AGRICULTURAL POLICY DISCOURSES AND FARMERS’ VALUES Miira Niska REMS: The Construction of...
-
Upload
cameron-spencer -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
2
Transcript of AGRICULTURAL POLICY DISCOURSES AND FARMERS’ VALUES Miira Niska REMS: The Construction of...
AGRICULTURAL POLICY DISCOURSES AND FARMERS’ VALUES
Miira NiskaREMS: The Construction of Entrepreneurial Agency of Farms, 29th November 2010
OUTLINE
The Agricultural policy discourses: What farmers are like, what do they value? who is the principal of farmers?
Farmers’ values – previous studies Value studies – two perspectives Empirical study:”Changing rural
entrepreneurship” Results and conclusions
Agricultural Policy Discourses in CAP Neomercantilism
Neoliberalism
Multifunctionalism
(Potter & Tilzey 2005; Erjavec & Erjavec 2009; Dibden et al. 2009)
Agricultural Policy Discourses in CAP Neomercantilism
Protectionism, against liberalisation
Neoliberalism Free market, free trade and minimum state
intervention
Multifunctionalism Way to address social cultural and ecological concerns Agriculture has functions such as securing biodiversity
and landscape, producing tourism, leisure and care services and promoting employment and social cohesion in rural areas
(Potter & Tilzey 2005; Erjavec & Erjavec 2009; Dibden et al. 2009)
Positions the policy discourses construct for farmers Producers < Neomercantilism
Productivist conception of the farmers’ vocation Production task: domestic markets and export
potential Entrepreneurs < Neoliberalism
Farmers farm according to market demands Farmers are well able to compete in a global market
Sustainable farmers (also ecological entrepreneurs:
Marsden & Smith 2005) < Multifunctionalism Farmers contribute to sustainable rural development
with environmentally friendly agriculture
Farmes positions from value perspective
Farmer in neomercantilismvalues production & national (nowadays
also EU citizens) common good
Farmer in neoliberalismvalues profit & autonomy
Farmer in multifunctionalismvalues vitality of rural areas &
environment
Agricultural policy discourses, farmers’ positions and alleged values
Neomercantilism
Multifunctionalism
Neoliberalism
Producer EntrepreneurSustainable
farmer
National common
good
Economy
Autonomy
Environment
Rural develop
ment
Discourses
Values
Positions
Production:
quality/quantity
Who is the principal: acting for whom or what?
Neoliberalism > Farmer is his own principal
Critical discourses: also other principals Neomercantilism > the principal is also
EU’s food supply Multifunctionalism > principal is also the
countryside and the nature
How do Finnish farmers relate to the policy discourses?
Relation between the policy discourses and the perspective of farmers (e.g. Burton & Wilson 2006)
What farmers themselves say they value? Who farmers perceive to be their principal?
FARMES’ VALUES – previous studies I
Gasson (1973): not PROFIT MAXIMISATION but WAY OF LIFE: living in rural area, nature, outdoor life and freedom from supervision
The primary value: CONTINUITY (e.g. Gasson & Errington, 1993; Silvasti 2001)
FARMES’ VALUES – previous studies II
PROFIT MAXIMISATION and WAY OF LIFE and CONTINUITY are individualistic values farmer serves his own or his family’s interests
This farmer type was not present in the policy discourses of CAP
FARMES’ VALUES – previous studies III
Also collectivist/common good values: NATIONAL FOOD SUPPLY (Alasuutari
1996) ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES (Maybery et
al. 2005) VITALITY OF RURAL AREAS (Petrzelka
et al. 1996)
FARMES’ VALUES – previous studies IV Typologies:
Yeomen/peasants – Entrepreneurs> both value individualistic values
Conventional farmers (producers & entrepreneurs) – Sustainable farmers > separation based on rural & environemental values
Farmer types and farmers’ values
Producer EntrepreneurSustainable
farmerPeasant
National common
good
Economy
Autonomy Continu
ityEnvironm
ent
Rural develop-ment
Values
Type of farmer
Production quality/quantity Lifestyle
Two perspectives on farmers’ values Dispositional-typology perspective
There are different farmer types – values devide the farmers into distinct groups
Rhetorical perspective Farmers position themselves in interaction
and value expressions are one way to construct a certain position – by framing what the farming is all about they also construct a principal for themselves
Empirical study
Nation-wide postal survey data
Collected in Finland in 2006
Farmers N=638
1. Financial independence2. Autonomy in work3. Vitality of rural areas4. Continuing family’s traditions5. Continuing parents’ work6. Maximizing profit7. Respect for nature8. Equality of all workers9. Taking care of Finns’ needs10. Earning a better living for oneself and one’s family11. Economic profitability12. Common good of the nation13. Well-being of employees14. Rural development15. Employing others
TABLE 1: Survey question used to study the value ratings of Finnish farmers
Question 29: What are the guiding principles of your farm business? How important do you consider these values / principles to be in your business?
Value variable Economy Autonomy Continuity Common good
Communalities
Earning a better living - - .74 .60Economic profitability .69 .57Maximizing profit .61 .40Autonomy in work .64 .42Financial independence .61 .51Continuing family’s traditions .93 .93Continuing parents’ work .86 .81Rural development .79 .70Taking care of Finns’ needs .78 .64Equality of all workers .66 .46Common good of the nation .64 .47Employing others .63 .46Vitality of rural areas .32 .59 .53Well-being of employees .57 .43Respect for nature .35 .52 .40Total variance explained (%) 66.40
Note: Only loadings above .30 are displayedNote: N=638
TABLE 2: Factor analysis (Principal Axis Factoring, Varimax rotation)
Value variable Economy Autonomy Continuity Common good
Communalities
Earning a better living - - .74 .60Economic profitability .69 .57Maximizing profit .61 .40Autonomy in work .64 .42Financial independence .61 .51Continuing family’s traditions .93 .93Continuing parents’ work .86 .81Rural development .79 .70Taking care of Finns’ needs .78 .64Equality of all workers .66 .46Common good of the nation .64 .47Employing others .63 .46Vitality of rural areas .32 .59 .53Well-being of employees .57 .43Respect for nature .35 .52 .40Total variance explained (%) 66.40
Note: Only loadings above .30 are displayedNote: N=638
TABLE 2: Factor analysis (Principal Axis Factoring, Varimax rotation)
/Life style?
Economy Autonomy Continuity Common good
Mean (Std.) 3.85 (.73) 4.13 (.73) 3.29 (1.22) 3.64 (.76)
TABLE 3: Means and standard deviations
Note: N=638
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
1. Financial independence
2. Autonomy in work .49 ***
3. Vitality of rural areas.23 ***
.33 ***
4. Continuing family’s traditions
.13 ***
.16 *** .42 ***
5. Continuing parents’ work .12 ** .15 *** .39 *** .86 ***
6. Maximizing profit.21 ***
.27 *** .12 ** .16 *** .15 ***
7. Respect for nature.25 ***
.30 *** .25 *** .23 *** .24 ***.14 ***
8. Equality of all workers.16 ***
.18 *** .39 *** .14 *** .16 ***.16 ***
.52 ***
9. Taking care of Finns’ needs
.12 **.24 *** .51 *** .26 *** .26 ***
.13 ***
.47 ***
.59 ***
10. Earning a better living - - .26 *** .29 *** .11 ** .16 *** .13 ***
.49 ***
.17 ***
.19 ***
.22 ***
11. Economic profitability.30 *** .27 *** .19 *** .12 ** .08 *
.46 ***
.29 ***
.18 ***
.21 ***
.60 ***
12. Common good of the nation
.17 ***
.19 *** .36 *** .30 *** .28 ***.21 ***
.34 ***
.42 ***
.61 ***
.26 ***
.24 ***
13. Well-being of employees.20 ***
.21 *** .33 *** .20 *** .16 ***.19 ***
.36 ***
.45 ***
.40 ***
.26 ***
.37 ***
.41 ***
14. Rural development.17 ***
.26 *** .68 *** .36 *** .33 ***.16 ***
.49 ***
.47 ***
.64 ***
.21 ***
.26 ***
.56 ***
.52 ***
15. Employing others.07 *
.12 ** .34 *** .21 *** .16 ***.20 ***
.28 ***
.41 ***
.47 ***
.20 ***
.24 ***
.46 ***
.51 ***
.55 ***
ECONOMY 3.85 (.73)Economic profitability 4.33 (.77)Earning a better living - - 4.01 (.85)Maximizing profit 3.19 (1.03)AUTONOMY 4.13 (.73)Autonomy in work 4.26 (.79)Financial independence 3.99 (.90)CONTINUITY 3.29 (1.22)Continuing family’s traditions 3.34 (1.23)Continuing parents’ work 3.25 (1.29)COMMON GOOD 3.64 (.76)Vitality of rural areas 4.27 (.96)Respect for nature 4.05 (.84)Well-being of employees 3.86 (.99)Rural development 3.89 (.99)Equality of all workers 3.54 (1.13)Taking care of Finns’ needs 3.52 (1.10)Common good of the nation 3.01 (1.08)Employing others 2.99 (1.25)
TABLE 5: Importance of individual values variables
Note: N=638
CONCLUSIONS I
Economy important value for farmers Wider common good more important than
continuity Autonomy and vitality of the countryside
and nature the most important ones but whereas autonomy is an individualistic value, rurality and nature are important in the collectivits sense: the countryside and the nature are the principals – not farmer himself
CONCLUSIONS II
The value expressions cohere with both neoliberalist and multifunctionalist discourses > farmers serve both, their own economic benefits and the wellbeig of the nature and rural areas
Value-wise, agricultural policy discourses seem to be no strangers to Finnish farmers – although the traditional peasant discourse also exists
CONCLUSIONS III
Neomercantilism> No value variable concerning the production quantity / quality> Not as important discourse for farmers as the multifunctional discourse? > need for more research
THANKS!