The moshav in Israel: Agricultural communities in a process of change — a current

view
Author(s): Levia Applebaum and Michael Sofer
Source: Horizons in Geography / 2012 ,‫אופקים בגאוגרפיה‬, No. 79/80, Themes in Israeli
Geography (2012), pp. 194-209
Published by: University of Haifa / ‫אוניברסיטת חיפה‬

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23718590

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Horizons in Geography /
‫אופקים בגאוגרפיה‬

This content downloaded from

185.53f:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff on Thu, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Maos J. O., and I. Charney (eds.). 2012. Themes in Israeli Geography
(Special Issue of Horizons in Geography, 79-80), 194-209

The moshav in Israel: Agricultural communities in a

process of change - a current view
Levia Applebaum and Michael Sofer
Department of Geography and Environment, Bar-Ilan University
(levia.app@gmail.com; soferml@gmail.com)

The moshav is a planned smallholders' settlement, based on unique structural principles,

including equal-sized indivisible family farms and a legal cooperative organization. A
review of the moshav restructuring process reveals a number of trends which together have
contributed to the weakening of these principles. While agriculture still dominates the
landscape and constitutes an important part of the moshav economy, new on- and off-farm
economic activities are replacing farming as main sources of household income. In addition,
new residents, mostly of urban origin, have been settling in the moshav in the last two decades
in search of a better quality of life, and have changed the socio-demographic composition of
the local population. Concomitantly, the cooperative society of the moshav has been losing
many of its functions, part of which has been taken over by a new municipal organization.

The driving forces of these changes derive from a mixture of structural changes in agriculture,
shifting government policies concerning the rural sector, the appearance of new interest
groups competing for the use of rural resources, and the cumulative decisions of individual
households in search of effective adjustment strategies in an uncertain environment.

The outcome is a more heterogeneous community - physically, economically and socially,

and more significantly - a gradual loss of the unique features of the moshav. Furthermore,
the moshav, and the rural space in general, are being contested by farmers and non-farmers,
rural and urban municipalities, and other interest groups. The absence of a coherent and
unified rural policy, designed to resolve the conflicts which threaten its ability to survive
as a unique type of community and to guide its future development, is perhaps the most
serious problem facing the moshav today.

Keywords:Keywords: moshav, Israel, rural restructuring, contested rural space

Introduction

For several decades the rural space in developed market economies has been undergoing a
major restructuring process, affecting its economy, landscape and social composition. The
rural space is no longer an agricultural space, and farmers constitute only a minority of rural
dwellers. Agricultural change, driven by principles of concentration, specialization, and scale
economies, has opened the door to new economic activities, prompting the diversification
of the rural economic base. This process is accompanied by accelerated urban encroachment
into the rural space, counter-urbanization flows, increasing environmental awareness and
protection of open spaces, as well as changing government and local authority policies
affecting the rural sector.

This content downloaded from

185.53.157.201 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:53:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The moshav in Israel: Agricultural communities in a process of change 195

From the point of view of the individual farming household, the new policies, committed
above all to economic viability, have trapped farmers into adjustment strategies inextricably
tied to a technological and economic treadmill. The outcome of increased productivity and
efficiency has been the inability of many farmers to compete on the market, thus pushing
them out of agricultural activity, and into a quest for alternative strategies of economic
survival. At the same time new incoming populations and interest groups are striving to
reshape the rural space in line with their conceptions and images. As a result, the rural space
has become a multifunctional and contested space, characterized by diverse land uses and
employment patterns, and a mixture of conflicting interest groups.

Similar processes of transformation have been going on in the rural space of Israel. Although
they began somewhat later than in other advanced countries, they have been relatively
fast, producing within three decades major changes in most rural settlements. Under the
steamroller of rapid change and frequent policy revisions, the rural space in Israel has
been losing some of its unique characteristics, in particular the multi-purpose cooperative
organization and the relatively high degree of internal equality which characterized the
majority of rural settlements for many years.

The aim of this paper is to describe and explain the restructuring process which is taking
place in the rural areas of Israel, and evaluate the possible implications for their future.
The analysis will focus on a particular type of community - the moshav (plural: moshavim),
which is the most common type of rural settlement in Israel. The moshav is a planned
smallholders' settlement, based on family farms which are equal in size and indivisible,
and legally organized as a cooperative society. These features, which served to identify the
moshav moshav as a special type of rural community, are now being gradually eroded. The following
discussion tries to shed light on the broader socio-economic developments which have led
to this structural transformation.

The paper starts with a theoretical discussion of rural restructuring in general and the current
experience in Israel in particular. This is followed by a description of the transformation
taking place in the moshav. Finally, the implications for the moshav as well as for the Israeli
rural space at large are discussed, with some speculations about possible future trends.

Theoretical background and the Israeli experience

General General trends

The last decades have seen multi-dimensional changes taking place in the rural areas of
advanced economies. These may be attributed to ongoing long-term economic, socio
demographic and environmental processes, as well as to changing institutional policies. The
agricultural crisis, the increasing awareness of the importance of a sustainable environment
and the growing demand for rural housing and recreational activities brought about a
thorough reassessment and revision of policies regarding the rural space. The long-standing
support given to farm producers, which resulted in a tremendous increase in agricultural

This content downloaded from

185.53.157.201 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:53:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
196 Levia Applebaum and Michael Sofer

productivity and farm surpluses, and as a consequen

income in agriculture, particularly in the European U
measures designed to reduce surpluses, cut down farm
and encourage rural development through the improve
diversification (Baidock et al. 2001). In response to thes
residents who wish to survive in the changing enviro
strategies, leading to an ongoing process of rural chan

The decline in agricultural income, on the one hand

training and higher education by members of farming
main factors that lead to the decreasing dependence o
At the same time, improvements in infrastructure and
of rural residents to urban-based employment and en
locations as sites for non-agricultural economic activ
populations. In addition, under-utilized land resource
the establishment of new non-farming enterprises in
1985; Gasson 1988; Marsden 1990; Beteille 1994; Ilbery
et et al. 2001).

In the changing economic environment farming ho

households, face three possible strategies of surviva
and Bollman 2000; Sofer 2001): to increase agricultu
intensification and/or acquisition of additional land i
to diversify their income sources by pluriactivity or
resources towards non-agricultural activities (Brun a
Ilbery et al. 1996); or to resort to hobby farming and f
occupations, possibly in close-by urban labour market
of strategy by different households results in a growin
community in terms of both sources of employment a

The restructuring process affects also the socio-dem

population. Out-migration, especially of young and q
many rural communities in the past, is now confin
while the rural-urban fringe encounters a growing in
a "quality of life" in the countryside. This amenity-led
in the physical and economic infrastructure and in the
which attract the newcomers (Beale 1975; Robinson 1
positive effect on rural communities in terms of both
rejuvenation. The incoming population often contribu
services and to the creation of new employment opp
same time the arrival of new people often raises confli
such issues as the use of local resources, control of lo

This content downloaded from

185.53.157.201 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:53:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The moshav in Israel: Agricultural communities in a process of change 197

directions of community development. The impact of the newcomers may therefore reach
beyond the immediate change in the socio-demographic composition of the rural community
and its way of life, into the reshaping of the rural space in line with their conception and
image of the rural (Robinson 1990; Furuseth 1998; Stockdale et al. 2000).

Another significant factor influencing rural change is the increased importance of

environmental protection within modern societies, which generates a growing pressure
on farmers to reduce the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and hence also their volume of
production. At the same time the creation of alternative sources of income is often also
opposed on the grounds of the need to prevent environmental hazards and to preserve the
rural open spaces (Boyarsky 2004). The conflict between agricultural and environmental
interest groups affects the structure of the rural economy in general and the agricultural
sector in particular.

Restructuring Restructuring of the rural space in Israel

The rural space covers over 90% of the land area of Israel and contains nearly 1,000
communities of various types and forms of organization. The majority of these are planned
communities, and many of them were established in the first half of the 20th century as part
of a national settlement plan, and based on farming as a major source of employment and
income. The planning principles of these settlements were rooted in ideological concepts
of equality and mutual aid that found expression in the allocation of resources and in the
organizational structure of the rural community.

The allocation of land and capital to farming households and the farm structure were
determined with the aim of providing the farm family with an income that is comparable
to that of a working urban household1. The land was given to all farmers as long-term
leasehold in equal-sized units, and the settlement authority supported and accompanied
the settlers until they could prove their ability to handle their own affairs independently.
Later on this task of institutional support was taken over by the Government of Israel (Weitz
and Rokach 1968). All these settlements are registered as cooperative societies in which the
membership of all farmers is generally obligatory.

Over the years the rural settlements went through several adjustments to the changing socio
economic environment, but the major transformation started in the mid-1980s, following a
political upheaval and a severe financial crisis, accompanied by the withdrawal of most
government support from the farm sector (Sofer and Applebaum 2006). Since that time the
restructuring the Israeli rural space gained unprecedented momentum, as can be seen in
most aspects of rural life.

1 The details in this section refer mainly to the moshav and the family farm, but the basic principles apply to
other types of cooperative settlements, including the kibbutz.

This content downloaded from

185.53.157.201 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:53:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 198 Levia Applebaum and Michael Sofer

Changes Changes in the agricultural sector and the rural econ

Agriculture has been for many decades the economic fo

Israel. However, agro-technological innovations, which
the demand for farm labour, and deteriorating terms
drop in profitability of the farm sector in general and
particular (Kimhi 2004). The removal of government s
mid-1980 accelerated the restructuring of agriculture a

The contribution of agriculture to the GNP declined

2010, and its share in the total value of export in 2010
in 1980. The total number of employed in agricultur
to just under 64,000 by 2010, or 2% of the total econo
of these are self-employed, indicating a gradual incr
foreign workers. Within the rural space the percentage
from 34% in 1980 to a mere 10% in 2010 (Ministry of
source of employment of rural residents is in tertiary a
employed in public services.

Looking at a number of selected indicators for the pe

index value for 1986 is 100, it is clear that apart from far

increased in terms of output per unit of both labour

negative trends for most of the period. It is only since
an increase in their income (Ministry of Agriculture 20

4nn , -

self employed
350 } terms of trade / \

300- income -V /
total productivity
250

'‫• ■י‬.
■S 200
c

150

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

year

Figure 1: Selected Indicators for the Agricultural Sector, Source: Ministry of Agriculture 2011

This content downloaded from

185.53.157.201 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:53:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The moshav in Israel: Agricultural communities in a process of change 199

The restructuring process is echoed in the changing employment structure and income
sources of farming households (Kimhi 1994; Sofer 2001; Sofer and Applebaum 2006). A
relatively small group of family farmers has chosen to increase the scale of operation by
shifting towards larger units or more intensive production activities. Others decided to leave
farming altogether, but a considerable percentage of farm households prefer to diversify
their sources of income through on- or off-farm pluriactivity. This adjustment strategy has
been facilitated by the enhanced ability of farm households to reallocate their internal labour
resources between the farm and non-farm activities and by the growing demand by external
entrepreneurs for rural premises for industrial, commercial and service-sector businesses
and storage facilities.

Demographic Demographic and social changes

Although the total number of rural dwellers in Israel is continuously increasing, reaching
646,600 by 2010, the share of the rural sector in the national population has declined over
the years from about 16% in 1961 to 8.4% in 2010 (Ministry of Agriculture 2011). The moshav
sector alone declined at the same time from 5.5% to 3.4% of the national population, but
in absolute terms its population has increased by more than 70%. For many years rural
population growth was based mainly on the establishment of new settlements, while the
internal growth was limited by institutional restrictions on non-farming residents. By the late
1980s, many rural settlements, particularly in peripheral areas, were facing geriatrification,
or a disproportionate share of older age groups. This situation, coupled with the financial
crisis, induced the government to change its policy and allow the moshav communities, and
later on also other cooperative communities, to expand their population by establishing new
residential neighbourhoods for non-farming families (Applebaum and Keidar 1992).

This "expansion program" brought about major changes in the relevant communities. The
construction of suburban-style neighbourhoods changed the landscape of the village and
the entrance of the new population, composed mainly of young couples with children,
relatively high education and white-collar occupations, changed its social and demographic
composition (Uzan 2002). Furthermore, the newcomers often have their own views about
the future development of the rural community, which frequently clash with those of
the old-timers, and sometimes require the creation of mechanisms for conflict resolution
(Applebaum and Rimalt 1995; Orchan et al. 2001).

The process of change in the moshav and the family farm

Basic features Basic features of the moshav

The first moshav was established in the early 1920s and today there are 402 moshav type
communities spread throughout the country, comprising about 42% of all rural settlements
in Israel. The average moshav contains between 60 and 100 family farm holdings. The amount
of land allocated to each moshav household is equitable within each moshav but differs among

This content downloaded from

185.53.157.201 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:53:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
200 Levia Applebaum and Michael Sofer

moshavmoshav communities according to the region and

between 3 and 15 hectares.

The moshav was planned as a smallholders' settlemen

cooperative society and based on several unique str
and practical (Rokach 1978; Applebaum and Marg
these principles limit the capacity of the moshav to a
environment (Applebaum and Sofer 2004). Notable a
owned land, which stipulates that the land will not
renewable periods of 49 years. The leasehold includes b
plots which are legally inseparable. A farm holding
and may be transferred only as a single complete un
and hence also the size of its land area, is generally de
and is rarely changeable. As a result the potential for
highly restricted until the initiation of the expansion

Another structural element of the moshav is the co

are members. The cooperative was established in or
member farmers by handling joint purchasing and
loans, providing mutual aid and running the municipa

Following the crisis of the mid-1980s the moshav

economic transformation which is reflected in its
municipal organization and physical landscape.

Transformation Transformation of the economic elements - hou

The continuous increase in farm productivity broug

changes for the moshav family farms. The first is a vo
among the farm-holders. The relatively small percen
their scale of operations tend to increase their hold
from neighbours who reduced or stopped their far
available figures, from the 1995 survey of family far
production is concentrating in a small number of larg
25% of the farm holdings produced about 70% of th
recent data reinforce this finding, showing that farm
lease a large share of their land from other farmers,
derived from agricultural production (Sofer 2002).

The second change concerns the move from mixed far

farms in the early years, to specialized farming, whic
time the profit margin of farmers began to fall an
them to make use of regional and personal advantag
almost immediate result has been a growing differe

This content downloaded from

185.53.157.201 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:53:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The moshav in Israel: Agricultural communities in a process of change 201

respect to their size of operation, input and credit requirements and marketing channels,
and consequently a decrease in the level of joint activities through the cooperative society
(Shoresh 1988; Applebaum 1990).

The third change is the outcome of cumulative decisions by a considerable number of farm
holders to diversify their income sources (Haruvi 1989; Kimhi 1994; Sofer 2001). The options
include on-farm and off-farm businesses, non-farm wage employment and renting out of
unused premises. The reasons given for this choice are the falling income in agriculture, the
availability of redundant farm premises for renewed use, and the desire to take advantage
of personal education and vocational training (Sofer and Ne'eman 1998; Sofer 2001; Sofer
and Applebaum 2009). Often it is the men who tend to remain involved in agriculture or to
operate the on-farm business, while the women prefer wage employment, mainly in close
by urban centers (Sofer 2002), although the number of women entrepreneurs seems to be on
the increase (Saada 2007).

On-farm non-agricultural businesses are a relatively recent phenomenon in the moshav, since
the terms of the land lease permit only agricultural use, and for many years the institutional
system and the local cooperative societies were strong enough to block their development.
Following the financial crisis on-farm business activity and rental of premises to external
entrepreneurs have become a common component of the survival strategy of moshav
households, and are growing fast. By 2002, the latest year for which data are available, about
one out of three holdings had at least one such enterprise, operated by the farm family or
rented out (Ministry of Agriculture 2003).

The 1980s' financial crisis intensified the internal differentiation, within individual moshav
communities and in the moshav sector as whole. Income disparities among farming
households and the differential patterns of employment generated conflicts among
farmers and weakened the organizational systems at both the local and the regional levels
(Applebaum 1990; Ben Dror and Sofer 2010).

There are indications that the contribution of agriculture to household income is relatively
higher in peripheral areas while the share of non-agricultural income is relatively high in the
rural-urban fringe, indicating the importance of the proximity to economic opportunities
in urban markets for non-farm occupations (Sherman and Keidar 1983; Sofer and Ne'eman
1998).

Demographic Demographic changes

In contrast to the trends that prevail in many advanced countries the decline in agricultural
employment in Israel was not accompanied by a decrease in the rural or farm population.
Most farm holdings have been continuously inhabited, although not always by the original
founding family. This high degree of stability may be attributed first, to the legal prohibition
of farm amalgamation, and second, the relatively small size of the country, which means
that most moshav communities are within commuting distance of urban centers, enabling

This content downloaded from

185.53.157.201 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:53:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
202 Levia Applebaum and Michael Sofer

ex-farmers to work in the town and continue to live

early 1980s witnessed an influx of urban families who

in the moshav although they had only a limited interes
development was facilitated by the improvements in
which enabled the newcomers to enjoy a rural lifestyle
urban centers.

A more recent fundamental change in the demograp

population started in the early 1990s, as a result of the
which opened the door for new non-farming populatio
and Keidar 1992; Applebaum and Rimalt 1995). The p
most moshav communities, and by the end of 2001 3
permissions for a total of 35,000 residential plots (Ben-
more than a third of these plots, were occupied by new
2003). Although the expansion program was originally
families, who were not entitled to inherit a farm holdi
moshav,moshav, in practice, many plots were sold to outsid
families with young children. As pointed out previou
agriculture and their expectations from life in the mos
farm-holders. Although the rules of the program were
the influx of the new households has been more noti
than in peripheral areas, contributing to the widen
within the moshav sector.

Implications for the moshav

The processes described above have had a tremendou

ways. In the first place the moshav is becoming a di
based on farmers with similar interests, but compris
of occupations and diverse attitudes towards the futu
Complex organizational structures replace the original
principles and unique traditional features of the mo
implications, which may already be discerned, are dis

Increasing Increasing inter-community and internal differenti

The changes which have taken place in the economic

widening disparities and inequality within individu
within the moshav sector as a whole. The rural space,
is attracting investments in industry and commerce
economic sectors. However, these investments are n
Moshav communities. Generally speaking, with some

This content downloaded from

185.53.157.201 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:53:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The moshav in Israel: Agricultural communities in a process of change 203

the center of the country represent the growing pole of the rural sector, while those located
in peripheral regions have been left behind, and have become relatively marginalized.

Similar processes contributed to the growing internal disparity within individual moshav
communities. In the past such disparities were kept under control by institutional equalizing
mechanisms. The equal allocation of land and other production assets, the similarity of farm
structure, the cooperative frameworks and the mutual aid system had all served to maintain
a socially acceptable level of economic inequality among members of the moshav. The move
towards farm specialization exposed the differences in the entrepreneurial capacity of
individual farmers and resulted in a growing internal inequality in the possession of assets
and in levels of income, as well as in the type of services and credit required by farmers2.
Under these conditions the cooperative frameworks could no longer act as effective
equalizing mechanisms.

Growing internal disparities may also be attributed to the influx of new in-migrants, most
of whom are educated people, employed in occupations with higher than average incomes.
Often these newcomers seem to be better off than members of old-time farm households,
especially those who could not make the necessary adjustment to the changing economic
conditions and find complementary sources of income.

Changing Changing organizational and municipal structures

The increasing internal differentiation is expressed, among other things, in the emergence
of conflicts between the various interest groups which now reside in the moshav. As far as
the farmers are concerned, there is no longer a common base for joint economic activities
that were previously performed through the cooperative society. Furthermore, the financial
crisis eroded the mutual trust among farm-holders, resulting in a general decline of the
cooperative functions. The only exception is the contract of the land, which is still held
jointly by all farm-owners through the cooperative society. Another exception was the
municipal management of the community, but since 1990, and especially since the arrival
of the new residents during the expansion program, it has been gradually taken over by
statutory bodies.

The newcomers, on their part, have no interest in farming and no share in the cooperative
society. Their lease on the land is individual, and they have no voting rights in the cooperative
general assembly which elects its executive committee. For several decades, since the 1960s,
it was this committee that was legally in charge of the municipal affairs of the moshav. As a
result, non-members, including all newcomers, had no influence on the management and
course of development of the community.

2 Disparities in household income may be affected also by non-farm income, but in the absence of reliable data
this cannot be confirmed.

This content downloaded from

185.53.157.201 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:53:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
204 Levia Applebaum and Michael Sofer

Eventually, it was the pressure of non-members to h

led to a major transformation in the organizational f
submitted to the high court of justice led to an amendm
which stipulated that when certain conditions apply,
from the cooperative committee, shall be elected by all
the cooperative. By 2009, more than 70% of the moshav
the cooperative committee to deal only with the few ec
by the members of the society, mostly those related to
The significance of this change lies in the fact that the
one of their major distinctive features - the multi-p
are gradually integrating into the regular municipal s
process is not yet completed, and in the meantime conf
municipal committees arise from time to time, while fo
have not yet been created (Applebaum 2002b). The long-
change cannot be evaluated at this early stage, but they
order of priorities for the future development of the m
will become the majority in the community (Applebau

Physical Physical and environmental aspects of change

The original layout of the moshav was carefully pla

principles - equal-sized farm holdings, divided betw
built-up area of the settlement and the agricultural
buildings; infrastructure; and open spaces. The hom
included residences for the extended family and farm
The introduction of non-farming businesses and th
appearance of the community considerably. Instead o
of residential, commercial and recreational structures
buildings converted into non-agricultural uses, now
new sections resemble urban neighbourhoods, with m
developed infrastructure, and often stand in contrast
moshav,moshav, especially if the moshav management did
and renovate public buildings and improve the old in
population and in economic activities is felt also in t
traffic, reflecting the commuting patterns of local r
employees, clients and trucks serving local businesses, a

The reorganization of the physical layout has produ

environmental grounds. The increased intensity of a
the penetration of non-agricultural activities, has i
impacts with respect to land, water, and air resources,
and has created environmental hazards and nuisance
is especially acute with regard to businesses and war

This content downloaded from

185.53.157.201 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:53:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The moshav in Israel: Agricultural communities in a process of change 205

within the residential area. Some of these have been constructed without proper planning
permission, are operating without license and do not apply environmental safety measures.
The inappropriate infrastructure, originally designed for a smaller population and farm
services, exacerbates the problem even further. The proximity of residential and commercial
structures, especially if the latter involve a high volume of traffic, is causing friction among
neighbours. The same applies to nuisance-producing farm buildings, which are especially
undesirable for the newcomers, whose image of the rural community is of a quiet, clean and
peaceful place.

The future course of the moshav

A A review of the changes which are taking place in the moshav-type settlement in Israel
reveals a multifaceted process involving shifting government policies, diverse survival
strategies of farming households, invasion of non-farming in-migrants and a transformation
of traditional organizational frameworks of the rural sector. The emerging image is one of
transition from the previous hegemonic formation of rural Israel, based on principles of
equality and cooperation, towards a commodified, multi-functional countryside, associated
with both agricultural and non-agricultural activities, and the appearance of a new middle
class territory. This process of transition is reshaping and redefining the moshav basic
principles and is raising questions about its ability to retain its identity as a unique rural
community and its future course of development.

In view of this process a number of major trends deserve further attention. Despite the
changes in its economy the moshav is still a farming community, and agriculture and its
related activities remain an important element of its economy and landscape. In terms of
land use, agriculture still dominates the scene, but is now based mostly on amalgamated
large units of land cultivated by a smaller number of farmers. The ratio of cultivated land per
active farmer has increased significantly and the "large scale farm" has become a common
phenomenon. In other words, while the farm holdings are still legally indivisible, in practice
the distribution of land resources is no longer equal.

The transition from dependence on agriculture to a more diversified economic base has
changed the nature of the moshav from a relatively homogeneous farming community into a
multi-functional heterogeneous space. Furthermore, the influx of new residents has brought
about new patterns of demand for goods and services. Hence, the moshav has changed from
a space of production to a space of mixed production and consumption. Another aspect
of these changes is the transition from the cooperative model of organization to the less
demanding municipal model. At the same time, intra-moshav and inter -moshav inequalities
are growing across regions and communities, reflecting the differences in both the range
of opportunities available at different locations and the individual ability to exploit these
opportunities and make the necessary adjustments.

This content downloaded from

185.53.157.201 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:53:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
206 Levia Applebaum and Michael Sofer

Evidently the moshav is losing some of its unique struc

principles, in favour of more flexible frameworks. N
from the cooperative model of organization to the les
is closer to the urban form of administration. While
been relaxed by the relevant public institutions, other
households, although they are still officially intact. It
is stronger than the wish to preserve the original tra
households have found the way to adjust to the cha
cost of deviating from the original principles. The r
the formal structure of the moshav and its practical
of uncertainty about its future course, and a wide pu
which compete over the future use of rural resources
a new and distinctive identity which has yet to be de
suburban community?

The analysis of the changes in the moshav underlines t

rural space as a whole is currently exposed to. Israel's
have changed significantly in a relatively short period
qualitative sense. The quantitative changes are obvious
and significance of the qualitative changes cannot b
question regarding the nature of rurality in Israel in g
the future. There is no clear-cut answer to this question
presence of contestant interest groups pulling in differ
absence of a coherent public policy which will offer bo
targets for the Israeli rural space.

References

Applebaum, L. 1986. Migration of Urban Families to the Mo

Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew).

Applebaum, L. 1990. Adjustment to change under external

cooperative frameworks in the Moshav. Journal of Rural Coop

Applebaum, L. 2002a. The Regional Council and the Local

Environment.Environment. Jerusalem: Florsheimer Institute for Policy

Applebaum, L. 2002b. Relations between the cooperative a

in the wake of moshav expansion. Studies in the Geography of

Applebaum, L., and F. Keidar. 1992. The Expansion Program of

Rehovot: Development Study Center (Hebrew).

Applebaum, L., and J. Margulies. 1979. The Moshav - Patter

Settlement Study Center (Hebrew).

This content downloaded from

185.53.157.201 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:53:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The moshav in Israel: Agricultural communities in a process of change 207

Applebaum, L., and A. Rimalt. 1995. Integration of Suburban Neighbourhoods Into Cooperative Communities
Under Under Conditions of Uncertainty. Rehovot: Development Study Center (Hebrew).

Argent, N., R Smailes, and T. Griffin. 2007. The amenity complex: towards a framework for analysing
and predicting the emergence of a multifunctional countryside in Australia. Geographical Research,
45(3), 217-232.

Baidock, D., J. Dwyer, P. Lowe, J. E. Petersen, and N. Ward. 2001. The Nature of Rural Development:
Towards Towards a Sustainable Integrated Rural Policy in Europe. Synthesis Report. Ten-Nation Scoping Study for
WWF and the GB Countryside Agencies.

Beale, C. L. 1975. The Revival of Population Growth in Non-metropolitan America. Washington DC:
Economic Research Service publication 605, USDA.

Ben-David, A. 2002. Non-agricultural expansion - overall data up to the end of 2001. Ministry of
Agriculture and Rural Development, Rural Planning and Development Authority, Programme
Committee, Agricultural Campus, Beit Dagan (Hebrew).

Ben-Dror, G., and M. Sofer. 2010. Weakening Cooperation in the Israeli Moshav: Preliminary Aspects.
Journal Journal of Rural Cooperation, 38(2), 156-172.

Beteille, R. 1994. La Crise Rurale, Que Sais-Je? Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Boyarsky, E. 2004. Residents' perception of environmental and socio-economic impacts of non

farming enterprises in the moshav. Horizons in Geography, 59,78-94 (Hebrew).

Brun, A. H., and A. M. Fuller. 1991. Farm Family Pluriactivity in Western Europe. Arkleton Trust
(research) Ltd. Oxford.

Bryden, J., and R. Bollman. 2000. Rural employment in industrialised countries. Agricultural
Economics,Economics, 22,185-197.

Central Bureau of Statistics [CBS]. 1998. Agricultural Survey -1995. Special Publication 1081, Jerusalem.

Furuseth, 0.1998. Service provision and social deprivation. In B. Ilbery (ed.), The Geography of Rural
Change,Change, 233-256, London: Longman.

Gasson, R. 1988. Farm diversification and rural development. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 39,
175-182.

Haruvi, N. 1989. Trends in the structure of agriculture and employment in family farms. Horizons in
Geography,Geography, 27,25-37 (Hebrew)

Healy, M. J., and B. W. Ilbery. 1985. The industrialisation of the countryside: An overview. In M. J.
Healy and B. W. Ilbery (eds.), The Industrialisation of the Countryside, 1-26, Norwich: Geo Books.

Ilbery, B. W. and I. Bowler. 1998. From agricultural productivism to post- productivism. In B. Ilbery
(ed.), The Geography of Rural Change, 57-84, London: Longman.

Ilbery, B. W., M. J. Healey, J. Higginbottom, and D. Noon. 1996. Agricultural adjustment and business
diversification by farm households. Geography, 81(4), 301-310.

This content downloaded from

185.53.157.201 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:53:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 208 Levia Applebaum and Michael Sofer

Kimhi, A. 1994. Participation of farm owners in farm and of

time off-farm work. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 45(2), 2

Kimhi, A. 2004. The rise and fall of Israeli agriculture: technol

for presentation at Sung Kyun Kwan University, Depar
Management, Rehovot: The Hebrew University.

Le Heron, R., M. Roche, and T. Johnston. 1994. Pluriactivity

to New Zealand's livestock and fruit agro-commodity system

Lewis, G. 1998. Rural migration and demographic change. In

Change,Change, 131-160, London: Longman.

Maos, J. O. 1998. The physical planning and transformatio

Horizons Horizons in Geography, 48-49,41-58 (Hebrew).

Marsden, T. K. 1990. Towards the political economy of plur

375-382.

Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Planning and Development Au

organizational organizational and municipal activity in the moshav sector i

Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Planning and Development A

state state of agriculture and the rural sector 2010. Jerusalem (Hebrew

Orchan, E., G. Adar, D. Rosolio, and Y. Ashush. 2001. Comm

Research Research Report. Haifa: University of Haifa, Institute of
Cooperative Idea (Hebrew).

Pierce, J. T. 1993. Agriculture, sustainability and the imper

381-396.

Robinson, G. M. 1990. Conflict and Change in the Countryside

Robinson, G. 2004. Geography of Agriculture: Globalisation, R

Pearson Education Limited.

Rokach, A. 1978. Rural Settlement in Israel. Jerusalem: The Jewish Agency for Israel, Department of
Rural Settlement.

Saada, Z. 2007. Factors Influencing Enterprise Development by Women in the Israeli Rural Space: The
Moshavim Moshavim of Lev - Hasharon Regional Council as a Case Study. Unpublished master's thesis, Department

of Geography and Environment, Bar-Ilan University (Hebrew).

Schwartz, M. 1999. The rise and decline of the Israeli Moshav cooperative: a historical overview.
Journal Journal of Rural Cooperation, 27(2), 129-166.

Sherman, N., and F. Keidar. 1993. Non-Agricultural Businesses in Moshav-type, Planned Agricultural
Settlements. Rehovot: Development Study Center (Hebrew).

This content downloaded from

185.53.157.201 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:53:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The moshav in Israel: Agricultural communities in a process of change 209

Shoresh, D. 1988. Economic Differentiation in the Moshav Ovdim. Rehovot: Settlement Study Center
(Hebrew).

Sofer, M. 2001. Pluriactivity in the Moshav: family farming in Israel. Journal of Rural Studies, 17,363
375.

Sofer, M. 2002. The Profile of the Moshav Young Generation: Agriculture and Pluriactivity. The Planning
and Development Authority, The Ministry of Agriculture, Beit-Dagan (Hebrew).

Sofer, M., and L. Applebaum. 2006. The rural space in Israel in search of renewed identity: The case
of the moshav. Journal of Rural Studies, 22,323-336.

Sofer, M. and L. Applebaum. 2009. The emergence of farmers-entrepreneurs as local development

agents in the rural space of Israel. Rural Studies, 20,107-125.

Sofer, M., and R. Gal. 1996. Enterprises in village Israel and their environmental impacts. Geography,
81(3), 235-245

Sofer, M., and U. Ne'eman. 1998. Occupational transformation in Moshav households on the fringe
of the Tel-Aviv metropolitan area: causes and trends. Horizons in Geography, 48-49,59-83 (Hebrew).

Stockdale, A., A. Findlay, and D. Short. 2000. The repopulation of rural Scotland: Opportunity and
threat. Journal of Rural Studies, 16,243-257.

Uzan, T. 2002. Integration of New Residents into the Moshavim as Part of Their Community Expansion
Program.Program. Research thesis for the degree of Master of Science in urban and regional planning,
submitted to the Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa (Hebrew).

Weitz, R., and A. Rokach. 1968. Agricultural Development - Planning and Implementation (Israel Case
Study). Dordrecht-Holland: Reidel.

Winter, M. 1996. The crisis of the Common Agricultural Policy. In Rural Politics - Policies for Agriculture,
Forestry Forestry and the Environment, Chapter 6, London: Routledge.

Yalan, E. 1975. The Design of Agricultural Settlements: Technological Aspects of Rural Community
Development. Jerusalem: Jewish Agency for Israel.

This content downloaded from

185.53.157.201 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:53:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms