Rural Economy Research Centre

December 2008

‘Barriers to Change’: a sociology of ‘rural

development’ in IrelandOverview of EOPR

Dr. Áine Macken Walsh,Rural Development and Sociology Unit, RERC, Teagasc.9th December 2008

Overview:

Context & Methodology Findings & Implications Conclusions and recommendations

Rationale

Teagasc RD Commodity Group (2005): Resistance to Change in the adoption of ‘alternative’, ‘diverse’ economic activity

The growing significance of ‘rural development’ in the EU context

Failure of economic rationale to explain ‘barriers to change’

Alternative methodological approach to explain socio-cultural factors that govern decision-making

Stages of the study Analysis of a primary RD policy instrument

(deconstruction of the governance and RD model, the context of its emergence and its central claims)

Development of appropriate methodology to investigate interplay of the model with rural society

Implementation of methodology Analysis of primary field data Results:

Policy evaluative Sociological analytical

Contextualisation: consultation with policy makers & practitioners

Emergence of the model:EC: rural problems reaching ‘crisis proportions’ - 1980s “rural population decline was acute; the effects

of the polluting non-sustainable character of heavily capitalised intensive agriculture was becoming evident in the natural environment; there were steeply declining numbers at work in agriculture and low agricultural incomes, (stemming in part for the high proportion of officially categorised non-viable farms); rural underemployment was rife; and there was a deficiency of outlets for off-farm employment opportunities” (Kearney et al, 1995)

‘The Future of Rural Society’ (CEC, 1988)

Broadened concept of the rural economy: “a complex economic and social fabric

made up of a wide range of activities: farming, small trades and businesses, small and medium-sized industries, commerce and services” (CEC, 1988)

The LEADER model (1991 - )

Move away from sectoral, ‘top-down’ policy to: provide integrated (multi-sectoral)

and representative (democratic) rural development.

“to provide representation to a wide span of local interests, and thus an effective means of developing local economies”

The EC LEADER Programme

“the basic ideas behind these (partnership) schemes is that all the competent actors in the development process be brought together in a way that will allow them to pool their talents and complement each other over a set period during which, under the stimulus provided by the partnership, a cycle of accelerated local development will occur” (Curtin and Varley, 1997, p. 142).

LEADER

“enabling a better understanding of the area and its living strength” (CEC, 1988)

“an innovation and a lever of innovation” (LEADER European Observatory, 1997

‘Barriers to Change’ Overview research question: Is

governance and rural development: representative & effective in practice?

Central analytical focus: interplay between policy model and social environment in which it is implemented

Agricultural studies: positivism is dominant, the “cultural turn” has been slow to influence studies in agriculture (Barnett, 1998)

Socio-cultural research

Source: Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations (2000)

Socio-cultural research Examines a specific question of interest in a holistic

fashion Why people behave as they do. Analysis of multiple determinants of behaviour in the

context in which it takes place. Uncovering the rationale for individual behaviour as

socially constructed, and the reasons for differences in the behaviour of various groups

“An in-depth understanding of the cultural context and the factors that determine local level outcomes is crucial for the formulation and the success of policies and programmes that are acceptable, appropriate and sustainable”

Providing insight into the cultural context of the issues that affect agriculture and rural development. UNFAO (2000)

Socio-cultural research Identifying the complete range of issues and

perceptions that combine to explain the interviewee’s rationale or ‘view of the world’.

Detecting the inter-dependent nature of experiences and perceptions, which analysed on their own, can be meaningless or misleading (see Wilson, 1997).

Understanding objective rationalisation of external structures or stimuli (e.g. agricultural policies) and his/her objective responses, rather than assuming a farmer to be a passive adopter of these structures (Darnhofer et al, 2005).

Methodology: Qualitative research methods

Policy model is fixed Socio-cultural context of

implementation/adoption is various Seeking to understand subjectivity i.e.

the social and cultural ‘scripts’ which ultimately determine identities, attitudes, and behaviour (Canetto, 2005)

Qualitative Methodology3 pronged approach1. Policy analysis: deconstruction of governance

and rural development model (proxy data analysis, interviews with practitioners / policy officials)

2. Sociological analysis: design and implementation of qualitative interviewing (ethnographic study of socio-cultural factors)

3. Focus group interviewing with local and extra local policy-makers and practitioners: enhancing practical relevance and application of research findings

1: Analysis of model Deconstruction of policy model:

What is the policy context of the model’s emergence?

What are the central claims of the model?

Operation in practice at local level: How has LEADER taken form in chosen case-

study areas, using as evidence: Detailed operational plans and annual reports The actors that have become involved Records of the projects they have funded: i.e.

development outcome

2. Test: two social groups…

Traditionally primary social groups in Ireland Engagement among members of these groups

in ‘rural development’ is poor

Farming community: ‘Custodians of the countryside’ Within group, some are increasingly non-viable Increased dependence on off-farm jobs

Coastal communities: Areas of high cultural significance Often marginalised and deprived Dependence on external sources of employment

… in two fixed case-study locations

To determine the impact of local institutions (if any) on how these social groups are engaging with and responding to ‘rural development’

3. Focus Group Interviewing: enhancing policy relevance and practical application of research findings

Focus Group: Expert participants: policy-makers and

practitioners Re-think ‘rural development’ form the

perspectives of these social groups Identification of realisable income-

generating activities that are acceptable for different social groups from a socio-cultural perspective

Findings

1. What is the culture surrounding implementation of governance and rural development in Ireland?

2. Interchange between farming community & ‘RD’ agenda (this presentation)

3. Policy recommendations

1. Policy analysis

Governance and rural development in Ireland (LEADER) in Ireland: 1991-

What social and cultural norms have emerged surrounding the implementation of this programme?

The EU Rural Development ‘Product’

High value-added, ‘niche’ product (e.g. artisan foods)

Has place-based & lifestyle significance (rural artisan foods and rural health movements)

“replacing material and labour value with design value” (Moseley, 2003)

“championing of local distinctiveness”… (Moseley, 2003)

The EU RD ‘Product’

Larger framework of extra-local cultural, social and economic trends

Part of a wider EU rural movement Ireland: evidence of stimulants and

influences originating beyond the locality Promotion of a particular product…

The EU RD ‘product’

“Increasingly, local producers have to produce and market something a little different – something ‘differentiated’ from the competition - and this requires ingenuity both in appraising the local resource base with a view to exploiting any distinctiveness and adding value to those resources in a way that will please an increasingly discriminating clientele…” (Moseley, 2003, p. 48)

EU-wide research: Dominant participants:

The rise of a “Project Class” (Kovach & Kucerova (2006)

“A very small number of enthusiastic participants” (Mannion, 1996)

Small businesses and tourist operators; artisan and shopkeepers’ associations dominate (Osti, 2000)

Minor Participants: Farmers and farmer’s organisations “bewildered

from losing privileged channels of influence”; have only a “minor presence” in LAGs (Osti, 2000)

The Irish Case

Participants come from “a surprising diversity of backgrounds… many are incomers to Ireland…have usually spent part of their lives working abroad or outside farming…tend to be active in local and community development generally” (Tovey and Mooney, 2006)

Barriers to ChangeCase-study Profile: Area: Liscannor Social Group: Farming Community No. farmers: 41 20 qualitative interviews:

13: ‘non-viable’ farming enterprises, supplemented with off-farm income

4: ‘viable’ commercial farms 3: farmers who had ceased production altogether

LEADER: Co. Clare: 6 Agri/Fisheries projects Liscannor: 1 farmer participant

Understanding farmer behaviour – Key Social Principles Farming is a ‘socio-cultural practice’ and a ‘way of life’, not just

a technical or income generating activity. Decision-making in relation to farm management takes place in

a social and culturally-rich context in accordance with normative concepts of ‘good farm management’

Concepts of ‘good farm management’ are dynamic, reflecting a farmer’s own particular circumstances and adapting to the peculiarity of local conditions

Farmers’ reactions to policy stimuli are strategies that reflect and respond to the reality of farmers’ overall evaluation of their economic and social circumstances, as well as of the advice and information that is available to them through e.g. extension/media

Perceptions of farmers’ ‘irrational’ or ‘illogical’ behaviour demonstrates a min-understanding of farmers’ rationale and logic

(Vanclay, 2002, 2004).

Analysing farmers’ subjectivity

Context: analysing farmers’ subjectivity Decision-making is path dependent

Changing influences arising from:

pre-productivism – productivism –

post-productivism

The ‘good farmer’

Theory of capital as framework: Economic capital (material property); Social capital (networks of social

connections and mutual obligations) Cultural capital (prestige).

Bourdieu’s (1983, 1998)

The ‘good farmer’: cultural capital

Strongly associated with productivism Maximising production & Efficiency Overcoming adverse conditions: ‘master’

the local environment by knowing what to grow and cultivate in diverse local conditions

…The ‘good farmer’

“farmers want to stay farming” “farmers are farmers”

▼ ‘rural development product’

Estrangement: Occupational & Cultural…

Farmers’ cultural capital: indicators of ‘good farming’: production oriented, efficient, “mastering of landscape”

‘Rural development’ initiatives:

“not for farmers” and,

“not suitable for farmers”

Farmers’ Cultural capital

‘RD’ Agenda vs Farmers’ Cultural Capital

Estrangement: Occupational Identity and Culture (Irish indigenous)

Occupational Estrangement

Extension of rural development ‘product’ to include service: producer to service provider

Occupational estrangement ‘farmers are farmers, not service providers or marketing experts’

Perception of many ecological and organic farming practices as ‘regressive’

Estrangement: cultural

“foreign people and foreign food” (Interview 5c)

Ireland is without a strong food culture (Fonte, 2008)

‘Public issues’ and ‘Private troubles’ Focusing on farmers’ own world-view (i.e. their

values and forms of capital) and the (changing) policy arena (with its own strategic values and forms of capital) within which they operate and are regulated

When individuals’ own world values and/or when the means by which they can realise these values are threatened (private troubles) (C Wright Mills, 1959).

External forces (public issues) can cause “contradictions” or “antagonisms” (Marxist theory) when in conflict with individuals’ capital

Farmer behaviour

“farmers are their own scientists, theorising, hypothesising, and experimenting to determine what works” (Vanclay, 2004, p.16).

In the presence of ‘public issues’ such as changing agricultural policy, farmers should be understood as having the capacity to reject such issues when they are incompatible with their world view

Key barriers for farming community:

Farmers are looking for ways to continue farming, willing to consider appropriate ‘add-on’ income generating activities

Many of the alternatives are not perceived to be economically viable: lack of critical mass and affluent consumer-base

3. Policy relevance,Practical application

Institutional recommendations Identification of rural income-generating

activities that are realisable for farmers & farm families

Effecting change:

Institutional Household Individual

Change: Institutional…. Facilitation of change:

Bureaucratic obstacles to change: lack of inter-agency consistency

Importance of extension, education, training (ongoing)

Comprehensive, systematic and targeted Usage of external (national/international) appraisal

of local resources (physical and human) Opening up of ‘rural development’ as something

that is accommodating of different interests and professional competencies (CEC, 1997)

….Change: institutional

Representation of farmers and farming interest groups in decision-making: Influencing how rural development agenda takes

form Incorporation of farmers’ capital into defining and

implementation of RD strategies Farmer-led rather than externally initiated Collaboration between different sectoral interests:

widening scope of focus from farmer to farm family and associated breadth of skills

Threat: democratic deficit and overly-politicised representation of farmers

Change: farm households

Acknowledging the characteristics of the rural development agenda, measures that focus on the individual farmer are mis-targeted

Diverse rural economic and entrepreneurial activity dependent on a wide range of skills and competencies: many of which are available within the household

Inter-agency collaboration to target a combination of sectoral and professional interests

Importance of the contribution of women to rural development: relevant strategies?

Skills of farm offspring: enhancing opportunities for succession

Change: Individual Level

Implications of institutional and household impacts on the individual:

Design of rural income-generating practices that are supported under ‘rural development’ measures yet are culturally, socially and economically reflective of farmer’s capital and norms

Re-focus on indigenous knowledge: existing skills and competencies that can be used for income-generating initiatives

Shift of focus away from ‘one-man-farm’ back towards the ‘family farm’: social sustainability

Realisable rural enterprises:socio-cultural perspective

Agri services Tourism Manufacturing/Retail Services Food Energy Alternative Land-use

…realisable enterprises for farming community…

Energy: Wind farm/ turbines

Alternative land-use: Allotments; Forestry

…realisable enterprises for farming community…

Tourism (requiring participation of wider farm family): farm tours; heritage farms; nature tours;

natural resource/amenity visitor attraction Food:

Farm spouse

Implications Participation vs the ‘product’?

The governance and rural development model involves as a central aspect the participation of local representatives in the “design and implementation of development interventions” (LEADER European Observatory, 1997)

Conclusions The RD agenda is not dominated by local forces, but is

inspired by a larger framework of cultural, social and economic trends (of a globalised orientation).

By seeking to encourage particular development goals is the LEADER programme a legitimate governance model?

Clear evidence of low engagement among traditionally primary social groups

Low utilisation of local resources (Coastal areas) Low utilisation of indigenous knowledge & skills

Promoting Engagement, Assisting Change

Challenge: understanding the socio-cultural context of non-engagement and developing measures to draw into the new rural development paradigm a more inclusive range of participants

A need to reconcile estrangement between product and potential producers - widening range of products and participants

Improve genuine local engagement and participation in determining how the local RD agenda takes shape

Importance of representing traditional social groups e.g. farmers; marginalised coastal areas

Role of Institutions in assisting change

Conclusions

Representation Use of local resources: Cultural

commodities

Rural Economy Research Centre

December 2008

Thank You