Search results

Reidar Almås is professor of rural sociology and regional policy at Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. He founded and directed Centre for Rural Research 1982–2007 and is currently senior advisor at CRR. He has written the Agricultural History of Norway (2002), and has published more than 15 books on rural issues, included ‘Globalisation, Localisation and Sustainable Livelihoods’ with Geoffrey Lawrence. His current research concerns agricultural policy, climate change resilience and mitigation and power in the food chain. Currently Almås is president of the International Rural Sociological Association (IRSA).

Purpose – Dairy has been the backbone of agriculture in regional Norway, and the processing of milk has been dominated by co-operatives owned by milk farmers. During the social democratic order (1945–1979), productivist agriculture thrived, while a more multifunctional agriculture was developed after 1980. As a measure against overproduction, a quota system was introduced in 1983. The purpose of this study is to see if there are signs of a neo-productivism revival after climate change and other global shocks, like the food crisis, featured prominently on the political agenda.

Design/methodology/approach – The chapter reviews the radical structural changes in Norwegian dairy production since the early 1960s, which reduced the number of milk farms radically from 148,000 in 1959 to almost 16,000 in 2009. According to the Agricultural Agreement between the Norwegian government and the farmers' organisations, the co-operatives are given an important semi-public role as market-price regulators and stock keepers. This Norwegian system may be described as a classical regulated dairy regime. The Norwegian dairy regime has been through several deregulations and re-regulations over the last 20 years, partly forced by internal pressures and partly inspired by liberalisation tendencies abroad.

Findings – After mid-1990s, there has been an increase in the number of joint dairy farms, where individual ownership of land is maintained while herds, buildings and machinery are merged. Three thousand six hundred thirty dairy farmers are now participating in 1,510 joint farming firms, producing 29 per cent of the milk in Norway. This rapid growth of joint farming is transforming the dairy sector in Norway. Analysis has shown that its evolution is closely tied to farmer socio-economic demands, including social benefits, such as increased leisure time, and security during illness. While there has been pressure to increase productivity, the food crisis changed attitudes, making the current policy of import tariffs and subsidies easier to defend.

Originality/value – This chapter shows that neo-liberalism in Norway was not pursued as far as in most other OECD countries, although some deregulation was taking place. Norwegian agricultural policies are still regulating the sector to a substantial degree, with the annual Agricultural Agreement negotiations serving as a centrepiece. Norway has ambitious climate goals, and by 2020 greenhouse gases emissions should be reduced to 30 per cent of the 1990 rate. A further goal is that Norway will be carbon neutral by 2030. As part of the implementation of its climate policy, a White Paper on agriculture and climate change was put forward in May 2009. For Norwegian food production as a whole, a change towards more grazing at the expense of crops would improve carbon storage and reduce the overall use of fertiliser. Such a shift in land use would benefit the dairy sector, in part because of easier access to domestically grown cow feed.

Purpose – This chapter discusses farmers' and policy responses to global shocks, specifically in terms of soaring prices for agricultural products in 2007. We discuss whether these shocks influenced Norwegian agricultural policy and Norwegian farmers perceptions of their situation.

Design/methodology/approach – As a background, we review trends in agricultural policy post-World War II both globally and in Norway, including empirical evidence for the changing global situation of agriculture. This chapter also analyses farmers' perceptions of their situation from 2002 to 2010 in light of these changing reality and policy response.

Findings – One immediate effect of increasing food prices was increasing incomes for food exporters and food exporting countries, an increase which also trickled down to the producers. Simultaneously, production costs rose as many input-factors became more expensive. In Norway, we saw the emergence of more optimism among farmers, more willingness to invest in farming (as opposed to a focus on cost reduction), and clear signs of a ‘repositioned productivism’.

Originality/value – In this chapter, we present an analysis of the relationship between global events, agricultural restructuring and local responses. The chapter also discusses the case of productivism along the lines drawn by Burton and Wilson (this volume), and argues that in the Norwegian system we can indeed see traces of an emerging ‘repositioned productivism’.

Purpose – This chapter introduces the book collection and sets the theoretical framework for the subsequent chapters.

Design/methodology/approach – The approach of the book is to re-interpret major challenges to global agriculture – particularly climate change and the food crisis of 2008 – as demonstrating shocks to the resilience of global food systems.

Findings – Using resilience to shocks as a key quality of food systems enables recent crises to be understood as central to the ongoing dynamics of food systems rather than simply atypical events. Alongside climate change and food security, other potential shocks are identified: biosecurity, energy, financial and volcanic.

Originality/value – This framework establishes new criteria for examining the potential merit of multifunctional and neo-liberal policy regimes with world food systems.

At the outset of this book, we argued that it was important that we study agricultural “policy regimes” rather than agricultural policy itself. Our reasoning was that our interest lies in the actual outcomes in terms of farming practice, industry arrangements, global trade linkages, technology assemblages, and agroecological relationships in particular countries and regions. It is a convenient fiction that these practices and arrangements are the direct result of the formal agricultural policy arrangements in each specific country. In reality, the formal policy process in each country (including not only agriculture, but also, in some cases, rural, environmental, trade, and social development policy) can be argued to be in constant interaction with wider global politics, geographically specific environmental and cultural dynamics, prevailing farm practices, and new technologies. To recognize this full assembly of dynamics that coordinate to determine actual farm practice, we use the term “policy regimes.” In neoliberalized economies such as New Zealand, there is even a strong sense in which devolved governance at the industry and sector level now operates within these regimes in the same way that formal agricultural policy does in European countries.

Changing conditions for farming force farmers to search for new ways to organize agricultural production. In dairy farming, households experience long working hours, inconvenient working conditions, and low incomes. Dairy markets are beleaguered by overproduction, low prices on staple dairy products, and low return to labor and capital. This structural squeeze, which is aggravated by quick technological changes and the globalization of markets, is negotiated in various ways by dairy farmers in different agricultural regimes. A recent coping strategy for dairy farmers in Norway has been joint farming, a process whereby two, three, or even more farmers establish a joint company to merge their resources and work together. These joint farmers enjoy more leisure time, greater security in case of illness, and improved work environments. Why is joint farming so successful in Norway? One main explanation is the difference between agricultural regimes, which places the Norwegian dairy farmer in a privileged position when it comes to building coping capacity.

Purpose – This chapter elucidates the post–Second World War development of Western agricultural policy. It focuses primarily on the influence that the European Union and the United States have had on global policy evolution.

Design/methodology/approach – The chapter draws on historical sources and other secondary data.

Findings – The chapter documents how agriculture was never seen as a sector commes les autres. Agricultural exceptionalism became practice, never falling easily under the rubric of those organisations, like the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade or the World Trade Organization, that were designed to reduce impediments to trade. As a result, trade in agricultural goods even today remains tightly controlled by national governments, seen most clearly with the EU's Common Agricultural Policy. Further, the chapter documents the rise of productivism in the West, where the search for ever more, and cheaper, calories provided the rationale that bigger is better – bigger farms, bigger machinery, more technology inputs into agriculture, but fewer people working them, and fewer farms, which leads to questions about their sustainability and resilience in an era of climate change. The chapter ends with an acknowledgement of a changed world – where Brazil, China and India exert more influence in international trade negotiations, including those relating to agriculture. Their differing agenda in this area helps to explain, in part, the wreckage of the Doha Round of the WTO.

Originality/value – By identifying the main lines of post-1945 Western agricultural policy, the chapter provides context into which the authors contributing to this volume are able to place their chapters. The chapter also addresses a lacuna in the literature in that it deals with the entire sweep of post-war Western agricultural policy in a way that makes it accessible to the reader.