The Impact of Formal and Informal Institutional Elements on Land Mobility Within Rural Greece

Abstract

Land mobility, particularly in the agricultural sector, is a critical factor for rural development and the maintenance of the supply chain. In the EU, the dominant form of agricultural land mobility is succession. This study examines the impact of formal and informal institutional factors on land mobility and the development of the agricultural sector in Greece, emphasizing their role in shaping succession and land mobility processes. This research introduces an innovative approach by analyzing both formal (legislation, EU policies, taxation) and informal (cultural ties, family traditions) institutional factors that influence land mobility. Within this framework, this study explores the attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors of farmers, acknowledging that the institutional environment—shaped by both official regulations and informal norms, often expressed by the family head—may influence younger family members to adopt similar behaviors and practices. It also highlights the impact of ineffective and underdeveloped formal and informal institutions, providing policymakers and young people seeking to engage in agriculture with a valuable guide. The methodology is based on qualitative research, using semi-structured interviews with 21 members of farming families to capture views, perceptions, and experiences related to land mobility. The findings highlight several major barriers, including fragmented land ownership, emotional attachment to inherited land, bureaucratic obstacles, and high tax burdens. At the same time, shifting attitudes among younger generations are evident, as they adopt a more entrepreneurial mindset in land management. The results point to an urgent need for institutional reforms, such as completing the land registry, simplifying land transfer procedures, and promoting land consolidation policies. Overall, this exploratory study underscores the need for increased research attention to the formal and informal institutional elements that influence rural economic and structural development through land mobility, providing important insights for policies aimed to enhance land mobility and ensure the sustainable development of the agricultural sector. Furthermore, it provides valuable input for understanding and addressing challenges such as family traditions, emotional attachments to inherited land, and land mobility.

1. Introduction

Barriers to land mobility are the most significant challenge faced by young people attempting to enter the agricultural sector [1,2,3]. The European strategy entitled “The EU Rural Vision” aims for a strong, connected, prosperous, and resilient rural area by 2040. It pertains to 83% of the EU’s territory and accommodates 137 million people but will not achieve its expected outcomes unless the issue of land mobility is resolved. This issue remains under-researched [4,5]. Improved land mobility reduces entry barriers for young farmers while simultaneously creating conditions to address the economic vulnerability of farms, the low rates of farm succession, and aging farmers’ insufficient pensions [6,7]. Agricultural holdings and farming businesses are directly linked to land mobility [8,9].

Agriculture is the most extensive land-use type in the European Union, covering over 47% of its territory [10] and supporting more than 44 million jobs, with over 20 million people working directly in farming and the rest in agriculture-related industries [11,12]. Agricultural land is crucial for food production, energy generation, and public goods [13,14]. The sector is dominated by family farms, which comprised 96.2% of the EU’s 10.8 million farms in 2013 [15]. However, older farmers often struggle to transfer family farm ownership, creating challenges for succession [16]. Young people face significant entry barriers to farming, primarily due to limited access to land, exacerbated by land concentration trends [17,18]. Factors such as older farmers’ reluctance to retire, land concentration, the limited availability of land for sale or rent, and high land prices pose obstacles to all young people wishing to engage in the agricultural sector, irrespective of nationality or geographical location [17,19].

Farm mobility includes various forms. Land sale, land rental, lease, and land succession are some of them. The sale of land is often the preferred form of land mobility when compared to land rental, as full rights are transferred to the new owner. However, it is rather low in Europe, as no extended supply of agricultural land exists [20]. In some countries, there are also policies to reduce land fragmentation (as size limits) that hinder land sales or land lease. Tax policy and tax reliefs affect usually these types of land mobility [8]. As a result, land succession seems to be the dominant form of land mobility, especially in the EU and in Greece.

Poor land mobility is further exacerbated by there being a lack of family members who are willing to continue farming when senior landowners are ready to retire [21,22]. Studies have shown that abandoned agricultural lands create spillover effects, leading to increasing land abandonment in many European regions [23,24,25].

Land fragmentation is widely recognized as a key factor that diminishes agricultural profitability [26]. Where farmland ownership is significantly fragmented, this contributes to land degradation and simultaneously challenges sustainable land management [27]. In parts of Asia and Central and Eastern Europe, severe land fragmentation has made the individual cultivation of small parcels economically unviable, necessitating tenure arrangements and consolidation into larger, viable production units [28,29]. Land fragmentation is a significant issue worldwide, not only in highly populated countries such as China and India [30,31] but also in nations across Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe [32,33,34,35].

A study by Zondag et al. (2015) identified the acquisition of agricultural land through purchase or rental as the most critical need for young farmers and new entrants aspiring to a farming career [36]. However, gaining access to land also represents the greatest obstacle to entering the European agricultural sector [4,37]. Land mobility, or land transfer between farmers or generations, is a key issue in EU agricultural policy discussions under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) [38,39]. While policies aim to consolidate farmland through plot exchanges and aggregation, progress is hindered by slow mobility and high transaction costs [40,41,42]. Land policies and regulations vary significantly across EU member states due to differing historical, geographical, and economic factors, with responsibility for land policy considered to lie at the national level [16,37].

The aim of this study is to examine land mobility by investigating both formal and informal institutional factors, addressing the need for greater research emphasis on those institutional elements that affect the rural economic and structural development of land mobility. Formal factors include the institutional impact of European and national policies, land mobility incentives, existing obstacles in land transfers, and the impact of land mobility on structural and economic development. Informal factors include the emotional attachment to inherited land, as well as the customs and traditions of Greek landowners regarding intergenerational land mobility. These factors are expected to affect the attitudes and behaviors of families and individuals in regard to land mobility.

2. Land Mobility Through Relevant Indicators

Within this research, we searched for land mobility economic indicators of freedom based on quantitative and qualitative factors. We searched for the indicators of the rule of law effect and indicators of regulatory effectiveness. Property rights, government integrity, judicial effectiveness, tax burden, business effectiveness, and investment freedom indicators were examined and analyzed. With regard to the aforementioned indicators, the Greek landscape ranking within the formal institutional framework is showcased in Section 5.

We also sought other indicators that are commonly used in mobility, such as information and guidance, incentives for mobility, long-term preparation for mobility, and its quality as well. These particular indicators can also be applied to the matter concerning land mobility. However, with regard to the case of Greece, we did not find any official data on such indicators.

3. Literature Review

Land mobility is a topic that has attracted significant research interest [3,6,43,44]. This research has focused on the impact of land mobility on rural community development and the rural economy [4,20,43]. Geoghegan and O’ Donoghue (2018) demonstrated that to enhance production and prevent negative effects on the rural economy, incentives must be provided to encourage land mobility among farmers [43]. Alternative agricultural models promoted by many European countries do not consider land market policies, resulting in impacts on the rural economy and development [45]. Bradfield et al. (2023) found that improved land mobility reduces barriers to entry for young farmers and mitigates economic vulnerability [20]. The adverse effects of poor land mobility on community development and the rural economy are further compounded by concerns over an aging farming population, particularly in Europe [4,46,47]. Based on the international literature, institutions have offered effective solutions to problems that have economic implications [48,49], such as the issue of land mobility, which has its own economic aspect [43]. Institutions form the framework and structure of economic incentives, and their effectiveness ultimately modifies economic performance [50]. Optimized land mobility constitutes a concrete factor addressing economic vulnerability [20]. It creates potential for rural economic development by shaping modern crops with the entry of new farmers into the profession [16]. When institutions contribute to enhancing productive activity, there exists an increased interest in participating in those activities that ultimately generate income and drive economic growth. A positive economic outcome is established via such approaches applied by an institutional framework, especially rewarding those undertakings [49].

The findings in the international literature highlight the reluctance of one generation to pass the baton on to the next, preventing the latter from embarking on their own agricultural career [51,52,53]. Conway et al. (2017) found that the reluctance of the older generation to retire and transfer their farm to the younger generation is a global phenomenon, stemming from the desire of aging farmers to remain active on their farm while maintaining a legal connection to the local community [16]. The issue of generational renewal through farm transfers is particularly acute in Europe [54]. Lobley et al. (2010) demonstrated that many European policies are often ineffective at addressing the ongoing crisis of farm succession [55]. Other research has shown that the failure to achieve generational renewal leads to rural depopulation [16,56,57].

Land sales policies, land leasing, and farm succession are aspects of land mobility that have attracted and continue to attract research interest [58,59,60]. Uncultivated land and the barriers preventing its cultivation have also been subjects of interest for research [61,62,63]. A study by Adenuga et al. (2021) highlighted barriers stemming from land sale policies and long-term land leases while also emphasizing the incentives that exist to adopt and promote long-term land leases [58]. Such barriers restricting land mobility include high transaction costs, family inheritance patterns, imperfections in credit markets, and complex legal arrangements [59,64]. Regarding land abandonment, Hatna and Bakker (2011) found this to be driven by multiple socio-economic, topographical, soil, and environmental factors and not necessarily linked to unfavorable locations [63]. Additionally, research has shown that land abandonment presents economic, social, and environmental concerns [62,65].

Another topic of research interest has been land fragmentation and its impact on agricultural development for young farmers [66,67,68,69]. A study by Postek et al. (2019) revealed that land distribution and the phenomenon of fragmentation have intensified significantly in many countries worldwide [70]. This land fragmentation hinders the growth of agricultural production and contributes to land abandonment [71]. The international literature includes proposals for promoting land consolidation [72,73,74]. However, findings also indicate that small land holdings are not necessarily a disadvantage when small-scale landowners pursue alternative activities without completely abandoning agricultural production [75].

However, there is a gap in the research with regard to land mobility in a European context [76]. Conway et al. (2020) highlighted this gap and emphasized the necessity of further research on all aspects of land mobility in a European context, given its impact on young farmers, agricultural production, and the sustainability of rural communities [4]. This study aims to fill this gap by examining the formal and informal institutional factors influencing and shaping land mobility.

4. Theoretical Framework

This study explores the attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors of farmers which impact the formal and informal institutional elements of land mobility, through the lens of institutional theory and the theory of planned behavior [77]. Institutions are formal and informal rules that establish codes of conduct [78], encompassing laws, regulations, cultural norms, and professional standards embedded in the ideology and culture that shape behavioral codes [79]. Institutional theory effectively explains the external pressures that influence entrepreneurial actions to adopt specific behavioral practices [80,81]. Beyond organizations and enterprises, institutional theory has also been applied at the micro-level to explain individual behaviors [82,83]. Institutional forces can create rules for social actors, shaping their social behaviors [84].

In this context, formal and informal institutional forces influence the attitudes and behaviors of social actors, such as families and individuals, within the framework of rural family businesses and agricultural holdings [84]. Issues related to land succession and mobility are central to this framework. According to this approach, families are subject to coercive, normative, and mimetic pressures, as well as behavioral standards that affect beliefs and actions [85]. In many family structures worldwide, the “head” of the family manages the rural family business or agricultural holding and holds a primary role in decision-making within a broader value system that is shaped by formal and informal institutions [86,87,88].

This central role of the family’s head in decision-making often manifests as reluctance to transfer farmland to younger generations [16] and may additionally result in land fragmentation when inheritance is divided among multiple heirs, thereby hindering agricultural production [71]. Frequently, the institutional environment shaped by formal and informal rules, as expressed by the family head, is transmitted to younger family members by means of coercive pressure [89].

At the same time, the family structure in relation to rural family businesses and agricultural holdings generates normative pressures shaped by cultural expectations that younger individuals feel obliged to respect while simultaneously meeting their parents’ expectations [84,90,91]. Best practices achieved by a rural family business or farm create mimetic pressures that influence social actors and younger family members to adopt and replicate such practices [92,93]. The formation of these behavioral standards impacts decisions, either encouraging or discouraging the engagement of younger individuals in family farming operations by expanding them by consolidating land [73,74] or, alternatively, leaving land uncultivated, which has adverse effects on rural development [62,65]. The research shows that the aforementioned effects of formal and informal institutions on land mobility do not operate independently. Contrarily, they interact with each other and actually via a complex way by shaping people’s attitudes and behaviors towards land mobility. This is confirmed by the institutional framework included in this research. Coercive, normative, and mimetic pressures as well as certain norms derived from the family environment shaping succession and land mobility are themes that have been interpreted by both institutional theory and programmed behavior theory. The mechanisms of land mobility, as revealed through the attitudes, perceptions, and experiences of the farmers, are confirmed within this study through the establishment of a theoretical approach framework.

Paternalistic leadership by the head of the farms, according to the international literature, can be distinguished in two forms: strict paternalistic leadership that exerts strong pressures for authority and control on the other members with the aim of obedience [94] and benevolent paternalistic leadership that aims for subordinates to thrive and succeed in their work [95]. The role of paternalistic leadership in succession selection is also a function of emotional factors [96]. This evidence is also consistent with Nobel laureate Richard Thaler’s view that decision-making is influenced by economic and co-economic factors. The research of Jayantilal et al. (2016) revealed that the co-economic costs of family members’ rivalries affect the farm head’s decision on succession [97].

According to Greve and Argote (2015) [98], the development of institutional theory has brought it closer to behavioral theory, as organizational change processes, which differ based on behavioral theory, are directly influenced by institutional theory [99]. This theoretical convergence has opened the way for an approach to sustainable practices based on the application of institutional theory and the theory of planned behavior [77].

Jebsen and Boyd (2023), who studied issues related to intergenerational asset succession by integrating institutional theory with the theory of planned behavior, highlighted the direct and moderating effects on mobility and succession intentions [100]. The theory of planned behavior is based on the principle of compatibility [101,102], which posits that behaviors are goal-directed within a specific context, time, and place [103,104]. According to Ajzen (2002), the theory of planned behavior posits that the attitudes toward the behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control work together to shape an individual’s behavior [105].

5. Institutional Elements Affecting Land Mobility in Greece

5.1. Formal Institutional Elements

To capture the current state of the institutional framework in Greece concerning land mobility, we examined indicators of economic freedom based on quantitative and qualitative factors. Specifically, we analyzed the rule of law through the indicators of property rights, government integrity, and judicial effectiveness. We also considered the tax burden in relation to the government size dimension, business freedom in relation to the regulatory efficiency dimension, and investment freedom in relation to the open markets category. The analysis of these indicators revealed that in 2023, Greece scored 76.9 in property rights, 55.2 in government integrity, 69.9 in judicial effectiveness, 60.6 in tax burden, 55.0 in investment freedom, and 73.9 in business freedom [106]. These scores illustrate the weaknesses of formal institutions. Furthermore, a report by the Center for Liberal Studies in Greece, based on the Fraser Institute’s economic freedom indicators for 2022, ranked Greece in 70th place out of 165 countries and as having the lowest score of all EU member states [107,108]. These findings highlight the inefficiency of formal institutions in Greece, which in turn affects land mobility.

A fundamental prerequisite for seamless land mobility is that a country’s formal institutional framework should safeguard and protect private property. Individuals should be able to acquire, own, use, and sell land without excessive bureaucratic and legal obstacles or excessive taxation. Greece’s property rights score of 76.9 indicates that additional protective measures are required. The country is still working towards developing a comprehensive cadaster and forest maps to secure property rights [109]. A well-structured land registry and forest mapping system would enable a more efficient land management system and allow stakeholders to operate more effectively [110]. The absence of a cadaster and forest maps has historically meant that land disputes had to be settled through a lengthy judicial process. Despite recent reforms, the Greek judicial system remains the slowest in the EU [111], continuing to present very high case processing times and ultimately posing a further obstacle to land mobility.

The sale, inheritance, and parental transfer of agricultural land in Greece is a costly and bureaucratic process. The transfer of a property requires over twenty different certificates, each with a limited validity period, which often leads to inefficiencies as one document expires before another has been issued [112,113]. Additionally, multiple stakeholders—lawyers, notaries, accountants, real estate agents, engineers, and surveyors—are involved in each transaction, further increasing costs. If the purchase involves bank financing, the number of parties involved rises. Moreover, transactions including land are subject to transfer taxes, while land rental prices have been rising steadily, as indicated by ELSTAT’s Annual Index of Production Factor Compensation in Agriculture and Livestock. The rental index rose from 97.9 in 2013 to 113.9 in 2023 [114].

Land market data published in 2023 show that the sale price of agricultural land has increased by up to 67%, while rental prices have been increasing annually by up to 3.5% [115]. Land prices also exhibit significant disparities across EU member states and within Greece itself. In 2022, the average price of agricultural land in Greece was EUR 1357 per stremma (a stremma (plural form: stremmata) is unit of land area used mainly in Greece and Cyprus for land measurement, equal to 1000 square meters or approximately ¼ acre [116], compared to EUR 1057 per stremma in the EU [117]. Moreover, regional disparities are substantial, with land prices in Attica being 15 times higher than in Western Greece [118]. To enhance land mobility, policy recommendations include reducing transfer fees and taxes and simplifying the regulatory framework.

5.2. Informal Institutional Elements

Informal institutions in Greece also exhibit distinct characteristics that impact land mobility. In certain regions, such as Mani, there are no official property titles, as the transactions including land have historically been conducted orally rather than in written form [118]. Additionally, Greece has many small and fragmented agricultural holdings, a result of deep-rooted social norms in rural communities [119]. Traditionally, parents have divided their land equally among their children, leading to excessive land fragmentation. This longstanding structural issue acts as a hindrance to land mobility and agricultural development. Among the EU-27 countries, Greece ranks fourth from the bottom in terms of land fragmentation, ahead of only Malta, Cyprus, and Romania [120].

When comparing the average farm size in Greece with that for the EU-27, a significant discrepancy emerges. The average Greek agricultural holding is 48 stremmata, with the exception of the region of Thessaly, where it reaches 68 stremmata, whereas the EU-27 average is 142 stremmata [119]. Furthermore, the average Greek farm consists of seven to eight plots per owner, with each plot averaging 5–6 stremmata [121]. Agricultural production in Greece remains family-based, with parents playing a central role in decision-making [12]. The strong role of the family structure influences inheritance patterns, often resulting in reluctance to transfer land to younger generations.

This reluctance is reinforced by EU subsidy policies, which favor older landowners and allow farmers to continue working their land even after retirement. The Greek agricultural sector has become highly dependent on subsidies [122,123]. Moreover, many urban migrants who have left their rural place of origin for better living conditions in cities nevertheless retain ownership of their farmland, driven by emotional attachment to their inherited land [124]. This cultural attachment further restricts land mobility. Additionally, many city residents continue to cultivate inherited agricultural land as a way to supplement their income while maintaining ties with their hometown [124,125].

These behaviors contribute to the persistence of small agricultural holdings and hinder structural changes in rural economies [125,126]. Despite recent reforms in Greece, its inefficient formal institutions and deeply entrenched informal norms continue to impede land mobility. In accordance, energy efficiency and its indicators in Greece play a pivotal role in reforming any policies that contribute to land mobility [127], economic progress, and a diversified green economy [128].

The combination of inefficient formal institutions and entrenched informal norms in Greece has created structural barriers to land mobility. The absence of a comprehensive cadaster, the slow judicial process, excessive bureaucratic requirements, high transfer taxes, and land fragmentation collectively impede transactions that include land. At the same time, strong family traditions, an emotional attachment to inherited land, and dependence on agricultural subsidies discourage landowners from selling or leasing their land. Addressing these challenges requires comprehensive institutional reforms, including reducing bureaucracy, enhancing judicial efficiency, establishing a robust cadaster system, and reforming taxation policies related to land mobility. Only through such measures can Greece improve land mobility and foster a more dynamic and efficient land market.

5.3. Interplay Between Formal and Informal Institutions

Formal and informal institutional factors do not operate independently but rather interact with each other and shape people’s attitudes and behaviors. Research by Osei-Tutu et al. (2015) indicated that formal and informal institutions do not function independently of each other but are intricately intertwined [129]. They occur simultaneously and influence the way people act [130]. Hence, they mutually affect each other and thereby shape the manner in which people behave and act [131,132,133]. This interaction between formal and informal institutions can materialize in various forms [129]. Helmke and Levitsky (2012) classified the forms of interaction of formal and informal institutions into facilitative interaction, vicarious interaction, complementary interaction, and antagonistic interaction [134]. Facilitative interaction is observed when informal institutions create an outcome without compromising the formal institutional framework. In the case of people following an informal institution instead of a formal one to pursue the same outcome, substitutive interaction occurs. Competitive interaction refers to the occasion when institutions complement one another. Lastly, when individuals choose informal instincts, we could state that competitive interaction emerges [134].

6. Methodology

6.1. Sample Selection

In order to identify the views, perceptions, experiences, and attitudes of members of farming families with regard to land mobility, as shaped by formal and informal institutional elements, the research team adopted a qualitative research approach [135]. According to the global literature, a qualitative approach is considered effective for detecting and evaluating human opinions and perspectives as well as delving into the environment in which a social event is formed and evolves [136,137]. The particular research method selected has the capability of being able to reliably interpret complex environments that present socio-economic implications [138]. According to Fossey et al. (2002), qualitative research effectively addresses questions related to human life experiences, actions, and social contexts [139]. Qualitative research is commonly used to understand beliefs, experiences, and behaviors but also interactions among individuals [140].

The sample was drawn from areas that possess common socio-economic and environmental facets where land mobility does not alter land use for tourism facilities and activities or for the establishment of large industrial units. Additionally, these places present strong family ties and purely agricultural land tenure. Convenience sampling was applied to identify a relevant sample [141]. After specifying certain inclusion criteria, we adopted convenience sampling [142,143], as it is suitable for obtaining data on people’s perceptions and attitudes towards the explored phenomenon [144]. This choice is compatible with the detection of the views, experiences, perceptions, and expectations of farmers towards land mobility as the main aim of the current empirical study. Sampling followed the principle of appropriateness and adequacy to ensure individual characteristics [145,146,147]. Overall, 21 individual semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted given that, according to the global literature, this kind of qualitative interview contributes to objectivity and flexibility and, at the same time, creates a responsive discussion framework that enables the researcher to explore particular aspects of the socio-economic event under investigation that would be difficult to trace using other techniques [148,149,150]. Semi-structured in-depth interviews have the potential to delve into social and personal issues [151]. Additionally, they are suitable for highlighting and reflecting a detailed picture of the respondents’ beliefs, opinions, perceptions, and experiences [152].

Additionally, based on the international literature regarding qualitative approaches, the sample size should be small so that each case has a distinct narrative, in-depth interview within the study, leading to the performance of an intensive analysis for each case [141,153].

Table 1. Overview of characteristics of study participants.

R	Agricultural Sector	Family Position	Agricultural Area/Village
R1	Olive Producer—Organic Farming	Second-born son	Neapoli Agriniou, locations: Ypsili Panagia, Mavrikeika
R2	Olive Producer	First-born son	Village Kambos Agriniou
R3	Olive Producer	First-born son	Village Kambos Agriniou
R4	Olive Producer	Third son	Village Panaitolio Agriniou
R5	Olive Producer	Father	Village Kainourgio Agriniou
R6	Olive Producer	Father	Village Avorani and Aitoliko Agriniou
R7	Olive Producer	Father	Village Kouvaras Agriniou
R8	Olive Producer	Son	Village Panaitolio Agriniou
R9	Olive Producer	Father	Village Panaitolio Agriniou
R10	Olive Producer	Father	Village Roupakias Agriniou
R11	Olive Producer	Father	Village Mavrikeika Agriniou
R12	Olive Producer	Father	Kourkouneika, Kambos Agriniou
R13	Olive Producer	Son	Village Paravola Agriniou
R14	Olive Producer	Daughter	Village Paravola Agriniou
R15	Olive Producer	First-born son	Village Panaitolio Agriniou
R16	Pomegranate Producer	First-born son	Village Kambos Agriniou
R17	Pomegranate Producer	Daughter	Village Kambos Agriniou
R18	Pomegranate Producer	First-born son	Village Makryneia Agriniou
R19	Viticulture and Small Winery	Father	Village Kapsia, Arcadia
R20	Sheep and Goat Farmer	Father	Village Valtesi, Arcadia
R21	Olive Producer	First-born son	Village Vlasi, Messinia

summarizes the characteristics of study participants.

The interviewees, after being thoroughly informed about the purpose and objectives of this research and being notified that their anonymity would be ensured, provided the research team their consent via a form.

This research was carried out in November and December 2024, and the semi-structured interviews were conducted in Greek, the native language of the respondents. The duration of each interview was approximately one hour. The semi-structured interviews were conducted by telephone since data obtained using phone calls are as reliable as those collected via face-to-face meetings [154,155,156].

6.2. Data Analysis

Data analysis was conducted in the participants’ own language in order to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the data and to exclude misinterpretations of concepts, which is common in qualitative research [157,158]. Only the quotations cited in the Findings Section below were translated into the English language [159]. Initially, each individual interview was examined separately on the basis of an inductive strategy through conducting continuous cross-checks against the thematic sections [160]. The emerging themes and sub-themes were subsequently highlighted through an inductive approach in relation to the research questions [161]. The coding and establishment of categories, as captured in

Table 2. Thematic analysis.

Topics	Subtopics
Barriers to land mobility and the established culture of farm succession	Land fragmentation Emotional attachment to the land Land transfer policies through sale or succession Spatial and urban planning, cadaster, and forest maps
The impact of European policies	Policies promoting land mobility The impact of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) regulations Funded programs and subsidy systems
Impact on structural and economic development	Structural policies Economic policies The financial system Land consolidation systems
The influence of formal and informal institutional factors on land succession and mobility	Laws and regulations Cultural norms Professional standards Local practices Land use and property ownership regimes Institutional framework for uncultivated land Institutional framework for the purchase, sale, and leasing of agricultural land

, were detailed, exhaustive, exclusive, and independent [162]. In order to facilitate comparisons between sectors, a percentage weighting of agreement or disagreement between the members of the coding team was given [163,164].

7. Findings

The findings have been structured under the following four thematic categories: The first category concerns barriers to land mobility and the established culture of farm succession. The second category addresses the impact of European policies. The third category focuses on the structural and economic development of rural areas in the Greek context. The fourth category examines how formal and informal institutional factors influence succession and land mobility.

7.1. Barriers to Land Mobility and the Established Culture of Farm Succession

This thematic section examines issues such as land fragmentation, emotional attachment to inherited land, and the impact of land transfer policies (through sale or succession). This section also highlights the role of spatial and urban planning, as well as land registry and forestry maps. According to the participants, land fragmentation increases costs, complicates the mechanization of cultivation, lowers productivity, and hinders management. However, they do not consider it a decisive barrier to the entry of new farmers.

“It matters to some extent, but I don’t believe it is the main reason young people do not enter farming. A large, continuous piece of land certainly helps with coordinated cultivation and higher yields. Yet the same outcome can be achieved from separate plots of equivalent total area. In fact, fragmented parcels allow you to apply different crops, making use of each field’s unique features and local conditions.” (R1).

Participants consider that there is a strong emotional bond between farmers and land inherited from their parents, which deters them from buying and selling farmland.

“We can’t ignore our traditions or local customs. We learned from our parents to value our land and make a living from it. It wouldn’t be honorable to sell the fields we inherited.” (R20).

This bond, however, is stronger among older generations of farmers. Younger farmers seem less affected by this emotional dimension.

“Today, there isn’t much emotional attachment. Our working conditions are such that we do not have that luxury. We focus on covering our expenses and maintaining a decent living for our families. If a plot does not yield returns, we can easily sell it.” (R4).

According to participants, the institutional framework for land transfers—either through sale or inheritance—is still complex, bureaucratic, and costly. Nonetheless, they acknowledge that technological progress has solved many of the problems encountered in the past. They also stress the need for further institutional changes to facilitate land mobility.

“The institutional framework creates many bureaucratic obstacles that raise the cost of processing and taxation. At the same time, it involves lawyers, local courts, notaries, mortgage registries, land registries, forestry maps, and many more.” (R2).

“Technology in this field has been improved and is largely incorporated into the Greek institutional system. As a result, various steps have been taken to ease daily activities, including land transfers. Nevertheless, more decisive institutional reforms are needed.” (R7).

Participants believe that gaining access to land should be facilitated by a robust and clear spatial and urban planning framework, as well as by a complete land registry and forestry maps. The absence of such frameworks in Greece has been the source of various problems in the past. Completing the country’s land registry system will help to resolve many issues that, up to this point, have had to be settled in court.

“Completing the land registry in our area provides the best possible basis for transactions relative to land. Boundaries and ownership status are clarified, making land access much more transparent.” (R8).

7.2. Impact of European Policies

In this thematic section, the discussion focuses on how the Greek institutional framework has utilized European policies aimed at encouraging land mobility. These policies align with the European vision of a strong, interconnected, prosperous, and resilient countryside, designed to provide incentives for young farmers. This section also examines how Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) rules are translated into the Greek context and whether the associated funded programs and subsidy systems are adequate for young people seeking to enter farming. According to the participants, the European policies encouraging land mobility are promising. In practice, however, there are disparities, bureaucratic hurdles, and delays.

“Policies promoting land mobility move forward under European standards, aiming to offer incentives to new farmers. However, their implementation is marked by inequalities and delays.” (R14).

Participants observe that the Common Agricultural Policy encourages land mobility. Nevertheless, in practice, each EU member state formulates its own approach, leading to wide variations. Participants also emphasize that the CAP funding policy (through subsidies, etc.) may have an impact on whether older farmers decide to leave farming or sell their farms. Participants also suggest that land redistribution policies should be targeted and that land rental policies should receive greater emphasis.

“European policies indirectly influence land mobility, as each member state exercises that authority alone. In my experience, subsidies often discourage older farmers from leaving the profession or selling their land.” (R21).

“Whether policies stem from the EU or individual member states, land redistribution must be carried out in a targeted manner. At the same time, there must be a greater focus on land-leasing policies.” (R20).

Participants further note that the major challenge for new entrants to farming is that of access to land. They believe that government-funded programs are essential to address this problem, although those in existence are insufficient to meet current needs.

“Existing programs provide limited support to young farmers seeking land access. However, they are not enough to fully address the problem, which remains one of the biggest barriers for young people entering agriculture production.” (R11).

“There aren’t enough measures to address the specific issues faced by young farmers, such as limited access to land and capital. There are indeed policies allowing for the lease of public land to new farmers, but the areas available are limited, and the procedures are time-consuming.” (R13).

7.3. Impact on Structural and Economic Development

In this thematic section, the analysis covers the structural and economic policies that affect land mobility. It also investigates the financial system’s role and the impact of land consolidation (reallocation) initiatives. The participants acknowledge that various structural reforms in Greece have addressed multiple challenges. However, these reforms have not effectively tackled the difficulties that new farmers face when trying to secure land and capital.

According to participants, some of the existing economic policies support land mobility for young farmers. Yet these do not fully resolve the problem, mainly due to bureaucracy, the high cost of transferring property, and institutional inefficiencies. They highlight the need for digital platforms to streamline land transfers and access to funding programs, as well as for stronger tax incentives encouraging private landowners to engage in long-term land rental agreements with young farmers.

“Some economic policies in Greece offer partial support for strengthening land mobility. Their effectiveness, however, is restricted by bureaucratic processes.” (R11).

“The current policies are insufficient. Establishing digital platforms for faster land transfers and easier access to subsidy programs is necessary, as is reinforcing tax incentives to encourage private landowners to rent land to young farmers over a long-term period.” (R14).

Participants also point out that the financial sector does not provide adequate support to young farmers seeking land and capital. Prior to the 2008 economic crisis, they enjoyed a better relationship with banks, but conditions have since deteriorated.

“Greek banks were more supportive of farmers before the crisis. However, since then, market conditions have changed, and it has become harder to finance new farmers. Consequently, they have to pay more for everything they need to get started.” (R5).

With regard to land consolidation policies, participants consider them capable of increasing land mobility. Yet, such measures remain limited in Greece.

“Land consolidation can help both land mobility and agricultural development. Unfortunately, this policy tool is applied only in isolated cases in Greece.” (R19).

7.4. Influence of Formal and Informal Institutional Factors on Succession and Land Mobility

This thematic section addresses issues relating to the legal framework, rules, cultural norms, professional standards, and local customs. Additional topics include land use, land ownership status, the institutional framework concerning uncultivated land, and regulations on buying, selling, and renting farmland. The respondents note that the existence of numerous laws, the lengthy process of legal adjudication, high land transfer costs, steep taxation, and red tape constitute a major obstacle to land mobility.

“Greece’s legal, regulatory, and administrative framework governing farmland transactions is complex, bureaucratic, and expensive. If you are unlucky enough to get embroiled in legal disputes over ownership and land registry issues, it’s difficult to break free.” (R21).

This study also highlights the variety and dynamism of traditional norms in farming families and local customs. These are deeply embedded in rural mindsets, significantly shaping succession practices and farmland transactions. Older farm owners, in particular, tend to uphold and pass along such norms.

Participants believe that land mobility can be facilitated by knowing land-use designations and ownership status. However, doing so requires the completion of the land registry and the finalization of forestry maps in Greece. They also stress that the incomplete state of property rights protection remains a major barrier.

“Land-use classification shows whether an area can be used for agriculture or other activities. It is a useful tool for facilitating land transactions.” (R12).

“Land-use designations are vital. When areas are marked as forestland or NATURA-protected zones, agricultural use is not permitted.” (R13).

According to the participants, the abandonment of agricultural land is one of the most important types of land-use change, with socio-economic, demographic, and environmental consequences. They argue that a cohesive institutional framework—one that includes measures for uncultivated land and allows for cultivating land set aside for fallow—could grant young farmers access to new plots.

“The institutional framework concerning uncultivated land and the possibility of cultivating areas left fallow can offer new economic opportunities. Cultivating unused areas can boost productivity and create new income streams. It can also help address land shortages for new farmers by providing them with additional plots for cultivation.” (R4).

Finally, this study identifies institutional distortions in the farmland purchase, sales, and rental system. These distortions negatively affect land mobility and the opportunities it can create for new farmers.

“In most EU member states, having arable land to buy or rent is the most significant need for young farmers. The shortage of available land is due to legal, inheritance, and land-value issues. Addressing even some of these problems would make it easier for young farmers to join and remain in the agricultural sector.” (R2).

8. Discussion

This research has revealed that a series of barriers prevents seamless land mobility and the restructuring of agricultural production. Land fragmentation constitutes a significant obstacle as it increases costs, complicates mechanization, reduces productivity, and hinders efficient land management. However, while fragmentation—rooted in traditional inheritance patterns—is often perceived as a barrier, the findings indicate that it is not the decisive factor in discouraging young farmers from engaging in agriculture. Similarly to this research, the inheritance system in Islamic countries causes the fragmentation of agricultural holdings, negatively impacting access to loans and marketing and creating difficulties in applying modern technology [165], whereas evidence from India supports a fragmentation-induced cost of cultivation and production [166]. The authors suggest that a type of endowment (waqf) can significantly mitigate fragmentation, allow long-term planning, and promote sustainable development, hence supporting productivity and development [165], while consolidation programs can support land sizes big enough for mechanization [166]. Another study also indicates that under different aging-rate scenarios in China, land redistribution can positively impact labor shortages and maximize land-efficiency [167].

Another critical factor is farmers’ emotional attachment to land inherited from their forebears, which discourages land transactions. However, a key insight from this study is that younger farmers tend to adopt a more pragmatic and business-oriented approach to land, mitigating the impact of emotional attachment on land mobility. Furthermore, this research highlights a shift in mindset among younger farmers regarding traditional inheritance practices. In contrast to the conventional approach of dividing land equally between all heirs—regardless of their involvement in agriculture—contemporary farmers are demonstrating greater flexibility in succession decisions. Although the current data indicate an emotional flexibility, an aging farmer population that refuses to retire, in combination with a decreasing number of younger family members that are unwilling to continue the family business, creates a gap between land accession and the need to maintain inheritance within the family [19,25].

Similar effects of informal institutions on land mobility have been documented in the international literature [66,69,70]. Studies indicate that underdeveloped informal institutions—such as land succession norms that contribute to land fragmentation [67,68,71] and farmers’ emotional bonds with their inherited land [124,125,126]—create significant obstacles to land mobility and the modernization of agricultural holdings [59,64,67]. In particular, research in the Balkan Peninsula has highlighted the prevalence of fragmented strip-farming systems with low economic returns, primarily resulting from farmers’ succession traditions [67,168,169]. It should be noted, however, that various studies from the international literature have indicated that small land holdings are not necessarily disadvantageous when landowners pursue alternative income-generating activities while maintaining agricultural production [75].

Most of the interviewees were farmers that inherited their land and continued the family traditions, indicating reduced land mobility in the area across farmers that are leasing, especially long-term. According to the World Bank collection of development indicators, agricultural land leasing in Greece remains around 44.31%, while rent prices for agricultural land are increasing the barriers for such engagement. Given that tax relief incentives in Ireland have yet to show the potential profit of renting out, it is evident that land abandonment remains, and productivity is in eminent need of government support [20].

This study also identified key barriers to land transfers via sales or accepted inheritance, including bureaucratic complexity, administrative burdens, and high transaction costs. These institutional constraints can be alleviated through precise spatial and residential planning, well-established cadastral systems, and forestry maps. While technological advancements have addressed some of the structural challenges found in rural areas, additional institutional reforms are needed to facilitate land mobility. According to the international literature, cadastral data play a fundamental role in land-use and management processes [170,171,172]. Research has also emphasized the importance of forestry data for facilitating conflict-free agricultural land management [173,174]. Cadastral and forestry mapping strengthens the institutional framework by enhancing transparency and minimizing land-related disputes that require legal resolution [110]. Furthermore, research findings suggest that secure agricultural property rights and public trust in institutions and government authorities create a safety net for land ownership and mobility [4,34,175].

Although land mobility policies are primarily a concern at national level, this study revealed that European policies—particularly those supporting young farmers’ access to land through purchases or leases—are encouraging. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) promotes land mobility; however, issues such as inequality, bureaucracy, and administrative delay persist in practice. Additionally, this study highlighted a negative aspect of CAP subsidies: they influence older farmers’ decisions to defer retirement, thereby affecting land succession, sales, and lease arrangements. As identified in this study, the greatest challenge for young farmers seeking to enter the agricultural sector is their limited access to land, given that existing land acquisition funding programs are inadequate. This finding aligns with previous research showing that land access remains the most significant barrier for young individuals entering the European agricultural sector [4,37]. However, Korthals Altes (2023) found that, despite high expectations, the CAP does not sufficiently support land access for new entrants in agriculture, highlighting the need for new policy interventions [45]. Farmers in many EU member states refrain from selling or leasing their land because the CAP subsidies exceed the potential rental income [176]. While many people have access to land, only 28% of people in Greece are officially listed as farmers, and those listed have a unified land management system; this limited access is yet to be addressed by rural policy attuned to the different needs and capacities of the diversified sector of Greek agriculture [177]. Research indicates that while the European Commission prioritizes land access for young and new farmers, there are no easy policy solutions due to substantial variations in land mobility regulations across EU member states [4,8,37,178]. Lobley et al. (2010) also found that many European policies have failed to address the farm succession crisis [55].

This study underscores the point that economic and structural changes in agriculture must prioritize young farmers’ access to land and capital while fostering an institutional framework that facilitates seamless land mobility. Furthermore, developing digital platforms to expedite land transfers and enhance access to funding programs could mitigate the negative effects of inefficient formal institutions. This research also highlights that in countries such as Greece, the financial system does not adequately support young farmers in acquiring land and capital. As a solution in regions with low land mobility, this study suggests that land consolidation policies could serve as an effective remedy. According to the international literature, institutions are crucial in land mobility [179,180,181]. The foregoing conclusion explains why research findings emphasize the need for economic and structural reforms that offer alternatives beyond traditional institutions [45,179], enabling farmers to innovate by promoting both land mobility and environmentally sustainable agricultural practices [4,182]. Economic and structural reforms should focus on providing incentives that encourage land mobility among farmers [43].

A strong connection exists between financial system dynamics and land consolidation. Research highlights the need to enhance trust between the banking sector and rural communities, as banks play a crucial role in land mobility and in supporting rural populations to move in the direction of sustainable development [183,184,185]. Additionally, studies indicate that land consolidation is an effective solution to land fragmentation, as it rapidly integrates scattered plots and promotes multifunctional rural development [174,186,187].

This study highlights the pivotal role of both formal and informal institutions in land mobility. Excessive legislation, prolonged legal proceedings, high land transfer costs, tax burdens, and bureaucratic inefficiencies create an unfavorable environment for land transactions. Additionally, traditional inheritance norms, local customs, and prevailing perceptions significantly influence land succession and sales. The findings suggest that weak property rights protection and institutional distortions in land sales and leases negatively impact land mobility. Moreover, farmland abandonment—one of the most significant land-use changes, with attendant socio-economic, demographic, and environmental consequences—is primarily attributed to ineffective formal institutions and underdeveloped informal norms. The recent literature suggests that central and communal interventions in adjusting agricultural land use to multifunctional, territorially and ecologically adjusted production that maximizes resource usage and differentiates economy may well create sustainable conditions in the variable Greek agricultural landscape [188].

According to the international literature, a well-established institutional framework safeguards property rights, ensures judicial efficiency, minimizes corruption, facilitates smooth land mobility, and enhances public sector effectiveness [8,189,190]. Institutions shape attitudes and behaviors [84]. Informal institutions influence rural families’ land succession and mobility decisions through coercive, normative, and mimetic pressures [85,87,88]. Paternalistic leadership by the head of the family shapes the choice of crop succession through multiple factors [96,191,192]. Perceptions that the head of the family should determine the terms and conditions of succession without compromising stability and perspective [96]) were also highlighted in this study. The role of paternalistic leadership in the choice of succession through a variety of elements including emotional factors was highlighted as well. The strategy of the alienation of the farm head from the family members who want succession is a process that, according to this research, is a choice of the family head element contained in the theoretical background. Depending on the paternalistic perception of each farm head, the family members face perception-derived decisions in the succession process. Research suggests that family norms in rural areas either encourage or discourage young individuals from engaging in agriculture, consolidating land, or leaving plots fallow [65,73,74]. Individuals tend to seek confirmation of their beliefs while disregarding or undervaluing contradictory information [189].

9. Conclusions

Formal and informal institutions play a pivotal role in shaping an enabling environment that facilitates land mobility for individuals seeking to engage in agriculture through modernizing and diversifying the crops grown. These institutions also establish favorable conditions to innovate and enhance the competitiveness of primary production for young people entering farming and having access to land and capital. It is the institutional framework that, when effective, ensures property rights, the timely delivery of justice regarding land mobility issues, low levels of corruption, and the adequate functioning of land markets. Conversely, inefficient formal institutions distort ownership rights, succession, inheritance, and the land market. They also create uncertainty and insecurity in the sale or rental of land, as well as bureaucratic obstacles leading to the abandonment of land cultivation, which has socio-economic, demographic, and environmental impacts. In addition, underdeveloped informal institutions, as expressed through the structure and functioning of farming families, create patterns and attitudes that influence land mobility. They create coercive, normative, and imitative pressures that weigh particularly on younger family members, affecting their perceptions and behaviors. In order to strengthen institutions in countries where such deficiencies exist, such as Greece, it is necessary to introduce reforms that enhance institutional structures and render them more effective. It is encouraging that the younger generation is gradually mitigating the traditional patterns of succession, given that the latter resulted in the fragmentation of land holdings and a reduced ability to renew the ranks of farm owners. These younger people are realistic and business-minded, pragmatically navigating inherited beliefs and attitudes related to succession and land mobility.

This exploratory study has addressed the need for greater research emphasis on the formal and informal institutional elements that affect rural economic and structural development through land mobility. In this light, it has added to the literature on how institutional elements influence and affect land mobility. Specifically, it has presented evidence from the international literature on the impact of ineffective formal institutions and underdeveloped informal institutions on land mobility and how such issues can be tackled. The findings of this research constitute a useful resource for policymakers at European, national, regional, and local levels in furthering rural development, agricultural production, and land mobility. Furthermore, they may function as a valuable guide for young people who seek to engage in agriculture by claiming access to land.

Greece’s agricultural policy is closely intertwined with that of the European Union. The types of crops, land management practices, use of pesticides, and product handling are largely determined by the EU’s agricultural policy. The differences between Greek farmers and their European counterparts lie mainly in the size of the land they cultivate, as Greek farmers typically own significantly smaller land holdings. This impacts both the management of agricultural land in Greece and the types of crops that can be cultivated. We cannot claim that there are distinct characteristics in Greek rural policy. The particularities mainly concern the types of crops cultivated and their quantities. Due to the specificities in the morphology of the arable land of the member states, the EU should reform the CAP so that the provided incentives take into account each country’s specificities. This will alleviate the inequalities between young farmers active in the member states.

Policy Recommendations

To overcome resistance from small and older farmers, the EU should adopt regulations that promote long-term land leases for young farmers. To make long-term leasing attractive, lease income should be subsidized—both to exceed existing subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and to ensure that land rental costs remain affordable for young farmers. However, a shift in policy could threaten future rental income, giving farmers some justification for retaining control over their land [8]. At the same time, young farmers need long-term lease agreements to justify infrastructure investments on the land, ensuring a return on their investment. The CAP should therefore introduce incentives for landowners, while the EU should adopt common regulations on land mobility across member states.

In parallel, the European Central Bank (ECB) should develop new financial instruments to improve young farmers’ access to land and capital. This requires banks to create dedicated loan products with preferential financing terms and EU-backed interest rate subsidies. Given the high risks associated with agriculture—such as weather volatility and rising input costs (e.g., fertilizers and feed)—the EU should also consider providing loan guarantees to financial institutions. This financial support could be linked to production levels and the amount of arable land, thereby encouraging land rentals and cooperation among neighboring landowners.

Policymakers in Greece should also look to successful practices from other European countries and introduce minimum lease duration requirements. In particular, the Greek government should offer tax incentives for long-term agricultural leases and the productive use of dormant or underutilized land. Implementing reduced or zero tax rates for a period of two to five years for young farmers who enter long-term lease agreements could significantly boost agricultural production. At the same time, the government should be cautious in formulating tax policy to avoid the phenomenon of farmers preferring to lease their land to large landowners rather than long-term leases of properties of other farmers. The government should also provide incentives to encourage the formation of cooperatives among young farmers, enabling them to utilize adjacent plots of land and create larger, more cultivable areas. In the same direction, developing special entrepreneurship educational programs will also help young farmers acquire an entrepreneurial culture.

This study further proposes extending tax relief not only to land lease income but also to all income-generating agricultural activities, aligning with findings from similar research [20]. Additionally, EU member states could develop educational initiatives and land reclamation policies to help reduce emotional attachment to inherited land. Bureaucratic hurdles, legal complexities, and high land transfer costs—key barriers to land mobility—should be minimized. Finally, property rights in land leases must be clearly defined and protected to ensure a functioning and dynamic land market.

As with any research, this study is not exempt from limitations. It examines land mobility through the eyes of rural citizens engaged in agriculture by capturing their views, experiences, expectations, feelings, aspirations, and motivations. Future research would be advised to expand on this approach by exploring the impact of formal and informal institutional elements on land mobility from policy-makers’ perspectives in the field.

Moreover, this study followed a qualitative approach; however, future studies could apply a mixed methods design so that the findings could benefit from additional validation methods. In particular, this study examined the impact of formal and informal institutions on land mobility at the farm family level without investigating the impact of institutions on each individual farm family member. In this light, future research could also examine the effect of institutions on land mobility in each member of the family as well as investigate different sub-sectors of agricultural production. Lastly, the findings of the current study refer to areas of Greece with common socio-economic and environmental attributes as the sample. Specifically, they pertain to Greek rural areas characterized by robust family ties and strictly agricultural holdings where this land use is not directly or indirectly altered for tourism or industrial facilities and activities. Hence, the findings of this research cannot be generalized to the whole of rural Greece.