Search results

Busch focuses on what he regards as the three broad causes of immorality in the modern world: scientism, statism, and marketism. He views these three “isms” pejoratively and originating respectively with Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes and Adam Smith. Each is treated as a “leviathan” spewing immorality from its multiple heads in the form of undue faith in the three different kinds of social order they generate.

Robert J. Antonio is Professor of Sociology at the University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA. His e-mail address is anto@falcon.cc.ukans.eduArmando Bartra is a Sociologist, Historian, and President of the Instituto Maya, in Mexico City, Mexico. The Instituto Maya has worked for the past 30 years with peasant and indigenous groups on leadership, capacity building, micro-credit, and related rural development projects. His e-mail address is circo@laneta.apc.orgMichael Mayerfeld Bell is Associate Professor of Rural Sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, and Collaborating Associate Professor of Sociology at Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA. His e-mail address is michaelbell@wisc.eduGisela Landázuri Benı́tez teaches Rural Development at the Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Xochimilco, Mexico City, Mexico. Her e-mail address is giselalb@prodigy.net.mxAlessandro Bonanno is Professor of Sociology and Chair of Sociology at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas, USA. His e-mail address is soc_aab@shsu.eduLawrence Busch is University Distinguished Professor of Sociology at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA. He is also Director of the Institute for Food and Agricultural Standards, and a Past President of the Rural Sociological Society. His e-mail address is Lawrence.Busch@ssc.msu.eduJorge Calbucura is a Senior Researcher at the Department of Sociology at the University of Uppsala, Sweden. His e-mail address is Jorge.Calbucura@soc.uu.seMaria del Mar Delgado is Assistant Professor of Rural Development at the Department of Economics, Sociology, and Agriculture Policy, University of Cordoba, Cordoba, Spain. She is a member of the Rural Development Team at the University of Cordoba. Her e-mail address is mmdelgado@uco.esCornelia Butler Flora is Charles F. Curtiss Distinguished Professor of Agriculture and Professor of Sociology at Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA. She is also Director of the North Central Regional Center for Rural Development and a Past President of the Rural Sociological Society. Her e-mail address is cflora@iastate.eduRosemary Elizabeth Gali is the coordinator of the Sociology Module of the Master’s Program in Development Management sponsored by the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the University of Torino, Italy. She has worked as a consultant for most of the major development agencies and was an adviser to the government of Mozambique during the 1990s. Her e-mail address is gallirose@hotmail.comFred T. Hendricks is Professor and Head of Department at the Department of Sociology, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa. He is also Managing Editor of the African Sociological Review. His e-mail address is f.hendricks@ru.ac.zaSusie Jacobs is Senior Lecturer at the Department of Sociology of Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom. She is co-director of the Institute of Global Studies there. Her e-mail address is s.jacobs@mmu.ac.ukThomas A. Lyson is Professor in the Department of Rural Sociology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA. He is also Director of Cornell’s Community, Food, and Agriculture Program, and a past editor of the journal Development Sociology. His e-mail address is tal2@cornell.eduLois Wright Morton is Assistant Professor of Sociology at Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA. Her e-mail address is lwmorton@iastate.eduEduardo Ramos is Associate Professor at the Department of Economics, Sociology, and Agriculture Policy, University of Cordoba, Cordoba, Spain. He is also Head of the Co-operation for Development Chair. He is a member of the Rural Development Team at the University of Cordoba. His e-mail address is eduardo.ramos@uco.es

Effective standards are at once technical specifications for various people, processes, and products, as well as world-changing phenomena. Put simply, standards are one means by which we determine who we are and how we shall live. Alternatively, standards are more than technical specifications; effectively implemented standards are part of the social infrastructure that makes a given type of society possible. This, in turn, suggests that – if we are to collectively decide what kind of society and what kind of agri-food sector we want – the recent turn to standards (and away from government regulation) cannot be left in the hands of a few experts, but must be subjected to democratic deliberation. This is especially true if the scope of standards is to be expanded so as to include problems such as climate change and sustainability. These are “wicked problems” in that all the parameters cannot be specified, there is no single optimum to be attained and “…there is no criterion system nor rule which would tell you what is correct or false” (Rittel, 1972).

New Zealand and Australian agri-food industries are being restructured both as a consequence of the extension of neoliberal policy settings and as a result of the increasing influence of the global supermarket sector. In the EU, supermarkets have sought to standardise and harmonise compliance, with their influence being felt well beyond European boundaries. EurepGAP (a European standard for ‘Good Agricultural Practices’) is an example of an emerging ‘audit culture’ where strict adherence to set rules of operation emerges as the basis for accreditation of goods and services. It represents the trend towards private sector standardization and assurance schemes, and provides an example of the growing importance of the supermarket sector in sanctioning the on-ground activities that occur in the production and processing of farm-derived outputs.

This chapter highlights the influence of EurepGAP protocols in the reorganisation of the agri-food industries of New Zealand and Australia. It argues that – for industries such as vegetable and fruit production, where Europe is the final destination – compliance with EurepGAP standards has largely become essential. In this sense, EurepGAP has emerged as the standard among producers who wish to export their products. The chapter concludes with an assessment of EurepGAP as a form of global agri-food governance that demonstrates a strong relationship between new audit cultures and neoliberal forms of trade regulation. In both Australia and New Zealand, some production sectors have rapidly adopted EurepGAP – despite extra costs, reduced choices over crop management and a lingering sense of resentment at the internal imposition of yet another production audit – primarily as a solution to the politics of risk in the context of high levels of exposure to market requirements under neoliberalism. The implications of this for Antipodean farming are considered in detail.

In recent years the production and consumption of food have become both more transnational and diversified. Concurrent with these transformations has been the increasing use of standards to differentiate both agricultural products and processes. Historically standards were understood as “natural market lubricants,” but today they are increasingly viewed as tools for competitive advantage. As the use of standards has proliferated, the need to ensure compliance has also increased. Third-party certification (TPC) is one way to ensure compliance and it is becoming increasingly prominent in the global agrifood system. This chapter examines the complex effects that the widespread implementation of standards and TPC is having on the global agrifood system. What is occurring is not simple standardization and differentiation, but rather differentiated standardization and standardized differentiation. In the first instance, whereas we have standardization, it is differentiated, as multiple options remain. For example, while TPC for food safety and quality is becoming increasingly common, what such certification means continues to have considerable diversity. In the latter case, different kinds of agricultural practices are becoming standardized (i.e., organic). That is, difference (e.g., alternative agriculture) is becoming standardized, so that it is increasingly becoming the same globally. In concluding, we argue that standardization and differentiation are both taking place simultaneously in the global agrifood system, and that analyses of the globalization of food and agriculture must begin to recognize this.

Why would rural sociologists in particular have an interest in democracy? To begin with, rural sociologists have had a long standing concern with issues of community. During the 1970s and 1980s, the concept of community within rural sociology came under criticism as a simple-minded repetition of hoary stereotypes about fellow-feeling and neighborliness in small towns and villages, in contrast to the anomie of the city. But the disciplinary interest in how and when people get along and mobilize for the collective good (if we may reduce the concern for community to that base) remained. The study of rural democracy seemed a more sophisticated way of studying these issues without resorting to the old gemeinschaft-gesellschaft distinction. Several of the contributions to this book thus retain a focus on small associations of people, as the classic gemeinschaft literature did, but now with the analytic tools of the rural sociology of democracy.

Markets are a particular form of social organization in which exchanges are regularized. Capitalist markets are those in which: (1) most things traded are commodities, that is they are “identical” for purposes of sale (Appadurai, 1986); and (2) there exists a class of people for whom the end goal of selling in the market is not to buy goods but to “make money” (Marx, 1967 [1867]). Today, nearly everyone in the world lives in some form capitalist market society.

Standardisation in education is an ambiguous process. Standards of time, measurement, technology and other aspects have evolved historically as basic preconditions for social life and communication, in education as well as in society at large. But excessive standardisation, especially in domains of culture and knowledge, often works as cultural and symbolic violence, undermining the qualities of education and learning situations. This chapter investigates these ambiguities, presenting concepts of standards and standardisation and developing their implications for education through selected theoretical contributions and empirical cases. The theoretical contributions include Berger and Luckmann's constructivist sociology of knowledge, Bourdieu's theory of symbolic capital and Habermas' theory of communicative action. The empirical cases include the processes of centralisation and standardisation of education in the United States and the process of standardisation in European higher education.