Conclusions
8.1 THEORETICAL ABSTRACTIONS
The main goal of this study has been to provide and elaborate new insights on the co‐evolutionary role of agriculture and rural development in different regional contexts, namely in North Karelia, Finland, and in South Tyrol, Italy. By the means of grounded theory methodology, comparative methodology, and discourse analysis methodology, perceptions and governing structures of the
‘rural’ – envisioned as a hybrid, ambiguous, and networked space – have been elicited by interpreting the dynamics of interaction between agency, structure, and social chance through time. On the basis of this ‘interpretivist’ ontology and methodology, the generation of empirical data has been conducted both historically and in the contemporary era.
The multi‐causal knowledge produced by the empirical data is dependent on, and at the same time inclusive of the historical, cultural and socio‐economic institutional context of North Karelia and South Tyrol. Although both case studies have experienced to a varying degree processes of deagrarianization, modes of agricultural production and rural development – as well as their co‐
evolution – have taken fairly different paths. The region‐building processes of the two areas under investigation, including discourses, evolutionary paths of farm structures and the farmers’ role in these two societies, have been the key to determining the role and weight of rural development and agriculture.
Similarly to the work by Cruickshank (2009), ‘rural’ is interpreted in the light of two different discourses. On the one hand, a combination between a post‐
productivist and modernist discourse, which implies the following issues:
firstly, the separation of the rural from agriculture, or in other words, the separation of production from culture; secondly, rurality intended as a traditional society, which is not allowed to change until it becomes non‐rural;
thirdly, uprooting processes from the territory. On the other hand, ‘rural’ is interpreted through an ‘alternative’ discourse, with a strong emphasis on the concept of territory/terroir: this is based on regional autonomy and capacity in handling the territory. The prevalence of one of the two discourses has represented a fertile ground for the application of the one‐culture theory (dominance of the urban over the rural), or two‐culture theory (the rural is able
to compete with the urban, or in Cruickshank’s (2006, 186) words, rejection of modernization which contributes to centralization).
Within North Karelia and South Tyrol, as well as their broader national contexts, specific institutions investigated have been government and governance, and how they are related to each other; each case study is characterized by the prevalence of one form of institution over the other, with key implications on the role of sub‐politics (or similarly project class), politics, and civil society. Within civil society, specific attention has been given to the role of farmers, as well as to the role of rural developers. The key issue resulting from the investigation of government and governance has been how the two case studies have interpreted representative democracy (politics), and direct democracy (sub‐politics). In both North Karelia and South Tyrol, it is assumed that either direct or representative democracy is the most appropriate way of handling rural development. The ideal solution would be a combination of representative and direct democracy; while representative democracy emphasizes the representativeness of citizens, direct democracy gives accessibility to actors who otherwise would not have the possibility to participate in the development of civil society. However, such a combination, at least in the case studies investigated, is rather weak, and one of these two institutions dominate the modus operandi of rural development.
In the presence of a stronger political regionalization, the LEADER partnerships implemented have resulted in a more vertical structure than in the case of economic regionalization: the latter occurs when there are pre‐existing networks and synergies present in a specific territory, and where the influences of globalization forces as well as their interaction with the local level are stronger. In the case of economic regionalization, the partnerships implemented have shown a more horizontal structure. Based on geographical contingency, LEADER partnerships have taken fairly different forms and scopes of action, with different actors dominating others. Beyond the strengthening of cooperation among rural agents (both social and human), these partnerships have resulted in forms of social exclusion; this exclusion has involved either farmers or other agents participating in the development of the countryside;
moreover, such exclusion has either emphasized, or on the contrary, tried to constrain, the action of the public sector (municipalities), and indirectly, the action of representative democracy. Social exclusion has been the result of the various social relations that characterize the interdependent actors of the partnerships under scrutiny, and above all, the result of their power relations, whether horizontal and/or vertical.
In light of critical realism, the empirical data generated by the two case studies, as well as by their broader national contexts, has shown that social structures pre‐exist, and therefore they have to be interpreted historically;
moreover, these social structures represent a necessary condition for agency, and thus, they are not the deliberate result of it. Furthermore, analytical dualism
has allowed the explanation of the causal interplay between agents and structures; the North Karelia and South Tyrol cases are clearly dominated by specific sets of social structures, which have limited and/or enabled rural agents.
At the same time, key human and social agents have had a powerful influence in shaping and guiding the overarching social structures. On the basis of such considerations, the social chance category, both in terms of unpredictable consequences of action, and/or unpredictable consequences of impacts, has not been a relevant factor in the unravelling of the empirical data. In the two case studies, it is both debatable and very difficult to prove that certain events which occurred have been the result of unpredictability. Most phenomena described in this study have not taken place in an institutional vacuum; rather, they have causal links with some form of social structure and/or agency. However, in the case of South Tyrol, such a category has been useful for explaining the partially unpredictable spatial division between the German‐speaking group and the Italian‐speaking group, which has resulted in the dichotomy Bolzano versus the countryside; yet, if compared to social structure, as well as to social and human agents, in this study social chance can be considered a residual category.
A key social structure has been embodied by discourses, intended as practices through which we make our world meaningful to ourselves and to others. Discourses have been so powerful in justifying and legitimizing the action and domination of specific interest groups of actors. They are embedded in institutions, both formal and informal; within the framework of historical, sociological, and rational choice institutionalism, the empirical data have shown that the cultural approach to institutions has been more relevant than the calculus approach; institutions are collective constructions that cannot be determined and/or transformed by a single individual; in contrast, individuals are embedded in their institutional world.
In addition to the theoretical umbrella of critical realism (and its dimensions of agency, structure, and, to a minor extent, social chance), the research aim and questions of this study have been tackled by the frameworks of agricultural and rural geography, which have proven to be complementary. The territory – intended as a physical system and, above all, as a system of social, political, and cultural relations – has been the key platform from which to interpret various criteria of spatial differentiation. These criteria have mainly included the rurality concept, but also regional and local approaches which emphasize a more
‘territorial’ type of development. These regional and local approaches are more appropriate when discussing territorial physical systems as mountains. Rural geography has been more relevant concerning the North Karelia case study and its broader national context. In such a case, rural geography has a long tradition, and has always had a strong connection with rural development and policy, especially today in respect to geography of food. Since in the Italian context rural geography does not have a well‐established tradition, especially compared to Finland, a discipline such as this has been complemented by agricultural
geography, especially its recent cultural turn, where the main developments state that agriculture was not, is not, and will never be a mere economic activity;
rather, it has strong cultural and social connotations. While, on the one hand, rural geography emphasizes a more post‐productivist approach (particularly separation between agriculture and rural development, and does not include agriculture as a system in the countryside), agricultural geography does not deny productivism, and at the same time, due to the recent acknowledgments of cultural perspectives, fits a more multifunctional agricultural regime, which allows the co‐existence of productivist and post‐productivist actions and patterns and has stronger bonds to the territory or terroir, which in the case of South Tyrol is embodied by mountains. Such territorial bonds of agricultural geography are also important in the discussion of the role and evolution of farm structures.