‘Barriers to Change’:
a sociology of ‘rural
development’ in Ireland
Overview of EOPR
Dr. Áine Macken Walsh,
Rural Development and Sociology Unit,
RERC, Teagasc.
9th December 2008
Rural Economy Research Centre
December 2008
Overview:
 Context & Methodology
 Findings & Implications
 Conclusions and recommendations
Rationale
 Teagasc RD Commodity Group (2005): Resistance
to Change in the adoption of ‘alternative’, ‘diverse’
economic activity
 The growing significance of ‘rural development’ in the
EU context
 Failure of economic rationale to explain ‘barriers to
change’
 Alternative methodological approach to explain
socio-cultural factors that govern decision-making
Stages of the study
 Analysis of a primary RD policy instrument




(deconstruction of the governance and RD model, the
context of its emergence and its central claims)
Development of appropriate methodology to investigate
interplay of the model with rural society
Implementation of methodology
Analysis of primary field data
Results:


Policy evaluative
Sociological analytical
 Contextualisation: consultation with policy makers &
practitioners
Emergence of the model:
EC: rural problems reaching ‘crisis
proportions’ - 1980s
 “rural population decline was acute; the effects
of the polluting non-sustainable character of
heavily capitalised intensive agriculture was
becoming evident in the natural environment;
there were steeply declining numbers at work in
agriculture and low agricultural incomes,
(stemming in part for the high proportion of
officially categorised non-viable farms); rural
underemployment was rife; and there was a
deficiency of outlets for off-farm employment
opportunities” (Kearney et al, 1995)
‘The Future of Rural Society’
(CEC, 1988)
Broadened concept of the rural economy:
 “a complex economic and social fabric
made up of a wide range of activities:
farming, small trades and businesses,
small and medium-sized industries,
commerce and services” (CEC, 1988)
The LEADER model (1991 - )
 Move away from sectoral, ‘top-down’
policy to:
 provide integrated (multi-sectoral)
and representative (democratic) rural
development.
 “to provide representation to a wide span
of local interests, and thus an effective
means of developing local economies”
The EC LEADER Programme
 “the basic ideas behind these
(partnership) schemes is that all the
competent actors in the development
process be brought together in a way
that will allow them to pool their talents
and complement each other over a set
period during which, under the stimulus
provided by the partnership, a cycle of
accelerated local development will
occur” (Curtin and Varley, 1997, p. 142).
LEADER
 “enabling a better understanding of the
area and its living strength” (CEC, 1988)
 “an innovation and a lever of innovation”
(LEADER European Observatory, 1997
‘Barriers to Change’
 Overview research question: Is
governance and rural development:
representative & effective in practice?
 Central analytical focus: interplay
between policy model and social
environment in which it is implemented
 Agricultural studies: positivism is
dominant, the “cultural turn” has been
slow to influence studies in agriculture
(Barnett, 1998)
Socio-cultural research
Source: Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the
United Nations (2000)
Socio-cultural research
 Examines a specific question of interest in a holistic





fashion
Why people behave as they do.
Analysis of multiple determinants of behaviour in the
context in which it takes place.
Uncovering the rationale for individual behaviour as
socially constructed, and the reasons for differences in
the behaviour of various groups
“An in-depth understanding of the cultural context and the
factors that determine local level outcomes is crucial for
the formulation and the success of policies and
programmes that are acceptable, appropriate and
sustainable”
Providing insight into the cultural context of the issues
that affect agriculture and rural development.
UNFAO (2000)
Socio-cultural research
 Identifying the complete range of issues and
perceptions that combine to explain the
interviewee’s rationale or ‘view of the world’.
 Detecting the inter-dependent nature of
experiences and perceptions, which analysed
on their own, can be meaningless or misleading
(see Wilson, 1997).
 Understanding objective rationalisation of
external structures or stimuli (e.g. agricultural
policies) and his/her objective responses, rather
than assuming a farmer to be a passive adopter
of these structures (Darnhofer et al, 2005).
Methodology: Qualitative
research methods
 Policy model is fixed
 Socio-cultural context of
implementation/adoption is various
 Seeking to understand subjectivity i.e.
the social and cultural ‘scripts’ which
ultimately determine identities, attitudes,
and behaviour (Canetto, 2005)
Qualitative Methodology
3 pronged approach
1.
2.
3.
Policy analysis: deconstruction of governance
and rural development model (proxy data
analysis, interviews with practitioners / policy
officials)
Sociological analysis: design and
implementation of qualitative interviewing
(ethnographic study of socio-cultural factors)
Focus group interviewing with local and extra
local policy-makers and practitioners:
enhancing practical relevance and application
of research findings
1: Analysis of model
 Deconstruction of policy model:


What is the policy context of the model’s
emergence?
What are the central claims of the model?
 Operation in practice at local level:




How has LEADER taken form in chosen case-study
areas, using as evidence:
Detailed operational plans and annual reports
The actors that have become involved
Records of the projects they have funded: i.e.
development outcome
2. Test: two social groups…
 Traditionally primary social groups in Ireland
 Engagement among members of these groups
in ‘rural development’ is poor
 Farming community:
‘Custodians of the countryside’
 Within group, some are increasingly non-viable
 Increased dependence on off-farm jobs
 Coastal communities:
 Areas of high cultural significance
 Often marginalised and deprived
 Dependence on external sources of employment

… in two fixed case-study
locations
 To determine the impact of local
institutions (if any) on how these social
groups are engaging with and
responding to ‘rural development’
3. Focus Group Interviewing: enhancing
policy relevance and practical application
of research findings
Focus Group:
 Expert participants: policy-makers and
practitioners
 Re-think ‘rural development’ form the
perspectives of these social groups
 Identification of realisable incomegenerating activities that are acceptable
for different social groups from a sociocultural perspective
Findings
1. What is the culture surrounding
implementation of governance and rural
development in Ireland?
2. Interchange between farming
community & ‘RD’ agenda (this
presentation)
3. Policy recommendations
1. Policy analysis
 Governance and rural development in
Ireland (LEADER) in Ireland: 1991 What social and cultural norms have
emerged surrounding the
implementation of this programme?
The EU Rural Development
‘Product’
 High value-added, ‘niche’ product (e.g. artisan foods)
 Has place-based & lifestyle significance (rural artisan
foods and rural health movements)
 “replacing material and labour value with design
value” (Moseley, 2003)
 “championing of local distinctiveness”… (Moseley,
2003)
The EU RD ‘Product’
 Larger framework of extra-local cultural,
social and economic trends
 Part of a wider EU rural movement
 Ireland: evidence of stimulants and
influences originating beyond the locality
 Promotion of a particular product…
The EU RD ‘product’
“Increasingly, local producers have to
produce and market something a little
different – something ‘differentiated’ from
the competition - and this requires
ingenuity both in appraising the local
resource base with a view to exploiting
any distinctiveness and adding value to
those resources in a way that will please
an increasingly discriminating
clientele…” (Moseley, 2003, p. 48)
EU-wide research:
 Dominant participants:
The rise of a “Project Class” (Kovach &
Kucerova (2006)
 “A very small number of enthusiastic participants”
(Mannion, 1996)
 Small businesses and tourist operators; artisan
and shopkeepers’ associations dominate (Osti,
2000)
 Minor Participants:
 Farmers and farmer’s organisations “bewildered
from losing privileged channels of influence”;
have only a “minor presence” in LAGs (Osti,
2000)

The Irish Case
 Participants come from “a surprising
diversity of backgrounds… many are
incomers to Ireland…have usually spent
part of their lives working abroad or
outside farming…tend to be active in
local and community development
generally” (Tovey and Mooney, 2006)
Barriers to Change
Case-study Profile:
 Area: Liscannor
 Social Group: Farming Community
 No. farmers: 41
 20 qualitative interviews:



13: ‘non-viable’ farming enterprises, supplemented with
off-farm income
4: ‘viable’ commercial farms
3: farmers who had ceased production altogether
 LEADER:


Co. Clare: 6 Agri/Fisheries projects
Liscannor: 1 farmer participant
Understanding farmer behaviour –
Key Social Principles
 Farming is a ‘socio-cultural practice’ and a ‘way of life’, not just
a technical or income generating activity.
 Decision-making in relation to farm management takes place in
a social and culturally-rich context in accordance with
normative concepts of ‘good farm management’
 Concepts of ‘good farm management’ are dynamic, reflecting a
farmer’s own particular circumstances and adapting to the
peculiarity of local conditions
 Farmers’ reactions to policy stimuli are strategies that reflect
and respond to the reality of farmers’ overall evaluation of their
economic and social circumstances, as well as of the advice
and information that is available to them through e.g.
extension/media
 Perceptions of farmers’ ‘irrational’ or ‘illogical’ behaviour
demonstrates a min-understanding of farmers’ rationale and
logic
(Vanclay, 2002, 2004).
Analysing farmers’ subjectivity
Context: analysing farmers’ subjectivity
 Decision-making is path dependent
 Changing influences arising from:
pre-productivism – productivism –
post-productivism
The ‘good farmer’
 Theory of capital as framework:



Economic capital (material property);
Social capital (networks of social
connections and mutual obligations)
Cultural capital (prestige).
Bourdieu’s (1983, 1998)
The ‘good farmer’: cultural
capital
 Strongly associated with productivism
 Maximising production & Efficiency
 Overcoming adverse conditions: ‘master’
the local environment by knowing what
to grow and cultivate in diverse local
conditions
…The ‘good farmer’
 “farmers want to stay farming”
 “farmers are farmers”
▼
 ‘rural development product’
Estrangement: Occupational &
Cultural…
 Farmers’ cultural capital: indicators of
‘good farming’: production oriented,
efficient, “mastering of landscape”
 ‘Rural development’ initiatives:
“not for farmers” and,
“not suitable for farmers”
Farmers’ Cultural capital
 ‘RD’ Agenda vs Farmers’ Cultural Capital
 Estrangement:


Occupational
Identity and Culture (Irish indigenous)
Occupational Estrangement
 Extension of rural development ‘product’
to include service: producer to service
provider
 Occupational estrangement ‘farmers are
farmers, not service providers or
marketing experts’
 Perception of many ecological and
organic farming practices as ‘regressive’
Estrangement: cultural
 “foreign
people and foreign food”
(Interview 5c)
 Ireland is without a strong food culture
(Fonte, 2008)
‘Public issues’ and
‘Private troubles’
 Focusing on farmers’ own world-view (i.e. their
values and forms of capital) and the (changing)
policy arena (with its own strategic values and
forms of capital) within which they operate and
are regulated
 When individuals’ own world values and/or
when the means by which they can realise
these values are threatened (private troubles)
(C Wright Mills, 1959).
 External forces (public issues) can cause
“contradictions” or “antagonisms” (Marxist
theory) when in conflict with individuals’ capital
Farmer behaviour
 “farmers are their own scientists,
theorising, hypothesising, and
experimenting to determine what works”
(Vanclay, 2004, p.16).
 In the presence of ‘public issues’ such as
changing agricultural policy, farmers
should be understood as having the
capacity to reject such issues when they
are incompatible with their world view
Key barriers for farming
community:
 Farmers are looking for ways to continue
farming, willing to consider appropriate
‘add-on’ income generating activities
 Many of the alternatives are not
perceived to be economically viable: lack
of critical mass and affluent consumerbase
3. Policy relevance,
Practical application
 Institutional recommendations
 Identification of rural income-generating
activities that are realisable for farmers &
farm families
Effecting change:
 Institutional
 Household
 Individual
Change: Institutional….
 Facilitation of change:





Bureaucratic obstacles to change: lack of interagency consistency
Importance of extension, education, training
(ongoing)
Comprehensive, systematic and targeted
Usage of external (national/international) appraisal
of local resources (physical and human)
Opening up of ‘rural development’ as something
that is accommodating of different interests and
professional competencies (CEC, 1997)
….Change: institutional
 Representation of farmers and farming interest
groups in decision-making:





Influencing how rural development agenda takes
form
Incorporation of farmers’ capital into defining and
implementation of RD strategies
Farmer-led rather than externally initiated
Collaboration between different sectoral interests:
widening scope of focus from farmer to farm family
and associated breadth of skills
Threat: democratic deficit and overly-politicised
representation of farmers
Change: farm households
 Acknowledging the characteristics of the rural




development agenda, measures that focus on the
individual farmer are mis-targeted
Diverse rural economic and entrepreneurial activity
dependent on a wide range of skills and competencies:
many of which are available within the household
Inter-agency collaboration to target a combination of
sectoral and professional interests
Importance of the contribution of women to rural
development: relevant strategies?
Skills of farm offspring: enhancing opportunities for
succession
Change: Individual Level
Implications of institutional and household impacts
on the individual:
 Design of rural income-generating practices
that are supported under ‘rural development’
measures yet are culturally, socially and
economically reflective of farmer’s capital and
norms
 Re-focus on indigenous knowledge: existing
skills and competencies that can be used for
income-generating initiatives
 Shift of focus away from ‘one-man-farm’ back
towards the ‘family farm’: social sustainability
Realisable rural enterprises:
socio-cultural perspective
 Agri services
 Tourism
 Manufacturing/Retail
 Services
 Food
 Energy
 Alternative Land-use
…realisable enterprises for
farming community…
 Energy:

Wind farm/ turbines
 Alternative land-use:

Allotments; Forestry
…realisable enterprises for
farming community…
 Tourism (requiring participation of wider
farm family):

farm tours; heritage farms; nature tours;
natural resource/amenity visitor attraction
 Food:

Farm spouse
Implications
 Participation vs the ‘product’?

The governance and rural development
model involves as a central aspect the
participation of local representatives in the
“design and implementation of
development interventions” (LEADER
European Observatory, 1997)
Conclusions
 The RD agenda is not dominated by local forces, but is




inspired by a larger framework of cultural, social and
economic trends (of a globalised orientation).
By seeking to encourage particular development goals is
the LEADER programme a legitimate governance
model?
Clear evidence of low engagement among traditionally
primary social groups
Low utilisation of local resources (Coastal areas)
Low utilisation of indigenous knowledge & skills
Promoting Engagement,
Assisting Change
 Challenge: understanding the socio-cultural context of




non-engagement and developing measures to draw
into the new rural development paradigm a more
inclusive range of participants
A need to reconcile estrangement between product
and potential producers - widening range of products
and participants
Improve genuine local engagement and participation
in determining how the local RD agenda takes shape
Importance of representing traditional social groups
e.g. farmers; marginalised coastal areas
Role of Institutions in assisting change
Conclusions
 Representation
 Use of local resources: Cultural
commodities
Thank You
Rural Economy Research Centre
December 2008