1. AGRICULTURAL POLICY DISCOURSES AND FARMERS’ VALUES Miira Niska REMS: The Construction of Entrepreneurial Agency of Farms, 29th November 2010

2. 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

3. Agricultural Policy Discourses in CAP  Neomercantilism  Neoliberalism  Multifunctionalism (Potter & Tilzey 2005; Erjavec & Erjavec 2009; Dibden et al. 2009)

4. 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)

5. 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

6. Farmes positions from value perspective Farmer in neomercantilism values production & national (nowadays also EU citizens) common good Farmer in neoliberalism values profit & autonomy Farmer in multifunctionalism values vitality of rural areas & environment

7. Agricultural policy discourses, farmers’ positions and alleged values NeomercantilismMultifunctionalismNeoliberalism ProducerEntrepreneur Sustainable farmer National common good EconomyAutonomy Environ ment Rural develop ment Discourses Values Positions Production: quality/ quantity

8. 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

9. 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?

10. 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)

11. 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

12. 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)

13. 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

14. Farmer types and farmers’ values ProducerEntrepreneur Sustainable farmer Peasant National common good Economy Autonomy Continuity Environment Rural develop- ment Values Type of farmer Production quality/ quantity Lifestyle

15. 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

16. Empirical study  Nation-wide postal survey data  Collected in Finland in 2006  Farmers N=638

17. 1. Financial independence 2. Autonomy in work 3. Vitality of rural areas 4. Continuing family’s traditions 5. Continuing parents’ work 6. Maximizing profit 7. Respect for nature 8. Equality of all workers 9. Taking care of Finns’ needs 10. Earning a better living for oneself and one’s family 11. Economic profitability 12. Common good of the nation 13. Well-being of employees 14. Rural development 15. 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?

18. Value variableEconomyAutonomyContinuityCommon good Communalities Earning a better living - -.74.60 Economic profitability.69.57 Maximizing profit.61.40 Autonomy in work.64.42 Financial independence.61.51 Continuing family’s traditions.93 Continuing parents’ work.86.81 Rural development.79.70 Taking care of Finns’ needs.78.64 Equality of all workers.66.46 Common good of the nation.64.47 Employing others.63.46 Vitality of rural areas.32.59.53 Well-being of employees.57.43 Respect for nature.35.52.40 Total variance explained (%)66.40 Note: Only loadings above.30 are displayed Note: N=638 TABLE 2: Factor analysis (Principal Axis Factoring, Varimax rotation)

19. Value variableEconomyAutonomyContinuityCommon good Communalities Earning a better living - -.74.60 Economic profitability.69.57 Maximizing profit.61.40 Autonomy in work.64.42 Financial independence.61.51 Continuing family’s traditions.93 Continuing parents’ work.86.81 Rural development.79.70 Taking care of Finns’ needs.78.64 Equality of all workers.66.46 Common good of the nation.64.47 Employing others.63.46 Vitality of rural areas.32.59.53 Well-being of employees.57.43 Respect for nature.35.52.40 Total variance explained (%)66.40 Note: Only loadings above.30 are displayed Note: N=638 TABLE 2: Factor analysis (Principal Axis Factoring, Varimax rotation) /Life style?

20. EconomyAutonomyContinuity 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

21. 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 ***.52 *** 9. Taking care of Finns’ needs.12 **.24 ***.51 ***.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 ***

22. ECONOMY3.85 (.73) Economic profitability4.33 (.77) Earning a better living - -4.01 (.85) Maximizing profit3.19 (1.03) AUTONOMY4.13 (.73) Autonomy in work4.26 (.79) Financial independence3.99 (.90) CONTINUITY3.29 (1.22) Continuing family’s traditions3.34 (1.23) Continuing parents’ work3.25 (1.29) COMMON GOOD3.64 (.76) Vitality of rural areas4.27 (.96) Respect for nature4.05 (.84) Well-being of employees3.86 (.99) Rural development3.89 (.99) Equality of all workers3.54 (1.13) Taking care of Finns’ needs3.52 (1.10) Common good of the nation3.01 (1.08) Employing others2.99 (1.25) TABLE 5: Importance of individual values variables Note: N=638

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. miira.niska@helsinki.fi THANKS!