The logic of the construction of rural politics: political discourses on rurality in norway

Abstract

. Two competing discourses emerge from a careful reading of parliamentary debates in Norway on rural development. One regards rural values as intrinsic, while the other regards the rural as an actor in a play about economic growth. The ‘growth’ discourse has economic growth as its nodal point and fo‐cuses on the freedom of an individual to establish a business wherever he or she wishes, and to migrate to any preferred destination. The ‘intrinsic value’ discourse places the value of rural settlements and cultures as its nodal point and focuses on allegedly forced migration, a nature‐based economy, and local freedom of action. During the neoliberal period, starting about 1980 the strength of the intrinsic value discourse has been increasingly displaced by the growth discourse. The latter seems to match general social changes such as neoliberalism and globalization more than the former. However, analysing the fight between these two discourses is not exhaustive. A broader analytic perspective is needed if we want to understand the logic of how the meaning of rurality comes about. The meaning of rurality in Norwegian politics is made through the way the competing discourses link up to ‘nondiscursive’ topics that originate and evolve outside the discourses on Norwegian rural politics. We claim that topics which include economic safety and national identity/nation‐state are more or less fundamental to understanding the logic of the production of the concrete discourses of rurality in Norwegian politics. We provide evidence that rural change is contingent not only on the meaning‐making process in parliamentary debates, but on the way truth claims made by politicians are linked to general national and global issues.

The second home phenomenon and Norwegian rurality

“…In effect, the majority of second homes are located some distance from existing population centres rather than being integrated in them. As we have pointed out above, this seems to reduce the level of conflicts between second home populations and local populations as they do not compete for the same land resources to the same degree (Overvåg & Berg in press), and NORSK GEOGRAFISK TIDSSKRIFT 65 (2011) The second home phenomenon and Norwegian rurality 133 it explains the generally positive attitude towards second home developments among rural lay people (Rye in press) and among policy makers (Cruickshank et al 2009). …”

“…Within the intrinsic value discourse, centralization is the great enemy' (Cruickshank et al 2009, 82). Cruickshank et al (2009) stress that based on an understanding that rural settlements are of great cultural value there has been a wide consensus in Norwegian post-war policies on the primacy of preserving a dispersed settlement pattern. They argue that, although visible from c.1980, it is not until recently that the view that rural places should be economically sustainable has started to threaten the preservation logic.…”

“…From a study of parliamentary debates in Norway on rural development, Cruickshank et al (2009) found that two competing discourses on rurality have emerged: one that regards rural values as intrinsic (the intrinsic value discourse), and one that regards the rural as an actor in play about economic growth (the growth discourse). The latter looks at 'the rural' from an economic and industrial perspective and the main political focus is on how to make rural areas 'profitable' and competitive.…”

Rural development within the context of agricultural and socio-economic trends – the case of Finland

“…The words rural regions or countryside are increasingly being used in EU contexts, but the criteria, political foundations and money flows continue to be intertwined primarily with agriculture (Maaseutupolitiikan yhteistyöryhmä, 2004). The relationship between agricultural and rural policy is discussed not only in EU contexts but also in other countries (OECD countries: see Diakossavvas, 2006; political discourses in Norway: see Cruickshank et al, 2009). …”

“…The NUTS classification is largely based on institutional spatial divisions. 5 For each EU member country, two levels of Local Administrative Units (LAU) are defined: LAU-1 and LAU-2, which were previously called NUTS 4 and NUTS 5 respectively. 6 The municipalities of Brändö, Sottunga and Velkua are excluded in the analysis because of the lack of data regarding the development of agricultural income in these municipalities.…”