The productivist/post-productivist dualism gained currency in the United Kingdom in the 1990s (Evans, Morris, & Winter, 2002). This literature is critical of productivist agriculture and represents a counter-discourse and form of resistance to neo-liberalism. Productivism is characterised as being a period when agriculture was ‘king’ (Cloke & Goodwin, 1992; Wilson, 2002), the property rights of farmers were secure and unchallenged institutions (Marsden,
Murdoch, Lowe, Munton, & Flynn, 1993) and the farming sector had the ‘ear of government’ and was supported and favoured in government policy. The productivist era is characterised also as a time when farming was focussed on maximising production, and central government policies supported this through subsidies, incentives, and protectionist policies (Bjørkhaug & Richards, 2008).
The post-productivist period presents a normative construction of United Kingdom agriculture, no longer focussed solely on production, but also on environmental conservation and food quality: the indicators of this shift being the so-called greening of agricultural policy, and more
environmentally focussed farming practices (Ward, 1993; Wilson, 2002, 2004). Although the
term ‘sustainability’ is not generally used in this literature, what is described reflects a move towards a more environmentally sustainable form of agricultural development.
At the farm level, the shift from productivism to post-productivism was described normatively as being a shift from intensification, concentration and specialisation to extensification, dispersion and diversification (Ilbery & Bowler, 1998). Intensification is akin to productivity, with a focus on the efficiency of production per unit of resource; concentration refers to the accumulation by a few of large areas of farmland; and specialisation limits the number of products produced (Ilbery & Bowler, 1998).
Post-productivism is said to have signified a decline in the importance of agriculture, socially, economically, and politically (Ward, 1993). The shift in power, according to Wilson (2004, p. 462), allowed former ‘political marginal actors’ (such as environmental groups or local grassroots organisations) into the agricultural decision-making and policy formulation networks. Post- productivist ideas, as articulated in the United Kingdom literature in the 1990 and early 2000s, marginalised productivist agriculture. As Marsden (2003, p. 93) argued, within this
conceptualisation ‘the farm bec[ame] a criminalised space, a place where the ‘dirty business’ of
intensive agriculture occurred, usually behind closed doors and gates’. Likewise Wilson argues, based on a review of the literature, that the idealised concept of post-productivism was associated with a shift in the power dynamics in the countryside away from farmers and what he identified as
‘changing attitudes towards destructive environmental management practices on farmland at the grassroots level’ (Wilson, 2004, p. 462). Reflecting this change in attitude it is argued that farmers were no longer viewed as stewards of the land, but as ‘destroyers’ (Potter, 1998, cited in Wilson, 2002, p. 80). No mention is made in this literature of the practices of farmers to avoid
environmental damage or the social and economic contribution of farming in the United Kingdom, nor the environmental services provided through farming.
The simplistic dualism of productivism/post-productivism to capture the ‘reality’ of the reforms in agriculture and the changes in perspective that shaped the governance of rural land, attracted critique in the 2000s (e.g. Burton & Wilson, 2006; Evans, et al., 2002; Lobley & Potter, 2004; Walford, 2003; Wilson, 2002). In particular what the critiques argued was that the normative ideas and conceptualisations of agricultural change failed to reflect the complexity of the actual situation at a national and farm level. One of few empirical studies undertaken in Britain found that, although farmers surveyed had adopted agri-environmental schemes and responded to the evolving policy and economic direction, they continued to farm in accordance with a productivist agricultural regime (Walford, 2003); that is, they continued to illustrate characteristics of
intensification, concentration and specialisation. A strong impetus for continued productivism among farmers and government policies is argued as continuing to exist in the United Kingdom. However, an understanding of the diverse and heterogeneous nature of productivism at the farm level began to emerge (Walford, 2003; Wilson, 2002). Productivist and post-productivist agriculture was not confined to any particular time frame or location (as Wilson (2002) argues)
but, rather, as Walford (2003) found, farmers were likely to be farming in accordance with both regimes at the same time on different parts of their land. Similarly, more intensive agriculture is more likely to be occurring on more fertile flat land, than on less fertile extensive farmland (Walford, 2003). In another study, Lobley and Potter (2004) found that in contrast to the rhetoric at the time, there was a resilience and commitment among farming families to remain in
mainstream agriculture. These findings contradicted the publicised ‘crisis’ in United Kingdom
agriculture and the demise of family farm, a situation supposedly linked to the ‘cost price
squeeze...compounded by the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak of 2001’ (Lobley & Potter, 2004, p. 500).
The ability of one term, ‘post-productivism’, to accurately conceptualise the empirical reality of the complexities of contemporary agricultural restructuring was comprehensively critiqued by Evans et al. (2002). The empirical evidence for conditions identified in the literature as
constituting post-productivist agriculture in the United Kingdom was refuted, and the need for an understanding of the deeper process of rural change argued (Evans, et al., 2002). Although not
contesting these conclusions, the empirical basis for Evans et al.’s (2002) criticism was challenged by Mather et al. (2006). The basis of their challenge was that ‘few results of systematic and national-scale analyses of trends in dimensions’ attributed to a shift to post-
productivism existed and because ‘a full quantitative basis for the conclusions of Evans et al. (2002) [had] not been presented’ (Mather, et al., 2006, p. 443). From a governmentality perspective the lack of statistics and empirical data representing the changes inherent in post- productivism would suggest a lack of commitment by the United Kingdom central government to a post-productivist regime at the time. This may suggest that, rather than documenting a shift in central government policy for agriculture, the productivist/post-productivist literature in the United Kingdom (as evident in the examples provided) was intended more as a form of resistance to neo-liberal policy development for agriculture than as a means of making visible real change. The relative independence of conceptualisations of agricultural and rural change from empirical data is characteristic of many of the critiques of agriculture included within this literature.
Consistent with the critiques in United Kingdom literature, the failure of the productivist/post- productivist dichotomy to capture the complex diversity of changes in Australia at a regional and farm level ‘because farm level dynamics do not fit neatly into a productivist; post-productivist
divide’ is acknowledged by Argent (2002, p. 111). The utility, if any, of the dichotomy, as it is used in many articles in United Kingdom, Argent (2002) argues, is to articulate the macro- structural policies of national and transnational governments for agriculture. However, he also recognises that farming is not divorced from broader changes in society and the impact of policies and changes within the economy and society (Argent, 2002).
A New Zealand exception argues for the relevance of productivism and post-productivism to New Zealand. Jay (2004) suggests, in a similar vein to Argent (2002) for Australia, that post-
productivist elements vary internationally and reflect a shift in attitude and increased
environmental awareness among broader society, that includes farmers. The argument is made for a post-productivist form of agriculture existing in parallel with mainstream productivist
agriculture. Significantly, post-productivist agriculture in New Zealand is argued by Jay (2004) to be the result, not of central government or market governing of farming and agriculture, but, rather, an outcome of structural and value changes in wider New Zealand society.