Exploring Political Economy Approaches in Agriculture

Author(s): Terry Marsden

Source: Area, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Dec., 1988), pp. 315-322
Published by: The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20002644
Accessed: 20-02-2018 03:47 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20002644?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) is

collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Area

This content downloaded from 132.248.129.123 on Tue, 20 Feb 2018 03:47:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Area (1988) 20.4, 315-322

Exploring political economy approaches

in agriculture
Terry Marsden, Department of Town Planning, South Bank Polytechnic,
Wandsworth Road, London SW8 2JZ

Summary The adoption ofpolitical economy approaches have been suggested as one way of redirect
ing the sub-field of agricultural geography in the 1 980s. The paper assesses some of the more recent
developments associated with their application to agriculture and thefood system in advanced econom
ies and explores three areas where a spatialfocus has particular relevance and potential.

In a recent paper published in this journal, Bowler and Ilbery (1987) attempt to
redefine the sub-field of agricultural geography. Through integrating the concept of
the food chain, broadening the theoretical base to include perspectives in political
economy, and extending the empirical content so as to encompass the interaction
of agriculture with non-farm elements in rural society, the authors wish to help
' re-establish a coherence currently lacking in research work and teaching' (p. 330).
While their suggestions prompt much needed debate, a central question concerns how
one or all of these themes should be developed around a spatial focus.
The aim of this paper is to further some of their proposals by considering the
problems and possibilities of what Bowler and Ilbery term ' structural perspectives of
political economy '(p. 329). These perspectives are introduced in their paper under the
broad heading of ' theory in agricultural geography ' where it is suggested that the need
to extend the theoretical base of agricultural geography stems from ' the growing
awareness of the roles of non-farm capital and the state in the process of agricultural
change and uneven regional development' (p. 329). These are undoubtedly important
statements which demand much further exploration (Marsden et al. 1986a). They also
raise two interrelated considerations.
First, it can be argued that political economy approaches cannot be viewed as
distinct from their application in other sub-areas within and beyond geography
(Barratt-Brown 1986), nor can they be seen as devoid of their own ideologies and
agenda-setting priorities. Secondly, it is important to recognise that such perspectives
do not provide a ready-made underlying ' theory' which can be unproblematically
applied in this case to the agricultural sector or food-supply system. The nature of
theory in political economy is problematic and crucially linked to method, the nature of
explanation and, most importantly, the examination of social and economic change in
the context of dominant but modifiable social superstructures (Marx 1968; Lange
1963). As a consequence the attempt to incorporate political economy perspectives
within institutionally defined sub-areas (such as agricultural geography) would seem
somewhat diversionary. More important, but challenging, is to concentrate on the
problematic application of such perspectives upon sectors of economic and social
activities, nested as they are within specific international, national, regional and local
structures. As I shall attempt to demonstrate below, such an approach does not negate
holding a significant interest in the spatial but it does allow an exploration into theoreti
cal development and application without the constraints associated with the traditional

This content downloaded from 132.248.129.123 on Tue, 20 Feb 2018 03:47:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 316 Marsden

divisions of intellectual labour. We should recognise that the more mature develop
ment of political economy approaches in the industrial and urban fields owes much to
an a priori multi-disciplinary theoretical and methodological effort.
While such preliminary considerations need much more development than space
here allows, the main aim of the paper is to examine some of the key issues in the
adoption of political economy perspectives to the study of agricultural production
relations, and more generally, the food supply system.

Political economy approaches in capitalist agriculture: towards a post

structuralist framework
The application of political economy perspectives to agriculture in advanced economies
has a relatively short history compared with their established position in urban and
regional studies or the analysis of agrarian systems in Third World countries. Some
researchers have maintained a broad definition of the overall approach (Cox et al. 1986)
focussing on the study of production, exchange and distribution, and the significance of
social classes to these spheres. It has been the conceptualisation of agrarian develop
ment in Marxian political economy, however, which has become most clearly
established.
The emergence of a modern Marxist political economy of agriculture in advanced
societies during the late 1970s cannot be divorced from the general trajectory of
development in western societies (Bradley 1981). During this period the State (both
national and international) played an increasingly contradictory role, with technologi
cal developments and the resulting intensification and capitalisation of production
coming under much closer scrutiny (Buttel 1982). The indirect social and environmen
tal costs of State policy were becoming more difficult to justify. Also it was increasingly
realised (Newby 1980; Buttel and Newby 1980) that there had hitherto been a bias of
intellectual effort associated with the enhancement of production per se in comparison
with its social, economic and geographical consequences (Havens and Newby 1981;
Britton and Hill 1975; Haller 1973). The major theoretical and empirical areas of the
enquiry have been outlined in considerable depth elsewhere (Marsden et al. 1986a,
1987; Buttel 1982) and it therefore suffices here to provide only a brief summary of the
main areas of work established.
In Redclift's (1984) analysis of environmental crisis, the Marxist political economy
approach was essentially structural, locating:

' economic analysis within specific social formations and explaining the develop
ment process in terms of their costs and benefits for different social classes. It
recognises the specificity of social formations but seeks to explain structural
variation within a coherent interpretive framework' (Redclift 1984, p. 5).

Work concentrated upon, in varying degrees, four principal areas: (i) the ways in which
capital seeks to penetrate agriculture and the variable degree to which this has occurred
across advanced economies (Mouzelis 1976); (ii) an examination of class structures in
rural society and the role of rent relations in providing a theoretical underpinning for a
comparative political economy of agrarian class structure (Goss et al. 1980); (iii) the
family labour-based farm under capitalism and the reasons for its maintenance and (iv)
theoretical and empirical work which has concentrated upon the relations between
agricultural production, the food chain and the State (Finegold and Skocpol 1980).
While work along these lines gathered pace during the 1980s it was not without
its difficulties both at the theoretical and methodological level (Friedman 1982).

This content downloaded from 132.248.129.123 on Tue, 20 Feb 2018 03:47:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Political economy in agriculture 317

Increased criticism developed concerning the innovative formulations associated with

the persistence of petty commodity production (PCP) and the process of' subsump
tion ' of farm production relations by capitalism (Chevalier 1983; Long et al. 1986;
Marsden et al. 1986b, 1987; Whatmore et al. 1987a,b; Scott 1986). Most problematic
has been the over-structural emphasis adopted and the tendency towards unilinear
assumptions about the rate and nature of change both at the farm level and in agricul
tural development more generally. A major obstacle has been the lack of a coherent
conceptual framework with which to accommodate the differentiation of agrarian
structures imperative to the development of a comparative political economy
(Friedland 1982). More recent work, which is investigating variations in farm business
organisation, the significance of off farm links in the farm production sector and the
persistence of petty commodity production, is attempting to reconsider these issues by
adopting a more flexible post-structuralist framework (Marsden et al. 1986a, 1986b,
1987; Long et al. 1986; Scott 1986; Smith 1986; Dews 1987).
Efforts are focussing upon understanding the nature of the commoditisation process
as it affects agricultural production relations (Van de Ploeg 1986) and, in particular, the
interactive mechanisms between commodity and non-commodity relations in different
rural contexts. Long et al. argue:

'labour processes or units of production that exhibit peasant or ' pre-capitalist'

features are not to be seen either as intrinsically ' transitional ' and doomed to
eventual extinction, or as self-perpetuating and sealed off from the influence of the
capitalist economy. Instead they must be examined closely to establish the precise
ways in which commodity exchange and market mechanisms shape and reproduce
these specific forms of production ' (1986, p.2).

Moreover, Scott, (1986) focussing upon a reinterpretation of petty commodity produc

tion, suggests a set of levels with which to integrate abstract theoretical concepts (such
as PCP) with their more concrete manifestations. This allows methodological links to
be made between theoretical constructions and empirical diversity within and beyond
national boundaries.
Collectively, the more recent work represents a move towards an integration of
structural processes and human agency, while recognising the overriding significance
of capital accumulation as the basic motive force to economic and social change within
the food system. An increasingly important consideration concerns the recognition that
variations and unevenness exist in the sources and mediation of the capital penetration
process itself. The competitive environment in which fractions of industrial and finance
capital are located and the links they develop within the food system can no longer be
interpreted in terms of the undifferentiated 'laws of motion' (Scott 1986; Ingham
1984).

Identifying a spatial focus

The significance of a spatial focus in such approaches is crucial at three levels, despite
there being a marked absence of such considerations in the existing literature. First,
this concerns aspects of the capital accumulation process itself associated with the
mobility of capital, the distinctiveness of agricultural production and the constraints
which land-based production places upon industrial capital (Goodman et al. 1987).
Secondly, it concerns the competitive movement of 'fractions' of capital within the food
chain particularly the links between non-farm parts of the food system. Thirdly,

This content downloaded from 132.248.129.123 on Tue, 20 Feb 2018 03:47:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 318 Marsden

attention needs to focus at the micro level offarm production where various time dimen
sions such as those associated with production and labour time need to be synchronised
in order to ensure survival.
At the level of the capital accumulation process it is now recognised that the differen
tiation of geographical space both in physical and relative terms is a direct consequence
of the contradictory need of capital to be fixed at places of production while at the same
time capable of being increasingly mobile (Smith 1984, p. 88). Producing surplus value
entails the fixing of capital to place often for relatively long periods normally in the form
of factories, machinery, transport infrastructure and housing. Land based agricultural
production represents a particularly :wkward set of conditions in this respect due to the
central role land plays both as a condition for production and more importantly as a
means of that production. The agricultural use value or productive capability of land
varies markedly across space. This sets immediate opportunities and constraints on
production between one place and another. Moreover, the essential role of soil as a
medium for the growth of crops and livestock places temporal constraints on the ability
of capital to modify the production process. Such conditions not only provide the bases
for variations in rent and property relations, which hold important geographical conse
quences in themselves, but they also constrain the ability of capital to shift location
within relatively short periods of time. While it is a necessary condition of capital to be
immobilised differentially within the landscape so as to produce surplus value from the
labour process, it is also necessary for new rounds of capital accumulation to be
established in new places so as to fully exploit technological innovations and to
maximise surplus value in the longer term (Harvey 1978; Goodman et al. 1987).
As Kautsky (1900) argued, the land-based nature of much of agricultural production
means that the capital accumulation process is distinctive from that which operates in
other spheres of economic activity. This holds particular geographical characteristics
associated with the centrality of land occupancy and exploitation. The central dilemma
of capital accumulation associated with both its mobility and its need to be fixed in
specific locations provides a basic spatial dynamic which is expressed at different spatial
scales. Uneven development between farm businesses, production relations, localities
and nation states becomes partly a cause but mainly a consequence of this dilemma.
Goodman et al. (1987), for instance have recently pointed to ways in which industrial
capital, constrained by the land-based nature of the production process, is subsuming
family-based production in the United States. This occurs either by appropriating
parts of the production process directly or by substituting technological inputs for
labour (for example through increased mechanisation and the use of other labour
saving devices) and thereby increasing the dependence of farmers upon industrial firms
in other parts of the food chain. These are far from even spatial or temporal processes.
The significance of such tendencies, including the impacts of biotechnology, which
reduces land-based production even further, hold far reaching consequences for future
rounds of capital accumulation in agriculture.
The superimposition of new territorial divisions of capital are, of course, often
resisted by particular types of land-based production and systems of ownership and
occupance. Also, international and national state structures (for example the EEC) can
act to protect and maintain increasingly ossified systems of production which would
otherwise be displaced. As in other sectors of the economy existing and preexisting
forms of development, partly mediated by the State, provide the prerequisites for new
patterns of uneven development (Massey 1979; Rees 1984). The significance of land as
a means as well as a condition of production can delay the superimposition of new
divisions of capital and labour in agricultural development. New spatial divisions

This content downloaded from 132.248.129.123 on Tue, 20 Feb 2018 03:47:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Political economy in agriculture 319

have emerged (Bowler 1985) based upon the previous uneven patterns of agricultural
production, but severe historical lags can occur which, in themselves, increase dis
parities between regions and localities. Hence, the expansion in scale of production and
the internationalisation of capital movements associated with the food system is
matched by selective fossilisation of some regional and local agricultural systems.
A second focus for spatial consideration concerns the competitive movement of
fractions of capital within the food chain itself. Crucial here are the links between the
non-farm parts of the food system (i.e. input manufacturers, credit suppliers, food
processing and retailing) and the power relations which exist between these competing
fractions. The existing literature concerning the nature of capital penetration of
agricultural relations has only just begun to turn its attention towards the actions of
financial institutions and industrial firms within the food system. Little work has been
done on the spatial organisation of finance capital and more particularly credit (Green
1984; Mooney 1986). The actions of competing fractions of capital have spatially
specific consequences and manifestations. For instance, clearing banks and other credit
agencies operating at a national level (although often regionally concentrated in terms
of their branches) may hold important implications for the changing territorial div
isions of capital and labour, as well mediating the capital intensification process in
agriculture through selective and conditional lending. Also, as the important work now
being conducted on the international farm crisis suggests, the structural and spatial
organisation of banks have an important bearing upon the ways in which such crises are
manifested (Buttel 1986; Lawrence 1987).
In Britain during the 1980s the decline in the fortunes of the farming industry, and in
particular declining land prices, led all the major credit suppliers to restructure lending
in favour of less ' open ended ' overdraft schemes. Today, all the banks share the
objectives of increasing their control over credit delivery, reducing the risk element
of agricultural lending and increasing profitability in this market. Such changes are
currently affecting the conditions upon which loans are granted as well as promoting
more selective lending. The oligopolistic nature of the banking system in Britain
compared with the United States, as well as their relatively small agricultural lending
portfolios (i.e. 7-8 per cent of the total) holds an important bearing upon how financial
institutions perceive agriculture and the extent to which the industry as a whole copes
with economic crisis. Hence, at the level of the food chain within national contexts,
financial institutions as well as industrial firms operating in a highly competitive market
are important gatekeepers for the direction and spatial fixing of capital to land and
production (Marsden et al. 1988).
At the micro level considerable effort has been given to the understanding of farm
businesses and their family organisation particularly in terms of their adaptability
to changing external conditions. For the farm business to survive, various time
dimensions need to be synchronised. These are associated with capital and State time,
whereby the capital accumulation process, as discussed above, and changes in the
direction of State policy impinge upon the farm family (Marsden et al. 1987). From the
perspective of the farm business, and the locality in which it is situated, such elements
of macro-time interact with more immediate internal time dimensions associated with
the farm family itself and its engagement in material production. It is at this micro
level where the disparities which exist between labour and production time have to be
squared. Mann and Dickenson (1980), and Friedland et al. (1980) have argued
that family ownership and control is functional to external capital. Through self
exploitation of family labour the family rather than the capitalist enterprise (which
is dependent upon hired labour) is best suited to deal with the awkward nature of land

This content downloaded from 132.248.129.123 on Tue, 20 Feb 2018 03:47:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
320 Marsden

based production time. Farm families are traditionally prepared to self-exploit their
own labour resources for the benefit of marginal profit making (petty accumulation) in
the short term so as to maintain the occupancy of the land itself. This strategy involves
synchronising the internal time dimensions associated with generational continuity
and what Giddens (1985) calls the 'biographical projects' of members of the family
household.
At this level it is the specific circumstances associated with the geographical location
of the farm, the changing composition of the particular income sources of the farm
family, and the gender and generational power relations which exist between family
members, which are crucial for survival and the bases upon which family occupance
can be reproduced. Wallace (1985) has rightly questioned the extent to which the farm
family can remain the principal form of production with the prospect of increasing
dominance of agribusiness and biotechnological innovation. A further central area of
concern is the assessment of the qualitative changes that occur in the survival strategies
adopted by farm families given the increasing instabilities in both the broader capital
and state time dimensions.

Conclusion
The arguments presented here, while necessarily exploratory, provide insights into
some of the ways in which the application of political economy approaches hold
important spatial concerns. The importance of the spatial is not simply associated with
the study of consequence. Spatial factors, particularly but by no means exclusively,
associated with the peculiarities of land-based production are central causal factors
which shape the process of capital accumulation in both a general and specific sense. So
far, few writers have considered such spatial dimensions or indeed how they interact
with some of the time dimensions outlined above. As important as these considerations
are, there is no guarantee that their further development and application will lead to
more coherence within the specific sub-field of agricultural geography. Rather, they
demand an interdisciplinary effort whereby the boundaries of sub-disciplines are pro
gressively weakened. The adoption of such approaches, therefore, provide agricultural
geographers, among others, with a major critical project which is increasingly relevant
in a world where new and urgent agrarian questions are being raised.

References
Barratt-Brown M (1986) Models ofpolitical economy (Pelican, Harmondsworth)
Bernstein H (1986) ' Capitalism and petty commodity production ' Social Analysis 20, 8-26
Bowler I (1985) Agriculture under the CAP (Manchester University Press, Manchester)
Bowler I and Ilbery B (1987) ' Redefining agricultural geography ' Area 19, 327-32
Bradley T (1981) ' Capitalism and the countryside: rural sociology as political economy' International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research 5, 581-87
Britton D I C and Hill B (1975) Size and efficiency infarming (Saxon House, Farnborough)
Buttel F and Newby H (1980) The rural sociology of advanced societies (Osman and Co, Montclair, Allenheld)
Buttel F (1982) 'The political economy of agriculture in advanced industrial societies' Current Perspectives
in Social Theory 3, 27-55
Buttel F, KloppensburgJ, Kenney M and Cowan H T (1983) ' Genetic engineering and the restructuring of
agricultural research ' The Rural Sociologist 3, 132-44
Buttel F (1986) ' The American farm crisis ' paper given to the American Sociological Association conference
Chayanov A V (1966) The theory ofpeasant economy, (The American Economic Association, Illinois)
Chevalier J M (1983) 'There is nothing simple about simple commodity production '_ournal of Peasant
Studies 10, 153-86
Davis J E (1980) 'Capitalist agricultural development and the exploitation of the propertied labourer' in
Buttel F and Newby H The rural sociology ofadvanced societies (Croom Helm, London)
Dews P (1987) Logics ofdisintegration (Verso, London)

This content downloaded from 132.248.129.123 on Tue, 20 Feb 2018 03:47:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Political economy in agriculture 321

Finegold K and Skocpol T (1980) ' Capitalist farmers and workers in the New Deal ' Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Political Science Association August (Washington DC)
Friedland W H (1982) 'The end of rural society and the future of rural sociology' Rural Sociology 47,
589-608
Friedland W H, Furnari M and Pugliese E (1980) ' The labour process and agriculture ' Paper presented at a
conference on the labour process (University of Santa Cruz, California)
Friedman H (1982) 'The family farm in advanced capitalism: outline of a theory of simple commodity
production in agriculture ' conference paper to the American Sociological Association (Toronto)
Friedman H (1986) ' Patriarchy and property: a reply to Goodman and Redclift ' Sociologia Ruralis XXVI,
186-90
Giddens A (1985) 'Time, space and regionalisation' in Gregory D and Urry J (eds) Social relations and
spatial structures (Edward Arnold, London)
Goodman D and Redclift M (1986) 'Capitalism, petty commodity production and the farm enterprise'
Sociologia Ruralis XXV, 231-47
Goodman D, Sorj J and Wilkinson P (1987) Fromfarming to biotechnology (Basil Blackwell, Oxford)
Goss E F, Rodefield R D and Buttel F (1980) ' The political economy of class structure in US agriculture, a
theoretical outline ' in Buttel F and Newby H (eds) (1980) The rural sociology of advanced societies (Croom
Helm, London)
Green G P (1984) 'Credit and agriculture: some consequences of the centralisation of the banking system'
Rural Sociology 49, 568-79
Haller A G (1973) Review of ' Seventy years of rural sociology in the United States ' edited by A Bertrand
Contemporary Sociology 3, 138-50
Havens H E and Newby H (1981) ' Agriculture and the state: an analytical approach ' paper presented to the
Political Economy of Food and Agriculture in Advanced Societies Seminar (Toronto, Canada)
Harvey D (1978) 'The urban process under capitalism: a framework for analysis' International_Journal of
Urban and Regional Research 2, 101-31
Ingham G (1984) Capital Divided (Macmillan, London)
Kautsky K (1900) Die Agrarfrage (Dietz, Stuttgart)
Lawrence G (1987) 'Capital accumulation and Australian agriculture' paper presented to the Annual
Conference of the Sociological Association of Australia and New Zealand
Lange 0 (1963) Political economy (Pergamon, London)
Long N, van de Ploeg J, Curtin C and Box L (1986) ' The commoditisation debate: labour process, strategy
and social network' Working paper, University of Wageningen, Netherlands
Mann S and Dickinson J (1980) ' State and agriculture in two eras of American capitalism' in Buttel F and
Newby H (eds) The rural sociology of advanced societies (Croom Helm, London)
Marsden T K, Munton R J C, Whatmore S J and Little J K (1986a) 'Towards a political economy of
capitalist agriculture: a British perspective' InternationalJournal of Urban Regional Research 10, 498-521
Marsden T K, Whatmore S J, Munton R J C and Little J K (1986b) 'The restructuring process and
economic centrality in capitalist agriculture 'Journal of Rural Studies 2, 271-80
Marsden T K, Whatmore S J and Munton R J C (1987)' Uneven development and the restructuring process
in British agriculture: a preliminary exploration 'Journal of Rural Studies 3, 297-308
Marsden T K, Whatmore S J and Munton R J C (1988) 'Finance capital and the food complex' Unpub
lished paper presented at the 1987 Annual Conference of the Rural Economy and Society Study Group
(Loughborough)
Marx K (1976) Capital ] (Penguin, London)
Marx K (1968) ' The 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon ' in Marx K and Engels F Selected Works (Lawrence
and Wishart, London)
Massey D (1979) 'In what sense a regional problem? ' Regional Studies 13, 233-43
Mooney P H (1986) ' The political economy of credit in American agriculture ' Rural Sociology 51, 449-70
Mouzelis N (1976) ' Capitalism and the development of agriculture 'Journal of Peasant Studies 197, 483-92
Newby H (1980) ' Rural sociology: a trend report ' Current Sociology 28, 1-141
Redclift M (1984) Development and the environmental crisis: red or green alternatives (Methuen, London)
Rees G (1984) 'Rural regions and national and international economies' in Bradley T and Lowe P (eds)
Locality and rurality (Geobooks, Norwich)
Scott A M (1986) ' Towards a rethinking of petty commodity production ' Social Analysis 20, 1-8
Scott J (1986) Capitalist property andfinancial power (Wheatsheaf, Brighton)
Smith C (1986) ' Reconstructing the elements of petty commodity production' Social Analysis 20, 27-44
Van de Ploeg J (1986) 'The agricultural labour process and commoditisation' in Long N et al. The
commoditisation debate (University of Wageningen, Netherlands)

This content downloaded from 132.248.129.123 on Tue, 20 Feb 2018 03:47:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 322 Marsden

Wallace 1 (1985) ' Towards a geography of agribusiness ' Progress in Human Geography 9, 491-514
Whatmore S J, Munton R J C, Marsden T K and Little J K (1987a) 'Towards a typology of farm businesses
in contemporary British agriculture' Sociologia Ruralis XXVII, 21-37
Whatmore S J, Munton R J, Marsden T K and LittleJ K (1987b) ' Interpreting a relational typology of farm
businesses in Southern England ' Sociologia Ruralis Vol XXVII, 103-22

This content downloaded from 132.248.129.123 on Tue, 20 Feb 2018 03:47:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms