Elsevier

Journal of Rural Studies

Volume 59, April 2018, Pages 242-251
Journal of Rural Studies

Rethinking the connections between agricultural change and rural prosperity: A discussion of insights derived from case studies in seven countries

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.07.006Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Rural prosperity means well-balanced economic, social and environmental dimensions.

  • The linkages between farming, rural prosperity and well-being are discussed.

  • Rural communities have not benefited significantly from the wealth of commercial farms.

  • The “new prosperity” accounts for diverse socio-cultural aspects driven by local farms.

  • A shift from efficiency to effectiveness is a major challenge that contributes to creating prosper communities.

Abstract

In the past, rural prosperity has been mainly associated with the modernisation of agriculture and the economic benefits that appear to originate from it. Today we know that this simple logic is not correct in several respects. Regionally, structural changes to farms and the modernisation of a few farms have not always contributed to prosperous rural areas. At the level of farm households, we can see that other non-economic aspects such as a minimum level of autonomy, social recognition and social and environmental well-being all play rather significant roles. In this paper, we present an empirically grounded analysis of these questions based on in-depth case studies in seven countries (Spain, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia, Israel, Germany and Denmark). We discuss rural actors understanding of rural prosperity in different countries and contexts, the strategies used to improve prosperity and well-being, and how these strategies can be enabled and fostered. The empirical evidence presented indicates that prosperity in rural contexts is increasingly understood as being multi-dimensional and that people seek to balance economic parameters with human, social and environmental well-being.

Introduction

The term prosperity has long been associated mainly with economic aspects. According to the Oxford Dictionary, prosperity is “the state of being successful, especially in making money” and its key synonym is 'affluence'. Kasser et al. (2007) defined prosperity as the “capacity to generate economic growth through consumption”. This economic interpretation of prosperity has been influenced by the ideal of indefinite progress (Friedmann, 1987) based on the belief of the unlimited availability of natural resources and the promotion of consumption in modern societies. The promotion of consumption, in particular, has been linked to the economic interpretation of development in previous decades (Wolf, 1981) and remains a dominating paradigm still in the present day (Jackson, 2009).

However, since the 1970s, alternative definitions and measures of prosperity and progress have been developed that are more in line with the Latin origin of the term (Jackson, 2009, Stiglitz et al., 2009), meaning “doing well”, “according to expectation” or “according to one's hope”. Simultaneously, there is an increasing consensus that growth in output does not accurately represent growth in human welfare. The use of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), in particular, fails as a key indicator of prosperity, as it does not account for non-market services, negative externalities and changes in the asset base as well as the non-market dimensions of well-being (Stiglitz et al., 2009). Jackson (2009) in his book Prosperity without growth: Economics for a finite planet makes explicit the connections between consumption, growth, inequality and the rapid depletion of resources as well as the fact that the increasing levels of consumption do not make people happier once a certain point has been exceeded. This echoes with earlier work by Sen (1984) who emphasised that“more is not always better” and that prosperity can also be seen as the capability (or freedom to) function in a context (Sardar, 2007, Rapp, 2008).

As the predominantly economic, materialistic interpretation of prosperity and idea of indefinite progress failed (Toynbee, 1987, Stiglitz et al., 2009), other approaches ascend which integrate social and environmental aspects of prosperity. These new multidimensional approaches claim to focus more on increasing the quality of lives (qualitative development) instead of the amount of production and consumption (quantitative growth) (Daly, 2008). The basic idea is to provide an environment where people flourish, while at the same time ensuring social cohesion and well-being, and living in ecologically sustainable ways (SDC., 2003, SDC, 2009, Wall, 2008, Cazorla et al., 2013).

These new developments in conceptualizing prosperity encouraged attempts to measure prosperity in ways that recognise the multidimensionality of the concept (Chambers, 1997, Anand et al., 2005, Neff, 2007). Studies so far tended to account for the socio-cultural aspects of people's life, such as psychological well-being, freedom of choice, opportunities and social capital (Stiglitz et al., 2009, Van der Ploeg et al., 2008, Sen, 1984, Nardone et al., 2010) as well as environmental aspects such as responsible resource use and environmental conservation (Jackson, 2009, Diener et al., 1993, Daly, 2008). This paper presents an application of this new multidimensional approach to prosperity to agricultural and rural contexts. Our particular interest is in the perceptions of prosperity of farmers and other people who live in rural areas.

For rural areas, the new understanding of prosperity might well imply that economic efficiency at farm level is not necessarily contributing to economic growth at regional level, and that both might not even be suitable indicators for measuring the prosperity and well-being of farmers and others in rural areas. The new understanding puts into particular question those strategies that have driven farm modernisation since the 1960s. Large specialised and capital-intensive farms in search of efficiency and competitiveness, are less and less the unquestioned ideal. Other strategies such as a greater diversification of farming systems or organic farming involve different and broader values that can contribute to enhancing prosperity. More diverse farms, for example, are in many regions connected with valued cultural landscapes and mosaic-like field structures, that have an emotional or aesthetic value for the region's residents; and sometimes also with lower farming intensities and the use of high-nature-value farming systems (Knickel, 1990, Murdoch and Pratt, 1993, Philo, 1992, Philo, 1993, Cloke et al., 1995, Shucksmith and Rønningen, 2011). Shucksmith and Rønningen (2011) point out that non-conventional farms might provide a base for rural households to sustain their livelihoods through pluriactivity, retaining populations in areas from which they would surely have been lost if farm amalgamation had proceeded. Bryden et al., 1993, Bryden et al., 2011 and Knickel et al. (2011) point to the provision of rural amenities and their transformation in the rural economy, and the importance of this in fostering vibrant rural communities. These findings on alternative farming strategies and systems are not being reflected in rural policy (Darnhofer et al., 2014b). Indeed, agricultural policy is often still geared towards an ideal of highly commercial full-time farms, treating other types of farms and strategies as obstacles to productivist agriculture (Van der Ploeg et al., 2008, Van der Ploeg, 2009, Dwyer et al., 2012, Knickel, 2016).

Of course, this does not mean that large-specialised farms do not have a role to play in rural prosperity. There is, however, an urging need to revisit the particular potentials and added value of alternative farming strategies and practices as well as the newly emerging agri-food networks that serve as platforms where farmers and consumers innovate and seek alternative development models. Darnhofer et al., 2014b, Long, 2000 and others see such initiatives as laboratories for social change, thus, redefining what prosperity in rural areas implies.

The starting point for our analysis is that prosperity in rural areas acquires special characteristics that are much related to people's way of life and the context in which they are embedded. These special characteristics have been discussed by many different authors (Milbourne, 1997, Cresswell, 1996, Halfacree, 1993, Sibley, 1995, Van der Ploeg et al., 2008, De los Ríos et al., 2016a, De los Ríos et al., 2016b). Some authors argue that prosperity in rural areas should include factors such as social cohesion and engagement, achieved through cooperation and trust; environmental sustainability, which is considered one of the most important elements through which income may be generated in these areas; knowledge, which increases the ability rural people have to increase their resilience; and quality of life (Dayton-Johnson, 2001, Easterly et al., 2006, Benz and Meincke, 2007). Van der Ploeg et al. (2008) link quality of life with a social life characterised by networks, shared norms and expectations that promote interactions and create a “sense of community”. Aspects such as health, self-control, family well-being, personal satisfaction, community values and maintaining culture and tradition are also closely subsumed within what farmers consider quality of life to be.

For all of the above, and taking into account that a consensual definition of rural prosperity and well-being does not yet exist, the three main research questions we will address in this paper are the following:

  • (1)

    How do rural actors understand rural prosperity? Which dimensions of rural prosperity, and well-being, are important for them?

  • (2)

    What strategies do rural actors and communities use to improve their prosperity and well-being?

  • (3)

    How can these strategies be enabled/fostered?

A more balanced socio-economic development of European regions and, in particular, more prosperous rural areas, is high on the political agenda (United Nations, 2016). We believe that the above research questions and related exploratory analysis can inform the identification of the different dimensions that ought to be taken into account when addressing prosperity in rural areas, and when developing associated policies.

Section snippets

Empirical basis of this paper and methodology

We base our analysis on seven case studies carried out in the international RETHINK1

Results and discussion

In the following section, we explore the different dimensions that, according to the rural stakeholders ought to be taken into account when addressing the question of prosperity in rural areas, and when developing related policies. For that purpose we will use examples from the case studies.

The three main sub-sections correspond with the main research questions presented in the introduction:

  • the ways rural actors understand rural prosperity;

  • the strategies rural actors and communities use to

Conclusions

Before we present our conclusions from the above analysis, we need to ask how representative the seven case studies that we have examined in this paper are. The seven case studies cannot be statistically representative, but they do represent very different farm structural situations and regional contexts, as well as very different levels of prosperity in a conventional economic sense. The case studies explore and illustrate what matters for rural people, they exemplify how farmers are actively

Acknowledgements

RETHINK was a transdisciplinary research project supported by the European Commission and funding bodies in 14 countries under FP7 and the RURAGRI ERA-NET (CA 235175). For more information on the project, see the project website: www.rethink-net.eu.

References (61)

  • P. Anand et al.

    Capabilities and well-being: evidence based on the sen-nussbaum approach to welfare

    Soc. Indic. Res.

    (2005)
  • V. Atkočiūnienė et al.

    Resilient Farming Systems and Market Differentiation: Challenges and Opportunities in Farmers' Markets (Lithuania), RETHINK Case Study Report

    (2015)
  • A. Benz et al.

    Regionalwissenschaftliche Theorieansätze –Analyse der Governance Strukturen. Abschlussbericht Modul 3 und 4. Hagen

    (2007)
  • J. Bryden et al.

    Farm Household Adjustment in Western Europe 1987-91. Final Report of the Research Program on Farm Structures and Pluriactivity

    (1993)
  • A. Cazorla et al.

    Working with people (WWP) in rural development projects: a proposal from social learning

    Cuad. Desarro. Rural

    (2013)
  • T. Cresswell
  • N. Curry

    Differentiating trust in rural decision-making, drawing on an english case study

    Sociol. Rural.

    (2010)
  • H. Daly

    A Steady-state Economy: a Failed Growth Economy and a Steady-state Economy Are Not the Same Thing

    (2008)
  • I. Darnhofer et al.

    Conceptual Framework. RETHINK Project. 7th Framework Programme CE

    (2014)
  • I. Darnhofer et al.

    Rethinking the Links between Farm Modernisation, Rural Development and Resilience in a World of Increasing Demands and Finite Resources

    (2014)
  • J. Dayton-Johnson

    Social Cohesion and Economic Prosperity

    (2001)
  • I. De los Ríos et al.

    Innovation and Social Learning in Organic Vegetable Production in the Region of Murcia, Camposeven, Spain. RETHINK Case Study Report

    (2015)
  • I. De los Ríos et al.

    Ecological agriculture and its influence on rural prosperity: an agricultural company's vision (Murcia, Spain)

    Agrociencia

    (2016)
  • K. De Roest et al.

    Extensive Pig Production Systems, Italy, RETHINK Case Study Report

    (2015)
  • De Roest, K., Ferrari, P., and Knickel, K., 2017. Specialisation and economies of scale or diversification and...
  • G. Dei Ottati

    Il mercato comunitario. Mercato e Forze Locali: il Distretto Industriale

    (1987)
  • E. Diener et al.

    The relationship between income and subjective well-being: relative or absolute?

    Soc. Indic. Res.

    (1993)
  • J. Dwyer et al.

    How to Improve the Sustainable Competitiveness and Innovation of the EU Agricultural Sector. Brussels/Luxembourg: European Parliament, Directorate General for Internal Policies - Policy Department B - Structural and Cohesion Policies

    (2012)
  • W. Easterly et al.

    Social cohesion, institutions, and growth

    Econ. Polit.

    (2006)
  • Cited by (34)

    • Evaluation of sustainable agriculture and rural development in agro-pastoral ecotone under climate change: A comparative study of three villages in the Shenfu coalfield, China

      2022, Journal of Rural Studies
      Citation Excerpt :

      First, the trans-disciplinary trend is becoming prominent, and SARD-associated studies have focused on the trans-disciplinary perspectives of agricultural economics, agricultural ecology and economic geography (Finnegan, 2011; Wezel et al., 2011; Navabakhsh and Tamiz, 2013; Burandt and Mölders, 2017; Koopmans et al., 2018). Second, studies have become increasingly focused on the important role of multifunctional agriculture (MFA) in SARD, and it is believed that MFA should be used to protect the ecological environment, improve the landscape, inherit native culture, conserve water and maintain biodiversity (Cochrane, 2003; Huylenbroeck and Durand, 2005; Holmes, 2006; Prändl-Zika, 2008; Branca et al., 2013; Guirado et al., 2017; Rivera et al., 2017). Third, some studies consider that the research objectives of the SARD have shifted from focusing on food security and poverty eradication to focusing on the comprehensive SARD objectives: rural sustainable development and rural revitalization (Alagendran et al., 2017; Rivera et al., 2017; Knickel et al., 2018).

    • To what extent do brands contribute to sustainability transition in agricultural production practices? Lessons from three European case studies

      2021, Ecological Economics
      Citation Excerpt :

      With such a shift, rules and regulations evolve from a complex of farmers, citizens, entrepreneurs, and ecologists or activists, sometimes operating as collectives (people grouping at associative levels), or, on other occasions, operating as conflictive entities. Such a governance model for a farm development towards an agroecological mode of production includes knowledge institutions (researchers, teachers, consultants, etc.) and formal governing institutions (municipalities, provincial and regional administrations to name a few), markets (at different levels) and non-governmental and intergovernmental organisations (Shucksmith, 2010; Wellbrock et al., 2013; De Zeeuw and Dubbeling, 2015; Rivera et al., 2018). However, for their farm income farmers finally mainly rely on retail structures, which function as dominating market outlet for their agricultural produce.

    • Unpacking sustainable business models in the Swedish agricultural sector– the challenges of technological, social and organisational innovation

      2021, Journal of Cleaner Production
      Citation Excerpt :

      Due to the long distances in north Sweden, it could be argued that the scale up solutions have been developed further here to fulfil sustainable as well as economic aspects of the business. Rural areas are not only a place for production, but also a place for consumption (Rivera, 2018). Empirical findings suggest an increased emphasis on environmental conservation and residential decentralization in Sweden, as well as other countries (Knickel, 2018).

    • Fostering local crop-livestock integration via legume exchanges using an innovative integrated assessment and modelling approach based on the MAELIA platform

      2021, Agricultural Systems
      Citation Excerpt :

      At the landscape level, a diversified landscape with longer rotations is crucial to minimise losses due to drought, decrease the prevalence of water-demanding crops, such as maize (Passioura and Angus, 2010), and promote biological control (Rusch et al., 2013) and pollination (Catarino et al., 2019b). This is a keystone of new sustainable rural development opportunities (Rivera et al., 2018), as recognised by the OECD (2001), that generate public goods and ecosystem services (de Roest et al., 2018). Although the synergistic TCLS (synergetic scenario) is an interesting option, its performance depends on how land use and social systems are managed (Garrett et al., 2020).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text