Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Multifunctional intervention and market rationality in agricultural governance: a comparative study of England and South Australia

  • Published:
GeoJournal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Critiques of the neoliberal governance of agricultural systems have led to a number of political responses which attempt to address the socio-environmental consequences of the dominant regime. In this paper two case study regions (South Australia and England) have been chosen to represent variations in agricultural policy and to highlight subsequent outcomes on the sustainability of agriculture. Interviewed governance stakeholders highlighted issues in regard to the agricultural governance of each area, from social and environmental consequences of minimal policy intervention in South Australia, to issues created by greater economic support in England. As such, the distinct variations in agricultural regimes will continue to demand scholarly attention, in order for the value of diversity within the sector to be more widely understood. The study concludes that it is likely agricultural support will continue to decline in both case study regions. Importantly, however, innovative policy mechanisms that aim to reduce local risks and value local agricultural priorities, without requiring significant financial support, might be the most promising way forward in regard to agricultural system sustainability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Argent, N. (2011). Trouble in paradise? Governing Australia’s multifunctional rural landscapes. Australian Geographer, 42(2), 183–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argent, N. (2014). The ‘N’ word Australian particularism, taxonomies of development and epistemology. Dialogues in Human Geography, 4(2), 147–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argent, N., Smailes, P., & Griffin, T. (2007). The amenity complex: Towards a framework for analysing and predicting the emergence of a multifunctional countryside in Australia. Geographical Research, 45(3), 217–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argent, N., & Tonts, M. (2013). A multicultural and multifunctional countryside? International labour migration and Australia’s productivist heartlands. Population, Space and Place, 21(2), 140–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argent, N., Tonts, M., Jones, R., & Holmes, J. (2013). A creativity-led rural renaissance? Amenity-led migration, the creative turn and the uneven development of rural Australia. Applied Geography, 44, 88–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2008). Agricultural State Profile, South Australia, 2006–2007. Retrieved 15th June 2011, from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/FF8D03E1A74D8D6ACA2574D4001DA912?opendocument.

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2011). Census data: Population by postcode, age, industry of employment and highest level of education. Retrieved 6th June 2014, from http://abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/tablebuilder?opendocument&navpos=240.

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). Agricultural commodities, Australia, 2010–11. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Government. (2012). Exceptional circumstances. Canberra: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Government. (2013). Drought programs and rural assistance. Canberra: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlow, K., & Cocklin, C. (2003). Reconstructing rurality and community: Plantation forestry in Victoria, Australia. Journal of Rural Studies, 19(4), 503–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjorkhaug, H., & Richards, C. (2008). Multifunctional agriculture in policy and practice? A comparitive analysis of Norway and Australia. Journal of Rural Studies, 24(1), 98–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, I. (1985). Agriculture under the common agricultural policy. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bramley, C., & Kirsten, J. (2007). Exploring the economic rationale for protecting geographical indicators in agriculture. Agrekon, 46(1), 69–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryan, B. A. (2013). Incentives, land use, and ecosystem services: Synthesizing complex linkages. Environmental Science & Policy, 27, 124–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, L., & Garnham, B. (2015). The fallen hero: Masculinity, shame and farmer suicide in Australia. Gender, Place & Culture, 22(1), 67–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, R., & Wilson, G. (2006). Injecting social psychology theory into conceptualisations of agricultural agency: Towards a post-productivist farmer self-identity? Journal of Rural Studies, 22(1), 95–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busch, L. (2011). The private governance of food: Equitable exchange or bizarre bazaar? Agriculture and Human Values, 28(3), 345–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busse, M., Schwerdtner, W., Siebert, R., Doernberg, A., Kuntosch, A., König, B., & Bokelmann, W. (2015). Analysis of animal monitoring technologies in Germany from an innovation system perspective. Agricultural Systems, 138(1), 55–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cocklin, C., & Alston, M. (Eds.). (2003). Community sustainability in rural Australia: A question of capital?. Wagga Wagga: Centre for Rural Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cocklin, C., & Dibden, J. (Eds.). (2005). Sustainability and change in rural Australia. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cocklin, C., Dibden, J., & Mautner, N. (2006). From market to multifunctionality? Land stewardship in Australia. The Geographical Journal, 172(3), 197–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cocklin, C., Mautner, N., & Dibden, J. (2007). Public policy, private landholders: Perspectives on policy mechanisms for sustainable land management. Journal of Environmental Management, 85(4), 986–998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daugbjerg, C., Tranter, R., Jones, P., Little, J., Costa, L., Knapp, T., et al. (2005). The visibility of agricultural subsidies and market illusions in the Common Agricultural Policy: Some evidence from farmers’ views in Germany, Portugal and the United Kingdom. European Journal of Political Research, 44(6), 749–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DEFRA. (2013). Reforming the common agricultural policy to ensure a fair deal for farmers, consumers and taxpayers. Retrieved 23rd May 2013, from https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/reforming-the-common-agricultural-policy-to-ensure-a-fair-deal-for-farmers-consumers-and-taxpayers.

  • Dibden, J., Potter, C., & Cocklin, C. (2009). Contesting the neoliberal project for agriculture: Productivist and multifuncitonal trajectories in the European Union and Australia. Journal of Rural Studies, 25(3), 299–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farmar-Bowers, Q., & Lane, R. (2009). Understanding farmers’ strategic decision-making processes and the implications for biodiversity conservation policy. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(2), 1135–1144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farndale, N. (2016). How Brexit would affect British farmers. Retrieved 31st May 2016, from http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/how-brexit-would-affect-british-farmers/.

  • Fielke, S. (2015). Multifunctional agriculture: Essential for future sustainability in a globalised world. In G. Robinson & D. Carson (Eds.), Handbook on the globalisation of agriculture (pp. 389–401). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fielke, S., & Bardsley, D. (2013). South Australian farmers’ markets: Tools for enhancing the multifunctionality of Australian agriculture. GeoJournal, 78(5), 759–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fielke, S., & Bardsley, D. (2014). The role of farmer education in South Australia. Land Use Policy, 39, 301–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fielke, S., & Bardsley, D. (2015a). A brief political history of South Australian agriculture. Rural History, 26(1), 101–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fielke, S., & Bardsley, D. (2015b). Regional agricultural governance in peri-urban and rural South Australia. Sustainability Science, 10(2), 231–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, G. W., & Buttel, F. (1989). Farmer ambivalence toward agricultural research: An empirical assessment. Rural Sociology, 54(3), 382–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of South Australia. (2004). Genetically modified crops act 2004. Adelaide: Attorney General’s Department.

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of South Australia. (2007). South Australian food plan 2007–2010. PIRSA: Adelaide.

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of South Australia. (2011). Protecting the Barossa Valley and McLaren Vale. Adelaide: Department of Planning and Local Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, D. (2007). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, F. (2016). Brexit would leave UK farmers up to €34,000 worse off, study finds Retrieved 31st May 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/05/brexit-will-leave-uk-farmers-up-to-34000-worse-off-study-finds.

  • Haw, M., Cocklin, C., & Mercer, D. (2000). A pinch of salt: Landowner perception and adjustment to the salinity hazard in Victioria, Australia. Journal of Rural Studies, 16(2), 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henson, S. (2011). Private agrifood governance: Conclusions, observations and provocations. Agriculture and Human Values, 28(3), 443–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, V. (1999). Economic restructuring and neo-liberalism in Australian rural adjustment policy. In D. Burch, J. Goss, & G. Lawrence (Eds.), Restructuring global and regional agricultures (pp. 131–143). Sydney: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, V., Dibden, J., & Cocklin, C. (2008). Neoliberalism and natural resource management: Agri-environmental standards and the governing of farming practises. Geoforum, 39(5), 1776–1785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, D., Trehan, K., McGowan, P., Henry, C., & Foss, L. (2015). Case sensitive? A review of the literature on the use of case method in entrepreneurship research. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 21(3), 389–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, J. (2006). Impulses towards a multifunctional transition in rural Australia: Gaps in the research agenda. Journal of Rural Studies, 22(2), 142–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, J. (2010). Divergent regional trajectories in Australia’s tropical savannas: Indicators of a multifunctional rural transition. Geographical Research, 48(4), 342–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judd, F., Jackson, H., Fraser, C., Murray, G., Robins, G., & Komiti, A. (2006). Understanding suicide in Australian farmers. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 41(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaan, C., & Liese, A. (2011). Public private partnerships in global food governance: Business engagement and legitimacy in the global fight against hunger and malnutrition. Agriculture and Human Values, 28(3), 385–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keep, E. (1997). ’There’s no such thing as society…’: Some problems with an individual approach to creating a Learning Society. Journal of Education Policy, 12(6), 457–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirwan, J., & Maye, D. (2013). Food security framings within the UK and the integration of local food systems. Journal of Rural Studies, 29(1), 91–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knudsen, A. (2009). Farmers on welfare: The making of Europe’s common agricultural policy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyed, K., Kaergard, N., Zobbe, H., & Ostergaard, M. S. (2008). Land use, multifunctionality and the common agricultural policy. Food Economics—Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, 5(2), 106–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, G. (2005). Globalisation, agricultural production systems and rural restructuring. In C. Cocklin & J. Dibden (Eds.), Sustainability and change in rural Australia (pp. 104–120). Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, R. P. (2012). Knowledge claims and the governance of agri-food innovation. Agriculture and Human Values, 29(1), 79–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, J., Ilbery, B., Watts, D., Gilg, A., & Simpson, S. (2012). Regionalization and the rescaling of agro-food governance: Case study evidence from two English regions. Political Geography, 31(2), 83–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lobley, M., Butler, A., & Winter, M. (2013). Local organic food for local people? Organic marketing strategies in England and Wales. Regional Studies, 47(2), 216–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lobley, M., & Potter, C. (2004). Agricultural change and restructuring: recent evidence from a survey of agricultural households in England. Journal of Rural Studies, 20(4), 499–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockie, S., & Higgins, V. (2007). Roll-out neoliberalism and hybrid practises of regulation in Australian agri-environmental governance. Journal of Rural Studies, 23(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthewson, P. (2014). Australian farmers should not be treated like protected species. London: The Guardian.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maye, D., Dibden, J., Higgins, V., & Potter, C. (2012). Governing biosecurity in a neoliberal world: comparative perspectives from Australia and the United Kingdom. Environment and Planning A, 44(1), 150–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maye, D., Ilbery, B., & Watts, D. (2009). Farm diversification, tenancy and CAP reform: Results from a survey of tenant farmers in England. Journal of Rural Studies, 25(3), 333–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, M. (2016). Consumers getting behind campaign to support South Australian dairy farmers. Retrieved 31st May 2016, from http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/consumers-getting-behind-campaign-to-support-south-australian-dairy-farmers/news-story/8811ccc554b5bf963c0920cd56791933.

  • Meadows, J., Emtage, N., & Herbohn, J. (2014). Engaging Australian small-scale lifestyle landowners in natural resource management programmes—Perceptions, past experiences and policy implications. Land Use Policy, 36, 618–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar, J., & Roots, J. (2012). Changes in Australian agriculture and land use: Implications for future food security. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 10(1), 25–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morison, J., Hine, R., & Pretty, J. (2005). Survey and analysis of labour on organic farms in the UK and Republic of Ireland. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 3(1), 24–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Rural Health Alliance Inc. (2009). Suicide in rural Australia. Retrieved 31st May 2016, from http://ruralhealth.org.au/sites/default/files/fact-sheets/fact-sheet-14-suicide%20in%20rural%20australia_0.pdf.

  • Natural England. (2013). Funding for land management. Retrieved 24th May 2013, from http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/farming/funding/es/default.aspx.

  • Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2001). Multifunctionality: Towards an analytical framework. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2003). Multifunctionality: The policy implications. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2005). Multifunctionality in Agriculture: What role for private initiatives?. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2011). Agriculture: Support to agriculture at historic lows. Retrieved 19th June 2012, from http://www.oecd.org/document/48/0,3746,en_21571361_44315115_48714608_1_1_1_1,00.html.

  • Potter, C. (2006). Competing narratives for the future of European agriculture: The agri-environmental consequences of neoliberalization in the context of the Doha Round. Geographical Journal, 172(3), 190–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potter, C., & Tilzey, M. (2005). Agricultural policy discourses in the European post-Fordist transition: Neoliberalism, neomercantilism and multifunctionality. Progress in Human Geography, 29(5), 581–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potter, C., & Tilzey, M. (2007). Agricultural multifunctionality, environmental sustainability and the W.T.O.: Resistance or accommodation to the neoliberal project for agriculture? Geoforum, 38(6), 1290–1303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • QSR International. (2012). NVivo 9. Doncaster. Victoria: QSR International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, E. R., Geoffrey, T. M., & Ronald, N. (1990). Farmer ambivalence to rural land conversion in Australia and America: Regulatory implications. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 45(4), 489–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rural Payments Agency. (2011). The guide to cross compliance in England. DEFRA: United Kingdom.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santhanam-Martin, M., Ayre, M., & Nettle, R. (2015). Community sustainability and agricultural landscape change: Insights into the durability and vulnerability of the productivist regime. Sustainability Science, 10(2), 207–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, J. (2011). Creating whose future: Sustainable agricultural policy for Australia? Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability, 7(3), 377–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh-Peterson, L., & Lawrence, G. (2015). Insights into community vulnerability and resilience following natural disasters: Perspectives with food retailers in Northern NSW, Australia. Local Environment, 20(7), 782–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smailes, P. J. (2006). Redefining the local: The social organisation of rural space in South Australia, 1982–2006. Doctor of Philosophy PhD. London: Flinders University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smailes, P. J., Argent, N., & Griffin, T. L. C. (2002). Rural population density: Its impact on social and demographic aspects of rural communities. Journal of Rural Studies, 18(4), 385–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smailes, P., Griffin, T., & Argent, N. (2014). Demographic change, differential ageing, and public policy in rural and regional Australia: A three-state case study. Geographical Research, 52(3), 229–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smailes, P. J., & Hugo, G. J. (2003). The Gilbert Valley, South Australia. In C. Cocklin & M. Alston (Eds.), Community sustainability in rural Australia: A question of capital? (pp. 65–106). Wagga Wagga: Centre for Rural Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Te Velde, H., Aarts, N., & Van Woerkum, C. (2002). Dealing with ambivalence: Farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15(2), 203–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Environment Institute. (2012). Study supports Mount Lofty Ranges World Heritage bid. Retrieved 11 Oct 2012, from http://environmentinstitute.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/study-supports-mount-lofty-ranges-world-heritage-bid/.

  • Vagneron, I. (2007). Economic appraisal of profitability and sustainability of peri-urban agriculture in Bangkok. Ecological Economics, 61(2), 516–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, J. (1992). Making the theoretical case. In C. Ragin & H. Becker (Eds.), What is the Case? (pp. 121–138). Cambridge: The Foundations of Social Enquiry, Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, R., & Rivers, R. Y. (2011). Environmental management strategies in agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values, 28(3), 297–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, G. (2001). From productivism to post-productivism… and back again? Exploring the (un)changed natural and mental landscapes of European agriculture. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 26(1), 77–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, G. (2007). Multifunctional agriculture: A Transition theory perspective. Cambridge: CABI.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, G. A. (2008). Global multifunctional agriculture: Transitional convergence between North and South or zero-sum game? International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 6(1), 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, G. A. (2012). Community resilience and environmental transitions. Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, G. A., & Whitehead, I. (2012). Local rural product as a ‘relic’spatial strategy in globalised rural spaces: Evidence from County Clare (Ireland). Journal of Rural Studies, 28(3), 199–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, M. (2006). Rescaling rurality: Multilevel governance of the agro-food sector. Political Geography, 25(7), 735–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Commission for Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and methods. New York: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. AgResearch, Ruakura Research Centre, Hamilton, New Zealand

    Simon J. Fielke

  2. School of Social Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

    Simon J. Fielke

  3. School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Plymouth University, Plymouth, United Kingdom

    Geoff A. Wilson

Authors
  1. Simon J. Fielke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Geoff A. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simon J. Fielke.

Ethics declarations

Ethical standards

Ethical approval was granted by the University of Adelaide Human Research Ethics Committee in 2011.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fielke, S.J., Wilson, G.A. Multifunctional intervention and market rationality in agricultural governance: a comparative study of England and South Australia. GeoJournal 82, 1067–1083 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-016-9729-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-016-9729-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation