297/346
Europ. Countrys. · 4· 2014 · p. 297-306
DOI: 10.2478/euco-2014-0016
European Countryside MENDELU
BEYOND POST-PRODUCTIVISM: FROM RURAL
POLICY DISCOURSE TO RURAL DIVERSITY
Åsa Almstedt1
, Patrick Brouder2
, Svante Karlsson3
, Linda Lundmark4
Received 14 March 2014; Accepted 26 September 2014
Abstract: There has been a strong discourse in public policy aimed at transforming rural
places from venues of primary production into truly diverse socioeconomic
landscapes. Yet conceptualisations of the rural as envisioned in the policy and
politics of the ‘new economy’ often prove to be elusive on the ground. However,
post-productive activity in rural areas has become a major focus for rural studies
scholars. This paper investigates the ideas of post-productivism in the existing
literature, and argues for a holistic understanding of post-productivism as an idea
and political ambition rather than an imperative and irreversible change of rural
economic activity. The purpose of the study is to make clear the division between
post-productivism and the related concepts of post-production and post-productive
activities in order to better understand processes of rural change in relation to
different geographical contexts. It is argued that post-productivism as a concept
stands apart from de facto post-production and alternative concepts such as
multifunctionality and should be regarded as part of broader regional development
discourses. The paper outlines several important fields in which post-productivism is
a necessary component for rural transformation and development. While it is not
always easily captured in indicators or empirical studies in rural locations, postproductivism
exists at the level of discourse and planning and thus has real effects
on the ground. The paper concludes by offering suggestions on how to apply
the concepts of post-productivism, post-production and multifunctionality in future
studies.
Keywords: change, multifunctionality, policy, post-productivism, production, rural
Abstrakt: De senaste årens landsbygdspolitik kännetecknas av en stark diskurs för att
omvandla platser från dominerande primärproduktion till skiftande socioekonomiska
aktiviteter där inte minst turism förväntas inta en stark ställning.
Omvandlingsambitionen framträder särskilt starkt i styrdokument och
projektverksamhet, samtidigt som tydliga och omfattande reella avtryck ofta lyser
med sin frånvaro. Däremot har post-produktiva verksamheter på landsbygden blivit
1
PhD candidate, Department of Geography and Economic History, Umeå University, SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden.
Email: asa.almstedt@geography.umu.se
2
Research Fellow, PhD. School of Tourism and Hospitality, University of Johannesburg, South Africa.
3
Assistant Professor, PhD. Department of Geography and Economic History, Umeå University, SE-901 87 Umeå,
Sweden. Email: svante.karlsson@geography.umu.se
4
Associate Professor, PhD. Department of Geography and Economic History, Umeå University, SE-901 87 Umeå,
Sweden. Email: linda.lundmark@geography.umu.se
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/8/18 9:04 AM
298/346
ett viktigt fokus för forskare. I föreliggande artikel undersöks idéer kring postproduktion
och post-produktivism så som de framkommer i tidigare forskning. Det
argumenteras för behovet av en helhetssyn på post-produktivism som idé och
politisk ambition, liksom att ta utgångspunkt i att uppenbara förändringar av
landsbygdens ekonomiska aktiviteter ännu inte är särskilt omfattande. Syftet med
studien är att klargöra begreppens innehåll och relation till multifunktionalitet för att
bättre förstå landsbygdens förändring i relation till olika geografiska sammanhang.
Artikeln beskriver flera viktiga områden där post-produktivism är en nödvändig
komponent för landsbygdens omvandling och utveckling, men att den faktiska
utvecklingen och de politiska ambitionerna inte alltid går hand i hand. Artikeln
avslutas genom att ge förslag på hur man kan använda begreppen inom
forskningen.
Nyckelord: förändring, landsbygd, multifunktionalitet, policy, post-produktivism, produktion
1. Introduction
Globalisation, increasing competition on the world market, increased environmental awareness,
and the orientation towards the service sectors in Western economies has dramatically altered
the preconditions for development, not only in urban centers but also in rural areas.
Furthermore, despite popular perceptions, the consumption and provision of rural products and
services has increased with demand mainly coming from urban areas. A countryside dominated
by traditional occupations in agriculture separated from urban life is now regarded as ‘a rural
myth’ (Kapferer, 1990). Although products and commodities are still important, other values of
the rural landscape have become established and are now dominating policy as the ‘new rural
paradigm’ (OECD, 2006) and have been developed in academia as ‘post-productivism’ (Evans
et al. 2002; Mather et al., 2006; Wilson, 2001). The landscape that formerly was a production
landscape has become viewed as a landscape for consumption and recreation in situ
(Lundmark, 2006; Mather et al., 2006). Thus, ‘rural’ is no longer the monopoly of farmers (van
der Ploeg et al., 2000). This change has important implications for rural development and
restructuring. It is creating new spatial relationships, for example, through flows of people and
finance, and at the same time it creates uneven and often unforeseen developments, for
example, economic clustering of services is creating post-productive islands (e.g., tourism
destinations) in traditional rural communities (Brouder, 2012, 2013).
Emerging from these ongoing global processes is the potentially important concept of postproductivism,
and the related but distinct concepts of post-production and post-productive
activity. Although much of the attention given to the concept of post-productivism has been
academic, with debates centred on the content of the shift or transition (Evans et al., 2002;
Hoogendoorn & Visser, 2011), there is a concurrent discourse in public policy about moving
rural places away from primary production and towards the ‘new economy’ (OECD, 2006).
The policy debate has spurred a reorientation of the academic discourse on rural change away
from post-production towards post-productivism (cf. Mather et al., 2006). The earlier literature
on post-productivism primarily focused on agriculture and on the UK empirical context
(McCarthy, 2005; Wilson & Rigg, 2003). However, there is also an increasing, but still limited,
focus on the countryside as a place of consumption (Burton & Wilson, 2006) and also on postproductivism
relating to forestry (Elands & Praestholm, 2008; Mather et al., 2006), rural
governance (Wilson, 2004), second homes (Hoogendoorn, 2010; Hoogendoorn & Visser, 2011),
as well as wider rural land use changes (Mather et al., 2006).
The geographical application of post-productivism has also expanded with a greater number of
studies from outside the UK including, for example, Norway (Bjørkhaug & Richards, 2008),
Denmark (e.g., Kristensen, 2001), the EU (e.g., Wilson, 2001), Australia (e.g., Argent, 2002;
Bjørkhaug & Richards, 2008; Holmes, 2002, 2006, 2008), the United States (e.g., Bergstrom,
2001), and South Africa (Hoogendoorn, 2010; Hoogendoorn & Visser, 2011). However,
the number of studies from developing countries is still limited. Despite the increase in
the number of studies, holistic approaches to post-productivism are still lacking (Mather et al.,
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/8/18 9:04 AM
299/346
2006). This is because most research on post-productivism has focused on agricultural change,
while limited attention has been paid to other rural land uses such as tourism (Hoogendorn
& Visser, 2011).
In rural studies, there has been a parallel effort towards sustainable development in the rural
context and this has found synergies with the goals of a post-productive transition, leading to
an aspirational status of the post-productive transition as a way to a better future for rural areas.
As van der Ploeg et alia (2000) put it: “rural development theory is not about the world as it is –
it is about the way agriculture and the countryside might be reconfigured” (p. 396). Thus,
a normative post-productivism has emerged and it is conceptualised in an aspirational way.
In this study, a critique of the epistemological concepts of ‘post-productivism’ and ‘postproduction’
in relation to rural realities is offered. This paper investigates the concept of postproductivism
as described in the existing literature, and argues for an understanding of postproductivism
as an idea within political discourse rather than as a singular manifest change of
rural economic activity. Hence, post-productivism as a concept is shown to be standing apart
from de facto post-production, and while there is post-productive change in rural areas, it is not
necessarily in line with post-productivist discourse when viewed in terms of regional
development. The purpose of the study is to make clear the division between the related
concepts in order to a) better understand processes of rural change in relation to different
geographical contexts and b) offer suggestions on how to apply the concepts in future studies,
also in relation to the alternative concept of multifunctionality. The paper outlines several
important fields in which post-productivism is an integral, prominent, and a necessary
component for rural transformation and development and also how post-production fits within
frameworks for understanding rural change on the ground.
2. Post-productivism in rural studies
'Post-productivism' became commonly used as a concept in the 1990s by rural geographers as
an attempt to explain and theorise changes and trends in contemporary agriculture, where
the focus on agricultural production gradually shifted towards demand for amenities, ecosystem
services and preservation of cultural landscapes (McCarthy, 2005; Wilson & Rigg, 2003;
Woods, 2011). Thus, post-productivism challenged ‘productivism’, “a discourse of agricultural
organisation in which the function of farming was singularly conceived as the production of food
and fibre, and which prioritised increasing agricultural production over all other considerations”
(Woods, 2011, p. 67). Post-productivism is frequently used as the antithesis of ‘productivism’
(Mather et al., 2006). In this sense, while productivism refers to intensive farming with high
inputs and high yields, post-productivism is “an approach to farming that is environmentally
sensitive, not predicated on high yields and where farmers may look to non-agricultural use of
their land and resources to supplement their incomes” (Jack, 2007, p. 910). This change in
focus has been described as a post-productive ‘transition’ (cf. Ilbery & Bowler, 1998), thus
implying a change “from one mode to another” (Bjørkhaug & Richards, 2008, p. 100).
Because of “the breadth and diversity of meaning” implied in the concept of post-productivism,
Mather et alia (2006) argue that ‘dimensions’ rather than ‘definitions’ are increasingly used in
the rural debate to characterise post-productivism (p. 442). Markey et alia (2008), based on
a compilation by Mather et alia (2006), group these dimensions as “the nature and type of
production (from commodity to non-commodity outputs), the multidimensionality of objectives
associated with landscape and resources (including environmental, amenity, and ecosystem
service values), and the importance of governance (representing a greater diversity of actors
and institutions) in land-use decision-making” (p. 410). However, most sets of dimensions, or
categories, in the literature focus on agriculture (e.g., Evans et al., 2002; Ilbery & Bowler, 1998;
Mather et al., 2006; Wilson, 2001). For example, Evans et alia (2002) merged
the characteristics of Ilbery and Kneafsey (1997) and Ilbery and Bowler (1998) into five
categories: the shift from quantity to quality in food production; the growth of on-farm
diversification and off-farm employment (pluriactivity); extensification and the promotion of
sustainable farming through agri-environmental policy; dispersion of production patterns; and
environmental regulation and restructuring of government support for agriculture (p. 317).
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/8/18 9:04 AM
300/346
Wilson (2001) listed seven dimensions of post-productivism: ideology, actors, food regimes,
agricultural production, agricultural policies, farming techniques and environmental impacts.
However, Holmes (2002) points out that Wilson’s set of dimensions has a Western European
focus and does not apply in other contexts. In Australia, for example, conditions are different
and the role of agriculture is not as dominant. Thus, the four farm-related dimensions have less
importance there. Studies in other contexts also demonstrate differences in relation to which
dimensions or characteristics are germane. For example, Wilson and Rigg (2003) applied
the concept of post-productivism to ‘the rural South’ to see whether it “can be used to
understand contemporary agricultural change in developing world regions” (p. 681).
The analysis was based on six broader characteristics (or ‘indicators’) of post-productivism:
policy change; organic farming; counter-urbanisation; the inclusion of environmental NGOs at
the core of policy-making; the consumption of the countryside; and on-farm diversification
activities. They concluded that “the notion of post-productivism and the developing world are not
necessarily ‘discordant concepts’”, but that it is necessary to adapt and develop the concept “to
address specific conditions in the rural South, possibly by combining theoretical approaches
surrounding the notion of ‘post-productivism’ developed largely from a Northern perspective,
and ‘deagrarianization’ from a Southern perspective” (Wilson & Rigg, 2003, p. 681).
The bipolar relationship between productivism/post-productivism has been criticised with
the argument that there is little evidence that “productivist processes are being progressively
reversed” (Evans et al. 2002, p. 324). Wilson (2007) suggests that instead of using ‘postproductivism’
as the antithesis of ‘productivism’ the concept ‘non-productivism’ would be
a better name since it is a ‘true opposite’ contrary to post-productivism. Wilson (2001) had
earlier argued that, rather than productivism and post-productivism being separate entities,
there is a spectrum of different views where “different localities are positioned at different points
in a temporal, spatial and conceptual transition from ‘pre-productivist’ to ‘post-productivist’
agricultural regimes” (p. 77). This, he argues, is true within the EU where some Mediterranean
countries have not fully entered the productivist phase while at the same time the northern
European countries "may be firmly embedded in the post-productivist transition" (Wilson, 2001,
p. 91). Thus, common EU policies supporting post-productive activities (e.g., extensification of
agriculture) are applied on countries with productivist practices and thinking (Wilson, 2001). This
spatial blindness is at the heart of the matter and implies that ‘transition’ may not be a helpful
concept since, while having sound motivation, it may lead to bad policy being applied to certain
places.
Post-productivism has also been criticised for its lack of a clear definition, its focus on
agriculture, for being UK centered with a limited discussion on the concept’s applicability in
other countries, as well as the lack of empirical evidence to support the theory of postproductivism
(Evans et al., 2002; Mather et al., 2006; Wilson, 2001). For example, Evans et alia
(2002) argue that post-productivism has reached a “theoretical cul-de-sac” (p. 325) where it
contributes very little to the development of theory in agricultural research. As a response to this
critique, alternative discourses have emerged. 'Multifunctionality' and the related concepts
‘multifunctional agricultural regime’ and ‘multifunctional transition’ have been put forward by
many scholars (e.g., Bjørkhaug & Richards, 2008; Holmes, 2008; McCarthy, 2005; Wilson,
2001; Woods, 2011) because, they argue, these concepts better describe the ongoing changes
in rural areas. For example, McCarthy (2005) sees multifunctionality as “the idea that rural
landscapes typically produce a range of commodity and noncommodity use values
simultaneously and that policy ought to recognise and protect that entire range of values”
(pp. 773-774). As a concept, multifunctionality “better encapsulates the diversity, non-linearity
and spatial heterogeneity” in rural society (Wilson, 2001, p. 96). Multifunctionality has been
used to describe actual practices (i.e., reflecting reality) (McCarthy, 2005) and “as a model for
understanding the dynamics of agricultural systems” (Woods, 2011, p. 81). Its origin has been
acknowledged as being, in part, a semantic move to get past the epistemological deadlock of
the productivist/post-productivist dichotomy, but the concept has developed to embrace social
and environmental dividends of a multifunctional rural territory (Woods, 2011). The novelty of
multifunctional rural areas can, however, be questioned as being ahistorical since it seems to
forget a long history of very diverse activities in rural areas before the productivist era, e.g.,
second home ownership in the Nordic countries (Müller, 2011; Vespäläinen & Pitkänen, 2010).
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/8/18 9:04 AM
301/346
Woods (2011) summarised three approaches to applying multifunctionality in rural geography:
as an outcome of agricultural policy changes; as a measure of the degree of change (in action
and attitude) at the farm level; and, as an overarching regional frame for rural change. However,
empirical studies have reflected agricultural rural realities more than other rural realities, despite
the fact that more inclusive definitions of multifunctionality incorporating, for example, social and
environmental benefits exist (Woods, 2011). This broad perspective is also included in the term
‘multifunctional transition’, which Holmes (2008) argues can be used to understand
contemporary rural change “in which a variable mix of consumption and protection values has
emerged, contesting the former dominance of production values” (p. 211). This, he argues,
leads “to greater complexity and heterogeneity in the use of rural space at all scales” (p. 212).
While the critique of post-productivism may be true for its usefulness in agricultural research it
does not necessarily apply to research on rural transformation and change. For example,
Mather et alia (2006) oppose the idea of rejection of post-productivism, since “there is empirical
evidence for the occurrence of post-productivism on the basis of criteria suggested by various
contributors to the debate” (p. 454). Instead they see post-productivism as having “sufficient
potential […] to be considered as a helpful concept in relation to the advancement of our
understanding of land-use change” (p. 454). They argue that post-productivism is a better
concept than the alternatives, such as multifunctionality, but admit there may be overlap
(Mather et al., 2006).
Some researchers have already worked on developing the concept of post-productivism and
have reached a clearer definition. For example, Mather et alia (2006) expand the focus on
agriculture to also include forestry and land use change. They specifically argue that postproductivism
should be perceived as “a shift in emphasis, and not as an absolute change from
material production to service provision” (p. 451). From a policy perspective, Macken-Walsh
(2009) refers to post-productivism as a model that promotes alternative forms of rural economic
activity. According to her, post-productivism is one of three main paradigmatic changes in
the contemporary EU rural development agenda, each with its own set of development
challenges; the other two being economic diversification related to globalisation, and
governance (from top-down to bottom-up). She claims that post-productivism has influenced
rural policy with “an increased policy focus away from mainstream commodity productivist
models of development towards high value-added and innovation in the rural economy” (p. 22).
Accordingly, post-productivist programmes have emerged with a focus on environmental,
economic and social sustainability, one such initiative being the LEADER programme (MackenWalsh,
2009). Also, funding programmes under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) fuel
post-productivism as a general alternative to agriculture across the EU, rather than basing
policy on actual conditions in the diverse rural regions of the EU (Jansson & Wästfelt, 2011;
Keskitalo & Lundmark, 2010). By taking such a view, the understanding of post-productivism as
policy discourse comes into focus. Elsewhere, it has been noted that the post-productive
perspective also comes into play in legislative and policy matters, such as when authorities wish
to restrict land use through nature and heritage reserve formation (Lundmark & Stjernström,
2009; Svensson, 2009). Thus, there is a policy push towards post-productivism which is not
sensitive enough to address the diverse rural realities which exist.
3. Post-productivism, post-production and rural realities
Based on a synthesis of the current state of research and a development of some of the issues
raised in the literature, the following section outlines some possible theoretical extensions and
applications, as well as giving examples of the diverse rural realities which exist.
The review above demonstrates an inherent complexity in the concept of post-productivism:
depending on the definition and focus, different conclusions are drawn. A fundamental problem
inherent in the post-productivism discourse is that ‘post-productivism’ is often used in the sense
of describing current processes in rural areas (i.e., reflection of reality). Instead it should be
regarded as representing a new set of ideas, a way of looking at change in rural areas that also
affect policy, for example, with regards to nature protection and forest management. Without
the recognition that this conceptual confusion exists, the debate on post-productivism becomes
misdirected. Equally, the concepts of post-productivism and multifunctionality are incomparable
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/8/18 9:04 AM
302/346
since they do not describe the same process or state (i.e., normative goal versus on the ground
reality). Multifunctionality can in this way be seen as a manifestation of post-productivism as
discourse. There is a distinct difference between the post-productive activities present in rural
areas and post-productivism as a set of ideologically-shaped imaginations and visions that is
present in regional development programmes, environmental policy, forestry and agricultural
regulations and hence in the public mindset. These differences need clarification in
the academy if they are to carry meaning in the lived reality of rural dwellers. Notably, these
imaginations have already had some effect on the redistributive actions in policy aiming at rural
regional development and diversification. The policy discourse on post-productivism has led to
an increased amount of funding for actions that promote environmental and sustainable
development in rural areas, more grants and other support for tourism businesses, as well as
new forms of reserve formation such as Natura 2000.
A major problem with regards to the confusion of discourse and reality is the perception of postproductivism
as a transition (i.e., the ‘post-productivist transition’) which implies that
productivism and post-productivism are stages, one stage replacing another stage (e.g., postproductivist
activities replacing agricultural production). One of the main arguments against
post-productivism is the lack of empirical evidence that a post-productivist transition has taken
place considering the continued existence of farm production associated with ‘productivism’
(e.g., intensification, concentration and specialisation) (e.g., Evans et al., 2002; Mather et al.,
2006). However, this contradicts the view of coexistence between productivism and postproductivist
action and thought (e.g., Wilson, 2001) and thus they are better perceived as
concomitant processes of change.
The single sector focus on agriculture of much previous research does not reflect the current
trends in rural areas affected by changes in value systems and life-styles, such as population
distribution, mobility patterns, entrepreneurship and the shift of emphasis from production of
commodities to non-commodity uses of land (Lundmark, 2010). For example, few studies
incorporate the new consumption patterns of urban people and rural tourism at a theoretical
level linking rural studies and economic development to more diverse activity in rural areas
(the notable exception is Hoogendoorn, 2010). With better understanding of how external and
internal forces affect rural development, the chance of achieving successful tourism
development is higher. There is a particular need to recognise the fact that widespread -isms
affect global development in different ways, from labour market regulations to environmental
standards. This implies a theoretical development of post-productivism which should also
include developing countries.
It has also been argued that in certain advanced economies the countryside is in the postproductive
stage of development, a state indicating a fundamental change in the way the rural
economy is organised. For example, rural areas have more or less left behind traditional natural
resource uses such as agriculture, forestry, and related industries (Jansson & Wästfelt, 2010)
for other types of activity and production modes, including natural carbon sequestration,
biodiversity protection, and tourism and recreation opportunities. Milk and meat production,
the felling and processing of trees within the highly-mechanised agriculture and forestry sectors,
and related industries, are deemed backwards and should be replaced by a service and
experience-oriented resource use not least because it would reduce negative impacts of global
change on rural areas (OECD, 2006). Thus, tourism has emerged as one of the new, and
potentially dominant, industries in the new rural landscape (Lane, 2009; Müller & Ulrich, 2007).
This reasoning is based on assumptions of a general shift from large-scale production based on
low-cost oil, energy-intensive materials, and mass consumption, to small-scale, diversified
production, as well as on the observation that many agricultural and forestry businesses in rural,
and especially peripheral, areas have shut down in the last few decades (Martin, 1994). This
development is supported by public funding in many countries. However, in many cases,
regional development funds may be better spent on supporting existing industries and thus
redressing the legacy of ‘spatial-blindness’ due to top-down policies (Rodríguez-Pose, 2010).
The territorial approach of the OECD’s (2006) ‘new rural paradigm’ is a step in the right direction
and its local focus and bottom-up approach will most likely lead to further divergence in
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/8/18 9:04 AM
303/346
the socio-economic make-up of rural Europe going forward. This suggests that certain postproductive
islands will grow while a manufacturing or extractive focus will remain elsewhere.
Post-productive evidence can be observed in different contexts while it should be noted that
the vast majority of rural land is still considered to be in a productive or industrialised use
(Hedlund, 2014), although some land has also been turned into nature reserves or otherwise
taken out of production. Modern forestry and highly mechanised agriculture are self-explanatory
evidence of the persistence of the productive. However, modern agriculture and forestry does
not have the ability to create many jobs, a challenge directly related to rural depopulation. This
can, in turn, be seen as a background to extensive use of older buildings as second homes
which in turn has created a demand for services, particularly related to tourism.
It is important to consider the rural realities discussed above and to develop a framework for
empirical work which is inclusive of these realities. For example, the increase of second homes
and the presence of second home owners (e.g., Hoogendoorn, 2010); the changes in labour
and SMEs within the tourism and recreation sector (e.g., Brouder & Eriksson, 2013; Müller
& Brouder, 2014); and the increase in land area devoted to nature protection (e.g., Lundmark
& Stjernström, 2009) could be indicative of post-productive changes. However, there is not
necessarily a causal connection between, for example, tourism and post-production in terms of
production mode. Different types of tourism in different settings could therefore result in varying
interpretations. For instance, a ski resort in the mountains could be more appropriate to include
in a productivist framework while areas with high conversion of second homes into permanent
ones, such as in the Swedish archipelago, could be regarded as places of post-production.
The post-productive debate has surely been given undue attention for what is, at the regional
level, a marginal, even if growing, phenomenon. A better understanding is important because
the oft-cited conflicts over land use are being used to develop a misguided, conflict-centric
discourse (cf. Lundmark & Stjernström, 2009; Smith & Krannich, 2000; Svensson, 2009). In light
of this situation, there is an urgent need to interrogate, not whether, but how the countryside is
seen as an arena for production and/or consumption, or as a landscape that has been or which
shall be.
4. Concluding remarks
The lack of a comprehensive framework for studying rural change has been acknowledged by
rural scholars and was a factor in the development of multifunctionality as an alternative to
the ‘post-productivist transition’ (cf. Mather et al., 2006; Woods, 2011). While proposing a new
framework is not the goal of this paper, a call for clarifying the competing frameworks is
warranted. Post-productivism is a normative concept and should be studied as such. Similarly,
post-production and productive activities are important elements of a multifunctional rural
economy and should be measured accordingly. Since post-productivism is a strong part of
policy discourse, it cannot simply be defined away or usurped by other frameworks such as
multifunctionality. Instead, post-productivism must take its rightful place at the level of discourse
and policy formation, important realities which have a direct impact on change processes at
the local level.
Future research should include developing a theoretical framework of post-productivism where
modes of agricultural production and extraction of raw materials are considered as part of
the changing economy in rural areas. The goal should be one common definition of postproductivism,
one which is sensitive to the geographical diversity of rural areas across
the globe. While reaching a global consensus will be difficult, the academic discussion will open
up for interesting exchanges on development paths and different land use patterns in developed
and developing regions. The new knowledge gained will feed more effective (regional) rural
policies.
Meanwhile, multifunctionality will develop as the most effective framework for assessing on
the ground realities across various rural regions. However, it may be necessary to adapt
the framework to take different spatial scales, as well as economic, political, social and
environmental conditions into account. Ultimately, post-productivism seems better aimed at
broader geographical scales and policy discourse, while multifunctionality will be needed to
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/8/18 9:04 AM
304/346
address the empirical gaps at more localised levels. Making such a distinction will help to shift
the focus of rural geography from debates around rural discourse to active analysis of rural
diversity and change.
Acknowledgement
This study was financed by two grants from the Swedish Research Council for Environment,
Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (Formas): the grant Research leaders of the future in
the area Rural Development (project: Mobilising the rural: Post-productivism and the new
economy) and the grant Strong research environments (project: Planning for rural-urban
dynamics: Living and acting at several places (PLURAL)).
References
[1] Argent, N. (2002). From pillar to post? In search of the post-productivist countryside in
Australia. Australian Geographer, 33(1), 97-114. DOI: 10.1080/00049180220125033.
[2] Bergstrom, J. C. (2001). Postproductivism and rural land values. Faculty series. Athens,
GA: University of Georgia.
[3] Bjørkhaug, H. & Richards, C. A. (2008). Multifunctional agriculture in policy and practice?
A comparative analysis of Norway and Australia. Journal of Rural Studies, 24(1), 98-111.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.06.003.
[4] Brouder, P. (2012). Creative outposts: Tourism’s place in rural innovation. Tourism
Planning & Development, 9(4), 383-396. DOI: 10.1080/21568316.2012.726254.
[5] Brouder, P. (2013). Embedding Arctic tourism innovation in ‘creative outposts’. In Lemelin,
R. H., Maher, P. & Liggett, D. (eds.) From talk to action: How tourism is changing the Polar
regions (pp. 183-198). Thunder Bay, ON: Centre for Northern Studies Press.
[6] Brouder, P. & Eriksson, R. (2013). Staying power: What influences micro-firm survival in
tourism? Tourism Geographies, 15(1), 124-143. DOI: 10.1080/14616688.2011.647326.
[7] Burton, R. J. F. & Wilson, G. A. (2006). Injecting social psychology theory into
conceptualisations of agricultural agency: Towards a post-productivist farmer self-identity?
Journal of Rural Studies, 22(1), 95-115. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.07.004.
[8] Elands, B. H. M. & Praestholm, S. (2008). Landowners’ perspectives on the rural future and
the role of forests across Europe. Journal of Rural Studies, 24(1), 72-85.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.02.002.
[9] Evans, N., Morris, C. & Winter, M. (2002). Conceptualizing agriculture: Acritique of postproductivism
as the new orthodoxy. Progress in Human Geography, 26(3), 313-332.
DOI: 10.1191/0309132502ph372ra.
[10] Hedlund, M. (2014). Mapping the socio-economic landscape of rural Sweden: Towards
a typology of rural areas. Regional Studies. DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2014.924618.
[11] Holmes. J. (2002). Diversity and change in Australia’s rangelands: A postproductivist
transition with a difference? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 27(3),
362-384. DOI: 10.1111/1475-5661.00059.
[12] Holmes, J. (2006). Impulses towards a multifunctional transition in rural Australia: Gaps in
the research agenda. Journal of Rural Studies, 22(2), 142-160.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.08.006.
[13] Holmes, J. (2008). Impulses towards a multifunctional transition in rural Australia:
Interpreting regional dynamics in landscapes, lifestyles and livelihoods. Landscape
Research, 33(2), 211-223. DOI: 10.1080/01426390801912089.
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/8/18 9:04 AM
305/346
[14] Hoogendoorn, G. (2010). Second homes and local economic impacts in the South African
post-productivist countryside. (Doctoral dissertation). Faculty of Humanities, University of
the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.
[15] Hoogendoorn, G. & Visser, G. (2011). Tourism, second homes and an emerging South
African post-productivist countryside. Tourism Review International, 15(1-2), 183-197.
DOI: 10.3727/154427211X13139345020651.
[16] Ilbery, B. & Kneafsey, M. (1997). Regional images and the promotion of quality products
and services in the lagging regions of the European Union. Paper presented to the Third
Anglo-French Rural Geography Symposium, Université de Nantes, 11-14 September.
[17] Ilbery, B. & Bowler, I. (1998). From agricultural productivism to post-productivism. In Ilbery,
B. (ed.). The geography of rural change (pp. 57-84). Harlow, UK: Longman.
[18] Jack, L. (2007). Accounting, post-productivism and corporate power in UK food and
agriculture.
[19] Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 18(8), 905-931. DOI: 10.1016/j.cpa.2006.04.004.
[20] Jansson, U. & Wästfelt, A. (2010). Rural landscape changes from a long-term perspective:
Farming, policy, economy and society from 1750 to today. In Ymer 2010, Placing human
geography. Sweden through time and space (pp. 113-141). Stockholm: Svenska Sällskapet
för Antropologi och Geografi.
[21] Kapferer, J. L. (1990). Rural myths and urban ideologies. Journal of Sociology, 26(1), 87-
106. DOI: 10.1177/144078339002600105.
[22] Keskitalo, C. E. & Lundmark, L. (2010). The controversy over protected areas and forestsector
employment in Norrbotten, Sweden: Forest stakeholder perceptions and statistics.
Society & Natural Resources, 23(2), 146-164. DOI: 10.1080/08941920802688543.
[23] Kristensen, L. (2001). Agricultural change in Denmark between 1982 and 1989:
The appearance of post-productivist farming? Geografisk Tidsskrift, 101(1), 77-86.
DOI:10.1080/00167223.2001.10649452.
[24] Lane, B. (2009). Rural tourism: An overview. In Jamal, T. & Robinson, M. (eds.), Handbook
of Tourism Studies (pp. 354-370). London, UK: SAGE.
[25] Lundmark, L. (2006). Restructuring and employment change in sparsely populated areas:
Examples from northern Sweden and Finland. (Doctoral dissertation). Department of Social
and Economic Geography, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
[26] Lundmark, L. (2010). Mobilising the rural: Post-productivism and the new economy.
Proposal for Formas grant Research leaders of the future in the area rural development.
Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
[27] Lundmark, L. & Stjernström, O. (2009). Environmental protection: An instrument for
regional development? National ambitions versus local realities in the case of tourism.
Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 9(4), 387-405.
DOI: 10.1080/15022250903273780.
[28] Macken-Walsch, Á. (2009). Barriers to change: A sociological study of rural development in
Ireland. Galway, Ireland: Teagasc Rural Economy Research Centre. Accessed from
http://www.teagasc.ie/research/reports/ruraldevelopment/5574/eopr-5574.pdf [2014-09-05].
[29] Markey, S., Halseth, G. & Manson, D. (2008). Challenging the inevitability of rural decline:
Advancing the policy of place in northern British Columbia. Journal of Rural Studies, 24(4),
409-421. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.03.012.
[30] Martin, R. (1994). Economic theory and human geography. In Gregory, D., Martin, R.
& Smith, G. (eds.), Human geography. Society, space and social science (pp. 21-53).
London, UK: Macmillan Press.
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/8/18 9:04 AM
306/346
[31] Mather, A. S., Hill, G. & Nijnik, M. (2006). Post-productivism and rural land use: Cul de sac
or challenge for theorization? Journal of Rural Studies, 22(4), 441-455.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2006.01.004.
[32] McCarthy, J. (2005). Rural geography: Multifunctional rural geographies - reactionary or
radical? Progress in Human Geography, 29(6), 773-782.
DOI: 10.1191/0309132505ph584pr.
[33] Müller, D. K. (2011) Second homes in Sweden: Between common heritage and exclusive
commodity. In Placing Human Geography in Sweden Through Time and Space (pp. 185-
207). Stockholm, Sweden: Svenska Sällskapet för Antropologi och Geografi.
[34] Müller, D. K. & Brouder, P. (2014). Dynamic development or destined to decline? The case
of Arctic tourism businesses and local labour markets in Jokkmokk, Sweden. In Viken, A.,
& Granås, B. (eds.) Tourism destination development: Turns and tactics (pp. 227-
244). Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
[35] Müller, D. K. & Ulrich, P. (2007). Tourism development and the rural labour market in
Sweden, 1960-1999. In Müller, D. K. & Jansson, B. (eds.), Tourism in peripheries.
Perspectives from the far north and south (pp. 85-105). Wallingford, UK: CABI.
[36] OECD (2006). The new rural paradigm: Policies and governance. Paris: OECD
publications.
[37] Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2010). Economic geographers and the limelight: The reaction to
the World Development Report 2009. Economic Geography, 86(4), 361-370.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1944-8287.2010.01094.x.
[38] Smith, M. D. & Krannich, R. S. (2000). “Culture clash” revisited: Newcomer and longer-term
residents’ attitudes toward land use, development, and environmental issues in rural
communities in the Rocky Mountain West. Rural Sociology, 65(3), 396-421.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1549-0831.2000.tb00036.x.
[39] Svensson, E. (2009). Consuming nature-producing heritage: Aspects on conservation,
economical growth and community participation in a forested, sparsely populated area in
Sweden. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 15(6), 540-559.
DOI: 10.1080/13527250903210837.
[40] van der Ploeg, J. D., Renting, H., Brunori, G., Knickel, K., Mannion, J., Marsden, T.,
de Roest, K., Sevilla-Guzmán, E. & Ventura, F. (2000). Rural development: From practices
and policies towards theory. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(4), 391-408. DOI: 10.1111/1467-
9523.00156.
[41] Vepsäläinen, M. & Pitkänen, K. (2010). Second home countryside. Representations of
the rural in Finnish popular discourses. Journal of Rural Studies, 26(2), 194-204.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2009.07.002.
[42] Wilson, G. A. (2001). From productivism to post-productivism ... and back again? Exploring
the (un)changed natural and mental landscapes of European agriculture. Transactions of
the Institute of British Geographers, 26(1), 77-102. DOI: 10.1111/1475-5661.00007.
[43] Wilson, G. A. (2007). Multifunctional agriculture: A transition theory perspective.
Wallingford, UK: CABI International.
[44] Wilson, G. A. & Rigg, J. (2003). ‘Post-productivist’ agricultural regimes and the South:
Discordant concepts? Progress in Human Geography, 27(6), 681-707.
DOI: 10.1191/0309132503ph450oa.
[45] Woods, M. (2011). Rural. London, UK: Routledge.
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/8/18 9:04 AM