Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
The close link between farming and its (natural and social) context, its spatial
dependence, the diverse functions it fulfils and the diverse societal expectations it faces,
means that the agricultural regime is neither homogeneous nor monolithic (see Smith et al. ,
2005). Rather, as the case studies presented in this topic emphasize, the regime (that is the
policy paradigms, visions, social expectations and norms) are 'semi-coherent' and
characterized by internal tensions, disagreement and conflicts of interests (Geels, 2011).
Thus, whilst the agricultural regime is focused on promoting 'modernized agriculture' (or
might want to appear that way), at the same time it offers some protection for niches, such
as by providing funds and regulatory support for rural development activities like
alternative agri-food networks (AAFNs). In farming, transitions are likely to be
characterized by diversity, and to result from push-and-pull efforts by niche actors in
cooperation with regime actors (of the agricultural or other regimes).
Specifying the MLP for the farming context
Which niche?
Within the MLP, the niche is the place where entrepreneurs work on radical innovations
that deviate from established norms, processes or practices, usually based on different
beliefs. As a result of the adjustment of expectations, enrolment of new actors, expansion of
the resource base and learning processes, networks become larger, especially through the
participation of powerful actors who convey legitimacy and supply additional resources
(Geels, 2011). Niche actors are usually understood as being driven by the hope that their
novelty might eventually be used in the regime or even replace it (Geels, 2011). Upon
closer analysis, a number of case studies reported in this topic deviated in some way from
this typical characterization of a 'niche': some did not display a clear transformative
ambition; some did not start from the 'bottom up'; in others, the actors were not in a
coordinated network.
Interestingly, in a number of the cases included in this topic, the ambition of the
initiative studied was not to transform the regime. Rather, the aim was for topical and local
change which would allow actors to pursue their project, without ambition to engage with,
or question, the dominant practices (Fig. 13.1). For example, the network engaged in
establishing farmers' markets in Pilsen (see Darrot et al. , this volume) was not particularly
interested in questioning dominant food purchasing practices or dominant actors (e.g.
supermarkets). Its aim was primarily to build a space for its own project, and propose an
additional option for purchasing fresh food (especially in summer), rather than to initiate a
wider transition. In some cases, alternative agri-food networks might even put particular
emphasis on retaining their autonomous status (ensuring that they have little or no ties to
mainstream actors, thus purposively not engaging with the agricultural regime). The
alternative marketing channels are thus an example of initiatives that do not aim to change
the rules of the regime but rather to operate outside of the regime.
Similarly, certain forms of collaboration (e.g. machinery rings, see Schiller et al. , this
volume) do not question the emphasis of the regime on the modernization of agriculture, or
its productivist values. Rather, they offer an alternative to the practice of each farmer
purchasing his/her own machinery. Whilst this clearly is a new form of collaboration
between farmers, questioning the individualistic notion of farmers competing against each
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search