外文翻译波罗的海农村多元化一个地方的透视Word文件下载.docx

外文翻译波罗的海农村多元化一个地方的透视Word文件下载.docx

《外文翻译波罗的海农村多元化一个地方的透视Word文件下载.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《外文翻译波罗的海农村多元化一个地方的透视Word文件下载.docx（10页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

原文：

RuraldiversificationintheBalticcountryside:

alocalperspective

Abstract

Today‘‘ruraldiversification’’ishighontheagendainruraldevelopment.Thisarticleanalysesruraldiversificationunderconditionsofpost-socialisteconomictransitionusingcaseareasinLatviaandEstonia.Thestudyshowsthattransitionfromcentrallyplannedeconomytomarketeconomyhashadanenormousimpactintheruralareas.Agriculturalproductionandemploymenthasdecreaseddramaticallyandruralunemploymentishigh.Theconditionsforruraldiversificationthefirstyearsafterindependencedependedalotonthelocalpresenceofnon-farmactivitiesbeforethesplitupofcollectivefarming,inbothproductionfacilitiesbutalsointheskillsandrelationspeoplehad.Sinceindependence,marketsfortraditionalruralservicesandproductshavedecreased.Theextenttowhichlocalbusinessesfindmarketsoutsidethelocalareaandpeoplehavebeenabletointegrateintothenewlabourmarketofserviceandconstructionjobsofteninurbanareasareessentialforthediversificationoftheruraleconomy.Mostruralinhabitantsonlyhaveskillsinlarge-scaleagricultureandlimitedcontactstooutsidethelocalareawhichmakesexploitingnewopportunitiesdifficult.Thelocalcapacityforwithholding,developingandinducingnewactivitiesisweak.Thechallengeforruraldevelopmentpolicyistoextendthepossibilitiesoftheruralinhabitantstoexploitnewopportunities.

Introduction

Decreasingemploymentopportunitiesinagricultureisanall-Europeanproblem.InWesternEuropetheproportionoftheruralpopulationduringmostofthetwentiethcenturyhasfallensteadily.InEasternEuropethisfallhasbeenmoredramatic.About20%ofthepopulationswereemployedinagricultureintheBalticStates10yearsago,only5%areemployedtoday.ThisissimilartotheEUaverage.However,still30%ofthepopulationlivesinruralareas（RuralDevelopmentProgrammes2004a,b）.

InLatviaandEstoniamanyruralareassufferfrompersistingunemploymentandpoverty（Alanen2004;

Tisenkopfs1999）.Ruraldiversificationseemsessential

toavoidincreasingpovertyandishighontheagendaforruraldevelopmentintheyearstocome.TheEUCommonAgriculturalPolicy2007–2013focusesonthreethematicaxeslaiddowninthenewruraldevelopmentregulationofwhich‘‘diversificationoftheruraleconomy’’isoneofthem（EuropeanCommission2005）.

Thisarticleanalysestheruraldiversificationunderconditionsofpost-socialisteconomictransitionanddiscussesopportunitiesandconstraintsforruraldiversification.TheprojectisanexploratorystudyintohowpeoplemakealivingandruralbusinessdevelopmentintwostudyregionsinLatviaandEstoniarespectively.

Theoreticalbackgroundandapproach

Indiversificationstudiesthecentreofattentionisdominantlythefarmhouseholdanditsabilitiesforfindingnewactivitiesandemployment.Therearetwotypesofactivities;

‘‘farmdiversification’’whichareon-farmactivitiesliketourismactivitiesoralternativefarmproductionand‘‘employmentdiversification’’whichisemploymentawayfromthefarm（Brydenetal.1992;

Chaplinetal.2004）.Policymakersassumethat‘‘farmdiversification’’makesasignificantcontributiontoruraldevelopment.Alternativeactivitiesonfarmsareexpectedtohelpabsorbingsomeoftheexcessfarmlabour,alleviatepovertyandcontributetothedevelopmentofemploymentinruralareas（e.g.CouncilRegulation1999）.Thefundingfor‘‘diversification’’withintheEUfocusesdominantlyonfarmdiversificationstimulatingtourismactivitiesandalternativefarmproductsatindividualfarms.

However,mostempiricalstudiesstillshowsthatfarmdiversificationaresmall-scaleactivitiesrelatedtoconventionalagriculturesuchasmachineryservicesandaddlittleincomes.‘‘Employmentdiversification’’ismuchmorewidespread（e.g.McNally2001）.

Asmyfocusisruraldevelopment,myworkingdefinitionof‘‘ruraldiversification’’andthe‘‘nonfarmeconomy’’alsoincludesthebroaderruraleconomynotconfinedtoagricultureandthefarmhousehold.SomeruralareasinWesternEurope,particularlyaroundcitiesandpopularresorts,haveexperiencedanincreaseinpopulationandeconomicactivitiesnotinvolvedorrelatedtothefarmsector.Ithasoftenbeenconnectedtoanincreasingmovementofpeople,touristsandinvestmentsfromurbantoruralareas.Thisobservedtrendhasbeendescribedas

the‘‘urban-ruralshift’’orthe‘‘ruralturnaround’’（e.g.Murdochetal.2003;

North1998）.

Thetransitionanddiversification

Researchintoruralissuesinpost-socialistcountrieshasmainlyfocusedonagriculturalrestructuring.Thefollowingpartexaminestheemergingresearchonpost-socialistruralchangeandtriestopointtofeaturesthatcharacterisetheruralareasintransitionandareimportantfortheunderstandingofdiversification.

Thefarmhousehold

ManysmallfarmsareacommonfeatureintheEasternEuropeancountrysidetoday.Thesocialistagriculturalsystemcomprisedoflarge-scaleagriculturalenterprisesandsmallhouseholdplotsthatfarmworkerscultivated.Duringthetransitionlandhasbeenrestitutedtoformerownersandprivatisedbyfarmworkers.TheaimoftherestitutionoflandwasintheBalticcountriesbasedontheideaofcreatingfamilyfarmssimilartothetraditionalWesternEuropeanmodel,however,the‘‘familyfarms’’,aretoday,uncommon.Adualstructureoffarmshasre-emerged;

large-scaleprivatised,oftencorrespondingtotheformersocialistfarms,andsmallhouseholdfarmsdominatinglyorientedtowardsself-subsistence.Alsomanyurbandwellersreceivedlandbackinrestitutionwhichmostoftenislefttogrowwild（Baldocketal.2001）.

Theruralbusiness

Inthepost-socialistcountryside,theruralbusinessactivitiesotherthanfarmingcanbedividedintoprivatisedenterprisesandselfemployedservicebusinesses.Non-agriculturalproductionlikeprocessingplants,distilleriesandbakerieswereconnectedtothelargefarms.Suchunitshavebeencalledthe‘‘resilientunits’’（Andor1997）becausewhilethelargefarmshaveclosed,theyhaveoftencontinuedtheiroperations,althoughatamuchlowerlevelofactivitythanbefore（Nikula2004）.

Theruralpopulation

Characteristicforthepost-socialistcountriesisthatalargershareofthepopulationlivesinruralareasthaninWesternEurope.‘‘Underurbanisation’’isoftenemphasisedasacentralfeatureofsocialistrural–urbanrelations（Szelenyi1996）.Underurbanisationmeansthathousingconstructioninurbanareasdidnotkeeppacewithindustrialdevelopment.Workerscontinuedtoliveinvillageswheretheyalsocouldbenefitfromplotfarmingwhilecommutingtowork.Thisgroupofpeoplehasbeencalledthe‘‘workerpeasants’’（Andor1997）.Theruralareashad,however,apopulationthatwasalmostentirelymadeupoflocalfarmersandworkersandtheredidnotexistanex-urban‘‘middleclass’’group.

Theregionaldifferences

AdistinctioninCEEC-literatureisoftenmadebetweenformer‘‘agriculturalregions’’and‘‘industrialregions’’（Raagmaa1997;

Swain2000）.Intraditionallyheavilyindustrialisedregionsindustrieshaveoftenclosedandtherearefewemploymentopportunities.AgriculturalregionswereoftenspecializedproducingforlargemarketsintheSovietUnionandotherEasternEuropeancountries.Sincetheirtraditionalmarketsoftenhavedisappearedsuchregionsalsosufferfromunemployment.Raagmaa（1997）arguesthattherearenorealperipheralareasintheBalticStatesasthecountriesaresmallandpeoplecancommutebycartotheurbancentresfromanywhereinthecountryandthereforeallruralareashavethepossibilityofbecominga‘‘recreationalregions’’wherepeoplerecreateandlive.

Approachingdiversification—thelocalperspective

TheBalticcountriesarenolongerpartoftheSovietUnionbutarereintegratingwiththeEuropeanandglobaleconomy.Theframeconditionsforruralareashavechangeddramatically.Transitionresearchhaslargelybeenwrittenintermsofthemarketisationofeconomicrelationsandtheprivatisationofproperty.Thelevelofresearchhasmainlybeenmacro-scale.Theperspectiveofthisresearchprojectisfromthemicro-scaleexploringtheactivities,experiencesandcapacitiesofruralinhabitantswithinthechangingrurallocale.Inthetransitioncontextabottom-upapproachseemsincreasinglyimportantasthelocaltransitionisnotastraightforwardexpressionofnewframeconditionsandmacrostructuresasthecollapseofthesystemhavemadechangeevenmoredependentonthespecificareaandonindividualcapacities.

Methods

Thelocalareasandtheirpopulationsarefocusedonwiththehelpofcasestudiesexploringthesituationoftheruralinhabitantsandthelocalbusinessactivitiesintwospecificregions.Thetypologyofpost-socialistruralregionsdiscussedinthetheoreticalbackground;

‘‘agriculturalregions’’and‘‘industrialregions’’formedthebasisfortheselectionofthestudyregions.TheintentionwasnottoselectrepresentativecasesfortheaverageruralareaintheBalticStates,andtheintentionisnottomakegeneralisationsforthewholecountriesorforallruralareas.However,thecasestudiesrepresentdifferenttypesofareasandtheresultsshouldhavehighrelevanceforruraldevelopmentanddiversificationinsimilarareasandsituations.Thecasestudiesareindifferentcountriesbecausetheinitialset-upoftheresearchprojectinvolvedpartnersfromallBalticStatesincludingLithuania.

InEstoniaViljandicountywasselectedasanagriculturalregion.Rezeknecountywasselectedasanindustrialregion.Inconnectionwithbot