Spaces in the Global North Have Become Landscapes of Consumption Rather than Landscapes of Production - Research Paper Example

Discuss the contention that rural spaces in the global north have become landscapes of consumption, rather than traditional landscapes of production Introduction Introduction In twenty first century, the rural areas in the developed world have undergone tremendous changes, especially in the economic sector. The importance of primary sector in the rural economy of public sector has progressively declined since the end of the World War II. The development of the rural areas in the developed word is being increasingly depended upon various forms of consumerism. It means that rural areas are undergoing a stage of post-production in the rural areas. The purpose of this paper is to revisit the arguments for and against the post-production thesis with reference to the concrete background of the wider changes taking place in the rural spaces of the global north in general and the countryside of the UK in particular. The means livelihood of the rural population in the developed world has substantially altered by the forces of globalisation and corresponding integration of the world economy. The migration of the urban workers who are however embedded in the urban lifestyles and cultures, to the rural areas is one of the primary factors that bring consumerist culture into the countryside. Cloke et.al asserts that “consumption demands are the driving force of change in the countryside and its rural economy” (Cloke et.al. 2006. p.125). Also, the market for rural amenity products has strengthened in an unprecedented manner along with the global intensification of the market network which is intensified by the free market policies of the governments in the Global North. The Shift towards Consumption Economy and its Consequences Traditionally, agriculture has been the stronghold of the rural economy even in the advanced countries. Even in countries like the UK, agriculture and related businesses was the mainstay of the rural economy. However, the reality is that, historically speaking, rural economy was not constituted by agriculture alone as it is misconceived by many. A variety of economic functions had been taking place on the rural spaces for time immemorial. From 18th century onwards, Woods (2005) indicates that urban wealth and capital has been exported to rural areas, which is capable of altering the rural geography in a high pace. Landowners in the rural areas used to use their land for non-agricultural purposes such as hunting, entertainment and timber sale. The particularities of the World War II situation were the factors that laid heavy impact on the agricultural production in the rural areas. The amenity lobby too emerged following the profound changes brought about by World War II. The fact is that productive jobs have paved way for service jobs. This fact alone shows that the rural economy of consumption is well under its stage of emergence. Tourism related industries and restaurants and pubs do employ a considerable number of people and thereby catalysing the shift towards consumption economy. No villages could said to be autonomous in the realm of either production or consumption. The exports from the countryside to the town is not considerably higher than the import vice versa. Slee points out that for instance “in the former Badenoch and Strathspey district of Highland region of Scotland, direct tourism employment accounts for over a third of the total workforce” (Slee, 2004, p.5). Having an economy dominated by tourism sector clearly implies that consumption is the de facto rule of the economic interactions. Furthermore, Slee asserts that “tourism is equally important to the Cotswold economy” (Slee, 2004, p.5). Tourism related commuting too have a great impact over the turn of rural economy from production to consumption. Moreover, Slee indicates that the farm sector itself is by and large depended upon the earnings from the non-farm sector, Exemplifying this point, Slee shows that “the decision to close off rural England as a recreational destination during the Foot and Mouth disease outbreak in 2001 had much greater consequences on the non-farm rural economy than it did on the farm economy. Indeed, the figure for the loss to the rural economy as a whole generated by closing farm attractions and the footpath system amounted to about £5 billion” (Slee, 2004, p.6). The disastrous effect was laid off on the shoulders of the non-farm sector. It means that the so-called urban intrusion is not paralysing the rural economy as argued by a number of influential theorists rather empowering it with contemporary adaptations and promotions. Apparently, land-based businesses are rapidly changing the bases of rural economy. Sallowm forcefully reinstates the role of new technologies in bringing about major changes in the rural areas of the UK. It has been argued that “access to ICT in rural areas of the UK contributes towards e-governance and rural development” (Sallowm, 2006, p.1). Theorists such as Giddens (1994) has argued that the ongoing ICT revolution is capable of bringing in dramatic changes in the nature of economy and society. However, Sallowm counter this arguments by stating that “interlinkages between ICTs and notions of ‘empowerment’, ‘e-democracy’ and ‘e-governance’ need not necessarily be ‘positive’, and that ICT may also, in some cases, lead to further marginalisation of the disenfranchised, poor and illiterate in rural areas” (Sallowm, 2006, p.2). Too many contemporary economists have highlighted the role of ICT as the principal driving force of the present world economy. ICTs do and can play a critical role in the development of rural areas, especially in the developed world where the access to technology is comparatively high. Therefore, it is necessary to remember that “the pervasive nature of the information technology has led some commentators to argue that our society is under-going a change as profound as that of the industrial revolution” (Sallowm, 2006, p.4). It is also noted by many scholars that “the development of new structures and processes of governance in recent years in the economic sphere of rural areas reflects the establishment of unelected local agencies such as Rural Challenge, Training and Enterprise Councils (CTECs), LEADER Action Groups, Rural Development Boards and Development areas, Enterprise Agencies, economic partnerships and fora of various kinds, and local enterprise companies” (Sallowm, 2006, p.4). The emergence of new services such as self-help groups and community-based development in the rural areas could not have been possible without the advancements in the information and communication technologies which mark the age of computer revolution. For the rural community, approaches like endogenous or bottom-up are helpful in ameliorating the local economic capacities along with the informed help by network and voluntary organisations which are able to work only in the environment created by the materialisation of computer revolution. The recent changes in the agriculture in the rural areas have often been termed as post-production transition. Post-productivism is a “term that neatly captures a sense of fundamental change in post-war agriculture covering the political culture within which agriculture operates, the policy and market conditions under which farming takes place and the experiences of farmers themselves” (Evans et.al, 2001, p.2). It has been the buzzword since 1991 to capture the essence of mutations occurred with the primary sector of primary production, especially of the rural areas. Therefore, “in agricultural and rural studies, the active creation and reinforcement of a productivist / post-productivist dualism has emerged as a means of explaining the uneven development of rural areas” (Evans et.al, 2001, p.1). It is a matter of fact that the declining influence agriculture sector in the rural economy is one of the definig characteristics of the present. Therefore, post-productivist approaches argues in favour of changing the paradigm of agricultural policies from aiming at the enhancement and sustenance in the productivity levels to non-agricultural services based on farm land. Here, the underlying belief is that “farmers can no longer expect either to be handsomely paid for all the food they produce or permitted maximum freedom in the use of rural space for commodity production irrespective of other demands” (Evans et.al, 2001, p.2). Moreover, with the advent of the farm crisis of the late 1990s - arguably a delayed response to policy shifts of the 1980s and the 1992 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform- characterised by declining farm incomes, business closures and restructuring, some might argue that the post-productivist descriptor is increasingly matched by empirical reality. However, the emergence and widespread uncritical use of such an all-encompassing term is rather curious given debates elsewhere in human geography. “Yet, in agricultural and rural studies, the active creation and reinforcement of a productivist / post-productivist dualism has emerged as a means of explaining the uneven development of rural areas” (Evans et.al, 2001, p.3). Post-productivism is valid insofar as it is deals with the structural changes taking place with agriculture sector. However, it does not understand properly the impact of agricultural sector as a whole for the rural economy. Post-productivism is supposedly characterised by factors such as “a shift in emphasis away from quantity to quality in food production; the growth of alternative farm enterprises, conceptualised as pluriactivity; state efforts to encourage the development of more traditional, sustainable farming systems through agri-environmental policy; the growing environmental regulation of agriculture; and the progressive restructuring of government support for agriculture” (Evans et.al, 2001, p.6). It is difficult to accept that farmers in developed market economies outside the UK, or even within the UK, would identify with some of the characteristics apparently defining post-productivism, especially in terms of significant impact on their lives and businesses. In Europe, it is too easy to assume that because all member states contend with the vagaries of the CAP, similar post-productivist outcomes will be expected to occur within their farm sectors. Diversification has become the hallmark of agricultural land in the rural areas of UK. It means that the farm is being used for various purposes such as tourism and commuting. This is what termed by scholars as pluriactivity. However, the crucial question is that the process of pluriactivity could be seen as the moving away of farmers from purely agricultural economic activities. the fact is that the very act of diversification could be taken place in a productivist line. In other words, post-productivism is not a necessary or sufficient condition for the diversification to materialise. Also, there is room for thinking that what is known as part-time farming is constantly on the rise by small households. At present, the rural production is not becoming progressively disintegrated from capitalist market needs, but becoming embedded in it in a new manner along with the shift from Fordism to post-Fordism. It implies that the rural production has become more autonomous within the neoliberal capitalist market regime. Gallent et.al are of the view that “more than a tenth of the land mass of the UK comprises urban fringe: the countryside around towns that has been called plannings last frontier. One of the key challenges facing spatial planners is the land-use management of this area, regarded by many as fit only for locating sewage works, essential service functions and other un-neighbourly uses. However, to others it is a dynamic area where a range of urban and rural uses collide” (Gallent et.al, 2006, p.16). Ironically, it is impossible even now to have concrete dichotomy between the urban and rural areas of the global north as the consumption patterns have become more or less same. Conclusion While analysing the state of rural affairs in the global north in general and the global south in particular, it is apparent that tremendous changes are taking place in an extended pace. The realm of agricultural production is said to be most affected by the wider processes of globalisation. One of the major reasons for the changes regarding the production sector in the countryside is the influx of rather cheap commodities from the developing world and the consequent high levels of competition. On the other hand, in the case of the countryside of UK, both internal and external factors are at work causing irreversible changes in the rural production sector. The demographic changes taking place in the countryside due to the extensive influx of people from the urban and semi-urban areas. In addition, the consumerist culture and corresponding lifestyles brought about by the migrants too are catalysing the rural shift from production to consumption. References Cloke, P. Marsden, T. and Mooney,P.(2006). Handbook of Rural Studies. (Eds.). London. Sage.  Evans, N., Morris, C. and Winter, M. (2001). Conceptualising Agriculture: A Critique of Post-productivism as the New Orthodoxy. Progress in Human Geography. Gallent, N. and Andersson, J. and Bianconi, M. (2006) Planning on the edge: the context for planning at the rural-urban fringe. Routledge, London Sallowm, A. (2006). ICT in the Rural Areas of the UK: Towards E-governance and Rural Development?. UK: University of Plymouth. Slee, B. (2004). From Countrysides of Production to Countrysides of Consumption: The Implications for Rural Areas. Countryside and Community Research Unit: University of Gloucestershire. Wood, M. (2005) Rural Geography: Processes, Responses and Experiences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Read More