been present since the beginning of the 20th century, since its most common measures, the share of agriculture in generating GDP and the ratio of the population employed in agriculture to the
6 The loss of employment in agriculture has many causes. The report Polish Village 2016 shows that about 30 percent of foreign migrants are rural residents [Wilkin, NuĪyĔska 2016].
80,0 85,0 90,0 95,0 100,0 105,0 110,0 115,0 120,0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Global agricultural production Global plant production Global animal production
entire population, are systematically decreasing. More and more often they are only residential, tourist or recreational functions for people who work in the city.
Chart 1.7. Changes in the employment structure in Poland (1990-2015)
Source: Own elaboration based on CSO.
Disagrarisationhas also been observed in Central Europe since the begin-ning of the 20th century, when the agricultural societies of the region began to slowly lose their agricultural character. This process definitely accelerated after 1990, which is indicated by the dynamics of the share of agriculture in generat-ing GDP. As a measure of population agrarianity, the percentage of those em-ployed in agriculture or those living from agriculture is also used (Halamska 2011). Data confirming a downward trend related to the share of the agricultural sector in total employment in the EU economy is presented in table 1.3.
Table 1.3. Tendencies of changes in the scope of work in Polish and EU agriculture (in AWU, 2005 = 100)
Specification 2000 2005 2010 2015
UE-27 121 100 78 69
UE-15 113 100 87 78
Poland 108 100 83 84
Source: Own elaboration based on Eurostat.
At the same time, there is a large regional variation, which is shown in chart 1.8 for data relating to Poland. In the eastern and south-eastern parts of Po-land, a much larger part of the population is connected with agriculture and in-habits rural areas (table 1.4). This is followed by a clear regional diversification of labor productivity. The regions with high employment in agriculture, low lev-el of technical work equipment and considerable agrarian fragmentation are characterized by a low level of labor productivity (Chart 1.9).
Table 1.4. Diversification of agriculture in voivodeship terms in 2015 Specification Working in agriculture
per 100 ha of UAA Average size
farms in ha
POLSKA 16,1 10,49
DolnoĞląskie 9,3 16,21
Kujawsko-Pomorskie 9,9 15,40
Lubelskie 21,2 7,58
Lubuskie 8,5 20,94
àódzkie 18,3 7,62
Maáopolskie 50,4 3,98
Mazowieckie 15,5 8,52
Opolskie 9,8 18,21
Podkarpackie 44,6 4,71
Podlaskie 11,8 12,13
Pomorskie 8,2 19,02
ĝląskie 27,8 7,42
ĝwiĊtokrzyskie 30,8 5,57
WarmiĔsko-Mazurskie 6,6 22,76
Wielkopolskie 12,0 13,43
Zachodniopomorskie 5,3 30,00
Source: Own elaboration based on CSO, ARiMR.
Chart 1.8. Regional data on the share of agriculture in employment in 2013 Source: Own elaboration based on CSO.
Chart 1.9. Gross value added per working person (labor productivity) by section groups PKD 2007 [PLN / person / year]
Explanations regarding the PKD 2007 sections: section A - agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunt-ing; sections B, C, D, E - industry; section F - construction.
Source: Own elaboration based on CSO.
Agriculture in terms of labor productivity is significantly lower than other sectors. What is more, this unfavorable distance increases with time. From the models of Kuznets, Lewis, Schultz and Jorgenson, it can be concluded that agri-culture may have less beneficial relationships in this respect (effects on labor inputs). In the light of the neoclassical regional theory of growth, it is assumed that differences in the development factors possessed by a given region are elim-inated as a result of their interregional adaptation. Economic development re-quires people shift from the sector with lower productivity to the sector of high productivity in order to eliminate these differences. Greater inequalities lead to an increase in social transfers and distort the economy by reducing investment and decelerating economic growth. It was aptly described by Tomczak (2001), claiming that the state “cannot be highly developed if it uses a significant part of its potential and resources for food production”.
Lower labor productivity in agriculture is affected by a number of rea-sons. For example, Polish agriculture in terms of valorization of agricultural production space occupies one of the last positions in Europe. Agricultural land in Poland is of poor quality, as the soil quality index is 0.82 on average. Very good and good soils account for only 11.5 percent of total farmland (Nowak 2011). The labor productivity of a farm is determined not only by the UAA per
employee7, but also by the technical labor infrastructure (capital expenditure per employee). As a result, labor productivity in Polish agriculture accounts for only about 30% of the average level of labor productivity in agriculture in the EU-28 (NurzyĔska, Wilkin 2016; Góral, Rembisz 2017).
At the same time, the age structure of agricultural producers in Poland stands out exceptionally positively against the EU. The share of young farmers (under 35 years) is twice as high, and the share of the oldest (over 64 years) is almost four times lower than the total in EU countries (chart 1.10). Owner’s age determines to a large extent the goals and strategies of action, as well as style unit management. A young agricultural producer usually uses more intensive invest-ment activity and impleinvest-ments a more risky strategy (Sulewski 2007, 2009).
Chart 1.10. Share of individual age groups of farmers in the largest (according to farmers’ population) EU countries
ħródáo: Own elaboration based on SAEPR/FAPA.
7 The growing number of larger farms testifies to the growing concentration of capital in agriculture. For example, in 2015 the number of farms with an area exceeding 50 ha doubled in relation to 2000 [Góral 2017; GUS 2017]. It also increases the relationship: land inputs to labor inputs.