The Agricultural Question. Public Laissez-faire and the Recomposition of Individual Strategies

  • François Bafoil
Part of the The Sciences Po Series in International Relations and Political Economy book series (SPIRP)


The question of the relations between globalization, Europeanization, and national sovereignty deserves special attention for two reasons when it comes to the area of agriculture: as regards modernization, there has barely been any, if, by that term, we understand a rise in the norms of productivity and efficiency that Western European and North American agricultures can claim, on the basis of the size of land-holdings, agricultural employment, specialization of production, new technologies, and institutions. Faced with the enormous range of age-old problems associated with East European agriculture, characterized by deficits in all the areas just mentioned, laissez-faire policies—or in other words, sovereignties— prevailed in the 1990s. By contrast, the European Union played a preponderant role in imposing (sanitary and phytosanitary) standards as prerequisites for integration. In this way, they forced enterprises to adjust to European requirements. Moreover, the union played a decisive role in terms of preparing the administrations that were destined to manage the European funds of the agricultural policy. In the face of these two types of constraints—the first relating to the modernization of what were particularly backward agricultures, the second to the normative security imperatives of the European Union—national sovereignties adopted a “low profile” where their own strategies were concerned.


State Farm Land Market National Sovereignty Agrarian Reform Collective Farm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Berendt, Ivan T., Decades of Crisis. Central and Eastern Europe before World War II. Berkeley/London/Los Angeles: University of California, 1996Google Scholar
  2. Roszkowski, Wbjcieh, Land Reforms in East Central Europe after World War II. Warsaw: ISP-PAN, 1995Google Scholar
  3. Pryor, Frederic, The Red and the Green, the Rise and Fall of Collectivized Agricultures in Marxist Regimes. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. 3.
    Davies, Norman, God’s Playground: A History of Poland, 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981Google Scholar
  5. Maurel, Marie-Claude, Les paysans contre l’Etat. Paris: L’Harmattan, 1998Google Scholar
  6. Beauvois, Daniel, La Pologne: histoire, société, culture. Paris: La Martini ère, 2005Google Scholar
  7. Bafoil, François (ed.), La Pologne. Paris: Fayard, 2007, pp. 497–501.Google Scholar
  8. 4.
    Swain, Nigel, “Agricultural Restitution and Cooperative Transformation in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia,” Europe-Asia Studies, 51, 7, 1999, pp. 1199–1219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 5.
    Giordano, Christian, Dobrinka Kostova, Evelyne Lohman-Minka (eds.), Bulgaria, Social and Cultural Landscapes. Fribourg: University Press, 2000Google Scholar
  10. 6.
    See the works of the Polish sociologists and ruralists: Frenkel, Dzun, Mokrzycki, Halamska, Go dach, Szafraniec, Wilkin; La Pologne. Paris: Fayard, 2007, pp. 327–345.Google Scholar
  11. 8.
    Ilia, Iliev, “Small Farms in Bulgaria, a Four-Decade Anomaly,” in Janos Matyas Kovacs, Petia Kabakchieva, Roumen Avramov (eds.), East-West Cultural Encounters, Entrepreneurship, Economic Knowledge. Sofia: East-West, 2004.Google Scholar
  12. 10.
    In the Czech Republic, the procedure assigned 15% to the members of the cooperatives and to retirees, after which 25% was earmarked for sale to individuals seeking to acquire property. The remainder was divided into three parts, 50% of which was to offset the contribution of land, 30% the contribution of capital and 20% the number of years worked. See Swain, Nigel, “Agricultural Restitution and Cooperative Transformation in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia,” Europe-Asia Studies, 51, 7, 1999, pp. 1199–1219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 14.
    Creed, Gerald W., Domesticating Revolution: From Socialist Reform to Ambivalent Transition in a Bulgarian Village. University Park: Transylvania State University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    Hirsch hausen, Béatrice von, Les nouvelles campagnes roumaines: paradoxes d’un retour paysan. Paris: Belin, 1997.Google Scholar
  15. 18.
    Rey, Violette (Studies Coordinated By), Les nouvelles campagnes de l’Europe Centrale et Orientale. Paris: CNRS, 1996Google Scholar
  16. Streith, Michael, Dynamiques paysannes en Mecklenburg, survie d’un savoir-faire. Münster: LIT Verlag, 2005.Google Scholar
  17. 21.
    Bafoil, François (ed.), La Pologne. Paris: Fayard, 2007, pp. 327–346.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© François Bafoil 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • François Bafoil

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations