Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Using
Statistics to Standardize Agriculture
Antoine Roger
ABSTRACT
In this article, the agricultural sector in Romania provides the basis of a
sociological enquiry into the contribution of statistics to the definition of
legitimate economic organization. Using the analytical tools developed by
James C. Scott, the emphasis is laid on the Farm Accountancy Data Network
(FADN) developed by the European Commission to define economically
viable farms. The measurement units which the FADN provides are applied
at national level to determine legitimate agricultural practices. This imposes
a productivist definition of the agricultural economy which diverges from
the modes of social and economic organization observed in rural areas in
Romania. Four million Romanian citizens make their living directly from
working the land. The majority own smallholdings received during decollectivization and practise subsistence farming at the fringes of the legal economy. Instead of employing a definition of agriculture consistent with their
practices and developing local distribution channels, quantification instruments provided by the European Commission form the basis of a selection
procedure among these smallholders. These instruments have enabled the
Romanian Ministry of Agriculture to set a threshold of economic viability below which producers are deemed unable to develop a commercial
approach to their activities. The objective is to help those who just about
reach the required level to consolidate their agricultural holdings and take up
intensive farming. The remainder are disqualified and encouraged to leave
the sector. To further this objective, the category semi-subsistence agriculture has been created and takes centre stage in all measures implemented.
Nevertheless, the statistical dividing lines on which this category is based
have no substance and the structure of agriculture is manifesting high levels
of inertia.
INTRODUCTION
Scholars today are analysing the processes at work in the political definition of legitimate economic organization by focusing on the role of public
The author would like to thank the anonymous referees for their helpful comments and
suggestions on an earlier draft of this article.
Development and Change 00(0): 121. DOI: 10.1111/dech.12102
2014 International Institute of Social Studies.
C
Antoine Roger
Antoine Roger
In his book Seeing Like a State, James C. Scott studies the maps which
national administrations devise for themselves in order to make a society
legible. Each state must have a measure, a metric that would allow it to
translate what it knew into a common standard necessary for a synoptic
view (Scott, 1998: 2). As such, the author proposes to distinguish what
might be called facts on paper from facts on the ground (ibid.: 49), thus
bringing to the fore a gap between two levels of observation: fictional farmers versus real farmers (ibid.). Agricultural holdings always evidence great
variety. The units of farmer and farm community are, finally, every
bit as intricate and fluid as the weather, soil and landscape. Mapping them
is even more problematic than, say, analysing the soil (ibid.: 300). This,
nevertheless, is not to imply that abstractions constructed by administrations are not effective. They are powerful misrepresentations that usually
circle back to influence reality. They operate at a minimum, to generate
research and findings most applicable to farms that meet the description of
their schematization: large, mono-cropped, mechanized, commercial farms
that are producing solely for the market (ibid.). Consequently, the agricultural policy adopted works to the detriment of those producers that do not
fit the schematization and systematically operate to nudge reality toward
the grid of its observations (ibid.). Agriculture statistics thus should be seen
in this light: by setting standardized units of measurement, they can simplify
the reading of reality and be used to impose a definition of the legitimate
economic organization which favours some holdings but not others. With
a view to being reduced to a common commensurability framework, the
organization and functioning of the market are considered independently of
the principles of economic and social insurance developed by smallholders
(Scott, 1976: 3234).
Devised to analyse the control of the state over economic activities, this
analytical framework can be applied to other levels. Scott argues that the
development of global capitalism leads the search for legibility and standardization: unified reading frameworks facilitate the free circulation of
goods and capital (Scott, 1998: 33539). Basing his argument on the example of oil corporations in Angola, James Ferguson discusses this analysis,
showing that capitalist firms do not seek legible societies but are content
to control extracting enclaves protected by private militias. Global corporations seek not homogenization within a national grid but, more often,
the abandonment of the idea of national grids altogether, along with the intensive exploitation of separately-administered enclaves (Ferguson, 2005:
37879). Without contesting that this reading of the case in question is well
founded, Scott maintains that no general conclusions can be drawn from it.
For Scott (2005: 400), the importance of legibility mechanisms depends
Antoine Roger
very much on what sector of global capitalism we are discussing. Oil can
be extracted without the entire society being organized to facilitate this.
This is not the case for all economic activity and does not hold true for
agriculture in particular. In this instance, international organizations such as
the OECD or the World Bank offer supporting evidence. They use unified
measurement units in order to make their member states legible; sometimes these mechanisms reinforce the delineations established by national
administrations (Broome and Seabrooke, 2012).
The example of EU agricultural statistics can be studied from this perspective. It enables us to clarify the conditions under which measurement
instruments may be used to facilitate the restructuring of economic activities.
Although the stated aim of the FADN is to assess the consequences of the
CAP and to assist in the formulation of new proposals, the analyses produced
also enable the definition of a homogeneous market. By reducing the diversity observed on the ground to a single set of measurement units, national and
European administrations can carry out formalized comparisons, construct
scenarios and distribute subsidies in accordance with expected results.
After 2000, the enlargement of the EU to Central and Eastern Europe was
to put these arrangements to the test. A significant part of the population in
several new member states was making its living from agricultural activities.
National administrations which had worked to facilitate the accession process found themselves facing European discount systems which had become
stabilized over several decades, without any consideration of their specific
constraints. The case of Romania is exemplary: of all the EU member states,
Romania had the greatest proportion of farmers (36 per cent of the active
population according to the 2002 census). Because of these characteristics,
arrangements for the extension of the CAP area were examined in detail.
Chapter 7 of the negotiations initiated between Brussels and Bucharest dealt
with the adoption of the acquis communautaire in statistics. Particular attention was paid to the organization of General Agricultural Censuses and
Structure Surveys. Progressive integration with the FADN was also required
by the European Commission.
The characteristics of Romanian agriculture nevertheless presented an obstacle to any straightforward alignment with the established nomenclature.
These characteristics can be explained by the form which decollectivization
took. Under the Communist regime, two models of organization were imposed. In State Agriculture Units (Intreprideri Agricole de Stat) a part of the
profits was used to create a wages fund and remuneration for employees.
Members of Agricultural Production Cooperatives (Cooperative Agricole
de Productie) worked the collective land together and, in return, could do
supplementary farm work on an individual plot. Crops from these allotments could be distributed via parallel economic circuits, with a high level
of adaptability to the economic situation (Kideckel, 1993). In 1991, agricultural structures within the planned economy were dismantled; employees
of the former Agricultural Production Cooperatives became the owners of
the plots which had previously been allocated to them. The remaining agricultural land was returned to its former owners. Some agricultural holdings
were resold and could be consolidated with land from the former State Agriculture Units, which were privatized or concessioned, largely in undivided
form. This resulted in a marked polarization of the structure of land holdings.
Today, Romania has 14 million hectares of agricultural land and 3.9 million
farms are recorded in the census. Large latifundia-type agricultural holdings
have been created, some of over 50,000 hectares. These coexist with more
than 3 million micro-properties which barely exceed one hectare and are
geared towards on-farm consumption (ASA, 2007).
Romanian civil servants have limited freedom to capture these realities:
they are obliged to reproduce the categories developed before EU enlargement.2 In 2002, a first General Agricultural Census (Recensamantul General
Agricol) was conducted, in accordance with EU requirements. It indicated
that 50 per cent of total production was devoted to on-farm consumption
and that 3.1 million agricultural holdings used more than half their crops
in this way (RGA, 2002). These practices are an extension of the informal
economic activities based on individual allotments which were developed
under the Communist regime. The smallholders who perpetuate them have
no investment capacity. In the absence of the ability to acquire phytosanitary
treatments, they favour extensive farming methods and use very few inputs.
Their crops guarantee them direct food supplies, protected from price fluctuations. This explains why, over time, smallholders consistently refuse to
join cooperative ventures. Rather than reverting to the psychological analyses which invoke mistrust inherited from the Communist period, and the
view that any form of mutualization is deemed as a first step towards collectivization (Radu and Neamtu, 2011), this behaviour is better explained by a
belief in a form of insurance which is at once economic and social. That is,
2. The fact that Romanian statisticians were unable to draw on consolidated national frameworks facilitated the adoption of European quantification instruments. Prior to 2000, there
was a high level of historical discontinuity in Romanian agricultural statistics. During the
1930s, under the direction of Dimitrie Gusti, the Bucharest Sociological School set up surveys in Romanian villages and managed to publish many monographs. Researchers were
asked to shed light on the interplay between economic and political dimensions of village life. The idea was to develop general principles to guide economic reforms, without
rejecting existing agricultural practices (Gusti, 1937). The studies guided the definition
of official statistical categories for the first two Romanian agricultural censuses, in 1941
and 1948. Communist authorities put an end to these endeavours, branding sociology as a
bourgeois discipline and banning it for several decades (Crstocea, 2007). Simultaneously,
collectivization put an end to surveys of farm holding structures. During the Communist
era, only yields were regularly assessed. After 1989, the Ministry of Agriculture lacked the
means to launch any sizeable programme in the short term. On the initiative of the World
Bank, snapshots were taken in 1998 and 2001 on the basis of 2000 land holdings. The
adoption of agricultural censuses and the commitment to statistically delineated categories
of producers were closely entwined with the process of accession to the EU, and with the
accompanying sources of funding.
Antoine Roger
here as elsewhere, smallholders wish to maintain full control over their land
and to adapt the way they exploit it in order to be in a position to face some
unexpected event (Galli, 1987; Ronnas, 1993).
By its very conception, the FADN runs counter to this approach. Whenever
it is used, only one form of economic organization is held to be legitimate:
producers are enjoined from on high to adapt to it either by reorienting their practices, or by giving up their land. Within such a framework,
there is no scope for adapting distribution networks to the mode of organization favoured by smallholders for example, by certifying crops from
smallholdings as organic and by putting in place suitable systems for their
collection and marketing (Raynolds, 2000). In the event that a smallholder
does manage to squeeze out some kind of surplus, there is no opportunity to
market it legally. No local distribution channels or purchasing cooperatives
geared towards small producers have been set up to enable this.3 Instead of
adapting measures and instruments to the existing structure of land holdings
and forms of social organization, Ministry of Agriculture officials proceeded
by imposing FADN categories in order to align Romanian agriculture with
the definition of legitimate economic organization underpinning those categories. They used EU measurement units to delimit or demarcate categories
of farmers and to set out the future direction of agricultural policy, in accordance with EU stipulations. FADN provided a map of legibility and
control that defines the characteristics of semi-subsistence agriculture.
Those smallholdings labelled in this way are regarded as economically
viable (viabil economic) and it is assumed that they will gradually enter
commercial channels and occupy the immense gap which for the moment
separates micro-holdings from big agricultural businesses. This forecast
translates into subsidy mechanisms which encourage the consolidation of
viable agricultural holdings.
Since the fall of the Communist regime, several procedures have been employed to draw a rather arbitrary distinction between farmers who are destined to switch to a legitimate mode of organization that is, those who are
likely, over time, to enter the market as it is presently conceived and those
who are condemned to wither away economically. Due to this thinking along
10
Antoine Roger
11
These measurement units were used for the first time in Romania at the end
of 2002. An experimental data collection programme was then instituted,
limited to eighteen judete (counties). In 2003, it was extended to the whole
of Romania (forty-one judete), enabling partial information to be collected
(Geta Roman et al., 2006). At this time, Romanian experts were trained
by European Commission officials in order to prepare for accession to the
EU. A central FADN bureau was set up within the Romanian Ministry
of Agriculture and was in direct contact with the Commission. Under its
supervision, the first sampling plan (planul de selectie) was drawn up by the
National Statistical Institute on the basis of the General Agricultural Census
of 2002. Preparatory work was financed by a European programme (PHARE
RO 04 IB/AG/02). This gave rise to discussions on the criteria used to define
professional holdings. In view of the data at their disposal, the Romanian
statisticians asked that the surface area of each agricultural holding be taken
into account: they characterized as professional those farms with a size of
one hectare or more. The officers representing the European Commission
demanded that specific additional information be included. The results of the
2005 Structure Survey led to the introduction of another criterion; in addition
to the threshold originally fixed, partial commercialization of production was
stipulated. This made it possible to obtain FADN results in 2008 (on the basis
of the previous harvest year). For this survey, 833,984 agricultural holdings
were included in the sampling plan. Of these, 811,028 were characterized as
small (below 8 ESUs); 13,882 were included in the low medium category
(816 ESUs) and 4,931 in the high medium category (1640 ESUs); 2,602
were described as large (40100 ESUs) and 1,541 as very large (100 ESUs
and over). In the light of these assessments, a sample of 1,000 holdings was
finally created. It was based on a simple criterion of economic size: farms
of over 2 ESUs were considered to be professional. Others were not taken
into account. Using the same method, the sample was extended to include
2,000 farms in 2009 and 4,000 farms in 2010. It included 6,000 units in 2011
and was subsequently to be stabilized at that level.
The delineations of the FADN made it possible to create categories of
farmers which are based on a productivist model. As such, professional
holdings (measured in ESUs) swiftly superseded economically viable units.
The inclusion of European norms provided the Ministry of Agriculture with
the means to delineate a clear definition of the term professional which
up till then had only been approximate. Viability was thus characterized
as the capacity to enter into existing commercial channels, excluding onfarm consumption. ESUs have become a central tool of national agricultural
policy, thus making it possible to statistically identify the line that delimits
(Commission Regulation 1242/2008). This new method of calculation was included in the
FADN in 2010. The Standard Output represents the production potential of one hectare or
one farm animal, independently of all subsidies. Its value was to be calculated as an average
over five years and expressed in euros.
12
Antoine Roger
13
groups from those producers who opt for on-farm consumption. Its officers
have an interest in drawing a line inside the grey area, given that some
farmers temporarily undertake subsistence farming but are destined to fully
enter into commercial channels. The difficulty is to isolate those attributes
which would enable a circumscribed whole to be identified. Since 2005,
the European Commission has provided an instrument to this end. It identifies the category semi-subsistence agriculture and distinguishes it from
subsistence agriculture by means of a qualitative leap and not by a simple
variation on a common scale of measurement. According to this regulation,
it is appropriate to place in this new category agricultural holdings which
produce primarily for their own consumption and also market a portion of
their output (European Commission Regulation 1698/2005, Article 34[1]).
However, an assessment tool has also been proposed: based on the FADN,
semi-subsistence is to be measured in ESUs. The Commission agreed to
enter discussions with member states in order to fix the threshold on a caseby-case basis, taking into account constraints related to geo-climatic and soil
characteristics. Agreement was rapidly reached to classify semi-subsistence
farms in Hungary as those achieving between 2 and 4 ESUs, and in Bulgaria
as those achieving between 1 and 4 ESUs. For Romania, a certain amount
of trial and error applied. Although the FADN values enabled a floor to be
fixed at 2 ESUs, the upper limit of the new category elicited some discussion
(Giurca, 2008). The difficulty resided in finding the optimal level in order to
populate the category: the ceiling must be high enough to meet the objective
of diversifying agriculture, but at the same time low enough for the rise in
numbers to be measurable in the medium term and attest to the success of
the policy being implemented.
The National Strategic Plan drawn up by the Ministry of Agriculture in
2006 made a distinction for the first time between three types of holding,
combining criteria of economic size and participation in distribution channels. It describes subsistence agriculture as the exclusive practice of on-farm
consumption with a level of below 2 ESUs; semi-subsistence agriculture
is described as mainly located in farms of between 2 and 6 ESUs; whereas
commercial agriculture is entirely directed towards the market and is only
to be found above 6 ESUs.
In order to assist the accession of Romania to the EU, the Commission
asked the government to draw up a National Rural Development Programme
for the period 20072013 (Programul National de Dezvoltare Rurala
PNDR, 2007). The terms of this document set out conditions for the payment of subsidies under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. The Ministry of Agriculture commissioned a survey by the National
Statistical Institute to supplement and refine FADN information. A sample
of 6,427 farms was put together. The simplified questionnaire took account of the surface area, the number of plots cultivated, their location and
the distribution of crops. On the basis of the results obtained, the decision
was finally taken to place in the semi-subsistence category those farms
14
Antoine Roger
15
16
Antoine Roger
fifty-five years old and only 9 per cent were younger than thirty-five
(Cartwright, 2001).
To complement these schemes, the Romanian authorities proposed to assist viable farms to raise themselves to the economic level that would
enable them to acquire new land. In 2007, the Single Area Payment Scheme
(SAPS) was implemented, under the first pillar of the CAP. A lump sum
was paid for each hectare of eligible agricultural land within the limits of the national ceiling fixed by the accession agreements. A gradual
rise was planned, until full alignment with the payments made to farmers
in other EU member states would be reached. In order to avoid an angry
response from smallholders, the government was careful to avoid setting
criteria which would directly and explicitly exclude them from the SAPS
for example, requiring farms to exceed the threshold of 2 ESUs in order
to qualify for a subsidy. However, backdoor methods made it possible
to use equally severe criteria. An initial selection could be made through
the Agricultural Registry. According to the rules laid down by the EU, a
Romanian citizen qualified for the SAPS if he or she were able to produce the extract from the Registry which mentions the holding in question.
The Romanian authorities themselves fixed certain criteria for registration.
The property had to be at least 1 ha, and divided into plots of at least 0.3
ha (this threshold was later reduced to 0.1 ha for wine growing). Stock
rearers had to own at least three cattle, fifty sheep or fifty goats. On this
basis, 1.2 million farms were registered in June 2007. The Romanian Registry is the most extensive in the whole of the EU (in second place, Poland
has a little over 800,000 farms registered). This figure is nonetheless unbalanced. More than 900,000 farms registered have a surface area of 15
ha. The Registry only includes 29 per cent of the total number of holdings.
Nearly three million producers are excluded because they do not meet the
criteria which have been established, although they are engaged in farming
full-time.
We should also note that a holding that meets the threshold is not automatically eligible for EU funding. In order to put together an application, several
additional documents are required: a property title or a farming contract, but
also a proof of the type of crop grown on the holding (a crop insurance
policy, a statement attesting to the crop, a municipal certificate). Once the
application is registered, a producer must agree to remote-sensing checks.
Although each municipality has a land registry, the complexity of the rules
employed to return land to their owners in 1991 makes using it impossible
(Cartwright, 2001). Satellite photographs of plots of land are used to draw up
agricultural maps, on a municipality by municipality basis. Each candidate
for funding is issued a code which enables him or her to access an Internet
site and to identify the physical bloc (blocul fizic) under cultivation. These
procedures may take place via the local offices of the Agency for Funding and Intervention in Agriculture (Agentia de Plati si Interventie pentru
Agricultura). In the county of Vrancea, for example, six local offices have
17
computers available for consultation by farm operators. With little familiarity with IT tools and overwhelmed by the spatial representation of their
lands, those candidates with the least resources and skills make mistakes
which can only be corrected if inspectors help them out, following long,
complex procedures.
Arrangements for paying EU subsidies do not make direct use of the
demarcations set by the FADN: the thresholds and conditions fixed to
be eligible make no explicit distinction between professional and nonprofessional holdings. Categories backed up by EU statistics nevertheless
guide the policies that are implemented. Adopted under the National Programme for Rural Development and funded by the second pillar of the CAP,
parallel measures aim at stimulating the entrepreneurial spirit and consolidating farms placed in the semi-subsistence category. In order to apply for
this support, an operator must not only be registered with the Agricultural
Registry but also demonstrate his or her commitment to a change in the
system of production and to the introduction of efficient technologies.
According to ministerial calculations, a holding achieving 3 ESUs needs
between 2 and 4 more ESUs to achieve profitable insertion into commercial
channels.
Measure No. 141 of the National Programme for Rural Development is
to be understood from this perspective. Under the heading of Support for
semi-subsistence farms, it uses the FADN demarcations and offers an annual
lump sum of 1,500 to owners of agricultural holdings of between 2 and 8
ESUs who are younger than sixty-two years. All applicants have to draw up a
business plan for agricultural restructuring and operations (planul de afaceri pentru restructurarea exploatatiei agricole). This document has to set out
the current situation of the holding, restructuring objectives, the investments
necessary to achieve these, proposed management changes, training and
updating envisaged, the type and volume of production expected during and
after the funding period, their articulation with market opportunities, risks
anticipated and the strategies developed to address these. A demonstration
of the future economic viability of the holding is also required: it must be
based on an accurate assessment of the costs, benefits and means implemented to strengthen market orientation and compliance with European
standards. Finally, a time chart (graficul de timp) must be devised to show
the various different objectives and stages of reconstruction.
Applications are evaluated by the Ministry of Agriculture. Successful candidates make a commitment to taking courses in management and accountancy funded by Measure No. 111, titled Professional training, information
and dissemination of knowledge. An evaluation report must be drawn up
after three years: if the business plan has been scrupulously followed, if
a modernization process has been engaged, and if the farm holding has
earned at least 2 ESUs, funding can be extended for two years. Measure No.
112 of the National Plan for Rural Development supplements this scheme by
concentrating on setting up young farmers. It is aimed at farmers younger
18
Antoine Roger
than forty who, by means of a transfer of property, a concession or a minimum five-year lease succeed in managing a holding of between 6 and 40
ESUs. The beneficiaries commit to undertaking one of the training schemes
set up by Measure No. 111. They receive a baseline funding of 10,000 for
6 ESUs and 2,000 is paid for each additional ESU. A ceiling of 25,000
in total applies. This supplementary aid is paid out once the operator has
demonstrated his or her capacity to achieve additional profits (PNDR, 2007).
In order to promote these measures at local level, the Ministry of Agriculture recruited Project Managers. In Vrancea, two of these were appointed.
Between June 2008 and June 2009, they organized seminars in fifty-nine
municipalities. The operation was funded by the European Commission
under the title, New Steps in the Implementation of the CAP in Vrancea
County: Raising the Competitiveness of the Agricultural Sector. On 3 March
2009, a seminar was organized at the Vrtescoiu Elementary School in which
eighteen smallholders took part. Seated at tables normally used by the pupils,
they listened to a two-hour Power Point presentation. After a general presentation of the CAP, the opportunities afforded by the National Programme for
Rural Development were presented one by one to the growers. The talk emphasized the need to transform semi-subsistence farms into commercial
farms. Those present were invited to ask questions and request clarifications.
They took refuge in a polite silence.
CONCLUSION
This case study shows that the map of legibility and control of the FADN
has not successfully facilitated the establishment of a productivist agricultural mode of organization in Romania. Although the authorities have
adopted it and are gradually adapting to it, they have not been able to employ it as basis for an effective agricultural policy. Initially, rough and ready
distinctions were made in order to reassure European Commission officials.
As the prospects of integration into the EU became clearer, high-level EU
civil servants pushed for the implementation of the FADN. The threshold
of economic viability was arbitrarily set on the basis of the FADN. The
conceptual and statistical instruments used to track viability may have facilitated the work of the administration, but did not prove socially effective as
the dividing line employed is blurred by the continuum of practices observed
empirically on the ground. Consequently, from 2005 onwards, renewed efforts were made to circumscribe and isolate semi-subsistence agriculture,
by defining it as a temporary practice of on-farm consumption, thus making
it possible to envisage in the medium term an exclusively market-based orientation. This definition rapidly generated new categories on which to base
assessments and analyses. High-level civil servants and journalists focused
almost exclusively on the reforms needed to transform selected agricultural holdings into commercial farms that could be fully integrated into
19
REFERENCES
ASA (2007) Ancheta Structurala n Agricultura [Structure Survey in Agriculture]. Bucharest:
Institutul National de Statistica.
Bertin, M. (1999) SCEES and the Agricultural Statistics Network, Courrier des statistiques 5:
2528.
Broome A. and L. Seabrooke (2012) Seeing like an International Organization, New Political
Economy 17(1): 116.
Business Magazin (2010) Cum va redeveni Romania granarul Europei [How Romania will
Become the Breadbasket of Europe Again], 15 February.
Calo, G. (2003) The Epic Journey of Community Agricultural Statistics, in A. De Michelis
and A. Chantraine (eds) Memoirs of Eurostat. Fifty Years Serving Europe, pp. 17480.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Cartwright, A. (2001) The Return of the Peasant. Land Reform in Post-Communist Romania.
Reading: Ashgate.
Cartwright, A. and N. Swain (2002) Dividing the Rural Sector: Finding Farmers in Eastern and
Central Europe. Working Paper No. 53. Liverpool: Centre for Central and Eastern European
Studies, University of Liverpool.
Crstocea, I. (2007) Splendeurs et mis`eres dun projet intellectuel: lecole monographique
de Bucarest [Splendour and Misery of an Intellectual Project: The Bucharest School of
Monography], Revue dHistoire des Sciences Humaines 16: 3356.
Coutrot, L. (2008) Drafting a European Socio-Economic Scheme, Tocqueville Review 29(1):
10942.
Dannenberg, P. and T. Kuemmerle (2010) Farm Size and Land Use Pattern Changes in
Postsocialist Poland, The Professional Geographer 62(2): 197210.
De Santos, M. (2009) Fact-Totems and the Statistical Imagination: The Public Life of a Statistic
in Argentina 2001, Sociological Theory 27(4): 46689.
20
Antoine Roger
21
Starr, P. (1987) The Sociology of Official Statistics, in W. Alonso and P. Starr (eds) The Politics
of Numbers, pp. 758. New York: Russell Sage.
Tofan, A. (2005) Dimensiunea economica a exploatatiilor agricole [The Economic Dimension
of Agricultural Holdings], Analele stiintifice ale universitatii Alexandru Ioan Cuza din Iasi
52/53: 12329.
Tonea, E. et al. (2008) Does the Acounting Information Influence the Farm Prosperity?, Lucrari
Stiitifice Facultatea de Agricultura 40(3): 35558.
Van Arkadie, B. (1973) National Accounting and Development Planning: A Review of Some
Issues, Development and Change 4(2): 1531.
Ziarul financiar (2010) Agricultura se face pentru profit, nu pentru subventii [Agriculture
Should be Performed to Gain Benefits and Not to Get Subsidies], 8 February.