Agricultural restructuring and state assistance: competing or complementary rural policy paradigms?

Abstract

The restructuring of European agriculture as a policy project has a long and complicated history. Since the late 1950s, policy makers have adopted a number of sometimes contradictory positions on this issue, a 'developmental' policy stance dedicated to assisting agricultural restructuring gradually giving way to, but never being entirely eclipsed by, a paradigmatic notion of state assistance designed actually to keep farmers on the land. This paper traces the nature of this policy evolution and explores the ways in which public policy has been empirically informed by a construction of farmers and farm households as both passive victims of an externally driven restructuring process and active seizers of opportunities for diversification and further restructuring. Commenting on the increasing ambiguity of the European policy stance and its differential presentation to international and domestic audiences, the paper focuses on the UK as a member state with one of the most robust, neo-liberal postures on agricultural restructuring. It reviews recent empirical studies of the restructuring process and concludes that while there is little evidence to suggest that UK agriculture is yet on the brink of significant structural change, a steady diversification of the income base of many farm households is leading to the emergence of a community of land managers that is more diverse and decoupled from agricultural policy support than ever before. The paper concludes by reflecting on the implications of these trends for policy design and the concept of state assistance in a period of agricultural change.

Agricultural change and restructuring: recent evidence from a survey of agricultural households in England

“…More importantly perhaps, there is a lack of agreement within the policy community concerning the longer-term vulnerability of farmers and their households to the economic pressures bearing down on them. Critics observe that European policy debates and the design of official information systems continue to be constructed in ways which emphasise vulnerability rather than adaptability, placing apparently fragile farm businesses rather than more adaptable farm households at the centre of public concern (see Blandford, 1996;Davies et al, 1997;Hill, 1999Hill, , 2000Hoggart and Paniagua, 2001;Potter and Lobley, 2003). As Hill comments, the extent of multiple job holding by family members and the degree to which many households have already diversified their income base and thus have reduced dependence on agricultural income sources must give pause to those predicting the imminent demise of the family farm.…”

Payments for ecosystem services in relation to US and UK agri-environmental policy: disruptive neoliberal innovation or hybrid policy adaptation?

“…This approach treats the continuation of farming as a precondition for the protection of landscapes and habitats (Potter and Lobley 2004). A powerful advocacy coalition continues to resist the idea, implicit in a PES approach, that environmental payments should be decoupled from farming.…”

“…Policy scientists have long been fascinated by industrialised country agriculture and the apparent ability of agricultural policy networks to resist reform in these neoliberal times (Winders 2009). As Potter and Lobley (2004) observe, regimes such as the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and federal US farm policies continue to be legitimised by taken for granted notions about the nature and constitution of the agricultural industry and the privileged status of farmers in supplying public goods such as food security and environmental quality. The resulting state assistance paradigm asserts a large role for governments in subsidising agricultural production (Coleman et al 1996;Sheingate 2000).…”

"Big Bang" Enlargement and Common Agricultural Policy Reform

“…The 1996 BSE and dioxin crises opened the food safety question, several farm lobbies and political parties began to defend the traditional family farm concept (Potter and Lobley, 2004). However, as Schrader demonstrated (2000, 232), the reformed CAP was far from being first best policy choice for the declared multifunctional objectives.…”

“…Conservation Security Program under the 2002 US Farm Act; Tilzey, 2007, 1295;Potter and Lobley, 2004). The URAA had an in-built agenda for further liberalization of national agricultural policies.…”