Farmers go for pre-nups as land prices soar

The rise in the price of farmland is leading increasing numbers of farmers to sign pre- and post-nuptial agreements to protect their wealth from enlarged divorce payments to their spouses. A roll in the hay can clearly have consequences not envisaged in the past.

Farmers who have not completed such an agreement face the unwelcome prospect of selling farmland or borrowing money to finance a divorce settlement. Farming divorces are complicated by the fact that the farm is usually the marital home, meaning its value is taken into account when deciding financial settlements for ex-wives.

Selling off part of the farm is not really a solution. 25 years ago a farm might have been viable between 500 and 700 acres, but today something like 1,200 acres is needed to sustain a profitable business, even with CAP subsidies (which are related to the farmable area anyway). If the farm is reduced in size, it may no longer be able to support heirs, particularly if more than one wants to be involved in the farm business.

According to the National Farmers Union it has had more calls from members on this topic since the 2010 ruling involving German heiress Katrin Radmacher which stated that courts can take pre-nups into account when deciding settlements. It has handled 40 referrals from members seeking advice on divorce and pre-nups over the last three years.

This gives a new meaning to the term selective benefit in the pressure group literature. Anyone can get advice on a divorce from a family lawyer, but they may not encounter that many cases involving farms and be relatively unfamiliar with the special considerations involved. That is where an organisation like the NFU can help, showing the relevance of Olson's by-product theory of selective incentives which seeks to explain how lobbying activity can be sustained in the face of the free rider problem

Ag econ folks give it large to SFP

The intention of the European Commission to retain the SFP as the centre piece of the CAP after 2013 is a fundamental error according to leading agricultural economists. In a paper by David Harvey and colleagues to the Agricultural Economics Society conference in Edinburgh, it was argued that direct farm payments should be phased out.

The very idea of general direct payments was said to be unjustifiable. Payments should be reoriented from payments that are still historically linked to production-based payments and towards the guarantee of food supplies, rural economic development and protection of the environment.

The ag ecnomists argue that the overall agricultural policy problem for the EU is the preoccupation with farm incomes which dates back to the formation of the CAP in the 1950s. The bulk of an expanding budget is still spent on that objective. Despite this expenditure, average farm incomes remain below the national average income in almost all member states (which, of course, could be seized on as an argument for not making things worse by removing farm support). The economists argue that whatever governments do, they are not going to substantially improve the incomes of the less efficient and marginal farm holders.

The economists note that these payments were originally meant to be transitional. Of course, following Mancur Olson, the politics of subsidies which have concentrated effects but diffuse costs means that they are often converted from temporary to permanent payments.

Harvey revives the idea of a bond scheme to buy out these payments as first suggested by Professor John Marsh more than twenty years ago and subsequently developed by Alan Swinbank and his colleagues. Uncertainty for farmers would be reduced and they would have time to adjust to liberalised markets.

I have always found such a scheme attractive in principle, but the Commission view is that it is not compatible with cross-compliance.