Agricultural Policy Discourses and Farmers ’ values

1. Agricultural PolicyDiscourses and Farmers’ values Miira Niska REMS: The Construction of EntrepreneurialAgency of Farms, 29th November 2010

2. 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

3. Agricultural PolicyDiscourses in CAP • Neomercantilism • Neoliberalism • Multifunctionalism (Potter & Tilzey 2005; Erjavec & Erjavec 2009; Dibden et al. 2009)

4. Agricultural PolicyDiscourses in CAP • Neomercantilism • Protectionism, againstliberalisation • 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)

5. Positions the policydiscoursesconstruct 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

6. Farmespositionsfromvalueperspective • Farmer in neomercantilism • valuesproduction & national (nowadaysalso EU citizens) common good • Farmer in neoliberalism • valuesprofit & autonomy • Farmer in multifunctionalism • valuesvitality of ruralareas & environment

7. Agricultural policydiscourses, farmers’ positions and allegedvalues Discourses Neomercantilism Multifunctionalism Neoliberalism Positions Producer Sustainablefarmer Entrepreneur National common good Production: quality/ quantity Ruraldevelop ment Environ ment Economy Autonomy Values

8. 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

9. 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?

10. FARMES’ VALUES – previousstudies 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)

11. FARMES’ VALUES – previousstudies 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

12. FARMES’ VALUES – previousstudies 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)

13. FARMES’ VALUES – previousstudies IV • Typologies: • Yeomen/peasants – Entrepreneurs • > both value individualistic values • Conventional farmers (producers & entrepreneurs) – Sustainable farmers • > separation based on rural & environemental values

14. Farmer types and farmers’ values Type of farmer Producer Sustainablefarmer Entrepreneur Peasant Values National common good Productionquality/ quantity Ruraldevelop-ment Environment Economy Autonomy Continuity Lifestyle

15. 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

16. Empirical study • Nation-wide postal survey data • Collected in Finland in 2006 • Farmers N=638

17. 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?

18. TABLE 2: Factor analysis (Principal Axis Factoring, Varimax rotation) Note: Only loadings above .30 are displayed Note: N=638

19. TABLE 2: Factor analysis (Principal Axis Factoring, Varimax rotation) /Life style? Note: Only loadings above .30 are displayed Note: N=638

20. TABLE 3: Means and standard deviations Note: N=638

22. TABLE 5: Importance of individual values variables Note: N=638

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. THANKS! miira.niska@helsinki.fi