Search

The general aim of this paper is to reflect the different dimensions and concepts and to develop valid and reliable approaches to measuring rural poverty and social exclusion in rural areas. The methodological solutions and problems involved are illustrated and discussed by means of a comprehensive survey which was conducted by the Federal Institute for Mountainous and Less-favoured Areas (BABF) between 1995 and 2000 in order to get a better understanding of its specific causes and impacts. Although poverty is a growing international concern, there is still no consistent and commonly accepted definition of it. The term poverty encompasses different spatial, temporal and socio-economic scopes. Consequently, we can perceive different approaches to defining the circumstances in which somebody is to be considered as poor. Different categories of poverty, such as absolute, relative, old, new, temporary, permanent, material, spiritual, social, cultural, visible, hidden, current and potential poverty, can be discerned. Furthermore, the emphasis can be put on personal (or household) income or expenses. Others argue that people's access to public goods, facilities and assets, or even the standard of equipment of their households, may play a Crucial role in defining poverty. Poverty may be restricted to a short period of time or may emerge in specific situations (e.g. unemployment, periods of education and training, personal misfortune). There are poor people who are eligible for social aid schemes but do not apply for support, while others who are much better off complaining about their situation. As there are numerous reasons for poverty, poverty can also trigger a number of different consequences and socio-dynamic processes. The question arises whether there is any noticeable difference between rural and urban poverty. It is frequently argued that rural poverty refers to a spatial unit rather than to the affliction of certain social groups or to specific circumstances of life. After all, there is women's and children's poverty, poverty due to unemployment, etc., in rural as well as in urban areas. Should investigations therefore focus on marginalised social groups or on the main causes for social exclusion rather than on spatial categories? There is much truth in this argumentation but we can notice that the different socio-economic environment in rural as compared to urban areas can play a decisive role. Some poverty-causing features can only be found in rural areas, others are of particular importance in those areas. Poverty is a highly sensitive issue. Admitting to poverty can be very unpleasant and can entail social exclusion. This is why many of the poor live secluded and why, in many cases, other people do not even know about their difficulties. Many of them feel reluctant to talk about their own situation even when it is known. Besides, poor people tend to give non-valid information or to hide and deny their problems. This is why direct interviews would certainly yield insufficient results; a more sophisticated instrument of survey therefore had to be developed. According to the findings of the survey, the most important reasons for rural poverty appeared to be insufficient individual mobility, long-term unemployment, poor labour market conditions, low income levels, a lack of cheap housing, deficiencies in certain old-age pension schemes, a lack of educational and care institutions, a lack of equal opportunities for women in many respects, weak infrastructure and, last but not least, the threat of stigmatization because of the lack of anonymity in rural social systems. Combating rural poverty and social exclusion requires a basic understanding of its specific structural causes and impacts in addition to implementing appropriate measures. This would be an essential step away from stigmatization and towards sustainable social inclusion of poor and marginalised social groups.… [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For several years now the discussion about the future structure of the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has focused on a switch of public support for agriculture away from commodity-linked payments towards supporting the provision of non-market environmental and landscape maintenance services. This switch immediately raises the following question: If it is not the commodity output, which characteristic(s) of a farm — i.e. mostly family farms in Europe — should be the basic reference unit(s) for future state payments? Should it be the family as a whole or the extent of family labour on the farm or the agricultural area under cultivation or other characteristics of the farm property? Both disciplines, economics and sociology, contribute to possible answers to such questions in relation to policy objectives. This article reviews approaches to and theories on the family farm within sociology and considers some interesting reflections between both disciplines. First, the article presents the most important historical approaches to defining and characterising the family farm, concentrating on those which still form a basis of the current debate. Second, a presentation of this current debate within the sociology of agriculture and food focuses on the key characteristics of the family farm, presents elements of neo-Marxist theories of agrarian change concerning the persistence of family farming in capitalism, and reviews the role of family farming in subsistence theory, which is an influential feminist theory within the sociology of agriculture. The article emphasizes the role of the family household as the central institution of coordination and integration between family goals on the one hand and enterprise possibilities and restrictions on the other. Thus, from a sociological point of view, family values and farming values and their change are discussed as important factors in the development of family farms. Besides economic benefits and constraints, these values also form a crucial role in the ecological orientation within European farming systems. Finally, the background to the future development of European farm policies is seen in shrinking shares of agricultural population in European countries, rising budgetary problems in connection with EU enlargement, pressure from international trade agreements and the growing importance of new social movements in connection with the environmental impact of farming and with other „new risk issues“, such as food safety and food security. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]