AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURE AND RURAL ECOLOGY: TOWARD A POLITICAL

ECONOMY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT*

FREDERICK H BUTTEL

Dcpartmmt of Rural SKiobo GmdI University, lthara N. Y., USA

INTRODUCTION

This paper is concerned with the three major, and as I shall argue later, interrelated issues of agricultural structure, the rural environment, and the course of rural development and underdevelopment in the advanced societies. The focus will principally be on the U.S.A., although much of what is said will be applicable to other advanced societies because of their general similarities deriving from their capitalist production systems and political democratic orders. The purpose of the paper will be four-fold: (1 ) to explore the causes or origins of rural environmental problems, particularly those related to structural changes in agriculture, (2) to demonstrate the profound linkages between agricultural struc- tural changes, rural environmental deterioration, and rural under- development, ( 3 ) to argue that a more holistic perspective, essentially a political economy, is necessary to fully grasp the important interre- lations among phenomena attendant to the questions of rural ecology and underdevelopment, and (4 ) to suggest some useful strategies or levers for change that can place the issues of agricultural structure and the rural environment in an integrated rural development framework.

STRUCTURAL CHANGE IN AGRICULTURE A N D THE RURAL ENVIRONMENT

The purpose of this section is to develop a brief overview of master

* Thc author gratcfullv acknowlcdgcs thc rcccipr of a rravcl fcllowship from thc Ncw York State Collcgc of Agriculturc and Lifc Sciences, Corncll University. which made possiblc the prcparation and presentation of this paper I also wish to thank Paul R Ebcrrs for his helpful comments on an earlicr draft of rhis p a p .

45

structural changes and trends in agriculture1 and the food system during the 20th century, and then explore the environmental con- sequences of these structural changes. U.S. agriculture 2nd its food system have exhibited five principal structural changes during recent decades: (1) a trend toward large-scale, specialized farm production units; (2) increased mechanization, (3) increased use of purchased biochemical inputs (and corresponding transfer of the input-providing function of agriculture to the non-farm sector), (4) a trend toward regional specialization of production, and (5) an increased level of food processing and interregional marketing. Moreover, these trends are interrelated and mutually-reinforcing. While each change or trend may be regarded as analytically distinct, each is connected with all others in terms of cause, consequence, or both (Oelhaf, 1978).

In addition to the five major changes in agriculture and the food system discussed above, it is useful to point out the importance of several more-or-less invariant properties of U.S. agriculture that in many ways have shaped the five structural changes. These invariant properties include the persistence of inequality and economic inse- curity, and the tendency toward overproduction among agricultural producers. It, of course, can be argued that economic insecurity and, especially, inequality have increased during recent decades (Mitchell, 1775). However, it seems more useful to suggest that inequality, economic insecurity, and the tendency toward overproduction have been constant companions of the development of U.S. agriculture which have decidedly shaped the “adaptive” strategies of various cate- gories of farmers, the texture of state agricultural policies (including agricultural research policies), and power relations between farmers and the input providing and output-processing enterprises in the larger food system. The competitive cost-price squeeze engendered by over- production has been clearly demonstrated by agricultural economics research to lead to two major types of individualistic adaptations on the part of farmers: (1) to increase the size (and consequently the level of specialization and mechanization) of the farm unit in order to lower fixed costs per unit of production, and (2) to increase the use of purchased biochemical inputs in order to increase production and income from a constant area of land and to minimize short-term risk from pest infestations and other natural hazards (Perelman, 1977).

However, these processes of individual adaptation are not equal or uniform. These two adaptation mechanisms both tend to require ex- ternal sources of credit which are disproportionately available to larger farm units (Perelman, 1977; Metcalf, 1969). Overproduction and eco-

46

nomic insecurity thus tend to lead to inequality and land concentration among farmers. The insecurities experienced by farmers have in turn led to various groups of farmers confronting the state for assistance. Sub- sequent state policies (especially price supports), while designed at least in part to bolster the “family farm” (Rodefeld, 1974), have had the effect of subsidizing large producers and marginalizing the small-scale operator (Bonnen, 1974). Finally, economic insecurity and inequality among farmers provide conditions conducive for the penetration of an integrated corporate system of food processing and distribution. For example, farmers facing insecure returns are likely to become suscep- tible to the forward contracting initiatives of food processors which may, over the long-term, tend to transfer income from farmers to the processing industry (Breimyer, 1965). Thus U.S. agriculture is a mosaic of both persistence and change which as we shall see below has had major impacts on rural communities, regions, and the environment.

The five principal trends, and ultimately the invariant factors that give rise to these trends, in U.S. agriculture and the food system may be .seen to have a number of significant environmental consequences2. For example, the trend toward large-scale, specialized farm production units has several environmental impacts. Specialization implies monocultur- ing (and cessation of crop rotations) which tends to result in an increasing severity of pest infestations, and hence more usage of en- ergy-intensive pesticides (Allaby & Allen, 1974). Large, specialized farms typically tend to have sub-optimal manure management; specialized crop farms have no animal manure and therefore must rely exclusively on purchased fertilizers to replenish soil fertility levels. O n the other hand, large, specialized livestock farms tend to view manure as a waste disposal “problem”, rather than as a fertilizer resource. Much of this manure is decomposed in lagoons or is otherwise made unavailable for use as fertilizer (Oelhaf, 1978). In both instances, the result is g ra t e r use of purchased inorganic fertilizers. This, in turn, increases energy use in agriculture and raises the threats of water and soil contamination. Finally, i t should also be noted that monocultural practices (especially in row crops) tend to result in higher rates of soil erosion (Pimentel el al., 1976) than do crop rotation practices prevalent on smaller, less specialized farms.

Each of the other four aspects of structural change in the food system may be seen to have major environmental consequences (see Buttel, 1980). Mechanization requires increased energy subsidies to the agri- cultural production sector in order to manufacture farm machinery and provide fuels for its operation. In addition, mechanization often leads to

47 increased erosion on steep slopes because large-scale machinery makes contour farming difficult or impossible (Carriere, 1976). The increased use of purchased biochemical inputs also increases the energy intensity of agriculture (Pimentel et uf. 1973), plus results in pollution and toxicity to animals and humans (Pimentel et af., 1979). Regional specialization intensifies the monoculturing and manure management problems discussed above, while the trends toward higher levels of food processing and interregional marketing both increase the energy in- tensity of the food system and present threats to human health (Hall, 1976). Nevertheless, i t is becoming increasingly apparent that the environmental problems of agriculture are not merely the results of inappropriate “agricultural practices” that can be changed within the context of the present structure of agriculture. Indeed, these problems are clearly rooted within that structure, sharply reducing the possibil- ities for rural environmental improvement without major social change in the agricultural sector.

AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURE, THE RURAL COMMUNITY, AND REGIONAL POLARIZATION

The impacts of structural changes in agriculture on rural communities and regions have received much more attention in recent years. Much of this attention can be traced to the “rediscovery” of a now-classic study by the anthropologist Walter Goldschmidt (1947/1978a) on the con- sequences of large-scale agriculture for rural community viability in the Central Valley of California. Goldschmidt’s path-breaking study pointed to some profound and deleterious impacts that the emergence of large-scale agriculture was having on rural communities in California, and considerable contemporary research is now being devoted to replicating and extending the Goldschmidt study (Gold- Schmidt, 1978b; Fujimoto, 1977; Sonka & Heady, 1974; Sonka, 1979).

The most direct consequence of agricultural structural changes on the rural community involves the reduction of the size of the farm population that results from mechanization and increasing farm size. Goss and Rodefeld (1977) report the results of several studies which demonstrate that a declining farm population results in a decline in rural community population. Further, these population losses set in motion a downward community and regional multiplier effect which accentuates the economic consequences of the original decline of population. These undesirable effects are largely due to decreases in aggregate demand for the functions of rural farm trade centers which

48

make redundant the labor of those persons who formerly were involved in retail sales to the farm population. A decline in the farm population thus leads to decline in the non-farm population of rural communities that is economically dependent on the sale of goods and services to farm families (Sonka, 1979).

These conclusions are reinforced by recent empirical observation on the socioeconomic concomitants of agricultural viability and vitality. Raup (1970) has observed that southwestern Minnesota, where a growing commercial agriculture has flourished for several decades, has a higher level of rural poverty than even the northeastern portion of the state which is widely known as an economically depressed rural backwater. A comparable observation has been made by Holland (1976) concerning Western European nations, especially Italy.

These studies suggest that the trajectory of agricultural development in the U.S.A. has had decidedly adverse impacts on the socioeconomic fabric of rural communities and regions. It is striking how the academic profession closely akin to rural sociology, community development, has virtually ignored the important influence of agricultural structure on rural community economic institutions. More importantly, the major policy prescriptions deriving from the community development profession - principally rural industrialization, planning, leadership development - all have tended to relate only to the rural non-farm population and community structure, leaving the social organization of agriculture untouched. This misplaced emphasis seems at least partially responsible for the general failure of conventional community development initiatives in the U.S.A. to make substantial accomplish- ments.

AGRICULTURE AND THE STATE

Brief mention was made earlier to the fact that the state has had a significant role in the development of U.S.A. agriculture, and by extension, the emergence of many of its environmental and rural underdevelopment problems. Rural sociologists are just beginning to devote attention to the origins and effects of state agricultural policies by drawing on general theories of the role of the state in the economy. O’Connor (1973, 1975), Offe (1976), and kindred scholars have made important advances toward a general theory of the state that are useful in conceptualizing the role of the state in agriculture in the advanced societies. O’Connor and Offe have argued that the state in a capitalist society has two principal functions: ( 1 ) accumulation/rationalization,

47

and (2) legitimation and conflict regulation. It is argued that these m o functions or roles of the state are ultimately contradictory, since providing the conditions for capital accumulation tends to marginalize significant segments of the society (e.g., through proletarianization, automation and unemployment), thus creating problems of legitimacy on the part of the subordinate classes. Likewise, allocation of limited state funds to the legitimation function (e.g., through welfare ex- penditures, social security, and the like) necessarily restricts the level of funds that can be allocated to fostering accumulation and economic growth. Ultimately, according to O’Connor and Offe, the escalation of demands on the state, combined with their contradictory and exacerbatory character, yield a progressive “fiscal crisis” of the state (O’Connor, 1973) that threatens to heighten the overall level of class conflict in the society.

O’Connor and Offe emphasize that the accumulation and legitimation roles of the state are not pursued willy nilly. That is, the state does not choose to subsidize the profitability of all corporations or meet the needs of all marginalized classes. Each suggests, for example, that the state will tend to act in the interest of and rationalize the system for capital in general. Thus a specific segment of capital (e.g. , small or family farmers, or small business in general) may not tend to have its interests served by state action if meeting its demands would be injurious to the overall process of capital accumulation. O’Connor ( 1973) suggests that large, multinational firms from technologically- dynamic, oligopsonistic industries tend to be the major beneficiaries of state policies to facilitate capital accumulation. This is because these dynamic industries are best able to generate economic growth which, up to a point, aids the state in its legitimation function. Small firms from technologically-stagnant, competitive industries tend to have their interests less well served by the state apparatus.

As insightful as O’Connor’s and Offe’s analyses are for understand- ing the myriad of roles and policies that comprise the state in an advanced society, their notions have not been immune to criticism. While perhaps not necessarily an inherent attribute of their work, in practice the applications of the accumulation and legitimation func- tions of the state in empirical work have tended to have a functionalist, teleological bias; the consequences of policies are invoked as their explanation (Sinclair, 1780). Rigid utilization of this functional theory of the state, for example, would tend to imply that there should be uniformity in the agricultural structures and policies of all the advanced societies; since they are all capitalist, the state would be expected to

50

fulfil the same functions, and an overall consonance of policy and resulting structure could be anticipated across the societies of Western Europe, North America, Oceania, and Japan. While there are of course some very broad similarities in the agricultural policies and structures of the advanced societies, it is patently obvious that there are substantial divergencies that must be taken into account in a useful theory of agriculture and the state (Sinclair, 1980; Newby, 1978; Buttel, 1979).

Further, mechanistic use of the functional neo-Marxist theory of the state may tend to ascribe a higher level of rationality to agricultural and non-agricultural policies than actually exists. As Caldwell and Woolley (1976, p. 118) point out in their analysis of energy policy in the U.S.A.,

although tk state ij purkd to rationalrze the economy, if & JO poorly. . . With so many groups . . and with no unambiguous criteria for choice in policymaking. the state adds to economic dislocation. In fact, the state itself is divided into competing bureaucracies and institutions, each with an organizational intcrest. Policymaking cnds up to be an endless and aimless process of self-adaptation. which c m t e s as many problems as i t solves [emphasis in original].

Caldwell and Woolley point out that a significant barrier to overall rationalization of the economy is the fact that capital has no monolithic interest in specific policies such as agricultural policy, energy policy, and so forth. Capital tends to be divided over policy issues because the immediate interests of specific capitals in policy deliberations are far too particularistic to mold into an overarching, consensual, mutually-be- neficient policy stance. At the same time, subordinate class groups are advancing their own interests and demands, further complicating the policy-determination process. Syzmanski (1978, p. 2 5 ) suggests that the potential chaos that might result from the expression of so many particularistic class interests in the state structure will tend to be mitigated by actions by state officials to “aggregate” the interests of the dominant class. In other words, state functioning will be facilitated if it is able to forge a dominant class “will” so that this class can be more unified i n its struggles with subordinate groups. In sum, then, the state has a certain autonomy and indeterminateness which makes mandatory the conduct of specific studies of the conditions, processes, and con- sequences of policy-determination (Sinclair, 1980), rather than making post h c presumptions about narrowly-defined “functional requisites” of state policy.

Wi th these considerations in mind we can begin to sketch .some of the major operational parameters in the determination of state agricul- tural policies, admittedly at some risk of violating the proscriptions set

51

forth in the previous paragraph. In so doing, I will organize the discussion in terms of O’Connor’s categories of the accumulation and legitimization roles of the state.

A variety of agricultural policies can be collected undcr the broad category of accumulation, that is, policies that are principally oriented toward the encouragement of capital accumulation within the agricul- tural sector, or more importantly, within the larger political economy. Historically, such accumulationist policies have included those aimed at: (1) fostering a commercial (rather than a subsistence-oriented) agriculture that produces a surplus of relatively inexpensive food for consumption by the urban working class, (2) encouragement of exports of food and fiber commodities, (3 ) rationalization of the agricultural economy, particularly with respect to the endemic tendency toward overproduction and price instability, (4) the underwriting of capital accumulation in production agriculture and non-farm agricultural in- dustries through agricultural research, and ( 5 ) assisting in the inter- national expansion of agribusiness firms that trade in agricultural commodities or market their products in foreign countries. As is apparent from the foregoing classification of agricultural policies, accumulation within production agriculture is an important, yet sub- ordinate, aspect of the role of state agricultural policy within the broader accumulation process. Basically, the constellation of state agri- cultural policies depicted above is aimed at directing the agricultural sector toward a particular path in the overall trajectory of Socioeco- nomic development. This path for agriculture essentially involves the creation of surpluses (food surpluses to sustain an emerging urban working class, as well as the extraction of financial surpluses from agriculture for investment in the urban-industrial sector) and markets for the products of industry. Thus, while certain aspects of agricultural policy (especially price supports and agricultural research) have clearly encouraged capital accumulation within agriculture, such internal accumulation need not and often is not essential for underwriting accumulation in the larger political economy. For example, capital accumulation within production agriculture remained quite modest until the 1920s, at the same time that the production of large food surpluses was instrumental in fostering American industrialization. These surpluses kept food prices relatively low, tempering wage demands by the urban working class (Perelman, 1977) and enabling vast exports of foodstuffs that transformed the U.S. from a debtor- nation in the 19th century to a creditor nation shortly prior to the Great Depression (Brewster, 1978, p. 29; Hacker, 1970; Mann and Dickinson, 1980).

5 2

While much of the content of agricultural policy in the U.S.A. has been directed toward the state’s role of encouraging and underwriting accumulation, certain elements of agricultural policy have been ex- tremely important in terms of legitimization and social control. Several decisive shifts in state agricultural policy, in fact, occurred during eras of agrarian or general social unrest. McConnell (1953), for example, documents the major influence of the Populist Movement on the expansion of agricultural research activities funded by the federal government. Populism represented a significant threat to the legitimization powers of the state, portending the unprecedented col- lective organization of diverse strata of farmers aimed at dismantling the prerogatives of commercial and industrial monopolies. Agricultural research became attractive to policy-makers because the development of improved farm practices could steer farmers toward individualistic rather than collective solutions to their problems. As the Populist Movement began to splinter into numerous commodity groups, the expansion of the agricultural research establishment reinforced the fractionalization of farmers into these commodity organizations. The centrality of tech- nology to “agricultural adjustment’’ made it increasingly necessary for all commodity groups to ensure that their crop or livestock activity was getting its fair share of federal research dollars.

One of the frequently overlooked legitimization roles of agricultural policy is the maintenance of the mirage of the viability of small business in the U.S.A. economy. Owner-operators of farms have always been a substantial fraction of the total number of small businesses in the U.S.A., and farming along with retailing continue to be the last refuges for independent small business operations. The complete annihilation of the family farm would thus go far toward completely undermining the myth that anyone who wants to do so can eventually become a successful business person. The power of this image of the viability of small business is revealed in the strong support for the family farm among urban residents (Butte1 & Flinn, 1975) as well as among rural farm and rural non-farm persons. The rhetorical and often actual support for the family farm within the federal government has thus played a vital ideological role in legitimizing the overall trajectory of growth and development in agriculture and industry.

These brief outlines of changes in U.S.A. agricultural policies suggest a number of important conclusions about the relationship of agricul- tural structure to rural environmental and underdevelopment prob- lems. The first and most important is that the structural changes in agriculture witnessed over the past century have been decidedly shaped

53

by state policy. Secondly, the significance of these policies cannot be grasped without considering the overall role of the state in the econ- omy; state agricultural policy has been formulated not so much according to desired goals for the agricultural economy and rural society, but rather according to how agriculture and the rural social structure could be made to serve the accumulation and legitimation roles of the state. Thirdly, because of the continued subordination of the agricultural sector to broader corporate and state interests, it be- comes increasingly clearer that in order to effect progressive changes that will enhance rural developmenr and rural environmental quality, these will require a qualitatively different agricultural politics than has prevailed in the past. The remaining portions of the paper will be largely devoted to detailing the implications of this notion for future social policy.

However, before proceeding, it is useful to recast these observations in a somewhat different way, in terms of their relationships with rural sociological theory and practice. Newby (1978, p. 2 5 ) has noted the tendency for most North American rural sociology to be conducted in a vacuum of knowledge of the economic foundations of agricultural systems. In other words, rural sociologists frequently consider the “social” to be a residual of the “economic” and thereby ignore the importance of socioeconomic “laws of motion” that affect the rural sector. The same comments can be made with respect to political phenomena. There has been a paucity of rural sociological studies of agricultural policy formation, rural social movement mobilization, and the like during the past few decades.

The remainder of this paper implicitly assumes that a more holistic perspective on rural social structure - essentially a political economy - is necessary to fully grasp the essences of problems such as rural underdevelopment and environmental degradation. Perspectives which systematically relegate economic and political laws of motion to the status of exogenous or secondary phenomena can only partially con- tribute to an understanding of major rural social problems. Rural sociology must thus come to view itself as an intepating social science that can bridge the parochialism and narrow disciplinary specialization manifest in agricultural economics, political science, and much sociol- ogy and pra l sociology.

54

TOWARD A POLITICAL ECONOMY OF RURAL SOCIETY

Apiculture and Resource ManaRement: A New Milieu? A voluminous literature has recently appeared in the U.S.A. suggesting that the agricultural system and rural society are afflicted by a growing malaise, if not a full-blown “crisis” (Berry, 1977; Belden with Forte, 1976; Perelman, 1977). While the categorization of these problems as a “crisis” is probably not justified, it would appear that the agricul- tural/food system has begun to enter an era in which its material, political, and ideological bases of support are far from guaranteed. For example, the massive food inflation of the 1970’s has clearly outstripped the overall rate of inflation and has placed disproportionate burdens on low income households (Nulty, 1977). Secondly, energy price inflation has increasingly cut into the returns of energy intensive agricultural operations, while the inelastic demand for energy in the agricultural production sector makes this sector quite vulnerable to energy supply shortfalls (Buttel et al., 1979). Thirdly, degradation of agro-ecosystems, especially through soil erosion, appears to be leading to productivity stagnation and to higher levels of energy inputs in the form of fertilizers to compensate for fertility declines due to soil destruction (Pimentel et a/., 1976).

An important change in the character of conflict over food policy has occurred because of the increased pervasiveness of agribusiness in the food system. Wi th the farmer receiving less than 40 percent of the retail food dollar, discontent over recent food price inflation has become more anti-corporate and less anti-farmer. Many analysts are suggesting that both farmers and consumers will come to recognize that the interests of neither group are served by the agribusiness sector and that farmers and working class consumers may have some basis for uniting around their common concerns (Belden with Forte, 1976). Such col- lective action may also be forthcoming because of the constraints that general economic stagnation and the fiscal crisis of the federal govern- ment place on state policy and the state’s traditional role in meliorating social problems. Economic stagnation threatens to usher in a situation in which rising food prices can no longer be compensated for by rapid growth i n disposable family income. Likewise, the fiscal crisis of the state makes i t unlikely that i t will take action to increase transfer payments to or reduce the taxes on the poor to meliorate discontent over food price inflation. A t the same time, the “need” to expand food exports in order to pay for burgeoning imports of petroleum can only

5 5

exacerbate food (and overall) inflation and thereby escalate the demands of the lower income classes.

The foregoing considerations have a number of implications for a political-economic perspective on the problems of rural environmental quality and rural development. Firstly, the hegemony of prevailing trajectories.of development in the agricultural sector - which, as noted above, have on balance had adverse impacts on the rural environment and rural communities - appears to be encountering political and ecological limits. Secondly, these limits or contradictions may allow certain groups to take steps to seek change in the structure of agricul- ture and rural society. However, these steps are unlikely to be taken by a state apparatus whose primary functions are rationalizing the accumu- lation process to the advantage of large-scale property owners, on one hand, and regulating social conflict and discontent, on the other. Thus we find that most contemporary initiatives to effect change in rural society are not deriving from state policy, but rather are coming from focal efforts on the part of persons whose needs are not met by the

resent food system and rural economy. Finally, these local initiatives Kasically represent processes of the elaboration of conflict rather than the regulation or limitation of conflict. The kinds of changes necessary to enhance rural environmental quality and achieve a more beneficient course of rural economic development entail alterations in the control over and distribution of resources that must necessarily lead to heightened levels of class antagonism.

Transitional Strategies. for Rural Social CbanRe

O n the basis of our previous analysis of the sources of rural environ- mental and underdevelopment problems and the changing milieu of political-economic forces in the agricultural system, there appear to be three master transitional strategies for rural social change. Each, again, has already begun to receive considerable attention in local activities that seek to meliorate rural social problems. The first group of strategies is to protect and encourage small-scale agriculture’. Such a strategy is dictated not only by the desires of small farm families to remain in agriculture, but also because of emerging evidence that a system of smaller farms would reduce energy consumption in agriculture (Butte1 and Larson, 1979; Marshall and Thompson, 1976), facilitate environ- mentally conscious production methods (Perelman, 1977; Oelhaf, 1978), and contribute to rural development (Sonka, 1979; Gold- schmidt, 1978a).

56

A second cluster of strategies is the establishment of a greater degree of localism in food production and consumption‘. Localism would essentially entail increased direct distribution of food products from farmer to consumer, increased involvement of community or farmer- consumer cooperatives in the food system, and greater regional self- sufficiency. Decentralization of the food system would allow both farmers and consumers to benefit via circumventing the increasingly pervasive food marketing industries, as well as facilitate environmental benefits from the increased crop diversity required in a more regionally self-sufficient agriculture. A final, related strategy for rural social change is the establishment of worker-controlled enterprises in rural communities as a lever to increase rural community employment and reassert community control over local resources’. Worker-controlled enterprises can take the form of community development corporations, cooperatives, and worker assumption of ownership and control of the production facilities of “run-away” corporations. Worker-controlled enterprises appear to be pivotal in establishing a higher degree of local self-sufficiency since community-controlled firms are more likely to orient their activities toward the utilization of local resources to meet local needs. In fact, a large number of worker-controlled enterprises (e.g., community canneries, farmer-consumer co-ops) are associated with the food system.

Rural Class Interests and Rural Social ChanRe The underlying thread among the three major transitional strategies is that they involve a type of social class alliance, primarily between the working class, and petty bourgeois farmers and “independent” business people, that has occurred infrequently during the course of economic development in the U.S. Such an alliance is necessary to provide the impetus behind efforts to encourage small-scale agriculture, localism in the food system, and worker-controlled enterprises. However, the nag- ging question is whether petty commodity producers can come to act in concerr with [he numerically more prominent rural and urban working classes: Petty commodity producers have a strong tendency to desire a return to a competitive capitalist economy in which mosr or all eco- nomic actors are small-scale producers; this class interest, not surpris- ingly, typically leads to political preferences that are opposed by the working class.

However, the petty commodity producer - especially the small-scale family farmer - has become increasingly marginalized in an economy

57

dominated by large-scale capital. More importantly, the notion of returning to a traditional independent, small-holder utopia becomes more and more unrealistic. Since the basic course of socioeconomic change in the U.S. has been toward large-scale production, the petty commodity producer increasingly faces a most difficult choice, essen- tially whether to cast one’s lot with large-scale capital or with the working class. The choices that will be made are difficult to predict since, as Syzmanski (1979, pp. 60-61) argues,

a time of dccisivc battle bctwccn the two greatest modern classes, the pctty bourgeoisie, k i n g forced to akc sides. can go cirhcr way. Which way i t goes is in good part determined by the cffcctivcncss with which one or the other viable class rcacha out to it and mobilizes it, and further, in good part dctermincs the outcomc of the test of strcngth bctwecn the two viable classes. . . [emphasis in original].

Thus, it is possible to argue that while farmers will not be the sole vanguard in a transition toward a resource-conserving, equitable rural society, their concerns can be shaped in progressive directions6. The arecent flood of participation by farmers - especially small farmers - in cooperative strategies ranging from direct marketing to tax reform indeed suggests the growing acceptance on their part of the impracti- cality of returning to a competitive small-scale economy and their growing recognition of the need for alternative strategies.

DISCUSSION

I wish to conclude this paper by making explicit several conclusions that were largely implicit in the foregoing discussion. The first is that the environmental and development problems of rural areas are not merely an aberration in an otherwise successful or desirable agricultural and rural social structure. Indeed, these problems are inherent in the very trajectory along which agriculture and rural society have developed within the larger societal context. A corollary conclusion is that these problems - destruction of agroecosystems, depletion of scarce natural resources, underdevelopment of rural communities - are only partially soluble within the confines of the present social structure. In other words, significant structural changes (beginning along the lines of encouraging a small farm system, localism in the food system, and emergence of worker-controlled enterprises in rural areas) are required to redress the fundamental problems faced by rural people and communities.

A final conclusion of import to rural sociology is that there are very

58

important connections between the arenas of agricultural structure, rural environmental problems, and rural community and regional development. Unfortunately, these areas are almost always conceptu- a l i z d a n d researched in isolation from each other in North American rural sociology. This intra-disciplinary specialization appears to have several undesirable consequences. The first is that rural sociologists are unlikely to develop an awareness that a whole host of rural social problems has common roots. Secondly, specialized research may be insensitive to the ways in which a given strategy for change might, on one hand, exacerbate other rural social problems or, on the other hand, result in mutually-beneficial changes that simultaneously address a wider range of rural issues. Lastly, such specialization serves to inhibit the development of a more holistic rural sociological perspective - one that can reach a comprehensive understanding of the overall develop- ment of the rural sector. It is hoped that this paper will be a small step toward such a holistic perspective on the developmenr and under- development of rural society that is, in my opinion, so desperately needed in rural sociology in the advanced societies.

NOTES

Scc especially Rodcfeld (1974. 1979) for recent overviews of thc narurc of ongoing structural changes in U.S.A. agriculrurc. See Stockdalc (1976) and Rutrcl and Flinn (1977) for cxtcnded discussions of problems of the rural and agricultural cnvironmcnt in rhc U.S. Thc rationalc behind, and spxific strarcgics for, cncounging a small farm sysrcm can be found in Powers ct al. (1978) and &I&n with Fortc (1976). Scc &Iden with Fonc (1976) and Mcrrill (1976) for expanded discussions regarding the atablishmcnt of a grcatcr dcgrcc of localism or rcgional self-sufficiency in rhc food dclivcry system. Young and Newton (1979) and Burtcl (1980) contain grcatcr detail on thc issuc of collcctivc ownership and control of rural cnrcrprixs. Britt cr a l . (1978) provide a vcry interesting analysis of onc rypc of worker-controllcd industry - the community cannery - in the context of the rural economy (scc also Schaaf, 1977). The future class politics of thc tnnsitionil strategies discussed a h v c will of course bc greatly affected by rhc social class dynamics within the agricultural xctor . Two quitc opposite views on this issuc have appcarcd within agricultural social science. O n c view, that most clearly taken by dc Janvry (1980). is that p c ~ t y commodity production in the advanced socicrics will progrcssivcly bc d c c o m p x d into two antagonistic clasxs, rhose of agricultural capitalists and non-propcrticd Iaborcrs. A conrending view emphasizcs that pctty commodity production is likely to persist in agriculturc bccausc of thc unattractivcness of agricultural production to off-farm invcstmcnt duc to the discon- tinuous nature of the agricultural labor process (Mann and Dickinson, 1978). To thc cxtent that the structure of agriculrurc moves away from p e t t y commodity production ( thc “familv farm”) coward two mlarizcd classes. rhc wlitics of rural transformation will

59 bc morc clcarly a strugglc bcrwccn thc two major contcnding clasxs, and thc qucsrion of thc political lanings of indcpendcnt business pcoplc will by dcfinltion bc moor. However, in the prcvious discussion I havc madc an implicit assumption of thc pcrsis- tcnce of pctty commodity production in agriculturc - that is, a position morc in linc with that of Mann and Dickinson (1978) - whilc rccognizing modcst tcndcncics toward rhc dircction cnvisioncd by de Janvry (1980).

REFERENCES

A U B Y . M. 2nd F. ALLEN (1974). Robots Bchind thc Plow, (Emmaus, Pcnn.: Rodale press). BELDEN, J. with G. FORTE (1976), Toward a National Food Policy, (Washington, D.C.:

BERRY, W . (1977). Thc Unscttling of America, (Sin Francisco: Sierra Club Books). BONNEN, J. (1974). Thc Effcct of Taxes and Govcrnrncnt Spcnding on Incquality, in:

Edwards, R.C. ct al (cds.), Thc Capitalist System, (Englcwood Cliffs, NJ.: Prcn- ticc-Hall).

BREIMYER, H. F. (1965), Individual Frccdom and thc Economic Organization of Agricul- ture. (Urbana: Univcrsiry of Illinois Prcss).

BREWSTER. D. (1978). Fcdcral Policy and rhc Small Farm: An Historical View, in: Toward a Fcdcral Small Farms Policy, (Washington, D.C.: National Run1 Ccnrcr).

BRITT, C and T. WALKER, with M. SCHAAF (1978), Jobs and Encrgy in New England: Food Production and Markcring, (Bath, Maine: Coistal Entcrpriscs, Inc.).

BUTTEL, F. H. (l979), Agricultural Structure and Encrgy Intcnsity: A Compantivc Analysis of the Dcvclopcd Capitalist Socictics, Comparative Rural and Rcgional Studics Occasional R p c r # 1 (Dcpartmcnt of Sociology and Anthropology, Univcrsity of Guclph, Canada).

BUTTEL, F. H. (1980), Agriculrurc, Environmcnt, and Social Change: Somc Emcrgcnt Issues. in: Buttcl, F. H . and H. Ncwby (cds.), T h e Rural Sociology of the Advanced Socictics (Montclair, N.J.: Allanhcld, Osmun & Co.).

BU’ITEL, F.H. and W . L. FLINN (1975), Sources and Consequcnccs of Agrarian Values in Amcrican Socicty, Rural Sociology, 40, 134-1 J 1.

BUTTEL. F. H. and W . L. FLINN (1977), Thc Intcrdcpcndcnce of Rural and Urban En- vironmcntal Problcrns in Advanced Capitalist Societies: Modcls of Linkage, Sociologia Ruralis, 17, 255-280.

BUTTEL, F. H. and 0. W. LARSON 111 (1979), Farm Sizc, Structurc, and Energy Intcnsity: An Ecological Analysis of U.S. Agriculturc, Run1 Sociology, 44, 471438.

BUTTEL, F. H. W. IQCKERETZ, M. STRANGE and E. TERHUNE (1979). Encrgy and Small Farms: A Rcvicw of Existing Litcraturc and Suggcsrions Concerning Fururc Research, (Washington, D.C.: National Rural Ccnrcr).

CADWELL, M.B. and J. T. WOOLLEY (1976), Encrgy Policy and thc Capitalist State, in: Hammarlund, J. R. and L. N . Lindberg (cds.), Thc Political Economy of Encrgy Policy (Madison, Wis.: Institution for Environmcntal Studics, Univcrsiry of Wisconsin).

Exploratory Project for Economic Altcrnativcs).

CARRIERE, D. C. (1976), Rx for Erodible Southern Soils, Agricultunl Rcscarch, 24. 5 . DEJANVRY, A. (1980). Social Diffcrcntiation in Agriculturc and rhc Ideology of N c o p p -

ultsm, in: Butrcl, F. H. and H . Ncwby (cds.), The Rural Sociology of rhc Advanced Socictitcs, (Monrclair. N . J.: Allanhcld, Osmun & Co.).

FUJIMOTO, 1. (1977). Thc Comrnunitics of the San Joaquin Vallcy: Thc Rclation Bctwccn Scalc of Farming, Warcr Usc, and Quality of Lifc, (Dcpartmcnt of Applied Bchavioral Scicnces, Univcrsity of California, Davis).

60

&LDXHM[DT, w. (1947), AS YOU SOWu, (Glenc*. 111.’ Press). ~LDX-MIDT, w. (19782). AS YOU SOW: Thrcc Srudics in the Social Conxqucnccs of

Agribusiness, (Montclair, N.J.: Allanhcld, Osmun GODXHMIDT, w. (197&), Largc-Scalc Farming and thc Rural Social Structure. Rural

Sociology, 43. 362-366. G ~ ~ , K, F. 2nd R . D. RODEELD (1977). C o n x q u c n c a of Mechanization in U.S. Agricul-

turc, prcwntcd a t rhc annual mccting of the Rural Sociological Socicty, Madison, Wis.

HACKER. L. M. (1970). The Coursc of Amcrican Economic Growth and Dcvclopmcnt, (New York: Wilcy).

HALL, R. H. (1976). Food For Nought . (Hagerstown. Md.: Medical Dcpartmcnt, Harpcr & Row).

HOLUND, S. (1976). Capital vcrsus the Rcgions, (Ncw York: Sr. Martin’s Prcss). M ~ O N N E L L , G. (1953). Thc Dcclinc of Agrarian Democracy, (krkclcy: Unlvcrsiry of

California Prcss). MA”. S. A. and J. DICKINSON (1978). Obstacles to thc Dcvclopmcnt of a Capitahst

Agriculture, Journal of Peasant Studies, 5,466-481. MANN. S. A. (1980), Sratc and Agriculturc in Two Eras of Amcrican Capitalism, in: Buttcl,

F. H. and H. Ncwby (cds.), The Rural Sociology of the Advanccd Socictics, (Montclair. N.J.: Allanhcld, Osmun & Co).

MARSHALL, R. and A. THOMFSON (1976). Status and Prospects of Small Farmers in thc South, (Atlanta: Southcrn Regional Council).

MERRILL, R. (1976). Radical Agriculturc, (Ncw York: Harpcr Torchbooks). MFTCALF, D. (1969). The Economics of Agriculture, (Harrnondsworth, England: Penguin). MITCHELL, D. (1975). Thc Political Economy of Food. (Toronto: Lorimcr). NEWBY. H. (1978). The Rural Sociology of Advanccd Capitalist Socictics, in: Ncwby, H.

(cd.). International Pcrspcctivcs in Rural Sociology. (London: Wilcy). NULTY, L. E. (1977), Undcntanding the Ncw Inflation: The Imporrancc of the Basic

Nccessitics, (Washington, D.C.: Exploratory Project for Economic Alternatives). O’CONNOR, J. (1973), Thc Fiscal Crisis of thc State, (Ncw York: St. Martin’s Press). O’CONNOR. J. (1975). Corporations and thc State, (New York: Hvpcr Torchbooks). OELHAF, R. C. (1978). Organic Agriculturc, (Montclair, N.J.: Allanhcld. Osrnun & Co.). OWE, C. (1976). Political Authority and Class Srructurc. in: Conncrron. P. (cd.), Critical

PERELMAN, M. (1977). Farming for Profit in a Hungry World, (Monrclair, N.J.: Allanhcld,

RMENTEL. D. c t al. (1973), Food Production and thc Encrgy Crisis. Scicncc 182,443-449. PIMENTEL, D. et 11. (1976), Land Dcgradation: Effccrs on Food and Encrgy Rcsourccs,

Scicncc, 194, 149-155. PIMENTEL, D. ct al. (1979, Environmental and Social Costs of Pcsticidcs: A Preliminary

Asscssmcnt, (Dcparrmcnt of Entomology, Corncll Univcrsity). POWERS, S., J. GILBERT and F. H. BUTITL (1978). Small Farm and Rural Dcvclopmcnt

Policy in thc U S : Rarionalc and Prospects. in: Run1 Research in USDA. Hmrings Bcfore thc Subcommittcc on Agricultural Rcscarch and Gcncral Legislation of thc Comrnirtcc on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. U.S. Scnatc, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govcrnmenr Printing Office).

RAUP, P M. (1970). Thc Impact of l’rcnds in the Farm Firm on Community and Human Wclfarc, in: Erncrging and Projcctcd Trends Likcly to Influcncc thc Srructurc of Midwest Agriculture. 1970-1985. (Iowa City. Iowa: Collcgc of Law, llnivcrsity of Iowa).

c o ) .

Sociology, (Harmondsworth. England: Pcnguin).

Osmun & Co).

61

RODEFELD, R. D. (1974), Thc Changing Organizational and Occupational Structurc of Farming and thc Implications for Farm Work Forcc Individuals, Familics, and Communities, Unpublishcd Ph.D. dissertation, Univcrsity of Wisconsin.

RODEFELD. R. D. (1979), Farm Structural and Structural Typc Chanctcristics: Rcccnt Trends, Cauxs, Implications, and Research Needs, (Washington, D.C.: National R u n l Ccntcr).

SCHAAF, M. (1977). Cooperatives at the Crossroads, (Washington, D.C.: Exploratory Project for Economic Altcrnativcs).

SINCLAIR, P. R. (1980). Agricultural Policy and the Dcclinc of Commcrcial Family Farming, in: Buttel, F. H. and H. Ncwby (cds.), Thc Rural Sociology of thc Advanced Socicrics, (Montclair, N.J.: Allanhcld, Osmun & Co.).

SONKA, S. T. (1970), Conscqucnccs of Farm Structural Change, (Washington. D.C.: National R u n l Ccntcr).

SONKA, S. T. and E. 0. HEADY, (1974), Farm Six , Rural Community, and Consumcr Wclfarc, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 56, 534-542.

STOCKDALE, J. D. (1976). Tcchnology and Change in U.S. Agriculture: Modcl or Warning? Sociologia Ruralis, 17, 4348.

SYZMANSKI, A. (1378). Thc Capitalist Sratc and the Politics of Class, (Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop).

SYZMANSK~, A. (1979). A Critique and Extension of rhc PMC, in: Walker, P. (cd.). Betwen Capital and Labor, (Boston: South End Press).

YOUNG, J. A. and J. M. NEWTON, (1977). Capitalism and Human Obsolcxcncc, (Mont- chic, N.J.: Allanhcld, Osmun & Co.).

SUMMARY

Rural sociologists in North America and Western Europe have shown increasing interest in the issues of rural environmental quality, the structure of agriculture, and rural underdevelopment during the past decade. This paper seeks to demonstrate the profound connections among thew phenomena, particularly in terms of how ongoing changes in agricultural structure have had major impacts on both the rural environment and the socioeconomic fabric of rural communities. I t is argued that while many of these changes are rooted in the dynamics of the Western capitalist societies, state policy has also been crucial in shaping change in rural society. A case is thereby made that a more holistic or integrative perspective - essentially a political economy - is necessary to understand the origins of these rural social and economic problems and conceptualize strategies through which they can be solved. Selected examples of the application of such a perspective are developed in the final portion of the paper.

62

RESUME

En Amkrique du Nord et en Europe Occidentale, les sociologues ruraux se sont de plus en plus intkresks, depuis une dizaine d’annks, aux questions de la qualiti de l’environnement rural, de la structure de l’agriculture et du sous-dkveloppement rural. L’article vise a montrer les liaisons cachCes entre ces phknomhes, particuliirement les effets des transformations en cours dans l’agriculture i la fois sur l’environnement rural et sur le tissu socio-kconomique des communautb rurales.

I1 est suggiri que si nombre de ces transformations sont dkterminies par la dynamique des sociktis capitalistes occidentales, le r61e de 1’Etat a i t k crucial dans les formes que ces transformations ont p r im dans la sociktk rurale. I1 s’ensuit l’idie qui’il est nkcessaire de prockder i une approche plus intkgrke et plus holistique - essentiellement une ico- nomie politique - pour comprendre les origines de ces probEmes sociaux et iconomiques du monde rural, et pour formuler des stratkgies 1 travers lesquelles ils peuvent &re rksolus. La derniire partie de I’article dkveloppe quelques exemples choisis pour illustrer cette perspective.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

Wahrend des letzten Jahrzehnts haben Agrarsoziologen in Nord- amerika ebenso wie in Westeuropa wachsendes Interesse fur Fragen der Umweltqualitat im landlichen Raum, der Argrarstruktur und der land- lichen Unterentwicklung gezeigt. Dieser Artikel versucht die tieferen Beziehungen zwischen diesen Bereichen aufzuzeigen. Insbesondere wird der Frage nachgegangen, welchen EinfluB die fortwahrenden Veranderungen in der Agrarstruktur auf die landliche Umwelt und die soziookonomische Struktur landlicher Gemeinden gehabt haben. Viele d i e m Veranderungen haben ihren Ursprung in der Dynamik der kapitalistischen Gesellschaftssysteme der wesclichen Welt. Es wird jedoch ausgefiihrt, daI3 auch die Politik des Staates entscheidenden EinfluB auf Veranderungen in der landlichen Gesellschaft hat. In diesem Zusammenhang wird festgestellt, daI3 eine mehr ganzheitliche oder integrierende Betrachtungsweise - insbesondere der politischen Okonomie - notwendig ist, um den Ursprung d i e m sozialen und wirtschaftlichen Probleme verstehen und Strategien fur deren Ltjsung entwickeln zu konnen. Ausgewahlte Beispiele der Anwendung einer solchen Betrachtungsweise werden im SchluB des Artikels gegeben.