International audienceIn this article, the agricultural sector in Romania provides the basis of a sociological enquiry into the contribution of statistics to the definition of legitimate economic organization. Using the analytical tools developed by James C. Scott, the emphasis is laid on the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) developed by the European Commission to define ‘economically viable’ farms. The measurement units which the FADN provides are applied at national level to determine legitimate agricultural practices. This imposes a productivist definition of the agricultural economy which diverges from the modes of social and economic organization observed in rural areas in Romania. Four million Romanian citizens make their living directly from working the land. The majority own smallholdings received during decollectivization and practise subsistence farming at the fringes of the legal economy. Instead of employing a definition of agriculture consistent with their practices and developing local distribution channels, quantification instruments provided by the European Commission form the basis of a selection procedure among these smallholders. These instruments have enabled the Romanian Ministry of Agriculture to set a threshold of ‘economic viability’ below which producers are deemed unable to develop a commercial approach to their activities. The objective is to help those who just about reach the required level to consolidate their agricultural holdings and take up intensive farming. The remainder are disqualified and encouraged to leave the sector. To further this objective, the category ‘semi-subsistence’ agriculture has been created and takes centre stage in all measures implemented. Nevertheless, the statistical dividing lines on which this category is based have no substance and the structure of agriculture is manifesting high levels of inerti

No abstract

International audienceIn Romania, agricultural researchers are enlisted to promote the agrochemical industry and large-scale intensive agriculture. This role can be made intelligible through notion of a scientific field, highlighting rivalries between the Academy of Agricultural Sciences and the University sector. The former has lost its public funding but maintains its responsibilities within bodies devising and leading agricultural policy. The latter gives primacy to peer recognition and integration within international networks, but lacks co-financing required for being effectively included in international research projects. Each academic institution tries to devalue the rival's strong points and gain recognition for the superior value of its own assets. The funding provided by the private agrochemical industry adapts to the scientific field's structure: leading multinational firms take advantage of rivalries between academic institutions and fuel them at the same time. They consolidate current orientation taken by members of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences, especially when seeking their support for authorization for seeds and plant-protection products. Industry funds also create new rewards for University staff, emphasizing international connections but disconnecting them from purely academic achievements. Meanwhile Romanian agronomists tend to defend the type of agriculture promising the most significant business opportunities for the agrochemical industry. Thus, it uses institutional rivalries for its agenda, though without directly influencing the direction of research

No abstract

No abstract