Page 420 - Panjek, Aleksander, Jesper Larsson and Luca Mocarelli, eds. 2017. Integrated Peasant Economy in a Comparative Perspective: Alps, Scandinavia and Beyond. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 420
integr ated peasant economy in a compar ative perspective
hold development can contribute to new roles and perspectives of family
farming in meeting agricultural household survival strategy in rural areas.
The paper concludes with findings that can be relevant for the research on
the integrated peasant economy by improving the understanding of family
farming, pluriactivity, part-time farming, farm diversification and integrat-
ed and inclusive rural household development in multifuncitional agricul-
tural and rural development in contemporary economics.
1. Pluriactivity
The literature explaining the concept of agricultural and rural pluriactivity
and its meaning is mixed (Marsden 1990; Reis et al. 1990). Campagne, Car-
reère, and Valceschini (1990) argue about some similarities and differen-
ces on the concept of pluriactivity in the theoretical literature and practice,
which are explained based on characteristics in agricultural development
in three agricultural regions in France. They based three different types of
pluriactivity in agricultural development when farms are able to carry on a
modernisation process, farms that are threatened in spite of their moderni-
sation, and farms that are unable to be modernised. Agricultural policy, in
this case mostly Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European Uni-
on (EU), causes different regional impacts with a particular form of pluria-
ctivity in agricultural development. In the Picardy region, a business pluri-
activity uses agricultural resources to increase non-agricultural activities.
In the Languedoc region, a rural development pluriactivity has developed
by using non-agricultural resources for its modernisation. In the Savoy re-
gion, a rural pluriactivity of survival has developed with a close combinati-
on between agricultural and non-agricultural activities, which permits the
maintenance of rural many-faceted businesses. Agricultural development
is linked to rural development, but causalities between agricultural and
non-agricultural rural development can go in different directions.
Evans and Ilbery (1993) conceptualised a debate on the restructur-
ing of agriculture and non-conventional methods of farm family business-
es, which is employed to raise income as part of a family farm survival or
accumulation strategy. This can be explained not with a single, but with
more concepts such as pluriactivity, part-time farming and farm diversifi-
cation of farm family business activities. Therefore, there are different op-
tions and thus differences in the interpretations of such concepts. More
specifically, they suggest an analytical distinction between farm-centred
or farm-based accommodation, diversification and off-farm employment,
418
hold development can contribute to new roles and perspectives of family
farming in meeting agricultural household survival strategy in rural areas.
The paper concludes with findings that can be relevant for the research on
the integrated peasant economy by improving the understanding of family
farming, pluriactivity, part-time farming, farm diversification and integrat-
ed and inclusive rural household development in multifuncitional agricul-
tural and rural development in contemporary economics.
1. Pluriactivity
The literature explaining the concept of agricultural and rural pluriactivity
and its meaning is mixed (Marsden 1990; Reis et al. 1990). Campagne, Car-
reère, and Valceschini (1990) argue about some similarities and differen-
ces on the concept of pluriactivity in the theoretical literature and practice,
which are explained based on characteristics in agricultural development
in three agricultural regions in France. They based three different types of
pluriactivity in agricultural development when farms are able to carry on a
modernisation process, farms that are threatened in spite of their moderni-
sation, and farms that are unable to be modernised. Agricultural policy, in
this case mostly Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European Uni-
on (EU), causes different regional impacts with a particular form of pluria-
ctivity in agricultural development. In the Picardy region, a business pluri-
activity uses agricultural resources to increase non-agricultural activities.
In the Languedoc region, a rural development pluriactivity has developed
by using non-agricultural resources for its modernisation. In the Savoy re-
gion, a rural pluriactivity of survival has developed with a close combinati-
on between agricultural and non-agricultural activities, which permits the
maintenance of rural many-faceted businesses. Agricultural development
is linked to rural development, but causalities between agricultural and
non-agricultural rural development can go in different directions.
Evans and Ilbery (1993) conceptualised a debate on the restructur-
ing of agriculture and non-conventional methods of farm family business-
es, which is employed to raise income as part of a family farm survival or
accumulation strategy. This can be explained not with a single, but with
more concepts such as pluriactivity, part-time farming and farm diversifi-
cation of farm family business activities. Therefore, there are different op-
tions and thus differences in the interpretations of such concepts. More
specifically, they suggest an analytical distinction between farm-centred
or farm-based accommodation, diversification and off-farm employment,
418
