AGRICULTURAL POLICY DISCOURSES AND FARMERS’ VALUES

Miira NiskaREMS: The Construction of Entrepreneurial Agency of Farms, 29th November 2010

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

Agricultural Policy Discourses in CAP Neomercantilism

Neoliberalism

Multifunctionalism

(Potter & Tilzey 2005; Erjavec & Erjavec 2009; Dibden et al. 2009)

Agricultural Policy Discourses in CAP Neomercantilism

Protectionism, against liberalisation

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)

Positions the policy discourses construct 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

Farmes positions from value perspective

Farmer in neomercantilismvalues production & national (nowadays

also EU citizens) common good

Farmer in neoliberalismvalues profit & autonomy

Farmer in multifunctionalismvalues vitality of rural areas &

environment

Agricultural policy discourses, farmers’ positions and alleged values

Neomercantilism

Multifunctionalism Neoliberalism

Producer EntrepreneurSustainable farmer

National common

goodEconom

yAutonom

yEnvironment

Rural develop

ment

Discourses

Values

Positions

Production:

quality/quantity

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

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?

FARMES’ VALUES – previous studies 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)

FARMES’ VALUES – previous studies 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

FARMES’ VALUES – previous studies 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)

FARMES’ VALUES – previous studies IV Typologies:

Yeomen/peasants – Entrepreneurs> both value individualistic values

Conventional farmers (producers & entrepreneurs) – Sustainable farmers > separation based on rural & environemental values

Farmer types and farmers’ values

Producer EntrepreneurSustainable farmer Peasant

National common

goodEcono

my

Autonomy Continu

ityEnvironm

entRural

develop-ment

Values

Type of farmer

Production quality/quantity Lifestyle

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

Empirical study

Nation-wide postal survey data

Collected in Finland in 2006

Farmers N=638

1. Financial independence2. Autonomy in work3. Vitality of rural areas4. Continuing family’s traditions5. Continuing parents’ work6. Maximizing profit7. Respect for nature8. Equality of all workers9. Taking care of Finns’ needs10. Earning a better living for oneself and one’s family11. Economic profitability12. Common good of the nation13. Well-being of employees14. Rural development15. Employing others

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?

Value variable Economy Autonomy Continuity Common good

Communalities

Earning a better living - - .74 .60Economic profitability .69 .57Maximizing profit .61 .40Autonomy in work .64 .42Financial independence .61 .51Continuing family’s traditions .93 .93Continuing parents’ work .86 .81Rural development .79 .70Taking care of Finns’ needs .78 .64Equality of all workers .66 .46Common good of the nation .64 .47Employing others .63 .46Vitality of rural areas .32 .59 .53Well-being of employees .57 .43Respect for nature .35 .52 .40Total variance explained (%) 66.40

Note: Only loadings above .30 are displayedNote: N=638

TABLE 2: Factor analysis (Principal Axis Factoring, Varimax rotation)

Value variable Economy Autonomy Continuity Common good

Communalities

Earning a better living - - .74 .60Economic profitability .69 .57Maximizing profit .61 .40Autonomy in work .64 .42Financial independence .61 .51Continuing family’s traditions .93 .93Continuing parents’ work .86 .81Rural development .79 .70Taking care of Finns’ needs .78 .64Equality of all workers .66 .46Common good of the nation .64 .47Employing others .63 .46Vitality of rural areas .32 .59 .53Well-being of employees .57 .43Respect for nature .35 .52 .40Total variance explained (%) 66.40

Note: Only loadings above .30 are displayedNote: N=638

TABLE 2: Factor analysis (Principal Axis Factoring, Varimax rotation)

/Life style?

Economy Autonomy Continuity Common good

Mean (Std.) 3.85 (.73) 4.13 (.73) 3.29 (1.22) 3.64 (.76)

TABLE 3: Means and standard deviations

Note: N=638

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

1. Financial independence

2. Autonomy in work .49 ***

3. Vitality of rural areas .23 *** .33 ***

4. Continuing family’s traditions

.13 *** .16 *** .42 ***

5. Continuing parents’ work .12 ** .15 *** .39 *** .86 ***

6. Maximizing profit .21 *** .27 *** .12 ** .16 *** .15 ***

7. Respect for nature .25 *** .30 *** .25 *** .23 *** .24 *** .14

***

8. Equality of all workers .16 *** .18 *** .39 *** .14 *** .16 *** .16

***.52 ***

9. Taking care of Finns’ needs

.12 ** .24 *** .51 *** .26 *** .26 *** .13 ***

.47 ***

.59 ***

10. Earning a better living - - .26 *** .29 *** .11 ** .16 *** .13 *** .49

***.17 ***

.19 ***

.22 ***

11. Economic profitability.30 *** .27 *** .19 *** .12 ** .08 * .46

***.29 ***

.18 ***

.21 ***

.60 ***

12. Common good of the nation

.17 *** .19 *** .36 *** .30 *** .28 *** .21

***.34 ***

.42 ***

.61 ***

.26 ***

.24 ***

13. Well-being of employees .20 *** .21 *** .33 *** .20 *** .16 *** .19

***.36 ***

.45 ***

.40 ***

.26 ***

.37 ***

.41 ***

14. Rural development .17 *** .26 *** .68 *** .36 *** .33 *** .16

***.49 ***

.47 ***

.64 ***

.21 ***

.26 ***

.56 ***

.52 ***

15. Employing others .07 * .12 ** .34 *** .21 *** .16 *** .20 ***

.28 ***

.41 ***

.47 ***

.20 ***

.24 ***

.46 ***

.51 ***

.55 ***

ECONOMY 3.85 (.73)Economic profitability 4.33 (.77)Earning a better living - - 4.01 (.85)Maximizing profit 3.19 (1.03)AUTONOMY 4.13 (.73)Autonomy in work 4.26 (.79)Financial independence 3.99 (.90)CONTINUITY 3.29 (1.22)Continuing family’s traditions 3.34 (1.23)Continuing parents’ work 3.25 (1.29)COMMON GOOD 3.64 (.76)Vitality of rural areas 4.27 (.96)Respect for nature 4.05 (.84)Well-being of employees 3.86 (.99)Rural development 3.89 (.99)Equality of all workers 3.54 (1.13)Taking care of Finns’ needs 3.52 (1.10)Common good of the nation 3.01 (1.08)Employing others 2.99 (1.25)

TABLE 5: Importance of individual values variables

Note: N=638

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

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

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

miira.niska@helsinki.fi

THANKS!