MODELS A N D MEANS FOR A RURAL FUTURE

An Introduction

RUTH GASSONO

This special issue of Sociologia Ruralis takes up the theme of the 14th European Congress for Rural Sociology which was held at the University of Giessen, Germany, in July 1990. Although not an inclusive Congress issue, being confined to a selection of papers from only one of the fifteen working groups, the contributions included here all deal in different ways with models of the future of rural areas or means to influence it.

“The idea of a model”, according to Andreas Bodenstedt, the Presi- dent of the European Society for Rural Sociology and Chairman of the Scientific Committee which planned the Congress, “ ... ranges from formal designs or plans, through political ideologies (right or left) and value frameworks, to cultural constructions at the level of farmer beha- viour and local group activity. It also includes the theoretical reasoning of scientists.” In his position paper in Rural Sociology News (2, 1989) he drew a distinction between the idea of a model o f - rural life, agrarian culture or agricultural production - which implies a mental construct for rhe interpretation of the world or some part of reality as it is, and a model f o r - the future, rural space etc. - which involves a plan for changing the world or social situation (the famous Leitbild in German) entailing ac- tions, means, interventions.

Models and means can be approached at various levels. Governments, policy-makers and planners think in terms of implementing models by means of legislation, policies, strategies, plans or programmes - for agri- culture, rural or regional development. Regional and local authorities, acting within the national policy framework, shape plans and projects to suit their own rural areas. At the local or individual level, rural people may develop their own models “from below” and their own distinctive forms of local action; they may participate in, resist or seek to deflect changes being imposed on them from above. Independent, uninvolved but con- cerned, rural social scientists observe and criticize. Consciously or other- wise, they develop and apply their own models.

The starting point for the Giessen Congress was the uncertain future for

’’ Department of Agricultural Economics, Wye College, Ashfotd, Kent, United Kingdom

Sociologia Ruralis 1991. Vol. XXXI-1

4

agriculture and the rural population in the light of the declining impor- tance of the farm sector in all industrialized countries. A shrinking agri- culture means fewer jobs, less income generated and fewer rural house- holds supported. In sparsely populated areas, declining employment in agriculture may spell a dwindling rural population, abandoned land and an impoverished society. In more densely settled regions, the vacuum left by agriculture is quickly filled with new uses for land, new job opportuni- ties, new income sources - often with disturbing consequences for the environment and for existing rural households. At the present time all European nations are taking measures to cope with the future of their rural areas. The Future of Rural Society (Bulletin of the European Com- munities Supplement 4/88), for example, sets out the Commission’s thinking on the changes required if rural areas are to adjust to new economic, social and environmental demands.

Working Group 2 at the Congress focused on changes in employment and sources of income and the consequences for rural households. Most of the papers in this collection offer models of the rural economy or society in the present or recent past rather than prescriptive models for the future, though Oksa’s paper on “New Activities in Rural Areas” is perhaps more forward-looking. Ronningen is the only contributor to focus on means. Describing and interpreting historical events, projecting forward and predicting the outcome, is the normal approach of the rural sociol- ogist, who is rarely prominent among circles of policy-makers and their advisors. The historical approach is certainly not to be discredited, for without a real understanding of past events, inappropriate means may be proposed to bring about change.

Jukka Oksa sets the scene, presenting the thinking behind a new re- search programme at the Karelian Institute of the University of Joensuu, Finland. Because of international and national pressures to reduce farm production, future prospects for rural areas are becoming increasingly dependent on new activities. The composition of the rural population has become more diverse, the conceptualization of rural change more com- plex. The core question for Oksa and his colleagues is the new role of rural areas in the societal division of activities. Oksa’s model is a schematic representation of layers of activities in rural areas which change over time. This nicely illustrates the decline of family farming and small-scale forest- ry in Finland and the growing importance of manufacturing and public services, which however do not make up for jobs lost in more traditional rural activities.

Oksa argues that the borders between industrial sectors and occupa- tions are breaking down and the connections between them intensifying. This theme is taken up by Andrew Errington in his paper “Modelling the Seamless Web: Economic Linkages and Rural Policy”. H e presents an

5

economist’s model of the rural economy which demonstrates how closely agriculture is linked with the economy as a whole and how declining employment, incomes and profits in the farming sector feed through to other sectors. Besides the model, Errington offers a technique, the use of Input-Output tables, a means by which the economist can trace both the direct and indirect effects of policy change on rural employment. H e makes a case for more information about the spatial distribution of economic linkages in order to evaluate the impact of agricultural and regional development policies on rural areas.

Although other Europeans may look enviously to the Norwegian Government’s record on rural regional development, Martin Ronningen is fairly critical of his country’s policies. His paper stands out as the only one specifically concerned with means and the only one offering a critical analysis of the models and means of others. Unlike most other contrib- utors to this issue, he lays stress on the importance of women’s aspirations and employment needs. In a country where depopulation of rural areas is a constant threat, the 1970s were favourable for rural regions because a rapid growth in jobs in public services offered opportunities to the in- creasingly well-educated female population. The author suggests that the health of the rural economy may depend less on specific regional policy than on the policies of other sectors like education, transport and welfare services.

While the first three papers, dealing with various aspects of rural employment, take a holistic view of the rural economy, the rest focus more specifically on the farm population and its changing sources of income. The models used here are typologies of farm households striving to adjust to the economic realities of over-production and the prospect of an end to protectionism. Pluriactivity is seen as the most likely outcome.

Damianos, Demoussis and Kasimis present an empirical view of mul- tiple job-holding in Greece, where almost 80 per cent of farms are below 5 hectares. They analyse patterns of employment by size of farm against a background of declining prospects within agriculture, declining job op- portunities outside and rising consumption standards. An interesting discovery, contrasting with many other European countries, is that aver- age incomes of multiple job-holders are below those of full-time farmers. From this empirical base the authors develop a typology of multiple job-holding farm households.

The Greek typology or model which sheds light on the future of rural areas was derived from empirical research. By contrast A d d Blekesaune developed a theoretical model first and then applied it to data from a large sample of Norwegian farms. His paper traces the dynamics of farm household survival strategies. The dominant trend in Norway over recent years has been from full-time to part-time family farming. Notable in- creases have occurred in households where the husband farms full-time

6

and the wife works exclusively off the farm, retirement farms and holdings without any agricultural production. For full-time farms to survive they have to be able to service and enlarge their own capital.

The paper by MacKinnon, Bryden, Bell, Fuller and Spearman, present- ing early results from The Arkleton Trust’s five year research programme on farm structures and pluriactivity, draws together many threads from the previous papers. Using data from over 6 000 farms in 24 different areas of Western Europe, the authors develop a typology of farm households according to size of farm business and source of income. They identify the most vulnerable households as those which are heavily dependent upon the income from small farms. Most striking is the discovery of a strong relationship between income vulnerability and a weak labour market. Thus farm households which most need to find other sources of income are least able to do so. The authors point out that economic vulnerability could just as well be attributed to the absence of off-farm employment as to the small size of farm business. They argue for a shift in the focus of policy from low farm incomes to low income households. Like Ron- ningen they see development of labour markets as a more appropriate means to improve rural incomes than policies to raise farm output, sub- sidize units of production or promote farm diversification.

Not all farm households need to farm in order to survive. A third of the households in The Arkleton Trust’s EC study areas, for instance, earned less than a fifth of their income from farming. Blekesaune describes spare-time farms deriving less than 10 per cent of family income from the farm, run for pleasure rather than for economic gain. The Greek paper identified a category of non-agricultural households whose reproduction is secured almost exclusively outside the farm, who occupy very small holdings which they are reluctant to part with. Oksa’s model included a rather oddly-assorted category of “pensioners, hermits and urban refu- gees”.

Martin Turner concentrates on such a category, the occupiers of very small farms in England and Wales which are too small to be regarded as full-time businesses but which are still a recognized component of the agricultural resource base. O n average farmer and spouse devote half their labour to the farm but derive less than 10 per cent of their income from it, although there is tremendous variation in the scale and type of farming activities.

As in the Greek study, a rich source of empirical data suggests a typology. Turner identifies three broad groupings of occupiers; retired farmers, incomers seeking a rural home and lifestyle and farmers commit- ted to farming the holding as effectively as possible. H e argues that it is on their role within rural society and the rural economy rather than on their agricultural performance that the contribution of very small farms should be judged. Their occupiers should not be included within the “farm

7

income problem” equation; in MacKinnon’s terms they are not an income vulnerable group. Their contribution to rural society, too, can be very positive, bringing new ideas, talent and enthusiasm.

The papers by Turner and Elek recall Bodenstedt’s observation in the opening plenary session of the Giessen Congress: “What has rarely been investigated but seems co be imperative for rural sociological research, is the social potential of agricultural population to establish an alternative economic and cultural way of living in the midst of industrial societies”. Turner illustrates the tendency in highly developed western countries for small-scale farming to be justified in social terms when its economic role becomes marginalized. In sharp contrast, Sandor Elek describes the eco- nomic ascendance enjoyed by the small-scale farming sector in Hungary since the early 1980s. Conventional wisdom predicted the withering away of small family farms following the collectivization of agriculture. In- stead, small farms producing mainly for subsistence needs have been transformed into specialized units, exploiting their comparative advan- tage wis-u-vis large-scale farms and marketing so effectively that they now account for over half the net product of Hungarian agriculture.

Taken together, these papers show that changes in employment and sources of income are bringing farm households increasingly in touch with other parts of the rural economy and rural society; as Oksa put it “the borders between industrial sectors and occupations are breaking down and the connections are growing and intensifying ... the division of town and countryside, the whole system of regional differences, is being transformed”. In Errington’s graphic phrase, rural people and rural busi- nesses are bound to one another and to the rest of the national and international economy in a “seamless web of economic linkages”. The survival of family farms is coming to depend increasingly on employment opportunities and sources of income from beyond the farm gate; the vulnerable families are those denied the opportunity to diversify their sources of income. Even in Hungary, whose experience in many ways has been the complete reverse of western Europe, the continued existence of family farms depends on other employment being available. While the strongest farm businesses can continue to make a satisfactory living in agriculture, providing they are able in Blekesaune’s terms to reproduce their capital or, like the larger Greek farms, diversify through vertical integration with other activities, the great majority of farm households are dependent on the provision of jobs outside the farm. This usually entails state intervention, at least to create a climate within which other firms can thrive in rural areas and therefore employ labour.

The strategy of the working group was to accept papers which were offered rather than to solicit contributions according to a predetermined scheme. Inevitably, then, there are gaps. In approach there are more

8

empirically-derived models offarm households or the rural economy than models f o i the future. Where models look forward they project current trends rather than prescribing alternatives. Only one paper focuses on means to implement models. In subject terms more has been written about pluriactive farm households than about what the Greek paper described as “the dynamic growth sector of full-time farms”. Contributors might have allowed their imaginations freer rein in considering alternatives to current models - though Errington does introduce a free market scenario.

Finally, rural sociologists could have made a bigger contribution to this topic. Understandably, perhaps, the subject of changes in employment and incomes attracted agricultural economists rather than sociologists. O n the whole the models presented were derived from economic think- ing. Where then are the models of rural sociology? The President laid down the challenge to sociologists to “demonstrate and contribute what they know of models and means for a rural future, open the floor for discussion of their own theories and paradigms and finally, develop new approaches and perspectives where none already exist.” As he pointed out, “Rural sociologists have observed and taken a critical stance towards these ongoing changes but the results of their research have not often reached the attention of either the administration or the public as such ... Sociologists themselves should take up the challenge of presenting their own findings and submitting their own models ... In this way they might contribute to the shaping of a European rural future”. On this occasion, at least, that opportunity seems to have been missed.