This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wiilson, G. A. Articles by Rigg, J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

‘Post-productivist’ agricultural regimes and the South: discordant concepts?

Department of Geography, King's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, UK

Jonathan Rigg

Department of Geography, University of Durham, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK

In this paper we review current assumptions about post-productivist agricultural regimes - developed largely within a UK/advanced economies framework - and attempt to answer the question whether the concept of post-productivism can be used to understand contemporary agricultural change in developing world regions. Our analysis is loosely based around six interconnected ‘indicators’ of post-productivism: policy change; organic farming; counter-urbanization; the inclusion of environmental NGOs at the core of policy-making; the consumption of the countryside; and on-farm diversification activities. We argue that the successful ‘exporting’ of the theory of post-productivism to the South relies on shared definitions, meanings and - ultimately - discourses of post-productivism. Although similar patterns can be observed in rural areas of the developing world, there is confusion about the exact meaning of complex agricultural/rural activities. Further, our analysis questions the implied linearity of the traditional concept of the productivist/post-productivist transition. Ultimately, a relative assessment of the shift towards post-productivism would circumvent discursive problems related to definitions and meanings of specific post-productivist concepts and indicators. We conclude by arguing that the notion of post-productivism and the developing world are not necessarily ‘discordant concepts', but we suggest that the concept needs to be adapted and developed 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.

Key Words: post-productivist agricultural regimes • rural South • indicators of agricultural and rural change • sustainable agriculture • deagrarianization

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. McCarthy Rural geography: multifunctional rural geographies - reactionary or radical? Progress in Human Geography, December 1, 2005; 29(6): 773 - 782. [PDF]

				G. Wilson Book Review: Multifunctional agriculture: a new paradigm for European agriculture and rural development Progress in Human Geography, December 1, 2005; 29(6): 807 - 809. [PDF]

				M. Roche Rural geography: a borderland revisited Progress in Human Geography, June 1, 2005; 29(3): 299 - 303. [PDF]