Policies and plans for rural people : an international perspective 9781134694563, 1134694563, 9781134694631, 1134694636, 9781134694709, 1134694709, 9781315882574, 1315882574, 0047110171

Table of contents :
Content: Cover
Policies and Plans for Rural People
Title Page
Copyright Page
Original Title Page
Original Copyright Page
Preface
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
List of tables
1 Introduction: Planning, policy making and state intervention in rural areas
Introduction
Problems and rural people
The state, planning and intervention
The case studies
2 Britain
The political climate of rural areas
Changes and problems in rural areas
Formal policies for farm populations
Statutory planning policies for rural people
Community and development policies for rural people. Policy, planning and implementation3 The Netherlands
Problems of rural areas
Agencies and tiers of government: their interrelations
Policy content
Impact of policy: problems of implementation
Political culture
Local implementation
Conclusions
4 Scandinavia
The Scandinavian rural legacy
Rural development problems: inherent and man-made
The new orientation: regional policies and plans as a development from above
Results of regional policies and regional planning
Rural policies and planning on the threshold of the 1990s: some new tendencies
Conclusion
5 France. Rural policies and plans in contextAgricultural reforms
Area-based plans
Recent schemes for rural revival
Prospect
6 The USSR
The historical context of rural policy
Restructuring the rural settlement network
Planning the 'socialist village'
Rural issues and conflicts
7 The USA
Introduction
Major issues in rural regions
Inadequacy of federal and state policies
The politics of rural policy and planning
Techniques for rural policy and planning
Statutory planning issues
Concluding comments
8 Canada
Rural Canada in perspective
Rural planning from the top down. Community-based rural planningReprise and prospect
9 Australia
Rural development programmes
Tariff compensation
balance of payments and agricultural support programmes
Rural adjustment programmes
Service provision in rural areas
Equity goals instead of development goals
Social justice issues
Rural planning
10 New Zealand
Geographical and economic background
The rural population associated with farming
The non-farming rural population
Conclusions
11 Conclusions: Rural policies --
responses to problems or problematic responses?
Scale and diversity
Communality of problems. Comparability of planning and policy responsePlanning as a state function
Index.

Citation preview

ROUTLEDGE

REVIVALS

Policies and Plans for Rural People An International Perspective

Edited by Paul Cloke

Routledge Revivals

P olicies and Plans for Rural P eop le

T h is e d ite d c o lle c tio n , first p u b lis h e d in 1 9 8 8 , w as th e first t it l e to b r in g in te r n a tio n a l p e rs p e c tiv e s in to th e field o f ru ra l p l a n n i n g . U s in g a c o m p a ra tiv e a p p ro a c h a n d a b ro a d ra n g e o f case s tu d ie s , i n c lu d in g B r ita in , re v ie w

S c a n d in a v ia , th e

m a jo r

th e

U .S .S .R .

p r o b le m s

faced

and

N ew

w i t h in

Z e a la n d ,

ru ra l

a rea s,

th e and

a u th o r s p o lic y

re sp o n se s to th e s e p ro b le m s . E ach s tu d y d e a ls w ith th e p o litic a l a n d i n s t it u t io n a l fra m e w o rk s in v o lv e d in th e m a n a g e m e n t o f ru ra l areas a n d th e m e a n s by w h ic h p o lic ie s h a v e b e e n im p le m e n te d . W i t h an i n tr o ­ d u c tio n fro m P a u l C lo k e t h a t p la c e s ru ra l p o lic ie s a n d p la n s w ith in th e c o n te x t o f th e s ta te , th is re issu e w ill b e o f g r e a t v a lu e to a n y s tu d e n ts w ith an in te r e s t in th e p l a n n in g a n d o rg a n is a tio n o f r u r a l c o m m u n itie s a cross th e w o rld .

This page intentionally left blank

Policies and Plans for R ural People An International Perspective

E d ite d by P a u l C loke

13 A s m

Routledge cJ

Taylor & Francis Group

F ir s t p u b l is h e d in 1 9 8 8 b y U n w in H y m a n L td T h is e d it i o n first p u b l is h e d in 2 0 1 3 b y R o u t le d g e 2 P a rk S q u a r e , M i l to n P a r k , A b i n g d o n , O x o n , 0 X 1 4 4 R N S im u lta n e o u s ly p u b l is h e d in t h e U S A a n d C a n a d a by R o u t le d g e 711 T h ir d A v e n u e , N e w Y o rk , N Y 1 0 0 1 7

Routledge is an im print o f the T aylor & Francis Group, an in form a business © 1 9 8 8 P a u l C lo k e a n d C o n t r ib u t o r s A ll r i g h t s re s e rv e d . N o p a r t o f t h is b o o k m a y b e r e p r i n t e d o r re p r o d u c e d o r u t il i s e d

in a n y fo rm

o r b y a n y e le c tr o n ic ,

m e c h a n ic a l, o r o t h e r m e a n s , n o w

k n o w n o r h e r e a f te r in v e n t e d , i n c l u d i n g p h o t o c o p y i n g a n d r e c o r d i n g , o r in a n y in f o r m a tio n s to r a g e o r r e tr ie v a l s y s te m , w i t h o u t p e r m is s io n in w r i t in g fro m th e p u b lis h e r s . P u b l i s h e r ’s N o t e T h e p u b l is h e r h a s g o n e to g r e a t l e n g t h s to e n s u re th e q u a li t y o f t h i s r e p r i n t b u t p o i n ts o u t t h a t s o m e im p e r f e c tio n s in t h e o r i g in a l c o p ie s m a y b e a p p a r e n t.

D is c l a im e r T h e p u b l is h e r h a s m a d e e v e ry e ffo rt to tra c e c o p y r ig h t h o ld e r s a n d w e lc o m e s c o r re s p o n d e n c e fro m th o s e th e y h a v e b e e n u n a b le to c o n ta c t. A L ib ra ry o f C o n g re s s re c o rd e x is ts u n d e r LC c o n tr o l n u m b e r : 8 7 0 1 3 0 7 0

IS B N

1 3 :9 7 8 -0 -4 1 5 -7 1 4 5 7 -0 (h b k )

IS B N 1 3 : 9 7 8 - 1 - 3 1 5 - 8 8 2 5 7 - 4 (e b k )

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE A n international perspective

Edited by

Paul Cloke

London UNW IN HYMAN Boston

Sydney

Wellington

© P. J. Cloke and contributors, 1988 This book is copyright under the Berne Convention. No reproduction without permission. All rights reserved.

Published by the Academic Division oi U n w in H ym an Ltd 15/17 Broadwick Street, London W 1V 1FP, UK Allen &. Unwin Inc., 8 W inchester Piace, W inchester, Mass. 01890, USA Allen & Unwin (Australia) Ltd, 8 Napier Street, N orth Sydney, NSW 2060, Australia Allen & Unwin (New Zealand) Ltd in association with the Port Nicholson Press Ltd, 60 Cambridge Terrace, W ellington, New Zealand

First published in 1988

B ritish Library C atalogu in g in P ublication D ata Policies and plans tor rural people: an international perspective. 1. Rural development — Government policy 2. Regional planning 1. Cloke, Paul J. 307.7’2 HN 49.C6 ISBN 0-04-711017-1

Library o f C ongress C atalogin g-in -P u b lication D ata Policies and plans for rural people. Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Rural developm ent— Cross-cultural studies. 1. Clokc, Paul J. HN49.C6.P65 1988 307.1'4 87-13070 ISBN 0-0-04-711017-1 (aik. paper)

Set in 11 on l l '/ 2 point Bembo by BookEns, Saffron W alden, Essex and printed in Great Britain by Billing and Sons, London and W orcester

Preface

O ver recent years there has been a growing awareness o f the changes occurring in rural areas, the differential impacts o f these changes between different people and different areas, and the role o f policies and plans in the state sector which attem pt to respond to these impacts. Encouraging strides have been made in our research-based understanding o f the context and content o f policy-m aking for rural areas w ithin particular nation states, but at the same time there is a danger of parochialism unless international cross-fertilization o f knowledge and insight in these areas can be achieved. It is hoped that this book will make a small initial contribution to that aim. It is the first o f two collections o f international essays on the subject o f rural policies and plans. The focus in this case is on rural people, and a late partner-volum e deals with rural land, although this division between people and land is borne o f pragmatic convenience rather than any sugges­ tion o f mutual exclusivity betw een the subject matters concerned.

Acknowledgements

Many people have contributed to the task of putting this book together. Each individual author will doubtless acknowledge various sources o f help, but for my part I would like to record my sincere thanks to the following: Roger Jones for his enthusiastic support for this and other projects; Robin H am bleton for granting permission to use Figure 1.1; Rob Flynn for his helpful comments on one o f the chapters; M aureen Hunwicks, whose accuracy, speed and cheerful disposition render a personal w ord processor redundant; Trevor Harris for cartographic skills; and lastly my family, Viv, Elizabeth and W illiam , for their constant support and love. P.j.C .

Lampeter

Contents

Preface

1

page v

Acknowledgements

vi

List of tables

x

Introduction: Planning, policy making and state intervention in rural areas PAUL C L O K E

1

Introduaion Problems and rural people The state, planning and intervention The case studies 2

Britain

PAU L C L O K E

The political climate of rural areas Changes and problems in rural areas Formal policies for farm populations Statutory planning policies for rural people Community and development policies for rural people Policy, planning and implementation 3

The Netherlands

JA N G R O E N E N D IJK

Problems of rural areas Agencies and tiers o f government: their interrelations Policy content Impact of policy: problems of implementation Political culture Local implementation Conclusions 4

Scandinavia

PETE R S J 0 H O L T

The Scandinavian rural legacy Rural development problems: inherent and man-made The new orientation: regional policies and plans as a development from above

1 3 7 16 19

19 24 28 32 36 42 47

48 51 54 56 58 61 64 69

69 71 78

Results o f regional policies and regional planning Rural policies and planning on the threshold o f the 1990s: some new tendencies Conclusion

5

6

7

8

9

France

90 92 94

HUGH CLOUT

98

Rural policies and plans in context Agricultural reform s Area-based plans Recent schemes for rural revival Prospect

98 99 105 110 116

The U S S R

120

JUDITH PALLOT

The historical context o f rural policy Restructuring the rural settlem ent netw ork Planning the ‘socialist village’ Rural issues and conflicts

120 122 127 134

The U SA WILLIAM R. LASSEY, MARK B. LAPPING AND JOHN E. CARLSON

142

Introduction Major issues in rural regions Inadequacy o f federal and state policies The politics o f rural policy and planning Techniques for rural policy and planning Statutory planning issues Concluding comments

142 147 155 159 160 161 162

Canada

GERALD HODGE

166

Rural Canada in perspective Rural planning from the top dow n Com munity-based rural planning Reprise and prospect

166 177 185 189

Australia

192

J. H. HOLMES

Rural developm ent programmes

194

T ariff compensation, balance o f payments and agricultural support programmes Rural adjustment programmes Service provision in rural areas Equity goals instead o f development goals Social justice issues Rural planning 10

New Zealand

RICHARD WILLIS

Geographical and economic background The rural population associated with farming The non-farming rural population Conclusions

11

196 199 204 206 209 212 218 218 222 232 237

Conclusions: Rural policies - responses to problems or problematic responses? PAUL CLOKE 240 Scale and diversity Communality o f problems Comparability o f planning and policy response Planning as a state function

240 241 245 254

Index

259

List o f Tables

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.2 3.3

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 7.1 8.1 8.2 8.3 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7

Relationships betw een votes and regions, 1983 Relationships betw een votes, class and neighbourhood, 1983 Population change in rural local authorities, 1961-81, by cluster type Programme for Gloucestershire’s Rural Com m unity Action Project Municipalities by classes o f deprivation scores per province Characteristics of agricultural production per zone o f the Rural Areas Report 1982 Share o f votes and share o f aldermen for left-w ing parties in municipalities according to degree o f urbanization per province in 1986 Economically active population in primary industries in Scandinavia, 1950-80 Some regional political measures in the Nordic countries D irect regional political support to industry in Norw ay and Sweden Public spending on industries in developm ent areas in Norway, 1980 and 1982 Population and employm ent in non-m etropolitan counties Population changes in rural Canada, 1961-81 Social structural indices o f different size settlements, Canada, 1971 and 1981 Rural regions o f Canada and their characteristics U rban-rural distribution o f the New Zealand population, and intercensal increase, 1926-81 Changes in num ber o f holdings, 1973-83 Changes in em ploym ent on farm holdings, 1973-83 Trends in the New Zealand dairy industry, 1973-83 Population trends in New Zealand towns o f 1000-4999 in 1981—6 intcrcensal period Regional developm ent assistance, 1973-86 Com parison o f the cost per jo b in T hink Big projects and King Country manufacturing projects

22 23 26 38 50 59

60 77 87 88

89 143 167 169 174 223 226 227 230 233 235 236

1 Introduction: Planning, policy making and state intervention in rural areas PAUL CLOKE

Introduction Planning . . . is an extremely ambiguous and difficult word to define. Planners o f all kinds think that they know what it means; it refers to the work they do. The difficulty is that they do all sorts o f different things, and so they mean different things by the word; planning seems to be all things to all men. (Hall 1974: 3) O ther than its failure to recognize the broader gender relations within planning and amongst planners, Peter Hall’s description o f planning as ‘all things to all m en’ provides a very accurate commentary on the contem­ porary analysis o f planning and policy making in rural areas. The chequered present stems directly from a chequered past. Historically, most nations have viewed planning problems as specifically urban phenomena, and whether for reasons o f reparation o f war damage, or o f the sheer politi­ cal need to cope with the demands o f expanding yet decaying cities, plan­ ning has been developed as a response to conflict in these urban environments. The ability o f rural interests to attract attention in the political planning arena has therefore depended on the availability o f high-profile political issues from which to develop wider mechanisms o f planning and policy making. In densely populated nations, planning focus on urban expansion has inevitably led to consideration o f rural land-use issues, even i f ‘rural’ in this case could roughly be translated as green spaces on maps into which urban centres could expand. Equally important in the portfolio o f rural interests is the question o f agricultural production. If governments seek to subsidize agriculture so as to ensure security o f production, they are likely to underwrite such policies by giving the protection o f agricultural land central importance in rural planning strategies. Thus the preservation o f the agricultural land base has in many nations become the fundamental premise o f planning for rural areas. In other, less densely populated nations, this convergence o f policies for

2

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE

urban expansion and policies for rural land budgets is less direct and occurs over a longer term . The w ork o f Bill Lassey (1977) and others in the USA has shown that the size and scale o f rural territory have served to soak up pressures o f urbanization such that their impacts are politically diffuse even if locally their im portance can be severe. In such situations, rural planning has been brought onto the political agenda m ore because o f the growing im portance o f environmentalism at the national scale than any political perception o f the needs o f rural people. Planning and policy making have thus evolved for different stated reasons and over different scales o f time and space in different nations. Yet these are by no means the only criteria which account for the variegation o f planning and policy mechanisms throughout the developed world. As Gordon C herry (1982: 109) has pointed out: planning is grounded in socio-economic, cultural and political contexts; its legitimacy springs from society and is fixed in political and institutional frameworks. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that an understanding o f rural plan­ ning and policy making based on the intensive study o f one socio-economic, cultural and political context and fixed in one political and institutional fram ework would greatly benefit from com parable research in other con­ texts and within other frameworks. The breakdown o f academic parochialism has been one o f the central reasons for the developm ent o f the Journal o f Rural Studies as an inter­ national and multidisciplinary forum for rural research. It is this same attack on parochialism which has led to the developm ent o f two collections o f essays which focus on rural planning from an international perspective. This, the first collection, deals with policies and plans for rural people, and the second book will concentrate on rural land and landscape. It is freely adm itted that this represents a rather artificial division o f rural planning matters. Clearly, policies which aim to support agricultural production will impact upon both rural land and rural farm populations. Nevertheless, it is hoped that by bringing together a w ide-ranging body o f inform ation and reflection from hum an and environm ental perspectives a full appreciation o f rural interdependency will emerge at a level which would not be perm it­ ted by a single collection o f inevitably sketchy overviews o f all rural policies and planning mechanisms in a particular nation. As it is, authors have been presented with a most difficult task o f provid­ ing informative and incisive commentaries w ithin tight confines o f length. This being so, they have been asked to concentrate their approach on specific and common issues: particular problem s experienced by rural people, the relationship betw een rural people and the distribution o f politi­

INTRODUCTION

3

cal power, the availability o f planning and policy-m aking mechanisms, the implementing agencies concerned, and the nature o f central-local state relations. Underlying this comm on agenda is a wish to illustrate from a wide variety o f socio-economic and cultural contexts and political and institutional frameworks: (a) (b) (c)

any com m unality o f problem s experienced by particular fractions o f the rural population; any comparability in the planning and policy mechanisms which are developed in response to these problems; any supportive evidence o f contem porary concepts o f the role o f planning w ithin the form, function and apparatus o f the state.

These issues are reviewed in the final chapter o f this book.

Problems and Rural People It w ould be predictable and maybe even expected at this point that the thorny issue o f defining ‘rural people’ should be raised. After all, two clearly diverging schools o f thought have em erged on this issue in recent years. T here are those who w ould point out that in most developed nations all people are culturally if not physically urbanized, and that the under­ lying causes o f the social and economic problem s faccd by people living outside cities are exactly the same as those experienced by urban dwellers; namely, powcrlessness, exploitation, uneven distribution, inequality and so on. According to this view point, there is little to be gained from the categorization ‘rural’ which indeed induces the negative tendency o f ascribing spatial explanations to social phenomena. From the opposite corner it is stressed that rural land use, landscape and settlements are patently different from their urban equivalents by dint o f scale, density, remoteness, and predom inant forms o f economic production, especially agriculture. This being so, people who are constrained to live in these areas, or who choose to do so, reflect these inevitable differences in their living environm ent. It is not the intention here further to describe or fuel this debate, especially as detailed discussion is available elsewhere (Cloke 1985a, 1988, Cloke & Park 1985). The point surely is not that there is no difference be­ tween urban and rural environm ents, because there patently is, but that the understanding and explanation o f social and economic problems encoun­ tered in those environm ents should not be constrained by factors o f rurality, marginality, peripherality or any other ‘spatiality’. Rather, the very fruitful explanatory areas o f social composition, structure and relations

4

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE

should be allied to a view o f planning and policy making activities as an integral part o f the overall role played by the state to form a fundamentally non-rural, indeed aspatial, portfolio o f conceptual tools for understanding what goes on in these areas we call rural. Because social relations exist in spatial arenas (Massey 1985) it appears legitimate to make use o f pragmatic spatial divisions such as ‘rural’ to study both the changing composition o f society and structuring o f the economy as driven by the engine o f capitalism, and the activities o f the state to regulate these changes through its planning functions. Part o f the chequered history and indeed contemporary state o f rural planning and policy making as presented by its analysts and commentators stems directly from the fact that different perceptions o f rural problems can and do lead to different planning ‘responses’. Put bluntly this means that a spatially conceived problem will generate a spatially conceived prescrip­ tion for response. For example, the socio-economic problems o f many remote rural areas in developed countries in the mid 20th century were reflected by trends o f depopulation. Following the spatial model, these problems became characterized as ‘small town’ problems, and indeed a great deal o f useful empirical work has been produced which illustrates the changing living conditions experienced by people living in small towns (see, e.g., Swanson et al. 1979, Hodge & Q adeer 1983,Johanssen & Fuguitt 1984. However, the perception o f the problem has structured the response. The small town problem has tended to be converted into the response o f how to provide facilities in small towns (not, more specifically, to smalltowners). Throughout the developed world (as illustrated by the following chap­ ters) rural growth centres have been planned at various scales and with varying degrees o f success as spatial responses to the social problems in depopulating communities. It is therefore understandable and inevitable that when a reversal o f population trends in rural areas is detected as is now the case with the counterurbanization (or counterdepopulation - see Cloke 1985b) phenomenon governments will not only proclaim the success o f their planning policies but also, more importantly, withdraw from the need to plan because rural problems have somehow been ‘solved’. As studies o f the problems experienced by rural people have become more sophisticated, welfare-oriented concepts o f deprivation and dis­ advantage have assumed greater importance. Even so, these essentially social and economic problems have tended to have been imbued by the same spatial planning culture as described above. McLaughlin (1986) suggests that deprivation can be explained in two very different ways: (a)

A sociological model, which identifies the root causes o f deprivation within the structure o f society. From this perspective deprivation is

INTRODUCTION

(b)

5

derived from inequalities in the distribution o f social status and o f political and economic power. M oreover, the influx o f adventitious and affluent middle-class newcom ers within rural communities has heightened the relative deprivation o f non-propertied households, w hether relativity is recorded in subjective or objective terms. Social change in turn impacts upon resource allocations o f goods and ser­ vices in both the public and private sectors. Thus social differen­ tiation and stratification are view ed as causes o f rural deprivation (Newby et al. 1978). A planning or services model, which focuses on the decline in quality and quantity o f rural services in rural areas as the major key to the understanding o f rural deprivation. The impact o f service losses is experienced disproportionately by non-m obile and other disadvan­ taged groups, although attention has been paid to place-related pro­ vision o f access and service opportunities as the principal planned palliative (Moseley 1979, Shaw 1979).

These categories (along with the work from which they are derived) have been criticized by Lowe et al. (1986). Both models are seen as dem onstrat­ ing ‘crucial weaknesses’. In term s o f the sociological model: The emphasis on social conflict, adopted by Newby and his colleagues as the key to rural power structures, contradicts the idea o f a com ­ m unitarian rural idyll. Even so, the authors o f the sociological theory do not assess the role o f state interventions in contributing to the political and economic subordination o f the rural w orking class. W hilst it would be w rong to criticize this research for not directly addressing the relationship betw een social deprivation and state action since a study o f deprivation was never part o f the authors’ brief, the lack o f attention paid to state mediations o f power, property and social control is curious, (pp. 20-1) The point being made is a simple one, yet the rôle o f state intervention on behalf o f capital interests as opposed to other interests requires detailed consideration. Some discussion o f this point is offered in the next section o f this chapter, where questions are broached as to why and how planning and policy interventions take place w ithin the overall functions o f the state. The criticisms by Lowe et al. (1986: 21) o f the planning m odel o f deprivation reflect similar concerns: Shaw and Moseley, in their separate contexts, concentrate on what might be called ‘planned deprivation’ . . . Attention is focussed,

6

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE therefore, on planning as a state activity, o f which the distributional impact w ithin the civil society is unexplored. M oreover, questions o f the social distribution o f needs within rural communities, or o f the social determinants o f political expressions and responses to need, receive scant attention.

H ere again, attention is drawn to the distributional effects o f resource dis­ tribution and m arket regulation within the context o f the state, and clearly a view o f rural deprivation derived from political econom y approaches will be linked with sociostructural rather than spatial planning ‘responses’ to the problem. McLaughlin’s main aim in putting forward these two models o f depri­ vation appears to have been to drive hom e the argum ent that governm ent policy in Britain has interpreted rural deprivation w ithin the context o f service provision. He shows that the em ergence o f rural deprivation as a political issue in the 1970s was, in fact, closely linked to a campaign by some rural local authorities against the urban bias in the allocation o f financial support from central governm ent. By correlating rural depri­ vation with declining rural services and hence with declining spending pow er enjoyed by rural local authorities, deprivation was being used as a crude but effective political lever. Perhaps m ore importantly, it clearly directed governm ent responses into a spatial rather than social realm. McLaughlin (1986: 292) concludes: By focusing the problem analyses and subsequent policy prescriptions on the issue o f rural areas as poor places and on questions o f service decline per se the policy debate on rural deprivation has largely ignored crucial questions about the particular groups and individuals within rural areas who gain or lose as a result o f service policies . . . the key issues o f differential standards o f living and quality o f life in rural areas and the resource distribution processes affecting them have also been ruled o ff the agenda. There are important implications from this deprivation debate for the w ider relationship betw een rural problem s and planning and policy making. Firstly, if we over-readily accept planning policies for rural areas in terms o f their own objectives, then our understanding o f rural planning will be both superficial and sterile. Equally, if w e assume that planning and policy activities reflect rational and logical ‘responses’ to rural problems, there is a grave risk o f ignoring the overriding functions and roles o f the state which imbue that part o f state activity which we call planning. If deprivation is to be seen in purely spatial planning terms then the evalu­ ations o f spatial policies concerning key settlements and accessibility might

INTRODUCTION

7

perm it rather optimistic and congratulatory evaluations o f rural planning during the 1970s and early 1980s. But as deprivation is now seen by most to have far-reaching derivations in terms o f the pow er relations in state and society, the planning and policy-m aking activities in rural areas should be evaluated in these state and societal contexts. W hat is true for rural deprivation applies to all other problems experienced by rural people. Preconceptions o f the role o f planning within the state context should therefore be carefully acknowledged and understood prior to any evaluation o f the success o f policies and plans for rural people.

The state, planning and intervention Peter H all’s description o f planning as ‘all things to all m en’ assumes added significance when to the various definitions o f planning are added the various conceptualizations o f planning context. It would be inappropriate here to offer a detailed discussion o f the many contem porary theories o f the state. Excellent reviews are available elsewhere from Saunders (1979), Dunleavy (1980), Cooke (1983), C lark & D ear (1984) and Ham & Hill (1984), and a detailed discussion o f rural areas in this context has been tackled by Cloke & Little (in press). It is im portant, however, in the introduction to a series o f international essays on planning for rural people to present a b rief account o f the nature and role o f planning intervention as seen from different perspectives.

T H E N A T U R E O F PLA N N IN G

Healey et al. (1982: 18) offer a succinct list o f the various elements o f plan­ ning which have been commonly recognized in various attempts at definition: (a)

an activity o f a particular type (such as rational procedures for the identification and selection o f policy alternatives); (b) an activity undertaken by a particular type o f institution, such as governm ent (as opposed to the market); (c) an activity involving the guidance or regulation o f particular classes o f events and objects (as in the regulation o f land use); (d) an activity undertaken by people w ho consider themselves to be plan­ ners or to be undertaking planning (the subjective ‘planning is what a planner does’, and the objective ‘planning is what people recognise as what planners do’).

8

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE

Such activities represent a fam iliar am algam w hich com m entators and analysts have readily in corporated into th eir evaluations o f the progress and success o f planning in rural areas. T hese d efined rôles, how ever, o ffer a ra th e r restricted overview o f planning unless the relevance o f the u n d e r­ lying policy context is also m ade explicit. T h e re fo re o u r view o f the nature o f planning should also seek to take account o f the w ider aspects o f policy planning systems. In a recent review , H am b leto n (1986: 144) has p ro d u ced a series o f four propositions about the rôle and o p eratio n o f policy planning systems:

0)

policy planning system s are in te n d e d to pro m o te m ore ‘ra tio n al’ approaches to public policy m aking; policy planning system s are w ays o f stru ctu rin g interorganizational relationships and conflicts w hich lead to the advantage o f som e p ar­ ties and to the disadvantage o f o th e r parties; policy planning system s are instrum ents o f central policy control; policy planning system s are central g overnm ent instrum ents for re ­ straining local social spending a n d /o r for channelling spending in favour o f econom ic priorities.

( 2)

(3 ) (4 )

Figure 1.1 dem onstrates b o th the theo retical underpinnings o f each o f these propositions and the m ajor areas o f im plem entation w hich they im pact upon. In a discussion o f these four propositions in the B ritish context, H am bleton first notes that, although policy planning system s w ere originally intended to pro m o te rational approaches to public policy Figure 1.1

Understanding policy planning systems: a conceptual map.

T H E O R E T IC A L P E R S P E C T IV E S

M A IN P R O P O S ITIO N S P o lic y p la n n in g syste m s are

V

P roce du ral

1. In te n d e d to p ro m o te m ore

p la n n in g

‘ra tio n a l1 a p p ro a c h e s to p u b lic

th eo ry

po lic y m aking

__1. T h e po licy m e ssa g e _ 2 . A d m in istra tive

2. W a y s o l s tructurin g inter-

a rra n g e m e n ts

org a n is a tio n a l re la tio n s h ip s and

2. Intero rg a n is a tio n th e o ry


g loca l s ocia l s p e n d in g a n d /o r fo r c h a n n e llin g s pe nd ing in fa v o u r of e c o n o m ic p n o ritie s

Source:

5. P o w e r an d

C e n tra l go v e rn m e n t intru m e nts

H am b leto n (1986: 145).

-

p o litic s

INTRODUCTION

9

making, there has been an erosion o f this focus because o f the increasing awareness o f the politicized nature o f the planning process. Secondly, he confirms that interorganizational relationships have been structured in favour o f central governm ent and the interests they represent, although he advises that care should be taken in this area o f analysis as planning systems overall are relatively powerless instruments for tackling entrenched interests within society. Thirdly, Ham bleton suggests that policy planning systems have not been used to a great extent as instruments o f central policy control. Rather, the central government has chosen to make use o f specific sectoral legislation, relating for example to housing, transport and so on, which does a m ore efficient jo b o f extending central control. Planning has therefore been bypassed in this respcct and tends to be viewed by govern­ ment as a limited but useful channel for central-local negotiation and bargaining. Lastly, the role o f planning as a restraint on local expenditure is rejected by Ham bleton. Again, the formal planning system has been bypassed by m ore specific legislation and by government practices such as cash limits. The role o f planning here has often been to direct where cuts should be im plemented. Figure 1.1 re fle as that the activities o f planning are responsive to the underlying policy aims o f the state agencies concerned. In turn, these policy aims will be conditioned by the form and function o f the state o f which planning and policy making are but one part o f the apparatus. Different views o f the function o f the state will offer different explanations for state intervention through planning and policy making. Three different snapshot views are now presented in order to demonstrate the wide vari­ ations in the potential explanation o f the state’s desired function for plan­ ning intervention. It is readily admitted that this is neither a comprehensive nor representative selection. Nevertheless, many o f the major discussive issues arise from these views o f intervention. STATE IN T E R V E N T IO N . T H E M ARKET A N D T H E IN D IV ID U A L

Many o f the m ore liberal views o f planning intervention stem from welfare economics. Willis (1980: 30), for example, describes the underlying prin­ ciples to this genre o f intervention: A num ber o f assumptions are necessary for social welfare to be maxi­ mised in the free market economy. W here these assumptions do not hold, a pure free market economy is not optimal for achieving this and government intervention is normally suggested. The most frequently recognized imperfections in a free m arket economy arc that

10 • • • •

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE the world is not one o f universal com petition, many natural monopolies exist, externalities (social costs) exist, income inequalities exist,

and intervention has traditionally been justified in terms o f the Pareto function, which claims to describe an efficient situation w hereby no welfare benefit may be added to an individual or group w ithout some other individual or group losing out. Planning intervention derived from the desire to overcom e market imperfections can, with the eye o f faith, be seen to have pursued three separate yet interrelated directions: a rule-m aking and enforcem ent policy strategy has been developed to cope w ith comm on property or externality problems; a public investment strategy has been pursued to augment capital and resource stocks for collective consumption (for example in roads, housing and so on); and a conservation strategy has been concocted to deal w ith the conflicting desired use o f environm ental resources, for instance by developers and ecologists. If the motive and objective o f planning intervention be this kind o f regulation o f m arket imperfection, then planning is certainly the subject o f political threat in many W estern nations w here political opinion has slid to the right and capital interests have seized the opportunity once m ore to hide behind the m arket as a mechanism o f ‘fair’ resource allocations. In these terms one m ethod o f ‘im proving’ planning is to reduce (or at least give the impression o f doing so) the im perfections o f the m arket, thereby reducing the need for planning. Thus better planning equals less planning. Such reforms are commonly underw ritten by a comparison o f market imperfections and political im perfections. For instance, W illis (1980: 257-8) suggests that there is a growing tendency in planning to use political rather than market mechanisms to resolve social and individual p ro b lem s. . . New political power is far more concentrated and unevenly distributed than market power even can be, and there is not a great deal that can be said in favour o f it. Such arguments, although attractive to many, appear to take little account o f the confluence o f political and econom ic power which many theor­ eticians would regard as being enjoyed by various fractions o f the capitalist classes. Supporters o f the m arket mechanism purport to maximize the interests o f the individual: In the economic m arket, each o f us can decide for himself. W ithin the

INTRODUCTION

11

limits o f our income, we can be sure that what we vote for with our dollars w e g e t . . . That is w hy the econom ic m arket is so far the only mechanism available that provides real individual democracy. (Fried­ man 1975: 7) Yet for many rural people ‘within the limits o f our incom e’ is the most important and constraining factor in this argument. Equally, the logical progression o f the more-market-less-planning approach is to tie beneficiaries to costs through a system o f charging policies connected to any planning projects undertaken. W illis (1980: 259) suggests that such a policy would ‘rupture the linkage that sustains the ability o f vested power to dominate public resources and environm ental policy through the political process’. An alternative view would be that those who control the market represent a central elem ent o f this vested power and that any charging policies would in practice be used further to discriminate betw een those who can pay and those who cannot. For example, if the cost o f conserving small rural settle­ ments in pressured locations was to be charged to the beneficiaries, that is the residents o f those settlements, such a policy would m erely accelerate the existing trends o f social polarization w hereby only the affluent gentry can afford to buy housing and other opportunities in these places. These reform s to the welfare economics basis for planning intervention are currently an increasingly im portant com ponent o f political currency in many W estern nations. C herry (1982: 114) notes the existence o f rightwing political proposals based on the assertion that ccrtain private markets can be effectively self-regulating, without the need for much state supervision or guidance. ‘Planning free zones’ have therefore been advocated, favouring private markets in health, housing, education, welfare and land. If the state function dictates this r61e for planning, then specific expla­ nations can be put forward for any attempts to remove or subdue any exist­ ing planning m achinery for rural areas.

T H E STATE O N T H E SIDELINES: IN T E R V E N T IO N IN A M IX E D E C O N O M Y

Another view o f the function o f the state (thereby encapsulating the func­ tion o f planning) characterizes the state’s activities as protecting and re­ producing existing social structures and existing social relations o f production (Mandel 1975). Planning intervention in this context would depend very much on w hether such protection and reproduction was in some way aggregate in nature, and therefore potentially for the benefit o f all individuals and groups in society, or w hether protection and reproduction

12

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE

w ere selective and beneficial only to specific pow erful interests. By accept­ ing the form er interpretation (i.e. aggregate protection and reproduction) the intervention roles perform ed by the state in terms o f planning and policy making can be outlined as (Clark & D ear 1984): (a) (b) (c) (d)

regulation o f the private market for the common good; arbitration o f competing bids for resources; adjustment o f the m arket according to the state’s own normative goals, in some form o f social engineering; guaranteeing the maximum freedom for individuals.

The key concept here is that the state acts as some form o f neutral and benevolent arbitrator deciding on the com m on good, translating this into normative goals and implementing them , in a rational m anner so as to maximize individual freedoms. Broadbent (1977) has painted this kind o f picture in his analysis o f the three estates - the state, private (profit) sector firms and households constituting the labour force - in economic planning. He argues that the mixed economy is preserved only by ensuring that the private sector remains profitable and thus in a condition to reinvest: For this reason the state does not invade possible profitable areas and tries not to take an entrepreneurial role; it remains on the sidelines, re­ sponding to the market - providing grants and incentives to firms (such as in regional policy) - and sometimes tries to put m ore o f the burden o f taxation on to the population or to reduce the costs o f social services by reducing their quality, (p. 240) Again, a key question here is w hether pow er relations within the state are indeed as pluralist as these characteristics o f neutrality and lack o f direct involvement imply. If power is available to all sectors o f society through democratic processes, then it can be suggested that the state will not be per­ m itted to generate any consistent bias towards particular classes. Thus plan­ ning is the absolute servant o f Benthamite democracy, and will only indulge in adjustment or regulation o f m arket trends w ithin the constraints o f the need for profit for reinvestm ent, and within the dictates o f m ajority requirements. Catanese, an American planner, argues this case most strongly: Planning is in the service o f individuals in the comm unity. W hen the planner disagrees with the majority o f those individuals, he or she should leave that role. Some argue against this assertion and insist that the planner should be an agent o f change, even if that means radical and

INTRODUCTION

13

revolutionary change. That means that the planner is charged with the responsibility for societal change. W hen the change is an attem pt to reorder basic values, however, something is w rong in the concept o f public service. The only way out is for someone else to do the plan­ ning . . . If the values o f a comm unity are so corrupt that constitutional rights or moral order are imperiled then the m ore appropriate change is through the political or legal process. Unless the planner is directly par­ ticipating in those processes, he or she should not be trying to refute the beliefs o f the community. (Catanese 1984: 39). Evidently, attitudes such as these reflect a protection and reproduction o f societal status quo through planning. A major criticism o f this approach, however, has arisen from analyses o f the assumed pluralist power relations which underlie the state-on-the-sidelines view. N ew by (1979), for example, suggests that in the British example o f rural planning there was initially a progressive Fabian desire for reform o f the laissez-faire approach which had prevailed up to the late 1940s. The intention was to avoid the social injustices o f developm ent patterns sponsored by the operation o f an unfettered market. But the results o f planning intervention based on these objectives have been very different from those anticipated. The planning system designed to m eet the needs o f the least fortunate has had the opposite effect: So far it has been the most privileged members o f English rural society who have benefited most from the operation o f the planning system in rural areas, while the poor and deprived have gained comparatively little. (Newby 1979: 237). Such outcomes should not be blamed on rural planners perse, but both pro­ fessionals and politicians have failed to ensure that their actions were pre­ scribed by any philosophy o f distributive justice. Similarly, Ambrose (1986), when reviewing planning in postwar Britain, concludes that from the view point o f the ‘public at large’ the achievements o f state intervention have been largely tactical and lim ited in impact. M oreover, although planning alongside the welfare state has exhibited a sometimes paternalistic, sometimes legitim ating token compassion for the lower classes, the greatest proportionate benefits from planning inter­ vention have been enjoyed by corporate business enterprises. A planning system which some at least perceived to be able to stand up against capital interests as form ulated in the late 1940s has been totally inadequate as a check on the continued process o f accumulation driven by much reorganized and restructured units o f capitalist production.

14

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE

IN T E R V E N T IO N O N BEHALF O F C A PITA L A N D CLASS

A different view o f state intervention through planning and policy m aking is offered i f the state’s function o f protection and reproduction is operated selectively in favour o f particular interests. Given the w idespread critique o f pluralist pow er relations in the state and its planning function, w ider credance has been given by many to concepts o f state which emphasize: • • •

élitism, w here pow er is vested in m inority élite groups w ithin an institutional setting; managerialism, w here pow er is w ielded by professional bureaucrats and gatekeepers; structuralism, w here state pow er represents the current balance o f class interest.

In particular, structuralist views appear to offer a further perspective on planning intervention. If the balance o f interests favour m onopoly capital, as in Britain, then planning and policy w ithin the state will essentially fur­ nish the needs and interests o f capital. Alongside these m ajor objectives it w ould be expected that short-term and lim ited reform s w ould be introduced both as a legitim ation o f the balance o f pow er and to ensure the long-term interests o f the dom inant class. In these term s planning has been view ed alternatively as som e kind o f parasite w ith no real role in the structures o f econom ic production, or as an instrum ent o f class rule and a system o f political dom ination. Recent analyses stress this latter point: At the em pirical level there are clear signs that in the U.K. the planning system is passing from an emphasis upon containm ent and concentration w ith decentralization, towards a m ixture o f ‘strategies’, increasingly involving the regional and local state, and the central state operating in local space. T he clearest tendency is for the state to be assisting capital, in w hichever ways it can, to escape from the recent reduction in the pow er asym m etry betw een capital and labour. (C ooke 1983: 274) Holistic concepts o f rule and dom ination, how ever, appear oversim plified in their description o f a very com plex state phenom enon. M any studies (from Castells 1977 to C ockburn 1977 to Simmie 1981 and m any others) have dem onstrated that the state is not ju st a puppet o f capital interests and ruling classes. It has its ow n energy and pow er; it periodically acts against the interests o f particular capitalists in order to support others (Hague 1984); and it consists o f a complicated interplay o f managers and political and econom ic interests. A need has therefore been recognized to take account

INTRODUCTION

15

o f a state which is simultaneously founded in the social relations o f capitalism and capable o f generating pow er and authority o f its own (Clark & Dear 1984). Saunders (1979,1981) acknowledges this dualism in his categorization o f state functions: (a)

the sustenance of private production and accumulation by orchestrating demand, restructuring spatial aspects o f production, providing infra­ structure and so on; (b) the reproduction o f labour power through collective consumption; (c) the maintenance of social order and cohesion through political ‘partici­ pation’, coercion, support for economically surplus populations and by the provision o f legitim ating services such as education and health. Saunders extends this analysis by suggesting that state intervention occurs at two levels: (1) The corporate level w here intervention is im plem ented so as to favour capital interests. The m arket regulation o f agriculture through social investment policies is an example o f this level. (2) The competitive level where services are provided for dependent populations through consumption policies, for example, for housing provision. Using Saunders’s fram ework, the analysis o f planning and policy making for rural people can assume a different character o f explanation. Corporate level intervention can be interpreted as being very much wrapped up in the capitalist state and its fundamental support for capital interests. C om peti­ tive level intervention represents an arena where some autonomy from capitalism can occur, but only within the bands o f constraint established by the needs o f intervention at the corporate level. It might therefore be argued that postwar rural planning intervention in some nations such as Britain has been predom inantly at the corporate level, placing priority on the provision o f infrastructure for capital accumulation and on policies favour­ ing agricultural capital. Although there are now increasing levels o f con­ flict betw een different factions o f capital (hence the slow and often reluctant policy changes in agricultural support), the provision o f infra­ structure for industrial capital remains a high priority for developm ent planning and developm ent control. At the competitive level, intervention has been far less im portant than control, and this statem ent o f priorities represents a contextual expla­ nation for the apparent failure to secure radical social planning policies in

16

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE

rural areas. Furtherm ore, in recent years, the willingness o f the state to indulge in legitim ation policies o f social consum ption appears to be declining. Rural planning and policy-m aking conflicts are often illustrated as a tussle betw een physical land-use planning and socio-econom ic planning, w ith the latter heavily subjugated to the form er. It is perhaps m ore appro­ priate to characterize these issues in term s o f corporate and com petitive intervention. C orporate intervention for production has received high priority from the state because o f the underlying state function o f support­ ing capital interests and providing an appropriate environm ent for capital accum ulation. C om petitive intervention for consum ption represents the m inim um level required for legitim ation purposes, plus any additions derived from the relative autonom y o f the state w ithin the bounds set by its relations w ith capital interests.

The case studies W hat follows is a series o f case studies w hich attem pt, in the context o f par­ ticular nations, to evaluate past and present policies for rural people. Each chapter m akes an assessment o f the problem s experienced by such people, the planning mechanisms and policy-m aking systems w hich are em ployed to respond to these problem s, and the political and state contexts in which plans and policies are set. All except one o f the case studies are draw n from developed W estern nations in N o rth America, Europe and Australasia. The rationale here is to sample different sociopolitical contexts w ithin a range o f scale and econom ic developm ent. T he exception is Judith Pallot’s chapter on the USSR, which is included partly to seize upon the sociopoliti­ cal contrasts betw een the W est and Eastern bloc countries, and partly to highlight the fact that, at least superficially, som e com parative policies for rural people em erge from contrasting contexts. A m ore detailed analysis o f comparisons and contrasts is presented in the final chapter.

References Ambrose, P. 1986. Whatever happened to planning? London: Methuen. Broadbent, T. 1977. Planning and profit in the urban economy. London: Methuen. Castells, M. 1977. Towards a political urban sociology. In Captive cities: studies in the political economy oj cities and regions, M. Harloe (ed.), 61-78 Chichester: Wiley. Catanese, A.J. 1984. The politics oj planning anil development. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.

IN T R O D U C T IO N

17

Cherry, G. 1982. The politics o f town planning. Harlow: Longman. Clark, G. & M. Dear 1984. State apparatus: structures and language of legitimacy. Boston: Allen & Unwin. Cloke, P.J. 1985a. W hither rural studies? Journal of Rural Studies 1, 1-9. Cloke, P.J. 1985b. Counterurbanisation: a rural perspective. Geography 70, 13-23. Clokc, P.J. 1988. Rural geography and political economy. In New models in geography, R. Peet & N. Thrift (eds), London: Allen & Unwin. Cloke, P.J. & J.K. Little in press. The rural state? O xford: O xford University Press. Cloke, P. I. & C .C . Park 1985. Rural resource management. London: Croom Helm. Cockburn, C. 1977. I he local state, London: Pluto Press. Cooke, P. 1983. Theories of planning and spatial development. London: Hutchinson. Dunleavy, P. 1980. Urban political analysis: the politics of collective consumption. London: Macmillan. Friedman, M. 1975. There's no such thing as a free lunch. La Salle, 111.: O pen Court. Hague, C. 1984. The Development oj planning thought. London: Hutchinson. Hall, P. 1974. Urban and regional planning, Flarmondsworth: Penguin. Ham, C. & M. Hill 1984. The policy process in the modern capitalist state. Brighton: W heatsheaf Press. H am bleton, R. 1986. Rethinking policy planning. Bristol: School for Advanced Urban Studies. Healey, P., G. McDougall & M.J. Thomas 1982. Planning theory: prospects for the 1980s. O xford: Pergamon. Hodge, G. & M. Q adecr 1983. Towns and villages in Canada. Toronto: Butte rworth. Johanssen, H.E. & G.V. Fuguitt 1984. 7 he changing rural village in America. Cambridge: Ballinger. Lassey, W. 1977. Planning in rural environments, New York: McGraw-Hill. Lowe, P., T. Bradley & S. W right (cds) 1986. Deprivation and welfare in rural areas. Norwich: GeoBooks. Mandel, E. 1975. Late capitalism (translated edition). London: N ew Left Books. Massey, D. 1985. New directions in space. In Social relations and spatial structures, 9-19 D. Gregory & J. Urry (eds), London: Macmillan. McLaughlin, B. 1986. The rhetoric and reality of rural deprivation. Journal of Rural Studies 2, 291-308. Moseley, M.J. 1979, Accessibility: the rural challenge. London: Methuen. Newby, H. 1979. Green and pleasant land? Harmondsworth: Penguin. Newby, H ., C. Bell, D. Rose & P. Saunders 1978. Property, paternalism and power. London: Hutchinson. Saunders, P. 1979. Urban politics: a sociological interpretation. London: Hutchinson. Saunders, P. 1981. Com munity power, urban managerialism and the local state. In New perspectives in urban change and conjlict, M. Harloe (ed.), 27-49 London: Heinemann.

18

POLICIES A N D PLANS FO R RURAL PEOPLE

Shaw, J.M . (ed.) 1979. Rural deprivation and planning. Norwich: GeoBooks. Simmie, J. 1981. Power, property and corporatism: the political sociology of planning. London: Macmillan. Swanson, B.E., R.A. Cohen & E.P. Swanson 1979. Small towns and small towners. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage. Willis, K.G. 1980. The economics of town and country planning. London: Granada.

2

Britain

PAUL CLOKE

The political climate o f rural areas To describe and assess the policies and plans for rural people in Britain w ithout first understanding the prevailing political allegiances in these areas would be like evaluating the fate o f the Titanic w ithout m entioning the iceberg. Planning in Britain is inextricably linked to political decision making at ccntral, regional and local levels, and represents one aspect amongst many in the portfolio o f state activities. Analysis o f plans and policies therefore necessitates a full investigation o f the conccpts o f state form, function and apparatus (see Ch. 1, and Cloke & Little in press), and an awareness o f any variations in state activity due to party political changcs. There has been rem arkably little attention given to the rural aspects o f national governm ent political trends in Britain. In one o f the few specific analyses, Gilg (1984) suggests four main periods o f political attitudes to the British countryside: (1)

(2)

(3)

77te 1945-51 Labour government In this period, stability was granted to farmers under the 1947 Agriculture Act which provided price guarantees and grant-aid for investment. G overnm ent also directed postwar planning w ith the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act which established development plans at the county council level and introduced the need for developers to obtain planning permission from local authorities for most forms o f developm ent. The 1951-64 Conservative government O n the fall o f the Labour governm ent in 1951, the Conservative administration broadly followed on with these measures, although they were ideologically com m itted to a planning system which regulated rather than directed rural change. The 1964- 74 Labour and Conservative governments The 1964 Labour governm ent was m arked by a rather pragmatic stance on policy issues and so rural policies reflected a ‘m ore-of-thesame’ approach. The successor Conservative governm ent (1970) took a similarly centrist position but was responsible for reinforcing sup­

20

(4)

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE port for the agricultural sector via entry to the EEC in 1972. This period saw the introduction o f the ‘new ’ planning system in 1968 which opted for a broader, m ore flexible set o f county-level policies encased in structure plans, with detailed developm ent program m ing being allocated to the low er-tier districts in the form o f local plans. Vie 1974-82 Labour and Conservative governments W ith the world oil crisis and the onset o f economic depression, there was a broadly perceived need to relax planning controls and to encourage economic growth. For the first time an anti-farm ing lobby o f some significance showed its hand and began to argue against the positive discrimination granted to the agricultural economy. A major com ponent o f this lobby was the ‘new ’ adventitious rural resident whose buying power perm itted unrestricted entry into rural housing m arkets which were often rapidly escalating in price. Planning for rural people began to take the shape o f the marketplace as the ethic o f intervention became bound by econom ic rather than social objectives.

In his review o f these periods, Gilg (1984: 257) stresses that ‘there have been continuities in policy and attempts to provide integration’, and cer­ tainly it does appear from the main themes o f these four periods that vari­ ation in national party politics have not been reflected in varying rural policies. There is, however, a danger in accepting this conclusion w ithout reflecting on the functions o f the state (as opposed to governm ent per se) in rural areas. It could be argued with some validity that throughout the postwar period the state was acting despite potential political conflict to encourage the prom otion o f a flourishing environm ent for capital accumulation in agricultural, developm ent, and other industrial sectors. The ‘continuity’ o f policy therefore represents a failure on behalf o f Labour administrations to effect radical policy changes in order to inter­ vene against capital and class interests in rural areas which are part o f the natural political constituency o f the Conservative party. Therefore, all rural policies in the postwar period can be said to be conservative in nature. The accepted political issues have been over the degree o f conservatism which underlies rural policies. The activities o f the Thatcher governm ent have presented a rather m ore stark and high-profile example o f these state functions o f supporting capital and class interests, and therefore, rather than accepting 1974—82 as a useful political period, it is m ore beneficial to look at the beginnings o f Thatcherism in 1979 as a m arker o f a m ore signifi­ cant period o f political attitudes and activities.

BRITAIN

21

C onservative P a n y % share 1983 G en eral E lection I

: I less than 30%

0 3

30 - 39.9%

B l l 4 0 - 49.9% P IH

5 0 - 59.9%

Figure 2.1 Conservative voters in the 1983 General Election, percentages represent proportion o f votes cast. Source:

C o n te m p o ra ry re p o rts in The Times.

T H A T C H E R IS M

At the tim e o f w riting, the T hatcher governm ent has enjoyed tw o term s o f office and is approaching its next general election w ith some confidence. The 1983 election results not only produced a substantial Conservative majority o f seats in the H ouse o f C om m ons but also confirm ed the C on­ servative allegiances o f almost all rural areas in England (Fig. 2.1). In par­ ticular, the prosperous southern rural counties figured significantly as

22

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE Table 2.1

Scotland W ales N orth M idlands South

Relationships between votes and regions, 1983.

Conservative

Labour

Alliance

O thers

22 34 39 52 53

45 40 37 27 19

23 23 24 22 28

10 3 0 0 0

100% 100% 100% 101% 100%

(N = 280) (¡V = 167) (N = 8 1 2 ) (N = 573) (N = 1217)

Source: Heath et at. (1985: 75).

strong supporters o f the Thatcher ticket. The Conservative vote in the economically more marginal regions (Scotland, W ales and the N orth) was m arkedly lower (Table 2.1), and so the two separate nations within Britain began to crystallize. In spatial terms the idea o f two nations is descriptive but crude. A better impression o f the ‘have’ and ‘have-not’ divide is shown by analyses o f the relationships betw een class, neighourhood and vote, such as that in Table 2.2. Using the simple aggregated classifications developed by H eath et al. (1985), all classes in ‘salaried’ neighbourhoods, all classes except working classes in ‘m ixed’ neighbourhoods and salaried classes in ‘working-class’ neighbourhoods have dem onstrated a clear propensity towards voting Conservative rather than for the other two major parties. The two nations concepts should therefore also be interpreted in neighbourhood and class terms as well as w ithin the broader-scalc spatial fram ework. As discussed in the next section, rural areas are typically rep­ resented by a high proportion o f salaried and other classes than working class, and therefore in all but marginal areas have clear majorities o f ‘haves’ rather than ‘have-nots’ in T hatcher’s two nations. Rural conservatism in all its forms creates a political environm ent with two im portant and interrelated characteristics: (1)

(2)

The majority o f rural people have made a conscious decision to live in the countryside and have few complaints regarding the standard o f their own life-style and welfare. They are m ore interested in policies to conserve the landscape in which they live than policies to raise standards o f living for the m inority o f deprived or disadvantaged resi­ dents in rural areas. The m ajority o f rural people are therefore content w ith the pro­ visions o f Thatcherism and will to various extents continue to lend political support to central governm ent, even if particular policy decisions - such as that to rem ove the presum ption against develop­ ment on productive agricultural land - are divisive betw een different class and capital fractions which normally give support to the Conservatives.

BRITAIN Table 2.2

23

Relationships between votes, class and neighbourhood, 1983.

salaried individuals in salaried w ards in m ixed w ards in w orking-class wards interm ediate-class individuals in salaried wards in m ixed w ards m w orking-class w ards w orking-class individuals in salaried w ards in m ixed w ards in w orking-class w ards

C onservative

Labour

Alliance

O thers

55 60 48

10 16 22

34 24 30

1 0 0

100% ( N = 419) 100% (N = 233) 100% (N = 156)

60 57 41

15 19 33

25 2.3 26

0 1 1

100% (N = 413) 100% (,V = 407) 101% (N = 290)

49 37 22

23 40 61

28 24 17

0 0 1

100% (N = 177) 101% (N = 264) 101% (N = 435)

Source: H eath et til. ( 1VSS: 77).

These characteristics are conflated and ovcrgcneralized, but they do help explain the apparent acquiescence of rural people to the policies o f the T hatcher governm ent. Thatcherism in Britain represents a radical political swing away from the previous postwar adm inistrations. It has proclaim ed the need to m odernise the econom y, w ith high public spending as one o f the obstacles to the generation, in a com petitive m arket econom y, o f new, private initiative . . . T he new Conservatism com bined an attack on w hat it considered the m isapplication o f funds . . . w ith a com m itm ent to prom oting greater efficiency through the com petition of the m arket place and reduced public control. W hile in theory intolerant o f excessive levels o f state planning and adm inis­ tration, the paradox o f the new conservatism was that it had to strengthen the hand o f the state in order to im plem ent its policies. (Ryder & Silver 1985: 3 35-6) This paradox has im portant im plications for planning and policy making. Firstly, it should be stressed that, unlike m any other governm ents facing fiscal and welfare state crises, central governm ent has assumed increasing levels of pow er over local governm ent (Goldsm ith 1986). It has even

24

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE

moved to abolish m etropolitan councils whose Labour-controlled adminis­ trations and policies represented a threat to central power. In particular, over the Thatcher years there have been strong controls over local govern­ ment expenditure which have limited the discretion and autonom y avail­ able to local-level planners and policy-makers. Secondly, despite these trends o f centralization, local government and not central governm ent con­ tinues to bear most o f the responsibility for service delivery in most key areas o f the welfare state, including housing, education and social services. Service provision agencies in the public sector are thus becom ing further rem oved from the centre ot political power, and central governm ent policies o f public expenditure reduction, privatization o f state services, and an elfective reduction in the scope o f the welfare state place Britain in a high-profile, right-w ing political context. Local governm ent in rural areas ot Britain is solidly under Conservative control in the heartland counties of the South Midlands, East Anglia and Southern England (Fig. 2.2). Although in some county councils an upsurge of Alliance (the m iddle-of-the-road party) support in 1983 has resulted in a loss o f overall control by the Conservatives, it remains the case that it is only those counties on the margins (for example, in Scotland and Wales) and those influenced by urban constituencies in the north o f England (for example, Lancashire and Cumbria) where any potential policies for local rural areas might arise from non-Conscrvativc councils. Even so, with increasing trends o f centralization, local governments not in Conservative control arc heavily constrained to conform to central governm ent require­ ments in matters o f finance, service provision and local policy making. In counties under Conservative control the acceptance ofT hatcherite policies is becom ing ever stronger, particularly because the old-style Conservative politicians in such authorities (often drawn largely trom the farming and landowning fraternities) are being replaced by the new Town Tories drawn from the adventitious in-migrant service classes. Any understanding o f policies and plans for rural people in Britain should be set against this specific background o f political power relations.

Changes and problems in rural areas Changes in rural society and resultant problem s have been fully discussed in a num ber of recent books (Pacionc 1984, Phillips & W illiams 1984, Cloke & Park 1985, Gilg 1983a, Ix>we et al. 1986), and further detailed analysis would be inappropriate here. It is necessary, however, to place the ensuing discussions o f rural policies in the broad context of rural problems

BRITAIN

25

County Council control May 19X3 Labour n

Conservatives

B

l.iheral-SD P Alliance

□

Independents and others

□

No overall control

F igure 2.2 Sonne:

Political control o f county councils, 1983. The municipal yearbook.

in Britain. Briefly, the key them es here are counterurbanization, social polarization, resource rationalization and rural deprivation, although the interrelationships betw een these trends are as im portant as the individual com ponents. Counterurhamzation was highlighted in the 1981 Census which show ed a population upheaval in rem ote rural areas which had previously been characterized by trends o f depopulation (Cham pion 1981, Robert & Randolph 1983). Table 2.3 shows C ham pion’s breakdow n of census data into five rural clusters which differentiate betw een districts in Scotland and

26

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE

Table 2.3

Population change in rural local authorities, 1961-81, by cluster type

C luster

7

Rural W ales and Scottish Islands Rural, m ainly W est Rural, m ainly East Rural, mainly S cotland

8 9 10

Subtotal T w o rural gro w th areas T otal

N u m b er o f districts

1981 population 000s

Percentage p o pulation change 1961-71 1971-81 D ifference

16

645

-0 .2

7.0

7.2

32

2009

7.2

8.8

1.6

31 23

2411 911

15.0 - 1 .9

12.7 9.3

-2 .3 11.1

102

6056

7.5

10.2

2.7

31

2872

22.0

8.6

- 1 3 .4

133

8928

11.8

9.7

-2 .1

Source: C ham pion (1981: 21).

W ales (rem ote), in W est and East England (less rem ote) and peri-urban England (least rem ote). This analysis uncovers a population revival in the rem oter areas, a broad continuity o f grow th in the less rem ote areas, and a failure by the least rem ote areas to m aintain previous grow th levels. This population turnaround has been linked w ith analyses o f urban-torural industrial shifts (Kceble 1980, Fothergill & Gudgin 1982, 1983, Massey & M eegan 1982). Rural areas in general (although ‘ru ral’ here has been at tim es carelessly defined) have been show n to be the principal recipients o f new m anufacturing grow th during the 1970s, in distinct con­ trast to the decline in m anufacturing w hich has occurred in inner m etro­ politan areas. T here are also other factors involved in the rural population turnaround (C loke 1985), including w ider issues o f retirem ent, unem ploy­ m ent and long-distance com m uting, as well as changes in o ther industrial sectors, particularly service em ploym ent and self-em ploym ent. These changes m ay profitably be explained by stressing the centrality o f capital accum ulation as the engine o f social form ation. In the search for surplus value, capital units w ill generate unbalanced trends o f grow th and decline and w ill restructure production so as to overcom e any barriers to accum ulation. R estructuring often involves a relocation o f production to currently ‘favourable’ environm ents, and during the 1970s some rural areas represented such favourable environm ents for accum ulation because o f inexpensive and com pliant labour forces and localized state subsidies (Bradley & Lowe 1984). By contrast to capital m obility, labour has rem ained relatively im m obile and so recom position o f local civil society

BRITAIN

27

has taken place as restructuring has led to societal conflict. Rees (1984: 27) has stressed that Changes in rural em ploym ent structures are central to any understand­ ing o f the reality o f rural social life . . . Employm ent changes them ­ selves have resulted in radical developm ents in terms o f rural class structures, gender divisions, the forms o f political conflict occurring in rural areas and, indeed, o f the complex processes by which 'rural cultures’ are produced and reproduced. If the irresolvable conflict betw een capital and labour is to be viewed as central to rural change, as analysis in the political economy genre would suggest, then the definition o f planning objectives for rural people, and indeed the identification o f the problem atic (Cloke 1988), have to be reconsidered. As Healey (1982: 187) has pointed out: The notion o f irresolvable conflict thus underm ines many concepts dear to planners, such as the ‘general interest’ or a ‘balanced strategy’. It is this dilemma which underlies discussions o f ‘problem s’ experienced by rural people. O n the one hand, the m ajority o f rural people m ight be described as relatively ‘problem -free’ in that increasingly they have chosen to live in rural settlements and are sufficiently wealthy to purchase their life-style w ithout any regulation by planning o f housing, service or labour markets. O n the other hand, there remains both a remnant o f the form er agricultural basis o f rural society, who are trapped in the locality due to low-paid employm ent, old age and lack o f resources (Newby 1981), and the nouveaux pauvres, whose decision to live in those parts o f the countryside where housing and land m arkets permit enforces a life o f relative poverty due to lack o f earning power. The result is social polarization in many rural areas, with planning restrictions on new housing developm ent in small set­ tlements leading to those settlements becom ing residentially desirable, to an escalation o f house prices, and to a rapid gentrification o f local society. Alongside the gentry, deprivation exists amongst the rem nant and riouveaux pauvres fractions o f communities. McLaughlin’s (1986) study o f deprivation in five case study areas in England recorded 25% o f households as living in or on the margins o f poverty.1 M oreover, similar proportions o f deprived groups were found in study areas in the thriving south o f the country as in the more depressed north. McLaughlin’s (1986: 294) conclusions are an important contribution to the debate over social polarization:

28

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE Apart from the stark contrast which such findings provide for popular images o f affluence which characterise rural areas, they also illustrate the extent to which the rural poor have become statistically marginalised. In contrast to the situation in the historic past w'here poverty is identified as a shared experience for the majority o f the rural population . . . in the late 20th century the rural poor occupy the position o f a m inority group (albeit a substantial minority).

Should planning and policy making then be directed towards the needs and objectives o f the middle-class majority? If so, policies for conservation o f settlements would be param ount and planning intervention would only be necessary in a negative mode. O r should policies be geared towards the disadvantaged m inority, either in terms o f individual subsidies through benefit or taxation systems or by the spatial provision o f housing and ser­ vice opportunities in the places where they live? To a large extent the crux of the m atter o f rural policies for the m inority has been sidestepped because o f the high profile given to the problem of the rationalization of resources in rural areas. The loss o f services in both the public and private sectors, and the need tor rural planning to develop strategies o f oppor­ tunity provision throughout the hierarchy of rural settlements, has induced a definite spatial perspective to policies. By centralizing service delivery into rural growth points and protecting smaller settlements from over­ developm ent, the needs o f all rural people can be seen to be responded to. Incidentally (or as a m atter o f political power relations) any prospect o f social rather than spatial policies tor the deprived is rendered unnecessary by this emphasis. Spatial policies can be dem onstrated to be for the good o f all rural society, whereas specific social policies tor the deprived would be divisive and politically unacceptable in rural Britain, given the political context described above. Formal policies Jor farm populations Thirty years of agricultural expansion - which had brought great pros­ perity to a few farmers, a better standard o f living for many, and tor the small and marginal farmers continued hardship and often bankruptcy came to an abrupt halt in the mid-1980s. A disenchanted public, a criti­ cal Treasury and a self-destructive farming lobby conspired to bring about an agricultural revolution which imaginative farmers were already presaging and economists and environmentalists were pleading for. (Pye-Smith & N orth 1984: 128). At the end o f their book Working the land, Pye-Smith and N orth present an analysis o f British agriculture as they predict that it will look in the year

BRITAIN

29

2000. Central to this prognosis is that the mid-1980s will represent an im portant watershed in policies for agriculture. This prediction has proved a sound one. Governm ent policy for rural areas in postwar Britain has been dom inated by the construction o f a political system of agricultural support. The drive for increasing productivity, technical sophistication and economic efficiency in agriculture has created a cushioned environm ent for many farmers. A fourfold increase in production has resulted, based on a transformation o f farming from old-fashioned arcadia to agribusiness o f a rationalized and capital-intensive nature (Edwards & Rogers 1974, Beresford 1975, Newby 1979). New by (1979) details two major objectives which underlie state inter­ vention in agriculture: (1) (2)

to maintain income levels o f fanners so that potential out-m igration from the agricultural industry could be regulated; to maintain the stability and efficiency o f agriculture.

He highlights the internal contradictions which have beset policies based on these objectives: Securing the low-income problems o f farmers meant essentially keep­ ing marginal producers in business, yet the whole logic o f the other aim o f increasing efficiency was to drive them out of business in order to prom ote amalgamations and economies o f scale . . . to redirect money to those farmers who most needed it would be to perpetuate the uneconomic and the inefficient. This was and is the classic dilemma o f state support. (Newby 1979: 112). Nevertheless, the 1947 Agriculture Act established a system o f deficiency payments by which farmers received a guaranteed price for their com ­ modities at a level which ensured their profitability, and after entry into the EEC similar aims o f state support were pursued through direct interven­ tion in the market. Thus, for nearly 40 years in postwar Britain central government policies have been comm itted to the upkeep o f the particular fractions o f the rural population who were involved in the continuing process o f agricultural production. In so doing, certain interests were favoured while others in the countryside were left to fend for themselves in an unprotected rural marketplace. There have been clear ‘losers’ amongst the rural population because of state policies for agriculture. Perhaps most importantly, the wholesale capital substitution o f labour has displaced the em ploym ent for agricultural workers which had previously been indispensable for the

30

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE

economic raison d’être o f rural settlements and communities. Loss o f farm jobs sponsored the trends o f out-m igration and depopulation which characterized many rural areas in the 1960s and 1970s. Some form er farm workers (particularly the more elderly) did not move out, however, and have since constituted a major elem ent o f the contem porary rural de­ prived. Even those farm w'orkers who have clung onto their jobs have been losers in some respects. Although they have escaped unem ploym ent, their wages have lagged behind those in other economic sectors. New by (1981: 231) regards these groups as ‘a residual population the flotsam o f agricultural change’. Governm ent policies have sponsored radical changes in the composition of rural society without compensatory intervention on behalf of this residual, whose needs have not been considered im portant and whose plight has been viewed as a short-term issue in the inevitable transition period between the old farm-based rural society and the new m arket-oriented conditions for rural living. The other main losers from central governm ent agricultural policies have been within the farming fraternity itself. A com bination o f under­ w ritten production and incentives for capital investment, particularly in mechanization, has forced farmers into agricultural systems where capital accumulation and investment are param ount. Small farmers have been un­ able to compete with their bigger brothers in these respects and have suf­ fered accordingly. Blunden & Curry (1985) highlight the plight o f the upland livestock farmers who arc less capitalized than the cereal barons, whose products have not been central to the state’s price support measures, who arc susceptible to EEC measures such as quota systems, and who are equally susceptible to the potential dangers of bigger lowland farmers switching to livestock production if quotas are placed on arable pro­ duction. M oreover, the National Farmers Union, which has been so suc­ cessful in presenting the farm ers’ case to governm ent, has tended to present the interests o f large rather than small farmers. Indeed, it has been acqui­ escent in the formation o f agricultural policies which have squeezed small farmers out o f production. The distributional effects o f agricultural policy have largely been ignored by central government policy-makers, who have peddled the myth that a successful and productive agricultural industry benefits everyone and ensures a happy and a healthy countryside. In reviewing the different groups which together constitute deprivation and disadvantage in rural areas, Newby (1981: 226) notes: It is possible to trace a chain o f events from the political economy o f m odern agriculture to the problems encountered by each o f these groups, yet the formulation o f agricultural policy has mostly ignored the possible external consequences and at best been indifferent to them.

BRITAIN

31

The agricultural ‘revolution’ o f the mid-1980s, signalled by Pye-Smith and N orth among others, has certainly not occurred because o f a political change o f heart over the distributional impacts o f previous policies. It is a powerful com bination o f concern over the potentially calamitous effects o f overproduction on EEC agricultural support policies and the realization that up to 20% o f Britain’s farmland could be redundant given current levels o f agricultural production (Centre for Agricultural Strategy 1986) that has precipitated policy changes in early 1987. O ne o f the major pro­ posed changes has been a relaxation o f planning controls in the countryside. The existing presumption against development on agricultural land is now to be withdraw n, except for the top two grades o f agricultural land and for environm entally élite areas such as national parks. The ramifications o f any such policy move will depend very much on central governm ent’s own advice to its planning inspectors. If developm ent pro­ posals do accelerate on previously protected land, and if local planning authorities resist these proposals, then it will be when developers take recourse to the appeal procedure when governm ent inspectors will rule whether a surge o f developm ent is to be perm itted. Clearly, however, the dom ination enjoyed by agricultural capital over the planning and policy systems operating in rural areas has been dealt a blow by these proposals. As a balance to these planning control proposals, the Minister o f Agriculture, Michael Jopling, announced in early 1987 a £25 million package ot proposals designed to buttress the rural economy. Recognizing the need to help farmers to diversify their econom ic interests because sub­ sidized agriculture will no longer provide the unfailing support that it has in the past, the Minister has proposed a num ber o f policies under the codename ALURE (Alternative Land Use and the Rural Economy): •

• •

•

jflO million to prom ote farm woodlands, offering payments to farmers for new planting, much o f which will be o f coniferous species; £ 3 million to prom ote traditional forestry on farms; ( 1 million to double the num ber o f Environmentally Sensitive Areas to 18, wherein farmers are subsidized to undertake appropriate farm ­ ing practices; £ 5 million for economic diversification and marketing.

For farmers, many o f whom are for the first time threatened by the partial removal o f state ‘featherbedding’ policies, the ‘com pensation’ offered by these ALURE proposals represents a drop in the ocean, and indeed Michael Jopling was given an unprecedented vote o f censure by the National Farmers Union in early 1987. These proposals have a long way to run, but

32

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE

once again it can be seen that agricultural policies, designed for the farm population, have secured the priorities in central governm ent’s policy m aking for rural areas. It is this underlying policy bias which helps to make sense o f other formal planning policies for rural people in Britain.

Statutory planning policies Jor rural people The formal planning system established in 1947 was built around the p ro ­ gressive political aims o f helping the less w ell-off, but its im pact in rural areas has not reflected these aims. N ew by (1981: 228-9) explains this paradox: T he traditional English reverence for the rural way o f life has ensured that precisely what it was that was being preserved has never been exam ined too closely. T here has been a fallacious b elief that the ‘traditional rural way of life’ was beneficial to all rural inhabitants, an influential but unexam ined assum ption w'hich was the product o f an unholy alliance betw een the farm ers and landow'tiers w ho politically controlled rural England and the radical m iddle-class reform ers w ho form ulated the post-w ar legislation. Since the enabling legislation in 1947, form al planning in rural areas has been undertaken by local authorities and has incorporated a strategy o f resource concentration into grow th centres (C lokc 1979, 1983). The original adoption and continued popularity o f these policies stems from a political perception of the econom ies o f resource allocation during periods o f financial restriction. Accordingly, the presum ption that resource con­ centration strategies will achieve econom ies o f scale because ‘bigger will be cheaper’ has proved im m ensely attractive in policy-m aking term s. Ayton (1980) has laid dow n four tenets o f econom ic reasoning which follow the assum ption o f econom ies o f scale: (1) (2) (3)

(4)

small villages cannot independently support education, health and commercial service which require support populations o f thousands; public sector service options are constrained by lim ited and dim inish­ ing resources; private sector service and som e public sector services (for example gas) will not be provided w'here they are unprofitable, and rural areas often fall w ithin this category; m obile services incur high running costs and offer a low’ quality o f service.

BRITAIN

33

These four principles lead directly to the practice o f fixed-point service provision in sizeable centres. Yet planning intervention to establish and build up these centres (or key settlements) has equally been brought about by a pragm atic need to adopt a high-profile policy w ith which to dem onstrate that rural problem s w ere being tackled, and the key settlem ent policy o f resource concentration presented itself as a convenient blueprint, which was both visible and seem ingly cost effective. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that rural policies w ithin the 1947-68 developm ent plan era differed only according to the degree of resource concentration, rather than w hether concentration was a m ore equitable or beneficial strategic option than, for exam ple, resource dispersal. Details of the actual policies are given elsew here (W oodruffe 1976, Cloke 1983), but in sum m ary three m ain categories o f policy may be identified: (1)

(2)

(3)

Key settlement policies w here the com prehensive concentration o f hous­ ing services and em ploym ent into selected centres is sought not only to build up the centres them selves but also to provide opportunities for hinterland villages. Planned decline policies in which direct attem pts are made to rationalize the rural settlem ent pattern by refusing to locate public investm ent in outm oded small villages and by prom pting a population shift into larger grow th centres. Village classification policies w here villages are categorized according to existing service functions and environm ental quality, so that grow th can be allocated to suitable (usually larger) receptor settlements.

Some positive achievements o f these policies should be recorded. Firstly, in term s o f land use, it is clear that policies o f resource concentration have usually been effective in preventing sporadic developm ent in the countryside (W orking Party o f Rural Settlem ent Policies 1979). By channelling grow th into selected centres, key settlem ent policies have also to some extent aided the increased provision o f infrastructural services such as sewerage net­ w orks, electricity and telephones. These successes should not be underrated as it is clear that in m any areas the concentration and conser­ vation ethic has lim ited undue urbanization in the countryside and environ­ m ental quality in m any small villages and has achieved pragmatism in the provision o f statutory services. T he weakness o f resource concentration policies is to be found in their preoccupation w ith physical planning to the detrim ent o f social conditions in rural com m unities. It should be rem em bered that two basic objectives were sought through these policies - the build-up o f centres o f opportunity (the key settlem ents) and the use o f these opportunities to im prove con­ ditions for residents in hinterland villages.

34

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE

Some success has been gained in the build-up o f key settlements. Case studies in two English counties (Cloke 1979) suggest that concentrated housing and em ploym ent provision (the latter often using industrial estates and advance factories to attract entrepreneurs) has occurred in some places and has ensured that rural people do receive opportunities to live and work in the countryside rather than being forced to migrate to higher-order urban centres. However, the second key settlem ent objective o f maintain­ ing villages in the rural hinterland has been less successful than the first. T here is clear evidence that the use o f resource concentration policies has coincided w ith a general deterioration o f service, housing and employm ent opportunities in small villages. Although it is difficult to assess the degree to which planning policies are responsible for these trends, the planners’ reluctance to permit housing and em ploym ent developm ent in non­ selected villages has exacerbated rural problem s in small settlements. M oreover, there are small but significant num bers o f deprived households w ho have become trapped in these unsupported settlements, as in situ services disappear and public transport links to the nearest service centres are not maintained. Tw o broad criticisms o f the social role o f key settlem ent policies appear valid. Firstly, the county-level plans have assumed that there is a standard type o f rural comm unity and have ignored the local-scale variations which demand flexible planning solutions. Secondly, these plans have not proved easy to adopt in the light o f changing circumstances in rural areas. In par­ ticular, rural policies have ignored the scope for the dispersed provision o f small-scale housing, service and em ploym ent schemes in hinterland villages. M ore importantly, a series o f problems with resource concentration policies occur outside the rem it o f current planning powers. Direct pro­ vision o f rural em ploym ent, suitable housing for local rural needs, service opportunities for non-m obile groups, and adequate public transport links betw een key settlements and hinterland villages are beyond the direct con­ trol o f planning authorities, yet it is the lack o f these various opportunities which has prevented the fram ework policy o f resource concentration from fulfilling its full potential. Isolated cases o f positive planning have occurred, but generally there have been insurm ountable financial and administrative barriers preventing a co-ordinated approach to rural plan­ ning during the developm ent plan era - a situation which Green (1971) has described as 20 years o f wasted opportunity for positive rural planning. The 1968 Town and Country Planning Act required county councils to present structure plans and district councils to present local plans - the form er as a broad-based and flexible program m e o f strategy for the wide area and the latter as detailed schedules for small-scale developm ent control. Struc­ ture plans were to consist o f very detailed surveys o f country-wide social

BRITAIN

35

and economic trends, followed by a w ritten statem ent o f policy intent. In term s o f rural strategies there has been no apparent policy redirection away from resource concentration and towards resource dispersal during the presentation and im plem entation o f structure plans in Britain (Derounian 1980, Cloke & Shaw 1983). The previous criticism o f key settle­ m ent policies has been ignored by decision-makers in favour o f a con­ tinuing allegiance to the perceived qualities o f channelling growth into rationalized centres rather than dispersing opportunities into the small, m ore needy, settlements. The reality o f the situation for most counties is that they have been faced with insurm ountable previous commitments to the developm ent plan fram ework o f key settlements. Planning permissions had been granted for major housing developm ents, and such permissions are extrem ely expensive to rescind. Long-term investment strategies based on a centralization o f resources had been entered into by agencies dealing, for example, with water, health and education services. These, too, would be extremely difficult to halt and redirect into m ore dispersal-oriented rural locations. Perhaps most im portant o f all, central governm ent showed no sign o f wavering from its tacit support o f the economies o f resource concentration. Thus, when structure plans were presented to the Secretary o f State for the Environm ent for his approval, such approval was not forthcom ing unless certain ‘standards’ o f financial housekeeping were maintained. These standards were such that resource concentration was an inevitable conclusion. O nly in a small m inority o f counties has there been any apparent attempt to implement policies o f resource dispersal. For example, the N orth Yorkshire Plan (1980) sought a redistribution o f opportunity and develop­ ment in rural areas o f the county by identifying socio-economically cohesive village groups which would act as service centres for the less pros­ perous areas. O pposition to this overt form o f resource dispersal was encountered both from various agencies responsible for rural service pro­ vision and from the more prosperous districts who objected to the uneven distribution o f potential investment. The Secretary o f State was therefore able to veto the identified village groups and thus rem oved the teeth from a potentially innovative policy. The plan for Gloucestershire (1980) has encountered similar difficulties. It, too, supported the idea o f village clus­ ters as centres o f investm ent in areas o f rural decline, but this intention was also thwarted by resistance at both central government and local govern­ m ent levels. The story o f structure plan policies for rural areas, therefore, is largely ot a direct follow on from the developm ent plan penchant for resource concentration policies. Those few attempts to deviate significantly from this theme have been frustrated by resistance, particularly from the central state. M oreover, in many o f its aspects, the debate over the relative merits

36

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE

o f resource concentration and resource dispersal policies has becom e sterile in its contribution to an understanding o f w hy rural problem s rem ain unsolved. T w o main reasons may be advanced to account for this situation. Firstly, there has been a w idespread inability to uncover indisput­ able links betw een planning policies and socio-econom ic circum stances in rural areas. The tendency has been to infer relationships betw een key settlem ent policies and various positive and negative outcom es, but these inferential explanations have proved universally unsatisfactory. T he pos­ ition is that the exact im pact of resource concentration policies is unknow n, despite their use for m ore than three decades. It is interesting to surmise that the rural socio-econom ic situation in Britain today may have been arrived at whether these plans were in operation or not, such is the strength o f econom ic m arket tendencies o f concentration and rationalization. Secondly, it has becom e generally recognized that the strategic level considerations o f key settlem ents and o ther types o f policy cannot o f them ­ selves solve rural problem s. Policies o f resource concentration and resource dispersal m erely act as spatial um brella policies w ithin w hich the essential acts o f resource allocation are perform ed. Thus the provision o f housing for local needs, em ploym ent, services and access opportunities is a specific task which requires low er-level and specific decision m aking w ithin the um brella planning fram ew ork. In one sense, then, to focus rural planning debate on the fram ew ork policies is to miss the very' im portant point that most impacts o f rural planning occur at the local level as a result of specific decision making. This decision m aking may not be local, how ever, as many such local impacts arc caused by regional, national and international policy-m akers.

C om m unity and development policies for rural people Given these constraints (see below) on statutory planning activity in rural areas, planners have been driven to seek alternative channels through which intervention on beh alf ot disadvantaged rural groups m ight be organized. Essentially this has involved a soul-searching review o f available m echanisms o f im plem entation w ithin a political and econom ic clim ate which m ilitates against social planning and ‘unnecessary’ public expenditure. In a survey o f senior planners w orking in non-m etropolitan county plan­ ning departm ents (Cloke & Little 1986), several clear trends em erged as to the available options for im plem enting policies for rural people. W hen asked about the m ajor problem s o f im plem enting statutory policies, plan­ ners reeled o ff a list o f issues.

BRITAIN (a) (b) (c) (d)

(e)

37

interorganizational conflicts betw een the county planning authority and other decision-making agencies; lack of finance, particularly because o f inadequate global expenditure levels lor services, housing and other investment in rural areas; lack oj control over private sector interests, a factor which assumes crucial importance where market forces conflict with planning objectives; local political anil public commitment, particularly the lack o f political resolve for intervention on behalf o f disadvantaged groups, founded upon the desire o f the middle-class ‘floral m ajority’ to conserve the environm ent which they have bought their way into; central government policies, which have been fragmentary in the plan­ ning sphere, and which have overruled local planning considerations in setting out specific financial and organizational policies for public sector investm ent in, for example, schooling and housing.

The major issue which underlies these problems and which has often been used to legitimize the lack oi intervention activity is the extent to which statutory policies within developm ent plans and structure plans should be used for social planning purposes. W ith the collusion o f central govern­ ment many Conservative local authorities have chosen to downplay social, community and educational policies because statutory plans should mostly be concerned with land-use matters. W hen asked how these problem s o f policy implementation might be overcome, practising planners reveal a climate o f action which involves using any (usually unconventional) resource which comes to hand in order to further planning objectives. W ith declining governmental resources, this planning by opportunism has largely involved the harnessing o f com ­ munity self-help and voluntary initiatives as part o f the planning strategies employed by local authorities for rural areas. For example, the implemen­ tation of the Gloucestershire structure plan (Clokc & Little, 1987a, b) focused on a so-called Rural Com m unity Action Project as the main vehicle for intervention on behalf o f the rural disadvantaged. The Project looked to forge a partnership betw een local authorities and rural people in order to produce action. It was, however, scheduled w ithin a pragmatic view o f the restricted powers and expenditure available to such an initiat­ ive, and therefore it was the local people who were expected to play the central role in this partnership. The program m e o f action connected with the Project (Table 2.4) should therefore be evaluated in the light o f this balance o f expectation. The comm unity self-help approach to planning for rural people is double-edged. It is legitimately argued that self-help, supported when required by advice, information and even pum p-prim ing funds from

38

PO LICIES A N D PLANS FO R RURAL PEOPLE

Table 2.4

Programme for Gloucestershire’s Rural Com m unity Action Project.

1 2

Define project aims and agree draft program m e with C hief Executive’s office. Discuss and agree aims and programme with C h ief Executive and Planning O fficer o f Cotswolds District Council. 3 Draw up a shortlist o f areas suitable for initiating the project. 4 Present project brief and shortlist of areas to Cotswolds District Planning and Development Com mittee, and full Council. 5 Invite outside service agencies (water, health, post office, ctc.) to co-operate in the project. 6 Brief the nominated officers o f County Council and District Council service depart­ ments whose involvement may be necessary. 7 Brief County Council and District Council elected members for the selected project area. 8 Arrange a joint meeting o f elected members, parish council chairman and individuals ot local standing in the project area, together with the Com munity Council, to discuss the project and obtain local approval for going ahead. 9 Design and arrange local publicity. 10 Hold a public local meeting in each of the selected parishes, attended by members and the nominated officers ot the service departments and agencies involved. The purpose of the meeting will be to introduce the aims o f the project, and invite debate from the floor concerning issues o f local concern. Stress the aim that the project is a co­ operative venture, with the community providing the lead. Propose a vote for or against the continuation ot the project. The m eeting to propose nominations for a community group to be responsible tor continuing the projcct. I ! Issues raised in the first public meeting will form the agenda for the first m eeting ol the local group. Officers o f those departments whose responsibilities overlap with the issues raised oil the agenda will be requested to attend the meeting. 12 Publish a newsletter following the first meeting, reporting the debate and consequent action. Continue the newsletter thereafter. 13 Officers o f the County Council or District Council to provide administrative assist­ ance and expertise until the project appears to be self-sustaining. Subsequently to attend as required. Source: Gloucestershire County Council and Cotsw'old District Council (1981).

g o v e rn m e n t a g en cies, is th e m o st se n sitiv e w a y to fin d s o lu tio n s to local social n e e d in ru ra l areas. Y et in th e G lo u c e s te rs h ire case, a n d in d e e d m o re w id e ly , lo cal p o litic ia n s w e re u n w illin g to sa n c tio n u n d u e direct e x p e n d i­ tu re o r direct in te rv e n tio n b y lo ca l a u th o ritie s th e m se lv e s. In th is situ a tio n , se lf-h e lp is th e o n ly a p p ro a c h w h ic h can c o n fo rm to th ese p o litic a l re s tric ­ tio n s (w h ich a re im p o se d b y th e c e n tra l sta te as w e ll as th e lo c a l sta te ) y et still g ive th e im p re ssio n o f a w illin g n e ss to act in re sp o n se to th e p ro b le m s in d e c lin in g ru ra l areas. S e lf-h e lp c o u ld th e n b e v ie w e d as an o p p o rtu n is tic c lu tc h in g at straw s in th e ab sen ce o f a n y o th e r im p le m e n ta tio n m e c h a n ism . A m a jo r c h an g e o f p o litic a l w ill w o u ld b e re q u ire d i f p u b lic se c to r p la n n in g in te rv e n tio n w e re to b e c o m e b e tte r fu n d e d a n d p o lic y -e n a b le d . Y et

BRITAIN

39

there are insufficient voters in rural areas to influence the political will for change. In these circumstances, contem porary policy and action often constitute a political gesture which becomes a sham substitute for resolving actual problems. (Cloke & Little 1986: 283) There is one im portant area in which central government has attempted to provide funding and initiatives within the overall climate o f planning by opportunism, and that is through the establishment o f three rural develop­ ment agencies. A governm ent quango, the D evelopm ent Commission, has responsibility for rural socio-economic developm ent. It not only funds the Rural Com munity Councils, which have now been established in each county with the task o f co-ordinating voluntary initiatives in rural areas, and CoSIRA,2 which is specifically concerned with establishing small-scale industries in rural areas, but it is also responsible for a series o f Rural D evelopm ent Programmes in specific problem areas in rural England (Fig. 2.3) (Developm ent Commission 1984, 1985). Rural developm ent pro­ grammes consist of: (a)

(b)

the generation o f a long-term strategy o f responding to social needs, including an evaluation o f housing, employm ent, services and facilities; the generation o f a detailed program m e o f action, including funding o f advance factories and workshops.

These programmes have been recently reviewed by Smart (1987: 210): W ith guidance as necessary from the (Developm ent) Commission, they now contain creditable assessments o f needs, statements o f objectives and self-generating programmes which are m onitored and rolled for­ ward each year. Indeed, focusing on economic developm ent, housing, transport, services and social facilities (sometimes even education) and with regular involvem ent ot bodies such as MAFF3 and the Tourist Boards, the RDPs could in time begin to ‘read across’ at central govern­ ment level. Thus they could enable governm ent departments to identify policy and organizational decision issues that might not otherwise be seen. Despite this potential, the D evelopm ent Commission currently plays the rôle o f a m innow alongside the whale which is the Ministry o f Agriculture in Britain’s rural areas. W ithout a major redistribution o f financial resources, its activities will o f necessity take the form o f nibbling at the edge o f major structural problems rather than biting deeply into them. Even the recent ALURE proposals (see above), which prom ote economic diversification

40

PO LIC IES A N D PLANS FO R RURAL PEOPLE

F igu re 2.3 Rural developm ent agencies and areas. Source: alter Gilg (1985: 22).

for farm ers and th erefo re th row a spotlight on existing and future D evelopm ent C om m ission activities, do n o t carry w ith them th e sizeable financial investm ent re q u ired to effect substantial changes to th e o p p o r­ tunities o f the m ajority o f needy n ira l people. T h e D evelop m en t C om m ission’s activities are confined to rural England. In Scotland and W ales, partly as a response to the debates over nationalism and d evolution, specific and separate rural dev elo p m en t agencies have been established. T he H ighlands and Islands D evelo p m en t

BRITAIN

41

Board (HIDB) (Fig. 2.3) was established in 1965 to prom ote economic and social developm ent in the northern parts o f rural Scotland, and the D evelopm ent Board for Rural Wales (now Mid Wales D evelopm ent M W D ) was set up in 1977 to do a broadly similar job. The major task undertaken by both agencies has been the creation o f employm ent, through direct provision o f sites and buildings, through grant and loan sup­ port for fledgeling enterprises, and through a range o f support and advisory services. O n a smaller scale both agencies have been enabled to offer grants and loans for the provision o f local social and cultural infrastructures. In Mid W ales this has ranged from providing new communal television aerial systems in areas o f poor reception to staging concerts by big-namc rock bands in obscure locations in the middle o f rural west Wales! In an excellent review o f these organizations W illiams (1984: 82) concludes: In an economic sense, the achievement o f industrial diversification through the various advance factory developm ent programmes, and the wide ranging training and marketing initiatives available from specialist agencies, has undoubtedly stimulated local entrepreneurial develop­ m ent . . . In comm unity developm ent term s, support for comm unity initiated and implem ented social projects in rural Wales and Scotland improves the quality o f life in the short term , and may encourage the developm ent o f local skills, and motivation for enhanced participation in the long term. The rural developm ent boards in Celtic Britain therefore offer perhaps the best example o f direct intervention on behalf o f rural people. The activities and priorities o f the boards have certainly not been exem pt from criticism, particularly from those who seek specific sociocultural initiatives in W elsh- and Gaelic-speaking areas (see, e.g., W enger 1980). N everthe­ less, with combined annual budgets o f nearly £50 million and with specific legislative backing for prom otional activity and socio-economic planning, these agencies have suffered fewer o f the constraints imposed by central government on their local authority counterparts. Tw o im portant issues in a broader political context are notew orthy here. Firstly, despite the success o f the boards, the concept behind them has not been extended to cover the whole o f rural Britain, or even all the rem oter areas o f Britain. The D evelopm ent Commission has far fewer powers and resources to employ in England than have the H ID B and M W D in Scotland and W ales. Political legitimation for the Celtic regions is obviously, therefore, an im portant factor behind their special treatm ent in this instance. Secondly, H ID B and M W D themselves are under increasing pressure because o f Thatcherite policies at central governm ent level. M W D , for example, has already had to change its strategy consequent on the loss o f central government

42

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE

regional aid from its area. In many different ways, these boards are having to change their role in response not only to the changing expectations o f government but also to the veiled threat o f resource cuts or even term in­ ation o f the agencies in their current form. Thus Pettigrew ’s (1987) recent account o f industrial developm ent in M id W ales reflects the shift from grant-aid to marketing-aid in line with what he describes as the ‘political roller-coaster’. It could be that the high profile and in most respects suc­ cessful interventions by these public sector agencies will in the end be their downfall in a political regime which increasingly seems to favour the m arket rather than the planning policy.

Policy, planning and implementation Rural Britain illustrates paradoxes relating both to the definition o f ‘what is a problem for rural people’ and to the prescription o f policy responses to these problems. D uring the 1970s and early 1980s rural researchers in Britain appeared to establish overwhelm ing evidence that policy changes are necessary because o f progressive imbalances in resource distribution and social equity amongst rural people. Such a view would not, however, be shared by what is now a Floral M ajority o f adventitious middle-class rural residents whose wealth and income present them with the means to overcom e, and often not even notice, the problem s experienced by the agricultural rem nant and nouveaux pauvres fraction o f the rural population described above. Equally, it would not be shared by local politicians who have tended to set about their policy-m aking duties in an entrenchedly conservative manner. Although there are some signs that through motives o f paternalism, beneficence, philanthropy or whatever, old-fashioned country Conservatives might be induced into some small-scale policy changes, these tendencies have been unceremoniously prevented by central government move to denude local power and to centralize key decisions over finance and service-delivery administration. Recent legis­ lation and (perhaps m ore pervasively) advice notes from central governm ent departm ents have had profound constraining impacts on the discretion o f local authorities to plan for and deliver transport, primary education and council housing in rural areas. C entral governm ent perceptions o f the problem atic therefore appear to give priority to fiscal restriction, power centralization, and ultim ately through recourse to market forces, the main­ tenance o f appropriate conditions for capital accumulations. Although market regulation in favour o f particular capital and class fractions is feas­ ible within these priorities, it is unlikely that interventionary regulation on behalf o f the deprived classes is compatible with these central state functions.

BRITAIN

43

Analysis o f policies and plans for rural people in Britain, therefore, should take full account o f the sociopolitical constraints which deter the implementation o f many policy options. T he primary constraint is that imposed by the overwhelm ing relationship betw een the state and civil socicty. If planning is to be viewed as neutral, apolitical and objective, then the state-society relationship must somehow be explained away in such a way as to permit planning unfettered scope for neutral, apolitical and objective action. If, however, planning is viewed as an integral function o f a state whose purpose is not only to preserve the status quo (and thereby preserve contem porary inequalities within that status quo) but also to engineer political economic changes for the further benefit o f capital interests, then policies and plans must be fully recognizcd as being part o f these overall functions. If the latter option is accepted, even if only par­ tially, then planning activity can be seen to be subject to very limiting con­ straints in its scope for action. Beyond the state-society relationship there are a series o f secondary relationships which also serve to constrain the discretion available to planning: (a)

central-local relationships, the emphasis here being on an increasing cen­ tralization o f power in Britain; (b) private-public sector relationships, within which the propensity o f Thatcherism is to afford greater freedom to the private sector in re­ sponse to the underlying power o f capital interests; (c) interagency relationships which have displayed increasing complexity as the idea o f m ultifunctional economic, service or welfare delivery agencies has become increasingly abandoned in favour o f the ‘divideand-rule’ benefits o f a multiplicity o f small agencies, each with limited power.

An awareness o f these prim ary and secondary constraints is vital for any understanding o f rural policies and plans in Britain. In 1983,1 outlined four political options for planning for the rural needy (Cloke 1983: 350): • •

•

•

continue with a laissez-faire approach, w ith conservationism, resource rationalization, free-m arket conditions and rampant gentrification; recognize the need for some additional opportunity provision to tackle rural disadvantage, but only within strict budgetary lim i­ tations with the emphasis on prom oting self-help; bring about a radical resource reallocation in favour o f measures directed to the opportunity deficiencies suffered by disadvantaged groups; sponsor policies o f personal subsidy and wealth redistribution, realiz­

44

POLICIES A N D PLANS FO R RURAL PEOPLE

ing that even if a com bination o f governm ent action, subsidy and selfhelp w ere able to provide a satisfactory opportunity base in rural areas for all rural residents some o f the underlying causes o f rural deprivation will rem ain. The T hatcher era has reaffirm ed the laissez-jaire approach, perhaps w ith trappings o f the low-cost self-help strategy, as the dom inant policy direc­ tion. To change this direction it will take not only a m ajor shift in political will but also a degree o f political conflict sufficient to create greater levels o f autonom ous central state action beyond the bounds o f the support o f capital interests.

Notes 1 2 3

Calculated as incomes up to 139% o f supplementary benefit entitlem ent. Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas. Ministry o f Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

References Ayton, J. 1980. Settlement policies can bring stabilization. The Planner 6 6 , 98-9. Bcresford, T. 1975. We plough the Jields. Harm ondsworth: Penguin. Blunden, J. & N. C urry (eds) 1985. The changing countryside. London: Croom Helm. Bradley, T. & P. Lowe (eds) 1984. Locality and rurality. Norwich: GeoBooks. Centre for Agricultural Strategy 1986. Countryside implications for England and Wales oj possible changes in the common agricultural policy. Reading: CAS. Champion. A.G. 1981. Population trends in rural Britain. Population Trends 26, 20-3. Cloke, P.J. 1979. Key settlements in rural areas. London: Methuen. Cloke, P.j. 1983. An introduction to rural settlement planning. London: Methuen. Cloke, P.J. 1985. Counterurbanisation: a rural perspective. Geography 70, 13-23. Cloke, P.J. (cd.) 1987. Rural planning: policy into action? London: Harper & Row. Cloke, P.j. & J.K . Little 1986. The implementation o f rural policies: a survey o f county planning authorities. Town Planning Review 57, 265-284. Cloke, P.J. & J.K. Little 1987a. Rural policies in the Gloucestershire structure plan: I - a study o f motives and mechanisms. Environment and Planning A . Cloke, P.J. & J.K. Little 1987b. Rural policies in the Gloucestershire structure plan: II - implementation and the county-distnct relationship. Environment and Planning A .

BRITAIN

45

Cloke, P.J. & J.K. Little 1989. The rural state? Oxford: O xford University Press. Cloke, P.J. & C.C . Park 1985. Rural resource management. London: Croom Helm. Cloke, PJ. & D.P. Shaw 1983. Rural settlement policy in structure plans. Town Planning Review 54, 338-54. Derounian, J. 1980. The impact of structure plans on rural communities. The Planner 6 6 , 87. Development Commission 1984. Guidelines for joint rural development programmes. London: HM SO. Developm ent Commission 1985. Rural Development Programmes: further guidance Iran the Commission. London: HM SO. Edwards, A. & A. Rogers (cds) 1974. Agricultural resources. London: Faber & Faber. Fothergill, S. & G. Gudgin 1982. Unequal growth: urban and regional employment change in the U.K. London: Heinemann. Fothergill, S. & G. Gudgin 1983. Trends in regional manufacturing employment: the main influences. In 77le urban and regional transformation o f Britain, J.B. Goddard & A.G. Champion (eds), 27-50. London: Methuen. Gilg, A.W. 1984. Politics and the countryside: the British example. In The Chang­ ing Countryside, G. Clark, J. Groenendijk & F. Thissen (eds), 251-60. Norwich: Geo Books. Gilg, A.W. (1985a). A n introduction to rural geography. London: Edward Arnold. Gilg, A.W. (1985b). Countryside Planning Yearbook. Norwich: GeoBooks. Gloucestershire County Council and Cotswold District Council 1981. Rural Action: Brief and Programme. Gloucestershire County Council, Gloucester. Goldsmith, M.J. 1986. New research in central-local relations. Farnborough: Gower. Green, R.J. 1971. Country planning. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Healey, P. 1982. Understanding land use planning: the contribution o f recent developments in political economy and policy studies. In Planning llteory: Pros­ pects for the 80's. P. Healey, G. M cDougall &: M.J. Thomas (eds), 180-93. O xford: Pergamon. Heath, A., R. Jow'ell & J. Curtice 1985. How Britain votes. Oxford: Pcrgamon. Keeble, D.E. 1980. Industrial decline, regional policy and the urban-rural m anufacturing shift in the United Kingdom. Environment and Planning A 12, 945-62. Lowe, P., T. Bradley & S. W right 1986. Deprivation and welfare in rural areas. Norwich: GeoBooks. Massey, D. & R. Meegan 1982. The anatomy of job loss. London: Methuen. McLaughlin, B.P. 1986. The rhetoric and the reality o f rural deprivation. Journal of Rural Studies 2, 291-308. Newby, H. 1979. Green and pleasant land? Harm ondsworth: Penguin. Newby, H. 1981. Urbanism and the rural class structure. In New perspectives in urban change and conflict, M. Harloe (ed.), 220-43. London: Heinemann. Pacione, M. 1984. Rural geography. London: Harper & Row. Pettigrew, P. 1987. A bias for action: industrial development in Mid Wales. In

46

POLICIES A N D PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE

Rural planning: policy into action? P.J. Cloke (ed.), 102-121. London: Harper & Row. Phillips, D. & A. Williams 1984. Rural Britain: a social geography. Oxford: Blackwell. Pye-Smith, C. & R. N orth 1984. Working the land. London: Temple Smith. Rees, G. 1984. Rural regions in national and international economies; In Locality and rurality. T. Bradley & P. Lowe (eds). Norwich: GeoBooks. Robert, S. & W .G. Randolph 1983. Beyond decentralisation: the evolution o f population distribution in England and W ales, 1961-1981. Geoforum 14, 75-102. Ryder, J. & H. Silver 1985. Modern English society, 3rd edn. London: Methuen. Smart, G. 1987. Co-ordination o f rural policy-making and implementation. In Rural planning: policy into action? P.J. Cloke (ed.), 2(H)—212. London: Harper & Row. W enger, C. 1980. Mid Wales: development or deprivation. Cardiff: University o f W ales Press. Williams, G. 1984. Developm ent agencies and the prom otion of rural community development. Countryside Planning Yearbook 5, 62-86. W oodruffe, B.J. 1976. Rural policies and plans. O xford: O xford University Press. W orking Party on Rural Settlement Policies 1979. A Future for the Village. Bristol: HM SO.

3

The Netherlands

JAN GROENENDIJK

The approach to Schiphol airport in the N etherlands by air affords fascinat­ ing views o f a meticulously arranged countryside. The developm ent o f towns and villages has been neatly contained; the land has been efficiently parcelled by reclamation or land consolidation schemes. The view gives the distinct impression that one is landing in a planned socicty where indi­ viduals relinquish their property rights for purposes o f public co­ ordination (Cox 1973). The best imaginable results o f physical planning seem to have been achieved in the Netherlands. But, back on firm ground, the objective o f physical planning clearly goes further than m erely rearranging that which can be seen. A current defi­ nition (Drupsteen 1983) in use by the central governm ent (Commissie Interdépartementale Taakverdeling en Coôdinatie Betuursorganisatie, 1971) indicates the goal o f physical planning to be ‘optimizing mutual adjustment o f space and society on behalf o f society’s w ell-being’. This implies that policy objectives seek the reallocation o f resources and relo­ cation o f activities. Indeed, several reports on physical planning explicitly formulate a policy of redressing spatial living conditions on behalf o f disad­ vantaged localized groups. In a mixed economy, some o f the consequences o f a pure m arket econom y must be ameliorated to reach a more equitable situation. This chapter attempts to analyse what this means for the rural areas. W e have to bear in mind that the perception o f policy options is constrained by an acceptance o f the status quo (Clokc & Hanrahan 1984). In a more prac­ tical sense it is also constrained by the fact that policies are prepared by government departments and their agencies, acting according to the pre­ rogatives o f their well defined domain and tradition, and by the fact that consensus on policy within the governm ent is reached by pulling strings and by trade-offs in bureaucratic politics (Allison 1969). Secondly, we follow the path o f decision making from policy form u­ lation at one level o f governm ent to its implem entation at another. For what is supposed to be m erely implementing the decisions according to the specific local context, scores o f m inor decisions are required, influenced by the local power structure. These decisions might well run counter to earlier policy formulations, and are particularly im portant when analysing the actions that reach beyond the cosmetic repair and upkeep o f a beautiful countryside.

48

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE

To demystify the planning success story and to arrive at m ore appro­ priate expectations, we start by uncovering some traits o f Dutch environ­ mental m anagement that give the countryside its orderly appearance. In the first place, ever since the reclam ation o f the fenlands in the Middle Ages, in the province then known as Holland, polder boards have been established by the co-operating landholders to control the water level. In many re­ spects they have to abide by laws. Polder boards have become institutionalized nationwide as a functional level o f local government. The polder board levies taxes on all residents, but the vote is only extended to the landholders. This is one way in which agricultural entrepreneurs influence the environm ent. Secondly, money from H olland’s rich cities was partly invested in the countryside. In particular it was used to reclaim land from the many lakes (partly created by digging peat). These polders are characterized by their geometrical precision in the service o f rationalized agriculture. The recently reclaimed Ijsselmeerpolders have been arranged according to detailed landscape plans. Though extensive, their area was surpassed by the 19th and 20th century reclam ation o f the moors in the East and South. The rem aining territory, except for a few nature preserves, has been modernized by land consolidation schemes, which have even been implem ented for a second time to keep pace with agrarian modernization. Finally, the containm ent o f the extension o f settlements is explained partly by the timely adoption o f town and country planning. How ever, as nearly all construction sites are at some point publicly owned, the exten­ sions connect smoothly to areas previously built up. Municipalities buy the property, service it and sell it to investors. As a consequence, the contrast between the densely developed villages in the N etherlands and the wide scattering o f new houses in Belgium is striking (Groenendijk and Mast 1984). The rapidly expanding cities in the west were the innovators o f public property developm ent. In view o f the weak structure o f the soil, developm ent had to encompass large areas to be efficient. This innovation was subsequently adopted all over the country and eventually turned all municipalities into developers.

Problems o f rural areas The relatively small size o f the Netherlands docs not preclude regional dif­ ferences or the influence o f distance. To describe social inequality, Engclsdorp Gastelaars etal. (1980) classified 'daily activity’ regions accord­ ing to variables o f the material well-being o f residents on a c entrepcriphery scale. This produces a pattern o f central regions in the three Randstad provinces (N oord-H olland, Zuid-I lolland and Utrecht) and

THE NETHERLANDS

49

(semi-)peripheral regions in the rest o f the country. In betw een are the regions with an interm ediate status; these are tied to urban centres outside Randstad such as Breda, Eindhoven, Arnhem, Deventer and Groningen. Regional policy in the postwar era first tried to decrease inequality by advocating industrialization o f relatively small regions with high unem ­ ployment rates. Some o f the industrialization in urbanized villages and small cities scattered throughout the peripheral rural regions dates from this period. Indeed, as W ever (1986: 150) observes, ‘until the end o f the sixties regional policy was mainly focused on rural agricultural areas’. Later policy included urbanized ‘restructuring’ areas and was no longer restricted to industrialization but aspired to foster city-regions in the N orth and South. It is doubtful, however, w hether this policy has had a positive effect on the problems o f relative deprivation in rural areas. Com bining several variables o f material well-being used in the last cen­ sus (quality o f housing, car ownership, etc.), the Sociaal en C ultureel Planbureau (1980) calculated deprivation scores for municipalities and neighbourhoods (Table 3.1). Bearing in m ind the small size o f rural municipalities, the lowest ranking cannot fail to contain only rural municipalities, although urban deprivation only shows up at the neighbourhood level. O f the 10% lowest-ranking municipalities, Groningen has by far the largest share (partly due to the small size o f the municipalities), followed by the peripheral provinces o f Friesland and Zeeland. Another part o f the country with a large share is the area o f the major rivers in the southern parts o f Gelderland and Zuid-H olland; these are zones to be kept free o f urbanization, according to the policy main­ tained over the last few decades, although they apparently house many dis­ advantaged people in rem ote villages. In spite o f its overall high population density, the N etherlands has relatively open stretches o f rural land that lack settlements with urban facilities. Many facilities are not within easy reach for their target categories (housewives, schoolchildren, the elderly). Constraints on the residents’ time and resources often prohibit them from undertaking more than the most essential activities (Huigen 1986). This explains why distance travelled in rural areas is only slightly higher than in urban areas (Rijksplanologische Dienst 1984:18). In the same way, the public expendi­ ture on public transport for the residents o f large cities and com m uter areas is much greater than that for the population o f rural areas (SCP 1984). Several recent developments in society will only exacerbate the peripheral situation o f the rural population. Cuts in em ploym ent mean that work may have to be accepted at greater distances from the home. Suitable occupations for parents o f young children are scarce in rural areas. Further education or part-tim e education is difficult, especially when this entails travelling large distances in the evening.

T able 3.1 Province

1.7350.951

0 .9 5 0 0.728

G ro ningen Friesland

24(47%) 9(21%) 1(3%) 7(13%) 14(13%)

10(17%) 6(14%) 7(20%) 10(18%) 17(16%) 3(6%)

D rcn th c O vcrijscl G eld erland U trecht N o o rd -H o llan d Z u id -H o llan d Z eeland N o o rd -B rab an t Lim burg total m unicipalities

-

1(1%) 12(8%) 8(20%) 10(7%) 1(1%) 87(10%)

1(1%) 10(7%) 4(10%) 9(7%) 10(9%) 87(10%)

Municipalities by classes o f deprivation scores per province. 0 .7 2 4 0.593 5(10%) 8(19%)

0 .5 9 0 0.427 3(6%) 4(9%) 7(20%)

4(12%) 7(13%) 7(13%) 12(11%) 14(13%) 5(11%) 2(4%) 3(3%) 4(4%) 9(6%) 10(7%) 5(13%) 4(10%) 20(15%) ' 16(12%) 11(10%) 10(9%) 87(10%) 88(10%)

0 .4 2 7 0.278

0 .2 7 8 0.136

2(4%) 7(16%) 3(9%) 5(9%) 13(12%) 2(4%) 12(11%) 10(7%) 5(13%) 14(10%) 13(12%) 87(10%)

3(6%) 4(9%) 4(12%) 7(13%) 8(8%) 3(6%) 11(10%) 11(7%) 3(8%) 16(12%) 20(19%) 88(10%)

0 .1 3 5 -0 .0 3 1

- 0 .0 3 1 - 0 .2 7 0

- 0 .2 7 5 - 0 .6 2 8

- 0 .6 3 0 - 2 .7 1 4

T otal

2(4%) 2(5%) 1(3%) 4(7%)

1(2%) 2(5%) 3(9%) 1(2%) 9(8%) 6(13%) 17(16%) 15(10%) 5(13%) 6(4%) 14(13%) 87(10%)

1(2%) 1(2%) 3(9%) 4(7%) 7(7%) 7(15%) 23(21%) 32(22%) 2(5%) 10(7%) 8(8%) 88(10%)

1(2%)

51(100%) 43(100%) 34(100%) 55(100%) 106(100%) 47(100%) 107(100%) 149(100%) 39(100%) 136(100%) 106(100%) 873(100%)

6(6%) 4(9%) 18(17%) 14(9%) 3(8%) 15(11%) 17(16%) 87(10%)

N ote

C alculated tro m ‘List o f m unicipalities by d egree of social d e p riv atio n ’ (S C P 1980: 81). N egative scores indicate relativ e abscnce o f deprivation.

-

1(3%) 3(5%) 6(6%) 15(32%) 23(21%) 26(17%) -

10(7%) 2(2%) 87(10%)

THE NETHERLANDS

51

The redirection o f the welfare state which is currently underway does not present a rosy prospect either. At the time the Rural Areas Report (Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting en Ruimtelijke O rdening, 1977) was pre­ pared, there were still signs that central governm ent would engage in measures o f compensation for the problems o f scale that complicate the provision o f services in rural areas. The Spatial Perspectives M em orandum (Ruimtelijke Perspectieven), an interim report pending release o f the Fourth Report on Physical Planning, (Rijksplanologische Dienst 1986) relies on the strong parts o f the country to m eet international competition. As stated in a m em orandum (May 1986) from the National Union o f Small Settle­ ments, general measures o f austerity towards social services will have their worst effects in rural areas. By incorporating the preschool and kinder­ garten into the primary school m ore than 50 ‘last schools o f the village’ have already been closed and 50 to 60 m ore will follow within the next two years, preventing young households from settling in those villages. Rationalization o f public transport, postal services and libraries is m en­ tioned as an other example o f economy measures applied without recog­ nition o f the specific situation o f rural areas. T o understand what policies may effectively be im plem ented, we have to determ ine what agencies are designated to carry them out; then we can analyse cach particular form ulation o f policy in terms o f its inherent priorities. In addition, its success or failure is better understood w hen the political culture o f rural areas is analysed. This chapter now turns to these issues, ending with an analysis o f the implem entation o f policy measures in the local environm ent in two case studies.

Agencies and tiers o f government: their interrelations The position o f physical planning among the tasks o f government has been a m atter o f much concern, especially to the Ministry o f Housing, Planning and Milieu (HPM). A model o f the relations is shown in Figure 3.1. This model is easily recognized in published policies. Physical planning as a facet o f planning was established in the T hird Report, with sections on urbanization and rural areas (Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting en Ruim­ telijke O rdening 1976, 1977). In jo in t responsibility, the sector depart­ ments and HPM have generated a stream o f structure schemes for w ater supply, traffic and transport, defence areas, open air recreation, nature and landscape preservation, land use, etc. (Ministerie van Landbouw 1981; Ministerie van Cultur, Recreatie en M aatschappelijk w erk 1981a, 1981b). Figure 3.2 shows which agencies perform planning tasks w ithin distinct tiers o f government: the Physical Planning Agency (Rijksplanologische Dienst) within the HPM, a committee representing other departments and an advisory council as a forum for experts and interest groups.

52

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE

g 9

circles: facets of government policy sectors: sectors of government policy

M C

Figure 3.1 Source:

S e c to r a n d face t p la n n in g . I n fo rm a tio n a n d D o c u m e n ta tio n C e n tr e fo r th e g e o g r a p h y o f th e

N e th e rla n d s .

The other tiers o f governm ent are responsible for their own policy, pro­ vided they do not conflict with plans o f higher authorities or are overruled by a formal directive. The threat o f intervention will usually evoke a com ­ promise. O n the provincial level, the Provincial Physical Planning C om ­ mittee has several representatives o f sector departm ents among its members. The HPM is represented by one representative for housing and one for planning. By making regional plans (streekplantien) and by supervis­ ing municipal planning, provinces co-ordinate the planning that takes place at the three levels. This co-ordinating task is generally delegated to the Pro­ vincial Planning D epartm ent (PPD). Municipalities have to draw up developm ent plans for their entire territory (and have the option o f additional plans for built-up areas). These plans have legal implications for the public in that they state exactly what use is to be made o f land and buildings. This binding character entails a thorough and lengthy procedure to prevent undue damage to those (landed!) interests on which it may intrude. In this way a plan cannot depart too far from the existing situation unless it benefits the owner. In principle, this system connects departm ental measures on the one hand with policies o f local governments on the other. However, by virtue o f their control over budgets, sector departm ents can decide w hether or not to use the opportunities available within the constraints o f physical plans. In the central-local relationship, by their ‘local presence’

R««pon*íbtl

M o d erate ly s e ttled S p arsely s e ttle d

Figure 9.3 Source:

S e tt le m e n t z o n e s w ith i n A u s tra lia . G o d d ard (1983).

responsible custodial rôle because o f the rarity o f such lands, globally. E nvjfonm ental aw areness also extends to the dem and for effective m anagem ent o f A ustralia’s land and w ater resources, re q u irin g stronger public intervention on the previously u n fe ttere d rights o f private landholders. T h ere has been a flurry o f policy form ulation and legislation in these new areas o f public concern, w ith freq u en t conflicts b etw een the th ree levels o f g overnm ent - federal, state and local. T his represents a m ajor refocusing o f rural policy directions aw'ay from traditional goals o f ru ral d evelopm ent and resource exploitation and tow ards new goals o f social justice, am enity and e nvironm ental p ro tectio n . It also involves a ’-edirection o f public concern away from th e m ore rem o te frontiers o f rural settlem ent and tow ards the p o pulation core regions and adjacent longsettled rural lands.

216

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE

References Allen, H. C. 1959. Bush and backwoods: a comparison oj thefrontier in Australia and the United States. Lansing: Michigan State University Press. Blainey, G. 1966. The tyranny o f distance: how distance shaped Australia's history. Melbourne: Sun Books. Butlin, N . G. 1964. Investment in Australian economic development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Commission o f Inquiry into Poverty 1975. First main report: poverty in Australia. Canberra: Australian Governm ent Publishing Service. Commission o f Inquiry into Poverty 1977. I he delivery of weljare services. Canberra: Australian Governm ent Publishing Services. Davidson, B. R. 1965. The northern myth. M elbourne: M elbourne University Press. Davidson, B. R. 1969. Australia wet or dry? M elbourne: M elbourne University Press. Edwards, G. W . & A. S. W atson 1978. Agricultural policy. In Surveys o f Australian economics. F. H. Gruen (ed.). Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 189-239. Garland, K. D. 1983. Rural electricity in Queensland. In Proceedings o f Remote Area Power Supply Workshop. National Energy Research, Developm ent and Dem onstration Programme, D epartm ent o f Resources and Energy, Canberra, 36-52. Goddard, R F. 1983. Rural renaissance - but where? ANZAAS Congress, Perth. Conference paper. Harman, E. J. & B. W . Head (eds) 1982. State, capital and resources in the north and west o f Australia. Perth: University o f W estern Australia Press. Holmes, J. H. 1981. Sparsely populated regions o f Australia. In Settlement systems in sparsely populated regions: the United States and Australia, R. E. Lonsdale & J. H. Holmes (eds). N ew York: Pergamon. Holmes, J. H. 1984. Australia: the dilemma o f sparse population and high expec­ tation. In Rural public services: international comparisons, R. E. Lonsdale & G. Enyedi (eds). Boulder, Colo.: W estview Press. Holmes, J. H. 1985. Policy issues concerning rural settlement in Australia’s pastoral zone. Australian Geographical Studies 23, 3-27. » Holmes, J. H. 1987. Population. In Australia: a geography, Vol. 2, Space and Society. 2nd edn. D. N. Jeans (ed.). Sydney: Sydney University Press, 24-48. Holmes, J. H. (in press). Private disinvestment and public investment in Australia’s Pastoral Zone: policy issues. Geoforum. Hugo, G. J. & P. J. Smailes 1983. U rban-rural m igration in Australia: a process view o f the turnaround. Journal of Rural Studies 1 (1), 11-30. Kelleher, L. 1982. Aspects o f planning in rural Victoria. Law Institute Journal 56 (11), 919-28. Logan, M. I. 1982. Planning and conservation in Victoria: an overview. Law Institute Journal 56 (11), 890-4. Loveday, P. (ed.) 1982. Service delivery to remote communities. Darwin: N orth Australia Research Unit.

AUSTRALIA

217

Lovett, J. V. (ed.) 1973. The environmental, economic and social significance of drought. Sydney: Angus & Robertson. McKay, D. H. 1967. The small farm problem in Australia. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics 11, 115-32. Meinig, D. W . 1962. On the margins of the good earth: the South Australian wheat frontier, 1869-1884. Chicago: Rand McNally. Powell, J. M. 1970. The public lands of Australia Felix: settlement and land appraisal in Victoria, 1834-91. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Roberts, S. H. 1924. History oj Australian land settlement. Melbourne: Macmillan. Throsby, C. D. (ed.) 1972. Agricultural policy. Melbourne: Penguin. Tomlinson, D. G. & P. D. Tannock 1982. Review of Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme. Canberra: Commonwealth Department o f Education. Van Dugteren, T. (ed.) 1978. Rural Australia: the other nation. Sydney: Hodder &■ Stoughton. Walmsley, D. J. 1980. Social justice and Australian Jederalism: an enquiry into territorial justice and life chances in Australia. Armidale: Department o f Geography, Univer­ sity o f New England. Williams, M. 1975. More and smaller is better: Australian rural settlement 1788— 1914. In Australian space Australian time - geographical perspectives, J. M. Powell & M. Williams (eds). Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Young, E. 1981. Tribal communities in remote areas. Canberra: Australian National University.

10

N ew Zealand

RICHARD WILLIS

Geographical and economic background Any discussion o f rural policies and plans in New Zealand must be set against a rather unique geographical and economic background. A remarkably small population o f slightly more than 3 million people (less than the city o f Sydney) inhabits two main islands with a land area larger than the United Kingdom, or larger than the combined areas o f Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, the Netherlands and Belgium. This population is sup­ ported by an economic basis historically dominated by farming, which pro­ vides over 60% o f foreign exchange earnings (1986) but only 7% o f gross domestic product (1984) and employs only about 10% o f the labour force (1981). ‘It is perhaps predictable therefore that rural studies in New Zealand are strong in their orientation towards agriculture’ (Cloke 1986: 3). The his­ torical economic importance o f agricultural activities has ensured that in New Zealand rural policies have been synonymous with farming policies; successive governments have sought to preserve and promote the health o f New Zealand’s most important export industry, at the same time keeping a wary eye on the political climate o f the rural electorates which often put them in power. Even in 1986, in a Parliament dominated by a Labour government which has drawn its support almost exclusively from urban constituencies, there are 25 members out o f a total o f 95 who are farmers or have had agricultural occupations. This kind o f representation ensures that rural areas always receive their share o f government development money. Rural electrification followed quickly on the heels o f the opening up o f the great forest areas for small dairy farms in the 1880s and 1890s, and rural roads and other infrastructures were pushed through difficult terrain to link small settlements which in many more populous countries would have been considered insignificant or uneconomic. Similarly, rural areas in N ew Zealand have always fared well in terms o f education and health facilities. Rural hospitals, maternity hospitals, district nurse services, dental clinics, as well as an excellent tradition o f rural schools, enhanced by a ‘country ser­ vice’ system necessary for the advancement o f teachers, have meant that in New Zealand rural people have suffered little in comparison with their urban counterparts. In the provision o f other facilities such as the Country Library Service or the rural school swimming baths the rural vote has car­

NEW ZEALAND

219

ried great influence in Parliament. Rural areas have never been perceived as ‘problem areas’, and this probably accounts for the fact that so little rural sociology has been w ritten in N ew Zealand. Agriculture never had to evolve through a feudal or peasant stage; rather this was a transplant economy where farmers figured quite prom inently in most indices o f socio-economic status (Vellekoop 1969). In the early 1970s a combination o f adverse climate and m ore difficult m arket conditions for N ew Z ealand’s agriculture forced the raising o f con­ sciousness o f rural social issues by drawing attention to rural problems. Britain’s entry into the European Economic Com munity heralded the departure o f what became known as the ‘green years’ for N ew Zealand farming (Salinger 1979), the Agricultural Production Council com­ missioned a report on rural social conditions in New Zealand (Lloyd 1974), and analysis o f the 1971 census data revealed that rural depopulation was quite a major problem , with 72 out o f the 109 counties suffering falling population in the 1966-71 intercensal period. The evaluation o f these data unleashed considerable academic and political concern about the conse­ quences o f the rural exodus. For example, it was argued that the retention o f people on farms and in rural areas was ‘simple justice’ because without a minimum level o f population they could not have the welfare and other facilities that New Zealanders elsewhere had by right. Also, it was argued that people were an im portant factor influencing agricultural production, because smaller units produced more per hectare, and that total production in New Zealand was vital. It is precisely because we have ovcrstressed the importance o f economic and technical forces and underplayed the social forces at w ork in agriculture that we found ourselves in a situation where we need greater income yet are faced with falling output. (M orton, 1975: 85) N ote that the reason for these initiatives was that it was feared that rural social conditions might have an adverse effect on farm production, not that there was any intrinsic interest in the plight o f rural people. D uring the 1970s farm profitability declined in New Zealand; conse­ quently the volume o f production remained static, with farmers unwilling to invest and making efforts to cut costs to conserve net income. This drop in production caused the government to investigate ways o f increasing productivity - principally subsidies, income support and changes to the taxation system. At some points official concerns coincided with the frus­ trated ambitions o f aspiring farm owners, expressed politically through young farmer and farm w orker organizations. There was increasing con­ cern that farms were enlarging and amalgamating rapidly, leading to a loss o f farm owners and farm workers (Smit 1975); that, because there was

220

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE

lim ited opportunity for new farmers, the farm population was ageing and that old farmers w ere less productive (Willis 1980); and that lim ited entry into farming meant the closing o f the ‘agricultural ladder’ in N ew Zealand, apparently leading to m ore farms being inherited and passed on within families rather than being available for ‘new blood’ (W atson & Cant 1972, W illis 1982). In general terms it is possible to agree with Cloke (1986) that during the 1970s there were some signs o f a move away from agriculture and production-dom inated rural studies to research oriented towards problems and people. Since the now famous ‘W hy they left Eketahuna’ study, the chronicle o f the decline o f a small rural town which received much atten­ tion only because it was the first in the field (Glendinning 1978), rural population studies have been set on a firmer and much m ore systematic foundation (see, e.g., Heenan 1979, O ’N eill 1979a, Neville 1980, Cloke 1983). The w ider publicity given to rural depopulation and the systematics o f rural demography led logically to an interest in other rural social problems. A series o f rural seminars was held in the late 1970s, prom pted particularly by the threatened closure o f m aternity hospitals in places like Hunterville and Greytown. A num ber o f m ore general rural social surveys focused on issues like rural housing, education and services (Sparrow 1979), the role o f w om en in rural areas (Canterbury University Sociology D epartm ent 1976), the clergy in rural areas (O ’N eill 1979b) and alternative em ploy­ ment for rural people (Gillies 1980). It is probable that this growing interest in rural social problems, rural people and the non-agricultural elem ents o f rural society w ould have con­ tinued to grow m ore rapidly had it not been for yet another major change in New Zealand’s political economy. The presentation o f the 1984 Budget m arked som ething o f a watershed in the history o f N ew Z ealand’s farming and land-use policy in that the newly elected Labour governm ent signalled its clear intention to make the marketplace the main regulator o f land-use and farm production decisions. The main reason for this change appeared to be the determ ination o f the governm ent and its treasury advisers to adopt a radically different economic philosophy to deal with N ew Z ealand’s generally unfavourable m acro-economic situation, especially the unprecedented rates o f govern­ ment spending, much o f it on farming and overseas borrow ing to finance that expenditure. Principally, the change in policy involved the removal o f farm income supports and subsidies which had long been part o f the N ew Zealand farming scene but which had grown alarmingly in the late 1970s and early 1980s: In our view the approach which seeks to ensure ‘adequate’ farm incomes is one that has inhibited the adjustment process by protecting farmers

NEW ZEALAND

221

from the realities o f markets. This has had a major cost to the nation and indeed has been to the longer term disadvantage o f the farming com ­ m unity (The Treasury 1984: 1) D uring the 1970s, when it became clear that total agricultural production was static, a num ber o f rural policies to boost stock num bers and pro­ duction were put in place. A Livestock Incentive Scheme to prom ote greater livestock num bers and a Land D evelopm ent Encouragement loan scheme to stimulate the developm ent o f marginal land w ere the two main policies. These were followed after the 1981 election by the Supplemen­ tary Minimum Price Scheme, a subsidy policy that pegged minimum prices much further from market prices than had ever previously been the case. The general result o f these policies was that land prices rose sharply whereas net farm incomes rem ained static or fell in real terms. At one point in the late 1970s it was calculated that the net income o f the average sheep farmer was S12 900 N Z ; o f this, S12 100 N Z was taxpayers’ money and this when the gross income was close to S I00 000 N Z (Ministry o f Agricul­ ture and Fisheries Statistics 1979). W ith hindsight it is easy to see that sub­ sidies, land values and incomes were getting seriously out o f balance and that the crunch was just around the corner. In fact, farmers themselves had accepted high support prices rather uneasily and many changes contained in the Labour governm ent’s new ‘market forces’ doctrines had begun several years before, albeit in a rather ail hoc fashion. O ne o f the first manifestations o f the change from traditional grassland farming was the em ergence o f smallholdings, especially around the fringes o f major m etropolitan areas. This trend helped to stem the depopulation o f rural areas which had occurred so heavily in the 1960s and early 1970s (see Heenan 1979). The other major agricultural diversification which took place before the 1980s was the developm ent o f horticulture - mainly the growth o f kiwifruit and other subtropical fruit, which occurred mainly in land previously occupied by dairy farms. This developm ent brought greater intensification o f settle­ m ent to some rural areas and the demand for m ore seasonal labour (Stokes 1983). Both the growth o f peri-urban smallholdings and the expansion o f small horticultural units initially created major planning problem s for con­ servative rural, farm er-dom inated local authorities. These authorities view ed with suspicion the hippies and alternative lifestylers moving into their communities, w ho were very hung up w ith ‘m inimum economic unit size’ planning concepts (see Cant 1980). The point being made is that the refocusing o f national and rural atten­ tion on agricultural problems because o f the economic difficulties o f farmers was a setback to rural research on non-agricultural topics. The ‘crisis’ in agriculture began to appear in late 1985; the combined effect o f the removal o f subsidies, the appreciation o f the new floating New Zealand

222

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE

currency and world surpluses for agricultural products sent farm incomes plum m eting and land prices tum bling for the first time in several decades. Those who suffered most were farmers who had purchased land at highly inflated values and saw their equity in their property fall by up to 50% almost overnight. Naturally enough this crisis seemed to focus research attention on the plight o f rural communities and the small rural towns dependent on farming - especially the popular press and pressure group research. Farmers m arched 01 1 Parliament for almost the first time in New Zealand’s history; then demanded a better deal from government and there were dire predictions o f thousands o f farmers being forced to walk o ff the land in 1930s depression style. In fact, the publication o f the 1986 Census of Population and Dwellings revealed that a range ot people-oriented and rural planning problem s had been emerging, even though they were disguised by the attention given to farming issues: the confirm ation o f farm enlargem ent and the spectacular reduction in the farm labour force; the decline o f smaller m ral servicing centres; the continued growth ot horticulture-related activities; the expan­ sion o f tourism in rural areas; the impact of the closure o f rural industries such as dairy factories and freezing works; and the rapid growth o f beach retirem ent centres in the ‘sunbelt’ o f the N orth Island. All these are plan­ ning issues affecting both the farming and non-farm ing sections o f the rural population. I shall now discuss these issues in m ore detail.

The rural population associated with Jarming Cloke (1986) emphasized a growing recognition in New Zealand rural studies o f the distribution between the farming and non-farm ing elements of the rural population. The definition of rural and urban populations employed in the New Zealand Census o f Population and Dwellings dates back over 100 years, when the rural population was first clearly defined as ‘persons dwelling in counties or small towns w ith a population o f less than 1000’. Table 10.1 shows the urban-rural distribution o f the N ew Zealand population and the intercensal increase for 1926-81. The final figure for the 1986 census was not available at the time o f publication. A more detailed breakdown o f the characteristics o f the rural population for the 1976 census reveals that only 53% o f the male labour force were employed in agriculture, forestry or hunting occupations and only 3% o f the female labour force (Departm ent of Statistics 1983: 31). Obviously the term ‘the rural population’ includes a wider range o f people than simply those involved in farming. W hen the spatial aspects o f rural population change are considered it is possible to extract several diverse trends related mainly to the distinction betw een farming elements and non-

223

NEW ZEALAND T able 10.1

Urban-rural' distribution o f new New Zealand population, and intercensal increase, 1926—81''.

U rban Census (num ber) 1926 1936 1945 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981

952 1 065 1 227 1 424 1 625 1 866 2 145 2 361 2614 2 650

102 228 069 745 887 894 601 314 119 904

Percentage o f total population

Rural' (num ber)

67.9 67.9 72.2 73.7 74.9 77.5 80.3 82.6 83.6 83.6

449 572 503 885 472 076 508 849 543 727 542 525 526 507 496 171 511 004 520 487

Percentage o f Percentage change total U rban Rural population 32.1 32.1 27.8 26.3 25.1 22.5 19.7 17.4 16.4 16.4

11.9 15.2 16.1 14.1 14.8 14.9 10.1 10.7 1.4

12.1 —6.3 7.8 6.9 - 0 .2 - 3 .0 - 5 .8 3.0 1.9

Notes T he urban population has been defined as that in m ain and secondary u rb an areas, as w ell as that o f all oth e r tow ns o f 1000 population and over. T he rural po p u latio n is th at not defined as urban. * Populations at earlier censuses have been adjusted to boundaries existing at the 1981 census date. • Excludes shipping. •'

Source:

D epartm ent o f Statistics (1983: 14).

farm ing elem ents. This is especially so for traditional grassland farm ing (dairying and sheep and b e e f cattle raising) as distinguished from horti­ culture and small farm ing activities. Figures 10.1 and 10.2 show rural popu­ lation increase and decrease for the 1981-6 interccnsal period. In addition to counties, districts and rural centres w ith less than 1000 population, small towns o f 1000-4999 arc included w here they have increased m ore than 25.2% (six times the national average) or decreased m ore than 10%. Figure 10.2 shows that, w ith one or tw o m inor exceptions, all counties lost popu­ lation, except w here affected by tourism , ru ral-u rb a n periphery sub­ division, horticultural subdivision or beach resort subdivision. T raditional dairy farm ing counties and traditional sheep and cattle farm ­ ing counties have continued to lose population due to a num ber o f interrelated processes: farm amalgam ation o r enlargem ent, reduction o f farm labour as a cost-saving m easure, and the closure o f rural processing industries. Table 10.2 shows changes in the num ber o f holdings by farm type for the 10 years from 1973 to 1983. It is clear that some types o f hold­ ings have suffered m arked declines in num bers, especially dairy farm ers (—135%). Although the num ber o f traditional livestock farms grew by 6% over the decade, they actually decreased as a percentage o f the total num -

Haruru Falls • 50.5%

BKerr Ken • 28.0% LPaihia - 12.4%

M an gaw h ai - 48.4%

New Zealand RURAL POPULATION INCREASE 1981-86

Iw hitianga - 26.5% Uairua -5 6 .2 % ¡W h an gam ata - 52.9% ^ W^ihi Beach - 26.9% ■ ¿ im o k a ro a B - 427% ■ • ^ P a p a m o a B ^ -r6 2 . i%

Raglan - 25.2%

Oakura 8each - 26.2%,

Foxton Beach - 45%

ADMINISTRATIVE COUNTES & DISTRICTS INCREASE >4.2%

* 70.7% - 48.9%

INCREASE >8.4% INCREASE >25.2% Small Towns 1000-4999 INCREASE > 2 5 2% ■

>tx.

„v.

-------- 1-------------------- -

F ig u re 10.1 Sonne:

New Zealand rural population increase 1981-86.

New Zealand Census ut Population and Dwellings IWMi.

New Zealand RURAL POPULATION DECREASE 1981-86 MurujMra - I'Ml'i*

Patea -

T w izel - 11.7%

ADMINISTRATIVE COUNTES & DISTRICTS Mat aura DECREASE 0.1-5% DECREASE 5.1-10% DECREASE > 10% Small Towns 1000 -4999 OECREASE o

F ig u re 10.2 Source:

> 10% loo

New Zealand rural population decrease 1981 -S(>.

N ew Zealand Census ot Population and IXvcllini's

■ roo

T able 10.2

Changes in number o f holdings, 1973-83.

Change 1973-83

N um ber 1973

Percentage o f holdings

N um ber 1983

Percentage of holdings

all dairying all sheep all b e e f all pig all cropping poultry other m ixed livestock

-2 4 4 3 (-135% ) +6307 (+28.9%) + 539 (+7.1%) -3 0 (-4.6% ) + 565 (+34.6%) -1 9 1 (-30.1% ) -1 2 1 1 (-23.2% )

18 144 21 822 7602 655 1631 635 5215

28.7 34.5 12.0 1.0 2.6 1.0 .8.3

15 701 28 129 8141 625 2196 444 4004

20.7 37.1 10.7 0.8 2.9 0.6 5.3

total traditional

+ 3566

55 674

88.1

59 240

78.2

m arket gardening orchards plantations o th er'

+ 114 (+7.0%) + 466 (+22.7%) + 380 (+92.5%) + 8016 (+235.3%)

1623 2054 411 3406

2.6 3.3 0.7 5.4

1737 2520 791 11 422

2.3 3.3 1.0 15.1

63 196

100.0

75 745

100.0

Farm type

total

+ 1 2 549

(+6.0%)

(+19.9%)

N otes * includes m ushroom grow ing; grape grow ing; berry fruit; tobacco; hops; flowers; plant nurseries; beekeeping; orchids; o th er fruit and vegetables;

o ther farm ing; idle land. Source: Agricultural Statistics, 1973-83.

227

NEW ZEALAND

ber o f farms from 88% to 78%. Conversely, the big growth in the num bers o f farm holdings came in horticulture and smaller intercensal land uses (235% increase). These changes in the num ber o f farms are reflected in changes in the num ber o f people involved in farming. The Valuation D epartm ent records that betw een 1973 and 1983 over 4500 dairy farms were sold in New Zealand for the purposes o f farm enlargem ent, i.e. where previously those farms had supported a family now they do not because they form part o f another farm. Table 10.3 shows the distribution o f this loss o f labour from rural areas; for example it shows a net loss of 4239 male working owners and 10 646 male perm anent employees in the ten year period 1973-83. This is again contrasted with a net gain o f 1277 working owners in the ‘oth er’ category and a net gain o f 3168 perm anent employees. N ote that it is unwise to use the same data for females because tax changes during the period dramatically increased the num ber o f wom en classifying themselves as owners. The reduction in the num ber o f farmers and full-time agricultural workers has in some areas been exacerbated by the closure o f rural processTable 10.3

C hanges

in

e m p lo y m e n t o n o n ly ).

dairy sheep b ee f P’g cropping poultry mixed livestock

h o ld in g s,

1 9 7 3 -8 3

(m ales

Perm anent iemployees

W orking ow ners Principal farm type

fa rm

1973

1983

Change N um ber

%

1983

1983

19 141

16 810

-2 3 3 1

-1 2 .2

6624

2696

18 653 5588 558 1112 543

20 833 4011 446 1522 377

+2230 - 1 577 -1 1 2 +410 -1 6 6

+ 12.0 -2 8 .2 -2 0 .1 +36.9 + 30.6

10 983 1665 314 354 453

7720 849 268 398 277

Change N um ber

% -5 9 .3

-3 9 2 8 -3 2 6 3 -81 6 -4 6 +44 -17 6

-2 9 .7 -4 9 .0 -1 4 .6 +12.4 -3 8 .9

-2 4 6 1

- 7 3 .5

4888

2195

-2 6 9 3

-5 5 .1

3349

888

total traditional

50 483

46 244

-4 2 3 9

- 8 .4

23 742

13 096

- 1 0 646

-4 4 .8

m arket G orchards other

1391 1751 2429

1342 1824 3706

-4 9 +73 +1277

- 3 .5 + 4.2 + 52.6

562 857 2921

551 1025 6089

-1 1 +168 +3168

- 2 .0 + 19.6 +108.5

56 133

53 116

+ 3017

+ 5.4

28 082

20 761

-7 3 1 2

-2 6 .1

total N ote

A gricultural Statistics, 1973-83.

228

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE

ing industries, particularly the amalgam ation and concentration o f dairy factories and in som e cases the closure o f m eat-freezing w orks. T he dairy farm ing region o f Taranaki on the w est coast o f the N o rth Island o f N ew Z ealand provides a classic case o f the concentration o f dairy factories. Table 10.4 shows some o f the trends nationally in the dairy industry in the 10 years 1973-83, and these include the loss o f 53 C o-operative Dairy C om panies, the loss o f 67 dairy factories, a loss o f 3781 factory suppliers, but an increase in average herd size from 106 to 137 cows. Figure 10.3 shows geographically the spatial concentration o f dairy fac­ tories in T aranaki; w hat needs to be rem em bered is that in m ost cases the dairy factory represented the centre o f a rural com m unity w hich often con­ sisted o f a general store, factory w orkers’ houses and som etim es a garage. The closure o f so m any factories has also led to a m ajor reduction in unskilled em ploym ent opportunities for M aori people, w ho com prised a large percentage o f the traditional dairy factory w orkers, as they did in m eat-freezing w orks.

Figure 10.3 Source:

T h e lo c a tio n o f d a iry fa c to r ie s in T a r a n a k i 1 9 6 9 , 1 9 7 5 , 1 983.

N ew Zealand D airy Board.

230

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE Table 10.4

T re n d s in th e N e w Z e a la n d d a iry in d u s try , 1 9 7 3 -8 3 .

Item

1972-3

1982-3

Actual change

Percentage change

factory suppliers average farm size (ha) num ber o f co-op com panies butter factories cheese factories milk pow der factories average output in cheese kilom etres travelled by milk tanker (millions)

18 226 106 89 53 75 26 2655 26.5

14 445 137 36 28 27 32 6023 28.0

-3 7 8 1 + 37 -5 3 -2 5 -4 8 +6 +3368 + 1.5

- 2 0 .0 + 2 9 .3 - 5 9 .6 - 4 7 .2 - 6 4 .0 + 2 3 .0 + 126.9 + 5 .7

Sourct:

A gricultural Statistics, 1973-1983.

The combined impact o f these changes to the farm ing-related rural population is clearly illustrated with a small comm unity case study, again from Taranaki. Figure 10.4 shows that, in 1960, 13 dairy farms produced for a small dairy factory serviced by a local general store. By 1980 the fac­ tory was closed, the store was closed and the factory w orkers’ houses removed; through farm amalgamation the 13 farms had been reduced to 10. Similarly, in 1960, 85 children caught the school bus to the local nearby town, but in 1980 only 14 children attended school. The dem ographic change was, o f course, produced by a num ber o f factors, including smaller family size and fewer farms. Policies and plans dealing with the problem s affecting the farming sector o f the rural population have varied according to which party is in pow er in New Zealand. For example, when the problem s o f rural depopulation and farm amalgamation were publicized in the early 1970s the Labour party pledged itself to lend less money for farm enlargem ent through the Rural Bank. W hen Labour achieved power in 1972 they did carry this policy through and began to encourage new farm er settlement. How ever, their 'm ore m arket’ economic philosophy outlined earlier, which the current Labour governm ent has put in place, has cut cheap lending for all purposes, so it is apparent that farms will continue to get bigger. This policy making has been dom inated by the overall econom ic policies outlined earlier, and there have been precious few policy or planning initiatives dealing w ith the social problems facing farming people. Part o f the problem in New Zealand is the small num bers involved. Take, for example, the problem o f em ploym ent retraining for displaced farm workers. In 1986 the Labour government abolished the Agricultural Training Council as part o f its costcutting measures but charged the Vocational Training Council with the

N E W Z EA LA N D

231 Store

closed

STATE HIGHWAY

K

M

KEY: Letters A-M represent original farm subdivisions 1960 and shaded areas show am algamations 1960-1980

Figure 10.4 Source:

C h a n g es in ru ra l T ara n ak i 1 9 6 0 -8 0 . Author's research.

task o f devising retraining programmes for farm workers displaced during the rural crisis. However, when the Vocational Training Council tried to discover who needed training in the King Country region - a region o f hard hill country farms - it was found that only about 2% o f the 600 farms actually employed full-time labour (Victoria University Geography Department 1986). So the number o f people liable to be affected by this policy was very small - it is difficult to bring down a policy for 20 people.

232

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE

The non-farming rural population The general trends in N ew Zealand’s rural population shown in Figures 10.2 and 10.3 need to be explored in m ore detail to isolate the trends affect­ ing the non-farm ing sector o f the rural population. By concentrating on small towns (1000-4999) it is possible to highlight several major themes. Table 10.5 divides up these smaller towns by greatest increase and decrease in population (1981-6). It further classifies them according to type: Group 1 are the beach/retirem ent towns. Most o f them are on the East Coast in the northern part o f N orth Island. As the population o f New Zealand ages and as people increasingly desire the warm climates and beach lifestyles these centres will continue to grow. Group 2 are those towns which have grown steadily with the expansion o f the kiwifruit industry, where the subdivision o f properties, the dem and for seasonal labour, and the general injection o f capital has pushed expansion. Group 3 are towns benefiting from tourism in South Island, with settle­ ments like Arrowtown and Frankton near Q ueenstow n recording quite dramatic population increases, the influence o f both sum m er and w inter attractions. Group 4 are the traditional small rural servicing centres which have declined with the depopulation o f the farming areas as services have centralized and communication improved. O nly 5 o f the 14 towns are in N orth Island; the other small towns arc all south o f Christchurch in the southern part o f the South Island. This reflects the general northward drift o f the New Zealand population. Group 5 are towns where a particular industry or infrastructure has influenced the population decline. The classic examples are the com ­ pletion o f construction o f hydroelectric pow er schemes affecting Turangi (ccntral N orth Island) and Twizel (central South Island) or the closure o f the Patea freezing works (W est Coast N orth Island). Another influence on the non-farm ing elem ent o f the rural population which does not appear in Table 10.5 is the so-called T hink Big major pro­ jects industrialization. In the late 1970s the N ational party governm ent decided to use the nation’s energy resources to im plem ent a major indus­ trialization program m e based on becom ing m ore self-sufficient in energy. These projects included major expansions to the country’s only oil refinery, expansions to the country’s only steel mill, the construction o f a S2 billion synthetic petrol plant using natural gas, an export m ethanol plant, and an ammonia urea fertilizer plant. In addition, it was decided to electrify the main trunk railway in N orth Island and build several small

N EW ZEALAND T able 10.5

Population trends in N ew Zealand towns o f 1000-4999 in 1981-6 intercensal period.

T o w n s in c re a sin g 25.2% o r m o re 1

233

T o w n s d e c re a sin g 5% o r m o re

B e a c h /re tire m e n t to w n s K aglan

25.2

R ural se rv ic in g c e n tre s T a ih a p e

5.5

O a k u ra

26 .2

D a rfic ld

7.0

4

W h itia n g a

52.9

B alclu th a

6.5

T a iru a

56.2 42.7

P aero a Edgcum be

6.9 5.9

62.3

H u n te rv ille W e s to n

12.2

O m o k a r o a Beach P ap am o a B each F o x to n B each Paihia H a ru ru Falls

45 .0 32.4

W a ih i B each

50.5 26 .9

M an g aw h ai

48 .4

5.1

W yndham

8.6

O ta u ta u

7 .6 13.3

T apanui L aw ren c e

8.7

P io p io 2

3

K iw ifru it to w n s

F airlie

T e Puke

25.8

K e rik e ri K atik ati

28.0 27.0

S o u th Island to u rist to w n s A rro w to w n Lake T c k a p o F ra n k to n W anaka C ro m w e ll (also h y d ro e le c tric schem e)

Source:

8.1 11.7

R o x b u rg h 5

5.8

R u ra l to w n s w ith d e c lin in g in d u stry M u ru p a ra T u ra n g i

2 8 .8 (h y d ro e le c tric

40.6 4 9.5

T w iz el

sch em e) 69 .2 (h y d ro e le c tric

25.5 48.9

M ata u ra M o e re w a P atea

sch em e) 16.3 (flo o d d am ag e) 5.9 (fre e z in g w o rk s) 19.8 (clo sed freez in g

K aitan g ata

w o rk s) 10.0 (coal m in in g )

70.7

19.8 (fo restry )

N Z C en su s o f P o p u la tio n an d D w e llin g s, 1986.

forest-based processing plants. The point about these major projects is that, especially during the construction phase, several o f the projects had big im pacts on rural areas. For example, the three Taranaki gas-based projects w ere set in rural areas close to the m ajor regional centres o f N ew Plym outh, leading to a trem endous population boom for N ew Plym outh and the surrounding counties o f Taranaki, C lifton and Inglewood. These projects had the added significance o f prom pting central and local govern­ m ent to becom e deeply involved in social, econom ic and environm ental impact studies in a way never before experienced in N ew Zealand, spawn­ ing a w hole new literature on the subject and forcing regional planners to grapple w ith the problem s o f m ajor industries in rural areas (see Speers 1978, Taranaki U nited Council 1982-3, T aylor et al. 1983). The N ational

234

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE

party government had brought the whole planning process into sharp political focus by passing the National Developm ent Act, a ‘fast-track’ pro­ cedure which attem pted to sidestep some provisions o f the existing plan­ ning legislation. The prom otion o f the Bill and its passage through Parliament drew storms o f protest and led to the form ation o f a political watchdog group, the Coalition for O pen G overnm ent (C O G ), whose research provided the much needed fuel for a healthy debate on the plan­ ning and impact assessment o f these projects. For example, the threatened spoiling o f Maori fishing grounds by the outfall from one o f the Taranaki petrochem ical plants led to an appeal by local Maoris for the provision o f the Treaty o f W aitangi (1840), guaranteeing their fishing resources. This set a successful precedent which has since been used several times in rural areas. Again the point should be made that it is primarily national economic and social policies that are affecting rural areas, rather than policies designed specifically for rural problems. Another example is the recent stress by the Labour governm ent on restructuring governm ent departm ents into public corporations, with emphasis on efficiency and public account­ ability. For some governm ent departm ents this has had a profound effect on rural areas. The corporatization o f N ew Zealand Railways, for example, has m eant the loss o f several thousand jobs nationally, with significant num bers in smaller rural centres like Taum aranui and Te Kuiti. The cen­ tralization oi offices o f the New Zealand Forest Service and the D epart­ m ent o f Lands and Survey is currently having a similar effect, the dimensions o f which arc not yet fully recognizable. Thus the governm ent’s macro objectives o f reducing public expenditure and increasing public sec­ tor efficiency conflict with the idea o f keeping rural areas viable and make it difficult for the same administration to put in place policies which may ameliorate the situation. As yet there arc few specifically rural policies to cope with governm ent sector restructuring, apart from policies directed toward farming. O ne set o f policies which in New' Zealand’s case are im portant for rural areas are regional developm ent policies. Regional economic differences are traditionally very small in N ew Zealand (W illiamson 1968). Regional D evelopm ent Priority Areas have existed since 1973 and consist mainly o f the m ore isolated non-m etropolitan regions w here the econom ic base is strongly rural. Table 10.6 shows the dimensions o f the Regional Assistance Program me from its inception in 1973 until 1986, when there was a major policy change. The program m e in N ew Zealand basically follows a policy direction recently stated by the O E C D in assisting mainly small business: The future developm ent o f rural areas may well depend on the viability o f small and medium sized enterprises which despite their high failure

235

NEW ZEALAND

rate still create large num bers o f jo b s and dem onstrate considerable initiative, innovativeness and flexibility in ru n n in g th eir businesses. (O E C D , 1986: 10) In 1986, again as part of g overnm ent e x p en d itu re cuts, the regional assis­ tance program m e was changed in tw o ways. Firstly, the various loan schemes have been suspended and replaced by investigation grants. Secondly, these investigation grants now apply to all regions, d em onstrating that w here previously regional developm ent policy m ay have given som e advantage to rural areas, now it does not. Indeed, recent research shows that regional developm ent loan assistance was q uite a good investm ent, especially com pared w ith the cost o f jo b creation in the T h in k Big p ro ­ gram m e o r the cost o f paying u nem ploym ent ben efit (W illis 1986: 16). T able 10.7 com pares the cost o f jo b creation in the rural K ing C ountry region w ith the cost o f jo b s in the T h in k Big projects. T ab le 10.6 Region

R e g io n a l d e v e lo p m e n t a s s is ta n c e , 1 9 7 3 - 8 6 ( M a r c h y e a rs ). T o tal assistance NZ S

% to tal

P opulatio n

% P o p u latio n

1986 (000s)

1986

U53 165 906 813 730 617

9.7

127 864

3.2 6.4 9.2 9.1

32 230 54 070 107 503

2.3

70 513 39 601

total N o rth island

20 185 284

39.9

431 781

49.2

M arlb o ro u g h A orangi S. C an terb u ry ) W e st C oast O tag o Southland

2 886 182" 5 868 868'

5.7 11.6

38 239 81 760

4.4 9.3

5 715 495 8 468 078 5 166 181

11.3 16.8 10.2

34 961 186 039 104 458

4.0 21.1 11.9

total South Island

28 104 804

55.6

455 482

50.8

N o rth la n d K ing C o u n try East C oast Taranaki W anganui W airarapa

4 8% 1 616 3 223 4 656 4 621 1 170

100.0 total N e w Z ealand

49 290 088 + 2 264 836 = 50 554 924

14.6 3.7 6.2 12.3 8.0 4.5

100.0 877 263

Notes N o t tu ll period. T otal o th e r N Z $2 264 836. R egion n o t p rio rity . Sources:

D e p artm en t o t T ra d e and Industry files; N Z C ensus o f P o p u latio n and D w ellings, 1986.

236

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE

Table 10.7

C o m p a ris o n o f th e cost p e r j o b in T h in k B ig p ro je c ts an d K in g C o u n tr y m a n u fa c tu rin g p ro je c ts .

Project

M arsden refinery Clyde Dam N Z Steel, stage U main trunk electricity'* W aikato coal developm ent M artha Hill mine Ammonia U rea production

Total cost per jo b NZ $

37% governm ent contribution assumed NZ $

9 230 000 17 400 000 575 806 24 661 000 244 012 966 101 986 000

3 415 110 6 438 000 213 049 9 124 570 90 213 357 457 2 666 666

King C ountry manufacturing

5474

N otes

J Figure takes no account of the net jo b loss. 1 2

Jobs in the construction phase not included. 37% rate of governm ent contribution to major projects has been assumed in o rd er to estim ate total cost of jobs. In tact, the governm ent may have to pay m uch m ore, e.g. Ammonia Urea.

Source:

M ajor Projects Advisory Council newsletters.

The discussion so far has emphasized the dom ination o f central govern­ ment in affecting rural plans and policies in New Zealand, barely m ention­ ing the role o f regional institutions or local authorities. That this emphasis is substantially correct was crudely dem onstrated in N ovem ber 1986 when, under provisions in the m ining and prospecting law, a governm ent pros­ pecting team broke down fences and began drilling for coal w ithout the private landholder’s permission, causing a storm o f protest among the rural community. New Zealand has, in fact, evolved a full list o f united and regional councils in the last five years, but they have very little pow er to collect taxes (rates) and the planning schemes they may bring into place are largely indicative rather than compulsory. O nly the Auckland Regional Authority is elected directly by all m embers o f the region, and the major function o f these bodies is co-ordination o f the functions which are wider than their con­ stituent local authorities, especially urban transport and civil defence. Local authorities such as counties and districts have more statutory plan­ ning power to affect rural policies, but the land tax they collect allows them to administer a limited range o f functions - things such as land use, w ater supply, waste disposal and roading. Any people-directed aid invariably

NEW ZEALAND

237

comes through the local branches o f state departments, such as Social W elfare, the Health Departm ent, the D epartm ent o f Maori Affairs and the Labour Departm ent. Such is the influence o f central governm ent policies that, by the end o f 1986, a noticeable dualism was emerging in national and regional economic health in New Zealand. The free market policies o f the Labour govern­ ment had led to an explosion o f economic activity in the big cities, fuelled by property investment and record stock exchange activity, with the lowest unem ploym ent levels in Auckland and W ellington. Meanwhile, un­ em ploym ent had grown to near record levels in the provincial centres and rural areas as the impact o f central governm ent’s deregulatory policies hit the farming industry and associated rural services.

Conclusions It has been a major them e in this chapter that, although some signs o f rural social research and rural policies which w ere people- and problem oriented had begun to emerge in the late 1970s, the recent dramatic changes in governm ent macro-econom ic policy, affecting both farming sector and governm ent restructuring, have tended to obscure both rural social research and rural social policy. The so-called farming crisis and its elfect on small rural servicing centres have directed attention away from other emerging groups in the rural population, namely part-tim e farmers and retirem ent/beach settlements, tourist settlements and rural industries, postponing the developm ent o f policies specifically directed towards rural people and rural areas, with even regional developm ent policy which pre­ viously favoured rural areas being widened to include m etropolitan areas. These developments have been largely ushered in by a Labour government with a predominantly urban support base. The test o f the political sus­ tainability o f these policies will come in the 1987 General Election, when it is certain that the National party opposition with its strong rural support base will foreshadow a wide range o f rural policies, including some peopleoriented, problem -oriented rural social policy.

References C a n t, R. G . 1980. People anil planning in rural communities. Studies in Rural Com m unities N o 4. C a n te r b u ry U n iv e rs ity , C h ris tc h u rc h . C a n te rb u ry U n iv e rs ity S o cio lo g y D e p a rtm e n t 197(>. I he rural women o f N e w Zealand: a national surrey. C a n te rb u r y U n iv e rs ity , C h ris tc h u rc h . C lo k e , P. J . 1983. P o licy resp o n ses to ru ra l d e p o p u la tio n a n d r e p o p u la tio n

238

POLICIES A N D PLANS FO R RURAL PEOPLE

contracts between New Zealand and the United Kingdom. New Zealand Agricultural Science 17 (I), 231-6. Clokc, P.J. 1986. Observations on policies for rural communities in N ew Zealand. New Zealand Geographer 42 (1), 2-10. Departm ent o f Statistics 1983. Rural profile. Occasional Paper No. 4. W ellington. Gillies, A. 1980. Alternative employm ent opportunities in rural areas in New Zealand. New Zealand Agricultural Science 14, 9-17. Glendinning, D. 1978. Why did they leaw Eketahuna? W airarapa Education and Rural Services Com mittee. Eketahuna. Heenan, L. O . B. 1979. The demographic condition o f New Zealand rural society. In New Zealand rural society in the 1910's, R. Bedford (ed.), 2-22. Studies in Rural Change No. 1. Canterbury University, Christchurch. Lloyd, D. W. 1974. A preliminary review of rural social conditions with particular rejerence to the manpower position on farms. Ministry o f Agriculture and Fisheries, N ew Zealand Agricultural Statistics 1979. W ellington: Agricultural Production Council. M orton, H. A. 1975. People as a factor influencing future agricultural production. New Zealand Agricultural Science 9 (3), 85-90. Neville, R. J. 1980. Spatial patterns o f population change: trends in rural areas and small towns. In The land our future: essays on land use and conservation in New Zealand, G. Anderson (ed.), 261-90. Auckland: Longman. O E C D (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) 1986. M anaging the rural renaissance. O E C D Observer 141, July, 9-12. O ’Neill, C. J. 1979a. N ew Zealand’s population: trends and implications for the rural community. New Zealand Agricultural Science 13 (1), 10-17. O ’Neill, C. J. (cd.) 1979b. Interstices: a report on the consultation on rural ministry Waimate. Studies in Rural Change No. 3. Canterbury University, Christchurch. Salinger, J. 1979. Climatic change: lessons Jrom New Zealand’s historical records. Paper presented to the 49th ANZAS Conference, Auckland, NZ. Smit, B. A. 1975. An analysis o f the determinants o f farm enlargement in N orthland, New Zealand. New Zealand Geographer 31 (2), 160-77. Sparrow, M. et al. 1979. Banks Peninsular 1977; a rural survey. Studies in Rural Change No. 2, Canterbury University, Christchurch. Speers, R. S. 1978. Influence oj industry in a rural setting: New Zealand steel and Waiuku Borough. MA. Thesis in Geography, Auckland University. Stokes, E. 1983. The impact oj horticultural expansion in the Tauranga District. Town and C ountry Planning Technical Report No. 14, Ministry o f W orks, W ellington. Taranaki United Council (1982-3) Energy monitor: study oj the impact oj petrochemical projects on the work jorce and accommodation in the Taranaki region. Reports 6-8 , N ew Plymouth. Taylor, C. N ., C. Bettesworth & J. G. Kerslake 1983. Social implications of rural industrialisation: a bibliography ol New Zealand experiences. Lincoln College Centre for Resource M anagement, Christchurch. The Treasury 1984. Economic management land use issues. Governm ent Printer, W ellington. Vellekoop, C. 1969. Social strata in N ew Zealand, in Social process in New Zealand, J. Forster (ed.), 233-71. Auckland: Longman.

NEW ZEALAND

239

Victoria University Geography D epartm ent 1986. Surrey of farmers in Tautnaruttui County. Unpublished. W atson, M. B. & C. Cant 1972. Variations in productivity on W aikato dairy farms. In Proceedings of the New Zealand Geography Conference, 165-75. Christchurch. W illiamson, J. G. 1968. Regional inequality and the process o f national develop­ ment: a description o f patterns. In Regional Analysis, L. Needleman (cd.). Middlesex, England: Penguin. Willis, R. P. 1980. Dairy farmers younger yet. New Zealand Journal oj Agriculture July, 22-4. Willis, R. P. 1982. The Influence o f some social factors on agricultural production, New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Science, 16 (3), 160-4. Willis, R. P. 1986. Manufacturing in the King Country. In King Country Regional Resources Survey (forthcoming), Victoria University o f W ellington.

11

Conclusions: Rural policies -

responses

to problems

or problematic

responses? PAUL CLOKE

Scale and diversity The preceding case studies were selected so as to provide a range o f dif­ ferent geographical and sociopolitical contexts in which to examine policies and plans for rural people in the developed world. These contexts range from small and compact nation-states to vast subcontinents w ith high levels o f internal diversity. The accounts o f rural policies reflect these dif­ ferences o f scale, and although terms such as ‘peripheral’ and ‘m arginal’ have been coined in each o f the countries under scrutiny, there are signifi­ cant variations in marginality to be acknowledged, for example betw een the north o f the N etherlands and northern Canada or peripheral areas o f the USSR. Remoteness should, therefore, be recognized as at least partly a scale-determined phenom enon, and the consequent range o f scales on dis­ play in this book is liable in many ways to skew comparative analysis o f remote rural areas. Similarly, the information presented in the case studies involves vari­ ation in sociocultural mix, and this factor should again be accounted for in validating any comparisons and contrasts arising from evaluations o f rural policies in different nations. Thus the marginal W elsh and Scottish cultures within the British context might more readily be compared w ith Frenchspeaking populations in Canada than with the ‘m arginal’ Inuit nations in the Canadian north, or the Siberian peoples in the USSR. Obvious political differences also arise from these studies. Leaving aside the distinctive political economy o f the USSR, which contrasts starkly with other systems o f government discussed in this book, there are a range o f political parties and structures presented to us here. Conservative, Republican, National or Labour parties may be caricatured but will not be easily characterized in an international context. For example, the 1984 Labour party government in N ew Zealand appears to exhibit many of the free-m arket tendencies o f Conservative governments in Britain and those under other titles in the Netherlands, the USA and elsewhere. Political

CONCLUSIONS

241

diversity also occurs in the tiers o f governm ent which have been established in different nations. There are clear policy-making implications arising from a federation o f states or provinces where ‘central state’ func­ tions are divided, as com pared w ith the central/local governm ent divisions found in (often smaller) nations. This diversity betw een the contexts presented in the case-study chapters in this book might be used as a legitimate excuse for not indulging in any analysis o f comparison or contrast betw een them . Indeed the difficulties o f such an analysis should not be underestim ated. Nevertheless, if we are to break down the parochialism which currently besets our understanding o f planning and policy making, indications ofcom m unality and comparability in an international context are a necessary step, albeit perhaps a tenuous one, towards m ore widely applicable explanations o f rural change and the responses o f governments to such change. A few prelim inary conclusions are presented in this final chapter. These are o f necessity both b rief and tenuous, yet it is hoped that this book will act as some small catalyst to a greater urgency for international comparative study o f planning and policy making in rural areas. As explained in Chapter 1, Authors o f case study chapters in this book were presented w ith a com­ m on agenda relating to the problem s experienced by rural people, power relationships associated w ith planning for rural people, the planning mechanisms which have been established, and the relationships between implementing agencies. It was hoped in this way that case-study evidence would illustrate: (a) (b) (c)

any com m unality o f problems experienced by particular fractions o f the rural population; any comparability in the planning and policy mechanisms which have been developed in response to those problems; any supportive evidence o f contem porary concepts o f the role o f planning as a state activity.

These issues are now dealt with in turn.

Communality o f problems The characteristic problem s o f rural areas described by the various authors in this book reflect the diversity o f scale, culture and political econom y o f the nations under scrutiny. Yet a very strong underlying theme emerges from the analyses presented here. Rural areas are in most cases viewed as synonymous with old resource regions and arc thereby imbued with symptoms o f economic underdevelopm ent. Thus Gerald Hodge

242

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE

describes non-urban regions in Canada as displaying poverty, illiteracy, poor housing and public infrastructure, obsolete resources and inefficient technology. Such problems are noticeable at both regional and local scales. In the larger nations, where whole regions are marginal in political and economic as well as geographical terms, these indications o f relative deprivation apply wholesale. Elsewhere, even amongst densely populated and relatively accessible rural areas such as those in Britain, the N etherlands and parts o f France, the problem o f deprivation persists, but is interspersed with the wealth o f m ore adventitious residents o f the same countryside. In Britain, for example, there appear to be specific groups o f rural people experiencing deprivation, including the remnants o f the form er agricultural economy o f the area; the nouveaux pauvres w ho have consciously decided to live their life in rural areas for reasons o f environ­ mental choice, yet who have little opportunity o f access to wealth or income to make such a life an economically prosperous one; and the elderly components o f all resident fractions including the form erly adventitious. There do, therefore, seem to be a series o f endem ic problems associated with the decline o f extensive resource-based economies in rural areas. Dif­ ferent case studies reflect different forms o f economic restructuring in rural areas, and it is clear from the evidence presented that rural problem s are not simply those connected with the capital substitution for labour within prosperous agriculture or the loss o f gainful em ploym ent because o f agricultural decline. There arc indeed indications o f policy responses which assume that rural problems stem from agricultural restructuring. In New Zealand, for example, rural policies do seem to have been syn­ onymous with farming policies as successive governments have recognized the necessity to prop up that country’s most im portant export industry. Similarly, Judith Pallot’s account o f policy in the USSR suggests that atten­ tion to rural problems has stemmed from the problem atic nature o f a decline in agricultural production due to the loss o f rural workers to urban areas. Nevertheless, other resource-based developm ents have occurred in rural areas, so restructuring the economy alongside agricultural changes and creating further rural resource-based problems. Bill Lassey, Mark Lapping and John Carlson describe such problem s in the USA context as part o f a boom -bust phenomenon. They refer to cycles o f economic restructuring in rural communities w ith a heavy dependence on a narrow employm ent base, typically consisting o f only one or two industries. Vulnerability to international variations in com m odity demand means that such communities boom one year and bust the next, with tragic welfare con­ sequences for local residents unless specific policy interventions are

CONCLUSIONS

243

forthcoming. In the USA, the boom -bust phenom enon has been par­ ticularly acute in economies dependent on energy production (especially oil and coal). The recom position o f local society which follows the b o o m bust restructuring has been m irrored in rural areas either side o f the N orth Sea. O ne o f the principal reasons behind counterurbanization trends in rural areas o f north-east Scotland in the 1970s was the influx o f develop­ ment related to the N orth Sea O il production. N ow , with the slump in oil prices worldwide, communities which grew both in size and prosperity have now slumped. The description o f American ‘ghost-towns’ - jobs lost, businesses closed, services diminished, real estate vacant and declining in value, prosperous citizens suddenly jobless or even bankrupt - refers equally to the Aberdeen area and to a lesser extent to similar communities in Norway. These rounds o f capital restructuring form a basic plank o f any political economic analysis o f rural areas. T he developm ent o f capitalism has created economic and social structures which manifest themselves in spatial distributions, including those which are reflected in w hat are perceived as rural-urban differences. Spatial distributions o f economic and social struc­ tures change over time as areas o f advantage and disadvantage emerge and re-em erge. Gordon Cherry has illustrated this progressive substitution o f dom inant social and economic orders: O ver a num ber o f centuries the feudal order was replaced by an agrarian capitalist order. O ver the last 100 years we have seen how the cnfecblement o f agrarian capitalism produced the tw cnticth-ccntury problems to which planning in its widest sense has reacted: land, poverty, insecurity o f jobs, housing squalor, comm unity disadvantage and restriction o f opportunity. In the last 30 years new forms o f conflict have arisen, and others have sharpened as one dom inant value system has challenged another: the urbanite earmarks rural land for recreation, urban water needs take over rural farm land for reservoirs, the city dweller moves into rural housing. (C herry 1976: 265). Many o f the rural areas analysed in this book reflect this substitution to one degree or another. Alongside traditional agricultural production and other primary industrial enterprises (including the m ore recent energy developments) there are also in some areas clear trends towards counter­ urbanization, including an urban-to-rural shift in manufacturing industry. In some cases, such as the U nited Kingdom, counterurbanization has been widespread, enfolding the most marginal areas. In Canada, the USA and Australia, there rem ain depressed rural areas almost untouched by this resurgence. W here rural revival is closely linked with m odern m anufactur­

244

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE

ing industry the vulnerability to boom -bust remains. Evidence from the USA, for example, suggests that recent downturns in specific high-tech industries have had detrimental impacts on some rural communities where problems were thought to have been solved due to an advantaged status in attracting a m odern industrial base. In areas where capital accumulation is the driving force behind change, then, people in rural localities suffer from the impacts o f successive rounds o f capital restructuring which tend to allocate a narrow economic base to these areas o f small and scattered workforces. Restructuring can benefit rural areas, as currently in parts o f Britain where restructuring has led to an influx o f manufacturing industry and employment. W here such changes are not occurring through the market mechanism, governments are faced with the issue o f whether to promote economic growth in rural localities. If (for whatever reason) such prom otion occurs, one o f the major selling points o f rural areas to industrialists is the availability o f a low-cost and non-unionized workforce. New employment attracted in this way may well add to the persistent problems o f low income in rural areas. Besides these issues o f economic development, the other main recogniz­ able problem in rural areas is that o f providing an adequate level ofservices to a small dispersed population. Most chapters have discussed this issue, and the standard and cost o f service delivery in rural areas is evidently a consistent issue facing rural planners and policy-makers. This theme can be approached in terms o f justice and equality, suggesting that egalitarian political virtues are being brought to bear on the problem to ensure that rural people receive approximately the same servicing conditions as their urban counterparts. Alternatively, the provision o f rural services can be viewed as the price to be paid for maintaining a strategic or economic presence in otherwise underpopulated areas. Despite this clear complementarity o f perceived problems in most o f the nations studied in the case study chapters, albeit occurring in different con­ figurations because o f varying degrees o f capital restructuring, it should be reiterated that it is the response to these problems which remains the priority o f this book. The fact that similar problems occur at different scales and in different configurations suggests that if planning performs the rational, apolitical role discussed in Chapter 1 it will represent an attempt by government both to regulate change and specifically to intervene in problematic issues so as to respond to the needs o f rural people. According to other theoretical concepts o f planning and policy making, the state will be attempting to secure the needs o f specific capital interests through plan­ ning, and intervention in areas o f social consumption will be largely for legitimation purposes. It is to these issues o f problem response that we now turn.

CONCLUSIONS

245

Comparability o f planning and policy response The various preceding case study chapters have revealed policies emanat­ ing from differing levels o f governm ent which have had significant impacts on rural people. Although not mutually exclusive, three categories may be used to convey these different policy derivations. (1)

T O P -D O W N RESPONSES

In most cases top-dow n policies are characterized and conditioned by the views o f central governm ent decision-makers as to how rural areas fit into the overall scheme o f things. M ore specifically, rural areas in this context represent one (often relatively insignificant) part o f the overall objectives o f the state which tend to be urban in orientation and priority. Gerald H odge’s analysis o f rural policy in Canada, for example, stresses that rural areas are view ed as resource environm ents for the dom inant urban indus­ trial society or as residual ‘green spaces’ awaiting the inevitable process o f urbanization and industrialization. As a result, top-dow n rural planning in Canada is seen as disjointed, inconsistent, paternalistic and insensitive to local needs. T op-dow n policy responses tend to be sectoral in nature and therefore often cross-cut the m ore holistic problem s o f deprivation and disadvantage in rural communities. The principal policy sector is that o f agriculture, and without exception the case study chapters have stressed the im portance o f central state agricultural policies in the various nations under review. W hereas other industrial sectors have undergone capital restructuring with only indirect support from the state, agriculture has been the recipient o f major state financial subsidies. As a consequence, the restructuring o f agriculture has been inextricably intertw ined with political power relations within the state. In many cases this has m eant that once agricultural policy support systems had been put into place they have been difficult to remove or adjust in response to the structural imperatives o f international markets. Policies designed to ensure a desired level o f production in particular crops have tended to resist potential reform s which have been prom pted by a recognition o f overproduction, unequal product competition and other m arket-oriented circumstances. To a significant degree, the resistance to policy restructuring in the agricultural sector has been due to the powerful political lobby enjoyed by agricultural interests in most mixed economies. This in turn has led to cen­ tral government departments with responsibility for agriculture - the US D epartm ent o f Agriculture, the Ministry o f Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in Britain, and so on - assuming a lead role in the prom otion o f well­

246

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE

being in the rural sector. Rural welfare thus becomes agricultural welfare in many respects. Although there is evidence in many nations that the benefits o f agricultural support are unevenly distributed, not only amongst rural populations but also within the farming fraternity, it has generally not been the plight o f the small, low-incom e farmer which has generated policy responses to the need for structural change in agriculture. Apart from nations such as France where the Com m on Agricultural Policy o f the Euro­ pean Economic Com m unity is so scheduled as to prop up the incomes o f certain categories o f smaller farmers and where small-scale farmers do wield some political clout, it has been the larger-scale political issues o f central state expenditure, balance o f payments, and specifically the over­ burdening cost o f agricultural support which has prom pted the (usually slow) changes in agricultural policy. For example, John Holm es’s account o f agricultural policies in Australia demonstrates how governm ent assis­ tance is increasingly being directed towards adjusting production to low w orld prices and unequal com petition from the USA and the European Com m unity. T here are signs, however, that the favourable treatm ent enjoyed by agricultural capital is beginning to wane in some nations. Born o f strategic necessity and o f a perceived economic bond betw een indigenous agricultural production and national stability, the agricultural sector has sucked in significant proportions o f central state discretionary expendi­ tures. In Britain, for example, it has been estimated that two-thirds o f the gross profits from agriculture are derived from the national and European states. Inevitably, other fractions o f capital have aimed to climb onto this bandwagon, either by prising some o f these expenditures away from agriculture and into support systems favouring their own production sec­ tors, or by reducing government expenditure overall so that their ow n tax­ ation burdens are correspondingly lightened. O ne possible crisis o f capital is hypothesized as stemming from just such conflicts betw een different capital fractions. The beginnings o f a rift in this privileged relationship betw een govern­ m ent and agricultural interests are apparent in Britain, where the M inister o f Agriculture was recently given an unprecedented vote o f censure by the National Farmers Union over the impacts o f EEC measures to reduce pro­ duction in some products and, m ore especially, over proposed changes to agricultural land-use planning. The most radical case o f such a rift, however, has been in N ew Zealand. In 1984 the newly elected Labour governm ent rem oved farm income supports and subsidies with a resultant decline in land prices and agricultural incomes. The impact o f any dim inution o f agricultural bias in rural policies will depend on the degree to which central states m erely withdraw policy and

CONCLUSIONS

247

financial support from rural areas, or w hether resources are substituted into a planned adjustment o f rural economies in response to agricultural re­ structuring. In some advanced and m ore densely populated nations like Britain and the peri-urban parts o f most nations discussed in this book, we may be moving towards a phase o f contem plating the requirem ents o f a post-m odernist agriculture. If so, a key question is w hether the strategic need for a supported rural population will prove as compelling to govern­ ments as the strategic need for an agricultural population has done during the age o f industrial progress. A second type o f top-dow n sectoral policy affecting rural areas is regional policy. This generic term has been used to describe many different policy packages, but in its most basic form, regional policy represents the provision by central governments, such as those in Scandinavia described by Peter Sjoholt, o f economic incentives to industrial enterprises to move from growth areas to the periphery, alongside efforts to prom ote and sup­ port indigenous economic activities in the marginal areas. In many instances the ‘m argin’ or ‘periphery’ will overlap with rural areas, but it should be noted that regional policies also (and often principally) apply to declining industrial areas, which happen to be on the economic rather than spatial margins o f the time. Indeed, the political impetus for regional policies has often stemmed from a need for high-profile governm ent action in these old industrial areas. O nce again then, top-dow n policies, which are initiated for the support o f particular interests, have been relevant to rural areas and legitimated as responses to rural problems. Another example o f regional industrialization policies is the use o f major resource-based projects to stimulate economic activity in marginal areas. Examples o f such schemes abound, for example, in the account o f Australian policies, and in Richard W illis’s description o f New Zealand’s so-called T hink Big program m e. Here central government has im plem en­ ted a policy o f developing the nation’s energy resources so as to achieve greater self-sufficiency in energy. Such projects as the Taranaki gas developments have sponsored a population boom and at least short-term economic spinoffs for a rural area. Again the point is made, however, that this is a case o f national economic policy affecting rural areas rather than policies which are specifically designed as a response to rural problems. The evidence presented in this book does illustrate some regional plan­ ning schemes which are directed to particular rural areas and which offer a package o f policies which may be interpreted as m ore o f a response to par­ ticular problems in the areas concerned. In the USA, for example, specific rural areas have been regarded as depressed regions and programmes for the Tennessee Valley and the Appalachian region have been implemented in this context. These programmes have included a strong bias towards the developm ent o f growth centres (see below) in the hope that the benefits o f

248

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE

growth in key urban settlements would trickle down to the rural areas. T o some extent the specific planning initiatives within rural regional policies are dictated by scale. In the USA, the Termessee Valley Authority had jurisdiction over seven states, and the Appalachian Regional Planning Commission covered a thirteen-state region. Emphasis has been on resource developm ent and the im provem ent o f physical infrastructure so as to attract new industrial developm ent. As Lassey and his colleagues ruefully suggest, the provision o f new infrastructure, particularly that connected with transportation, can facilitate the exit o f people and jobs as well as the intended entry. W here regional schemes are implemented over smaller areas, such as the Highlands and Islands o f Scotland and M id W ales in Britain, m ore specific measures have been included to attract new economic enterprise so as to help restructure ailing rural economies. Even w ith the provision o f site and building infrastructure and the offer o f subsidies and loans to potential in­ migrant and indigenous enterprises, the developm ent boards in Britain have, like their counterparts in the USA, had to concentrate on key centres as the major recipients o f growth, thus leaving themselves open to the criticisms that if trickle-down effects cannot be achieved, then the beneficiaries o f regional planning activities tend to be the capital interests (who gain from subsidies) and the citizens o f the growth centres (who gain jo b opportunities) but not the rural residents o f the hinterland, w ho often do not gain from centralized developm ent. Hugh C lout’s account o f area-based planning in France portrays a type o f smaller-scale regional planning based on the establishment o f rural action zones and rural renovation zones to which special developm ent funds w ere allocated. Later initiatives in the Massif C entral were emphasized by the French government to be based on the political impera­ tive o f maintaining a population in rem ote rural areas as well as on economic and environm ental arguments. O ne key point to comparison regarding regional planning in rural areas is that none o f the nations analysed in the case studies has established a com­ prehensive regional planning system covering all rural areas. The selectivity o f regional programmes might be viewed as a financially derived necessity, but it also reflects that although the rural problem s which underlie regional planning measures appear to be widespread the response to these problems is prom pted more by the political need to act (perhaps to deflate political opposition such as from nationalist groups in Scotland and Wales) than by a recognition that particular problems in all needy areas should be responded to by planning and other policies. O ne further elem ent o f top-down policy making for rural areas con­ cerns the service sector. In some senses rural services are protected in an unannounced and often unexamined manner. In Britain, for example,

CONCLUSIONS

249

charges made for postal services, telephone calls (although this is now changing with the privatization o f British Telecom), gas, electricity and w ater services are either standard or o f the same level o f m agnitude for both rural and urban residents. Price standardization in fact represents a subsidy to rural residents whose facilities are m ore costly to install and maintain. Several explicit illustrations o f service sector policies generated by cen­ tral governments have arisen in the case study chapters. For example, the analysis o f governm ent policy in France by C lout demonstrates a specific initiative in rural service policy from the central state. In 1974, the govern­ ment announced the requirem ent o f a six-m onth warning before any rural service in any département, and in the public sector services under their con­ trol, such as post offices, village ju n io r schools and secondary schools, the critical population thresholds for servicing were all revised downwards. This move contrasts w ith recent governm ent advice to local authorities in Britain, which makes the closure o f small rural facilities increasingly likely on grounds o f economic efficiency during a period o f public sector expen­ diture cuts. In Australia, and other nations including expansive rem ote rural areas, m ore innovative service policies have been introduced in order to maintain a population presence in marginal areas. In terms o f education, the oneteacher school, peripatetic teachers, correspondence schools and the School o f the Air have all been used to ensure that residents o f isolated areas are included in state service provision. Com parable schemes, such as the Royal Flying D octor service and the lower-profile comm unity health projects, have been introduced in the health care sector. Again, the m ore general provision o f public sector service facilities in rural growth centres has been instrumental in providing em ploym ent and generating other economic activities in country towns. There is some evidence that it is this public sector investment in the spread o f local governm ent, health and education services which has been at least partially responsible for the population upturn that has been experienced in the m ore peripheral areas o f European nations such as Britain and the Netherlands. As with other top-dow n policies, however, the intentions behind these policies form part o f governm ent’s attitude towards welfare delivery. The seemingly pro-rural service policies have to be measured against the losses o f services which have taken place particularly in the private sector, and indeed against the propensity to privatize key service delivery agencies. Arguments o f equity versus efficiency arc param ount at this point, but it could be argued that service provision represents one spoke in the umbrella o f state legitimation policies rather than a direct response to the needs o f rural people. These concepts further underlie another group o f comparable public policies, namely the designation and

250

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE

developm ent o f rural growth centres. It is to this m iddle-ground policy area that we now turn. (2)

M ID D L E -G R O U N D POLICIES FO R G R O W T H CEN TRES

O ne seemingly universal response to the question o f rural policy making has been the designation o f giow th centres to act both as economic servic­ ing nodes and as points o f intervening opportunity which serve to interrupt out-m igration flows. Such policies fall into a middle ground o f state policy making, because although central governments have in some cases advised regional and local state agencies on the merits o f grow th-centre policies, it has often been these low er-tier governm ents which have form ulated detailed policies for rural settlement patterns. Perhaps the most marked example o f these policies has been implemented in the USSR. Pallot’s chapter has described the deliberate decision by the Soviet leadership to institute changes in order to raise the quality o f rural life. Accordingly, Soviet planners have explicitly sought to restructure the rural settlem ent netw ork. Settlements have been classified as perspectivnie (viable) or neperspectimiie (non-viable), and the latter have been left to die out with their populations being encouraged to move out to m ore viable locations. The scale o f the problem o f small settlements is enormous, with over half o f rural settlements having less than 100 inhabitants, and the Soviet leadership for both ideological and econom ic reasons required the developm ent o f larger centres such as the agrotowns in which living stan­ dards could be raised closer to urban equivalents. The implem entation o f this strategy rested with the form ulation o f long­ term developm ent plans for every rural district. These plans oversee the distribution o f the rural settlement netw ork and the location o f services and economic activities within it. It was these plans, drawn up by special district-level planning commissions, which classified settlements as viable and non-viable. Initially 85% o f villages w ere classed as non-viable but in 1968 the num ber o f viable villages was raised by one-half because o f the obvious social and economic costs o f relocation on the original scale. Pallot suggests that the policy o f village classification has fallen into official dis­ favour with the Gorbachev administration. This policy shift is at least partly due to the costs involved with extensive relocation programmes, and so it might be anticipated that any replacem ent policy (as yet unannounced) will be constrained by cost criteria which will make it difficult to opt for signifi­ cant levels o f resource dispersal throughout the settlem ent pattern. O n rather obvious and superficial grounds, these policies in the USSR closely resemble the trends o f rural settlem ent planning in mixed economy nations. In the UK, rural settlements have broadly divided into key settle­ ments and others, although the classification o f individual places has often

CONCLUSIONS

251

been far more complex than just these two categories. The settlement strategies have similarly been w orked out in county-level developm ent and structure plans which have sought to direct investm ent into selected centres for economic and social reasons. In his chapter on the Netherlands, Jan Groenendijk demonstrates how the idea o f m odernizing the settlement pattern by concentrating new developm ent into fewer large villages became ingrained into policy making during the preparation o f regional plans by the provinces, and during the provincial assessment o f municipal plans. O ther similar strategics are apparent in the other case study n ations,! although the statutory planning instrumentation underlying settlement rationalization varies considerably according to the land-use planning regulations o f the nations concerned. O n the surface, then, policies for settlem ent planning appear curiously similar. It would appear that the modernization and restructuring o f the agricultural economy which has traditionally underw ritten all rural societies inevitably brings in its wake an econom ic necessity for the rationalization o f settlem ent patterns. As the insularity and isolation o f rural society per se becomes broken down through labour transfers into other economic sectors and w ith the establishment o f mass comm uni­ cations diffusing urban cultures and life-style ambitions, the willingness o f rural people to accept the peasant way o f life is eroded. Ambitions for better standards o f living, especially in terms o f service delivery, become a political issue, and governments are faced with the task o f providing facilities and services within cost imperatives. The economies o f scale, and sheer pragmatic benefits in both financial and administrative spheres, offered by resource-concentration policies appear to have been irresistible in the developm ent o f policies for rural people. A closer examination o f these apparently similar policies, however, reveals significant variations in the political economic conditions which shape the developm ent and implementation o f grow th-centre policies. In the USSR, the recognition o f rural viability is underpinned by motives o f maintaining an efficient and sufficient w orkforce in rural areas for the cultivation o f a gradually restructuring agricultural economy, and o f the eradication o f poverty according to communist ideologies. Obviously the manner o f implem entation and decision making relating to settlement policies in the USSR is fundamentally different to that in non-comm unist nations. Having said that, it is possible to point to the dem olition o f a few old mining villages in the county o f Durham in the UK (nicknamed D urham ’s ‘D ’ villages) and suggest, with some validity, that in terms o f policy outcom e and public reaction to the impact o f strictly administered key settlement policies there are some significant similarities in the potential o f these policies in different political environments. The differ ence is that this isolated example o f the use o f bulldozers to restructure the settlement

252

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE

pattern was not replicated throughout the settlem ent system in Britain. O ther chapters, however, have described the ‘ghost tow ns’ which have resulted from economic trends o f decline which have not been regulated by the intervention o f public policies o f economic support and resource provision. W hether by dint o f the bulldozer, or by conscious political decisions to allow settlements to die, there are interesting comparisons to be made concerning the mechanisms and after-effects o f rural settlement rationalization policies across the spectrum o f political economies. The impact o f rural settlem ent policies will also depend on the degree to which conditions in non-viable settlements can be cushioned, either by market forces or by planning intervention. For example, in expansive geographical margins such as those in Canada, Australia and especially the USSR, sheer scale dictates that alternative residential uses o f economically non-viable settlements are unlikely. This situation is different from that in the m ore densely populated nations in Europe (for example, the UK, the N etherlands and parts o f France and Scandinavia) w here small settlements which are reasonably accessible to urban labour markets have becom e gentrified with the influx o f adventitious middle-class and especially serviceclass in-migrants. In such locations, rural planning policies are also influenced by the need to conserve the architectural and environm ental heritage o f the rural settlementscape. Such aspects are politically self­ reinforcing, as the middle-class newcomers have exerted strong local political pressures to preserve the environm ental integrity and the invest­ ment value o f their chosen rural residences. Planners’ attempts to introduce policies o f restricting new residential developm ent in these villages to that required for ‘local need’ have been relatively unsuccessful because landuse planning regulates the type o f house which may be built but not the type o f residents who live there. ‘Local needs’ developm ent, therefore, often provides small additions to the housing stock to be gobbled up by the voracity o f gentrification processes. (3)

B O T T O M -U P C O M M U N IT Y POLICIES

B rief m ention should also be made o f the increasing trend w ithin rural policies towards the incorporation o f local com m unity action into the for­ mal planning process. In the case o f Canada, for example, Hodge reports a surge o f comm unity self-reliance efforts in small rural communities. The reason behind this phenom enon is clearly stated to be the shortfalls in traditional strategies-of developm ent - that is more formal policies from governm ent agencies for the economic viability o f small rural com ­ munities. Hodge characterizes these small communities as waiting for out­ side investment that docs not materialize so instead the comm unities set about their own economic developm ent projects, often with the

CONCLUSIONS

253

encouragem ent o f provincial planners and governments. Similarly, com ­ munity organizations are shouldering increased responsibility for the delivery o f local social services to rural people. This trend towards self-help was also highlighted in the chapter on rural Britain. It is not, however, the self-help phenom enon itself which is signifi­ cant. Rural communities in nations such as New Zealand have been avid self-helpers since time immemorial, and in most o f the nations studied in this book, rural self-help has existed as a backcloth to comm unity activity regardless o f official policies and plans. The important shift o f circumstances from a rural policy view point is the increasing propensity for self-help and voluntary activity to be actively supported and espoused by such official policies. In many nations, official policy statements now applaud the partnership which is being created betw een statutory planning, develop­ m ent and service delivery on the one hand and comm unity initiatives on the other. Such developments are even shadowed in the USSR, where the developm ent o f clubs, sport centres, shops and public buildings has been brought about in small rural settlements as a result o f jo in t ventures be­ tween local councils, farm managements and individual rural families. The partnership o f public sector policy and comm unity initiative can be view ed from two contrasting perspectives. First, this trend can be seen as a truly bottom -up process o f significant democratic validity. O n the grounds that local people will be m ore sensitive to the particular needs o f their own comm unity than will detached bureaucrats and politicians in some far-off political centre, community-based action represents a valid and worthwhile function. W hen the recognition o f need has to be converted into respon­ sive action, there are indeed many areas (such as citizens’ advice, neighbourly help and so on) where state intervention is both unwanted and unnecessary. Furthermore, some comm unities do have the skills and finan­ cial resources to fund their own initiatives, thereby ensuring the implementation o f local responses. O thers, however, do not have these skills and resources, or even the necessary qualitites o f initiative and com ­ m unity leadership. A general policy o f reliance on self-help will therefore discriminate against these types o f communities, and there does seem to be an aggregate negative correlation betw een communities who are most able to help themselves and communities who are most in need o f help. A second perspective on comm unity partnership interprets government espousal o f self-help as an abrogation o f governmental responsibilities. In other words, by making official the increasing expectation that community initiative represents one (sometimes the only) m ethod o f responding to the needs o f rural people, governments may be seen as indulging in a political cop-out. Services and facilities which have previously been provided by the public sector, or which might reasonably be expected to be financed from the public purse, are now being consistently and detrim entally affected by

254

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE

central and local state crises o f expenditure. In the absence o f public funds, communities are being expected to substitute their own resources into local service provision. For planners this may be the only resource open to them for bringing about a response to rural problem s in a political and economic environm ent where planning intervention has been reduced to planning by opportunism. In the political decision-making sphere, however, this policy switch represents a rolling back o f the welfare state, the consequences o f which will be dramatic as we move into the 21st century.

Planning as a state function The response o f nation-states to prevailing econom ic conditions and crises has certainly had an impact upon the policies and plans for rural people. Different states have reorganized pow er relationships and political administration in different ways. Britain stands out as a nation where increasing power has accrued to the central state, despite the fact that the local state continues to function as the major agent o f service delivery within the public sector. By exerting increasing control over the local state through regulation o f expenditure and legality o f action, the central state in Britain has set about achieving major economic objectives by centralized direction. The blanket centralization has weakened the discretionary powers o f the local state, and thereby weakened the powers o f responsive planning and policy making at the local level. Even if m ore autonom y was enjoyed by local decision-makers, however, it is unlikely that higher levels o f planning intervention on behalf o f needy rural groups would be contem ­ plated because o f the innate conservative nature o f local rural politics. A somewhat similar configuration o f political power is currently emerging in other European nations such as the N etherlands, where central state re­ strictions on public expenditure and a conservative local state are im portant factors in the interpretation o f rural policies. An alternative response to economic and political change has been to decentralize power within the state. In France, for example, C lout reports that the Socialist administration has attem pted to break away from adminis­ trative centralization by giving new powers to the 22 regions and granting additional responsibilities to the 36 512 communes geared towards a greater level o f m anagement o f their own resources. This decentralization has had the effect o f accentuating the im portance o f rural (or, perhaps more accurately, agricultural) issues but depends for its impact on these problems on the degree to which administrative decentralization is accompanied by the provision o f sufficient resources for expenditure by localized planning agencies. This dilemma is also illustrated by the example o f the USA. Here small town and county governments have found themselves with increased

CONCLUSIONS

255

responsibilities but w ith declining revenues w ith which to finance service delivery. In particular, the decline in federal and state revenue sharing has had a detrim ental im pact on rural jurisdictions, w hich find them selves fac­ ing unequal com petition from urban adm inistrations for lim ited grant funds in an increasingly grant-oriented public econom y. In effect, the centralization/decentralization responses by nation-states have had similar outcom es in that the capacity o f local agencies to fund planning interventions is being squeezed. This econom ic context for plan­ ning and policy m aking w ithin the state is being consistently allied with governm ent trends o f handing over previously planned functions to the m arket-oriented direction o f the private sector - the deregulation issue. In the exam ple o f the USA, Lassey et al. describe a rush to deregulate industry w ith the result that private sector service providers (for exam ple, freight transport, air transport and bus transport) have abandoned rural areas in favour o f the higher profits generated in urban environm ents. D eregula­ tion o f public transport services and privatization o f telecom m unications and gas services in Britain have prom pted sim ilar w orries as have the p ro ­ posals to privatize public service m onopolies in Australia. In effect, the private sector is being increasingly perm itted to take over the planning and policy m aking for m any essential services and developm ents in the rural areas o f m any nations. In the advanced capitalist states, which form the bulk o f case-study evidence in this book, the private sector and its m arket orientation have always been im portant factors in the provision o f rural facilities. T he recent shift tow ards freedom o f action for the private sector and away from public sector regulation o f private capital m arks an im por­ tant trend in the pursuance o f w ider objectives by the state in capitalist nations. The impacts o f this shift have led to differing configurations o f priv atepublic sector relations in rural areas. In broad term s, private sector organizations arc becom ing increasingly significant as decision-m akers. T heir involvem ent in the developm ent o f facilities in rural areas may take the form o f a partnership w ith governm ent. In France, for exam ple, inixcdeconom y corporations, com bining public and private sector investm ent, have been established to provide integrated responses to rural problem s. It is interesting to note C lo u t’s reservations as to the success o f their activities. Elsewhere private sector involvem ent takes place in the context o f unregulated free m arketism . W illis dem onstrates that in N ew Zealand free-m arket policies pursued by the new Labour governm ent have led to an explosion o f econom ic activity in the cities, but the rural areas have suffered from the same policies as deregulation strategies have exerted a detrim ental impact on farm ers and rural services. If rural developm ent is to be increasingly dem and-led, rather than planned as a response to need, then the account given by Lassey et al. o f Big

256

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE

Sky, M ontana - the purpose-built new town resort - will be repeated elsewhere. Profitable projects for affluent groups will prosper; interven­ tionist action by governm ent on behalf o f non-affluent groups will not. Part o f the relative failure o f public sector intervention in rural areas appears to be due to a lack o f integration o f agencies and policies concerned with rural territory and people. H odge’s account o f policies in Canada characterizes rural agencies as being prone to ‘duplication, inter­ departm ental conflict and competition among program s’, and Holm es’s view o f Australian policy suggests that the lack o f involvem ent in com ­ prehensive or integrated planning is a reflection ‘in part o f lack o f any urgent need for such planning, combined with an institutional fram ework which is ill-suited to such initiatives’. Similar problems are experienced in most o f the case study nations. It does seem fair to conclude, therefore, that policies and plans for rural people are being fashioned by the various interrelations m entioned at the end o f the chapter on the U nited Kingdom: • • •

central-local relations, private-public sector relations, and interagency relations.

Evidence o f conflict in cach o f these spheres appears with regularity and significance in the case-study chapters. But what o f the primary relations betw een state and society? Does the evidence presented in this book throw light on the overriding function o f the state with regard to the key ques­ tions o f neutrality or activity on behalf o f dom inantly powerful classes and interests? In fact few o f the authors have given specific analysis to this ques­ tion, but it is evident from several o f the case-study chapters that planning mechanisms are being used for underlying purposes by the state. For example, Sjoholt’s description o f grow th-centre policies in Scandinavia notes that the local physical planning authorities were used systematically as instruments in facilitating labour m obility from rural problem areas. Simultaneously, the municipal planning institutions helped in easing this mobility, seeing that new infrastructure was provided to accommodate this labour force in the centres o f growth. This view o f planning as an instrument o f facilitation is one that is implicit in much o f the material presented in this book. But the underlying state function which motivates facilitation is a m atter for interpretative analysis rather than crude verification or falsification from case-study evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

257

In the introductory chapter I outlined three b rief snapshots o f different conceptual perspectives on this complex question o f state function: (1) m arket-oriented state intervention on behalf o f the individual; (2) the state on the sidelines, intervening for the com m on good; (3) state intervention on behalf o f capital and class. This book has shown that any holistic view o f the form, function and apparatus o f the state tends to overlook the im portant complexity o f interests and bargaining that occur in and around the planning proccss. There does seem to be im portant analytical value in understanding the state as an agency for the protection and furtherance o f capital accumulation, and therefore o f capitalist-class interests. In addition, however, we must take note both o f how individual capitalist nation-states have developed different mechanisms and apparatus to perform this overall function, and o f how the socialist state o f the USSR has opted for a strikingly familiar for­ mula for its activities o f settlement reorganization in rural areas. The state has therefore to be viewed as simultaneously pursuing its support o f capital interests and carrying out autonom ous and discretionary activities as the occasion arises. Thus it can be shown that intervention in rural areas has benefited certain classes and interests, and that the espousal o f free-m arket objectives and individual freedoms has contributed to that objective (even if the ‘freedom s’ o f the rural deprived are not o f the same quality as those o f the rural wealthy). At the same time, governm ent policies to provide basic services and infrastructure in rural areas cannot merely be discounted as explicit political tactics o f legitimation, since different states seem to have gone beyond strategic or political control requirem ents in their ser­ vicing policies for small groups o f people in marginal areas. C liff Hague (1984: 43) has written: Thus the crises o f capitalism are w ritten in the settlement structure and the built environm ent, and that structure and environm ent become the focus for political struggles pitched with varying degrees o f conscious­ ness at resisting the offerings and imperatives o f capital. It can be strongly argued that studies o f rural planning and policy making have for too long ignored the crises o f capitalism which are w ritten into the rural settlement structure and environm ent. Understanding o f rural change in the future will inevitably increasingly entail understanding the im pera­ tives o f organized or state capital, rather than seeking out superficial policy responses to perceived rural needs. Yet these common factors reflecting a service state which can be seen to underlie the case studies presented in this book must be set alongside the contrasts in apparatus and mechanism

258

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR RURAL PEOPLE

em ployed by a discretionary state in its dealings w ith rural people. T his dif­ ficult dualism o f servility and discretion holds the key to an u nderstanding for policies and plans for rural p eople in the d eveloped w orld.

References Cherry, G. E. (ed.) Rural planning problems. London: Leonard Hill. Hague, C. 1984. Hie development oj planning thought. London: Hutchinson.

Index

advance factories 34 agribusiness 58 agricultural capital 15, 29, 30, 246 agricultural exports 192tf, 218 agricultural policy 1, 16, 29ft, 89, 145, 196ff, 220ff, 245ff Agriculture Act 1947 29 agro-industrial villages 122 agrotowns 123 Alliance party 24 ALURE 31, 39 Appalachian Regional Commission 145, 156, 248 arbitration 12 boom-bust 151 ft, 209, 243 branch plant 82 capital 5. 10, I4ff, 20, 22, 26, 30, 42, 213, 243 central-local relations 256 central state 9, 14, 24, 29, 37, 38, 42, 43, 51, 94. 155ft'. 237, 254 centre party 79 centre-periphery 48 class 10, 13, 20, 22, 27, 28, 37, 42 collective consumption 10, 15 collectivization 120, 121 communes 98ff, 11 Off, 254 commuting 26, 99 competitive intervention 15, 16 conservation 10, 11, 23, 27, 33, 61, 98, 99, 108, 180 Conservative party 19, 20. 22, 23, 42, 240 corporate intervention 15, 16 corporatization 234 CoSIRA 39

counterurbanization 4, 25ff, 91, 98, 105, 167, 214 county commissioners 150 dacha 138 dairy factories 228ff decentralization 79, 115, 150, 194, 254 defence 78 deficiency payments 29 definitions 3 depopulation 25, 30, 99, 122, 206, 219, 221

deprivation 4, 5, 6, 22, 27, 30, 44, 49, 116, 148, 173, 21 Off, 242 deregulation 148, 255 Development Board for Rural Wales 41, 42 Development Commission 39, 40, 41 development control 15, 34, 110 development plans 19, 33, 37. 124ti diversification 31, 41, 14911 economies ot scale 32. 123 education 11, 15, 24, 32, 42, 49, 75, 114, 127. 205. 207, 209, 218 elderly 62ff, 116, 190 elitism 14 employment 27, 41, 90ft energy production 151, 234, 247 environmentalism 2 Environmentally Sensitive Areas 31 European Economic Community 20, 31, 58. 106, 107, 199, 219, 246 externalities 10 farmers 28ff, 58, 63, 70, 99, 105ff, 220ff, 22 Iff tloral majority 37, 42

259

260

IN D E X

forestry 31, 222 frontier zones 192 gender 1, 27 gcntrification 27, 43, 59, 62, 252 grants economy 151 growth centres 4, 28, 32, 54, 98, 145, 179, 250ff health services 11, 15, 24, 32, 75, 89, 148, 205, 207, 209, 218 Highlands and Islands Development Board 40 high-tech industry 151, 244 hobby farms 171, 214 horticulture 222, 223 housing 9, 11, 20, 27, 28, 34, 42, 56. 6 Iff. 102, 105, 205 Ijsselmeer 48 implementation 36, 47, 56ff income levels 168 industrial estates 34, 82, 146 information technology 154 infrastructure 33, 35, 41 inter-organizational relations 9, 37, 177, 203. 256 Journal o f Rural Studies 2 key settlements 33fl, 61, 127, 250 kiwifruit 232 labour 27, 29, 77 Labour party 19, 20, 212. 218, 220, 230, 240, 246, 255 land 11. 22, 27, 32, 152ff land consolidation 101 land grant universities 153, 161 Liberal parties 79 local needs 55, 61, 62, 189 local plans 20, 34, 110 local state 14. 24, 38. 42, 43. 51, 61, 79, 94, 136. 150ff, 157ff. 160. 205. 254 managerialism 14 manufacturing industry 26. 82, 91, 143 tnarginality 3, 28, 240 market regulation 6, 9, 10, 12, 27

mental health care 149 merit goods 206 mobile services 32 multiple jo b holding 147 municipalities 48, 49, 54, 56, 63, 64, 65, 79 National Farmers Union 30, 31 National Party 212, 232, 237, 240 National Planning Board 160 neighbourhood 22, 49 new right politics 10 nouveaux pauvres 27, 42, 242 Pareto function 10 peripherality 3, 70, 80ff, 145, 240 perspective 123, 250 planning controls 19, 20, 31 planning free zones 11 planning inspectorate 31 planning profession 7, 12, 36, 64 pluralism 12 polders 48 power 3, 11, 13, 14, 59ff, 254 private plots 130ff, 139 privatization 24, 212, 255 provinces 176ff rational planning 7, 8. 9 recreation industry 151, 158 regional plans 58ff, 237 regional policy 12, 48, 71, 78ff, 145, 156, 157, 234, 247ff regulation 7, 27 remote rural areas 4, 26 resettlement 124 ff, 179, 184 resource concentration 32ff, 54 restructuring 26, 49, 237, 242, 243ff retirem ent 26, 98, 99, 104, 145, 152, 158, 166, 222, 232 rural action zones 106, 248 rurality 3 rural renovation zones 106, 248 S.A.F.E.Rs 104, 105, 107 Scotland 22, 24, 25, 41 second homes 122. 138 self-employment 26 self-help 37, 38, 44, 186ff. 253

261

IN D E X service industries 147 service provision 6, 12, 24, 27, 28, 32, 99, 1U5, 113, 126, 148, 183ff, 209, 244, 249 small tow ns 4 social conflict 4, 5 Social D em ocratic party 79 social engineering 12 social polarization 11, 27 social services 24, 51 state 7ft*, 20, 29, 245, 254, 2 56ff state farms 120ff streckplannen 52, 54 structuralism 14 structure plans 20, 34, 35, 37, 110

tourism 98, 109, 222, 232 T ow n and C ountry Planning Act 19, 32, 34 T ow n T ories 24 transport 9, 34, 42, 49, 51, 87, 113, 153ff

technology 144 telecom m unications 208 Tennessee Valley A uthority 145, 156, 248 T hatcherism 20, 22, 24, 43 T hink Big projects 232ff, 235, 247

w ater 152 w elfare econom ics 9, 11 w elfare state 13, 23, 51, 77 , 205

un em ploym ent 26, 30, 49 urbanization 2, 98, 170 u rb an -to -ru ral industrial shift 26, 158, 243 village village village voting

clusters 35 concentration 123ff plans 127ff 22

zoning 129, 181, 189