Social Inclusion or Market Competitiveness? A Comparison of Rural Development Policies in the European Union and the United States

The language of EU rural development policy appears more interested in social inclusion and that of US policy more interested in market competitiveness. We seek to determine why policies directed at rural development in the EU and the USA differ. In both contexts new rural development policies emphasize partnership and participation but we find local participation is used to promote social inclusion in the EU and market competitiveness in the USA. An examination of these dimensions illustrates important transcontinental differences and similarities in rural development policies. We explore the socio‐historical reasons for differences in the commitment to social inclusion, while also noting similarities in the priority of market competitiveness.     

Are rural development programmes socially inclusive? Social inclusion,civic engagement,participation, and social capital: Exploring the differences

Considerable importance is attached to social exclusion/inclusion in recent EU rural development programmes. At the national/regional operation of these programmes groups of people who are not participating are often identified as ‘socially excluded groups’. This article contends that rural development programmes are misinterpreting the social processes of participation and consequently labelling some groups as socially excluded when they are not. This is partly because of the interchangeable and confused use of the concepts social inclusion, social capital and civic engagement, and partly because of the presumption that to participate is the default position. Three groups identified as socially excluded groups in Northern Ireland are considered. It is argued that a more careful analysis of what social inclusion means, what civic engagement means, and why participation is presumed to be the norm, leads to a different conclusion about who is excluded. This has both theoretical and policy relevance for the much used concept of social inclusion.     

Women in the Field: Women,Farming and Organizations

One striking feature of farming as an occupation is that there are few women who farm in their own right. The passing of land from father to son means that women rarely own land. Their typical entry to farming is through marriage. Women's route of entry to farming affects interpersonal relationships within the family, and also women's role in the public space of farming. Women are under‐represented in farming organizations, in training programmes, and in the politics of farming. This article focuses on the position of women within farming organizations and the interaction between (male) farming organizations and women's farming organizations. Farmers are an extremely well‐organized occupation and wield considerable political power because of this effective organization. However, farming organizations are almost entirely male. This article examines how women are treated within farming organizations, and also the interaction between (male) farming organizations and women's farming organizations. Drawing on the theory of organizations, I argue that the inclusion of women in farming organizations and the existence of women's farming organizations reinforce gender divisions within agriculture and do not in any way question the understanding of men as farmers, or the political power they hold.