The Common Agricultural Policy and Organic Farming: An Institutional 195 Perspective on Continuity and Change
Reflections on the Virtues and Limitations of the
behaviour and preferences and have a direct impact on policy outcomes, or how agents interpret and give meaning to the world through institutions. The discursive institutional approach pursued in the current study is concerned with the rules that govern discourses, and institutions are seen as the devices through which agents interpret and give meaning to the world. Along these lines, institutions are considered to establish expectations about what is viable but also non-viable political activity in a particular context. By constituting a set of authorised and sanctioned discursive rules, institutions delimit, for instance, acceptable and valid statements from those which are unacceptable and invalid, as well as guide the formulation of relevant problems and their solutions in a particular context. While not disregarding the importance of formal decisions, for instance, made in the Agriculture Council for the particularities of the outcome of initiatives taken within the CAP, the discursive institutional approach pursued in the current study points up the significance of the formation of political problems and solutions, which tend to take place long before any formal decisions are made. The articulation and institutionalisation of certain problems, their causes and solutions rather than others, thus set out a space of possibility, which allows for certain initiatives and solutions to be suggested in the first place, while disregarding others and, hence, in a significant way, guides political activity and delimits potential policy outcomes.
2. Rather than making a priori assumptions about the nature of change within a given field or approaching the study of institutional change by means of analytically predefined ideas against which change is measured, the articulation and institutionalisation of ideas and, hence, discursive and institutional change is essentially an empirical question for the discursive institutional approach.
Through an analytical inductive methodology, as proposed by the discursive institutional approach to the study of institutional change, it has thus been possible to capture ideational and institutional changes within the CAP, which other institutional optics are often unable to detect, and where empirical studies of the CAP can only point to a suspicion of change. For instance, it has else where been observed that the CAP has been subject to a 'thin and unstable' institutionalisation of environmental concerns. Yet a 'thin and unstable' institutionalisation is commonly registered not as a change and, hence, not sought explained as a change - rather it is registered as an example of the lack of change. In contrast, the discursive institutional approach would register and seek to explain even a 'thin and unstable' institutionalisation of environmental concerns within the CAP. And - possibly - this is the most typical type of change that may be observed in policy fields otherwise characterised by a high degree of continuity.
3. It has not been the ambition of the current study to establish causal relationships between, on the one hand, the nature of a discursive and institutional context and, on the other hand, the particularities of policy outcomes or courses of action. However, it could be argued that further theorisation over such relationships is indeed needed. The articulation and
The Common Agricultural Policy and Organic Farming: An Institutional 197 Perspective on Continuity and Change
institutionalisation of a number of links between organic farming and the CAP over time could be seen as made possible by changes in the problems with which the CAE' has been expected to deal. That is, as ideational change appears, new types of policy instruments become relevant. The empirical analysis suggests that, for instance, as environmental depletion and later food quality issues had become institutionalised concerns within the CAP, the way had been paved for the institutionalisation of, for instance, organic farming as a solution to such problems. At the same time, however, organic farming as a solution to certain problems - and no doubt other issues - seems to have contributed to the articulation of problems within agriculture, which are later elevated to institutionalised concerns within the CAE'. In other words, the empirical analysis suggests that the relationship between the discursive and institutional context and particular courses of action is not a simple one based on cause and effect but a complex one of interrelating causes and effects, which needs further theoretical reflections than has been presented in the current context.
4. From a discursive institutional perspective it has been proposed that the existence of alternative discourse is a necessary condition for institutional change since it is only through disputes over the articulation of ideas that the existing institutional context is contested. The most important implication of this notion is probably the question of how we may be able to distinguish one discourse from another. That is, how is it possible to pinpoint a boundary, which delimits one discourse from another? This question has not been fully dealt with in the preceding analysis. For instance, the world problematique, as articulated in the context of the Club of Rome or the emerging EC environmental policy in the 1970s, may not constitute separate meaning systems in a strict sense.
However, in the 1970s, the ideas voiced in the context of the Club of Rome or the emerging EC environmental policy does represent alternatives to those articulated and institutionalised within the CAP. Essentially, rather than referring to full-blown alternative meaning systems, the current study has pointed to alternative articulations of ideas either in other contexts/policy fields than the CAP or to alternative non-institutionalised ideas articulated within the CAP.
5. It has been proposed that the existence of widespread conceptions of crisis is conducive to institutional change and it appeared from the empirical analysis that such conceptions did, in fact, form the basis for institutional change both in first half of the 1980s and in the late 1990s. However, empirically it also appears that it may at times be difficult to pinpoint the boundary between a problem and an ideational crisis. For instance, in the late 1960s, problems relating to agricultural surplus production were analytically instituted in the sense that such problems were based on a coupling between, on the one hand, predicted developments in the agricultural markets and, on the other hand, insights obtained regarding the consequences of previous price policies and certain structural characteristics of the agricultural sector. However, in the 1980s, problems of agricultural surplus production were cognitively instituted and had
Conclusions
moved up on the CAP agenda, and concerns with such problems had become more widespread and, arguably, resembled an ideational crisis. Although an ideational crisis is more voluminous in the sense that it involves a high degree of concord of its existence among the involved agents, empirically, there seems to be a gradual transition from a problem 'merely' being a problem to a problem having been turned into a crisis.
Moreover, and more importantly, the conceptualisation of crisis as an ideational condition for institutional change differs from the other conceptualisations proposed here by not being a concept, which essentially arises out of the particularities of discursive rules. Opposed to processes of translation, conflicts over meaning and policy entrepreneurship, the concept of ideational crisis has not been expounded in terms of its discursive characteristics.
Arguably, a further refinement of the concept of ideational crisis in terms of its discursive characteristics is needed not only to improve the conceptual consistency of the discursive institutional approach proposed but also in order to clarify how an ideational crisis differs from, for instance, problems. Here it shall only be indicated that the refinement of the discursive institutional concept of ideational crisis may possibly find inspiration in the historical institutional proposition that institutional crisis might arise out of the accumulation of contradictions. However, whereas historical institutionalists may focus on political and economic contradictions, a discursive institutional approach would focus on discursive contradictions. For instance, the empirical analysis showed that the institutionalisation of normative problems in the mid-1980s alongside already existing cognitive instituted problems, gave rise, in the first instance, to a number of conflicts over meaning and, subsequently, a mutation in the sense that these problems were conceived of as being caused by the same phenomenon (intensive farming) by the early 1990s. However, it is at least conceivable that in situations where a mutation between non-uniform articulations of ideas is not observed, or is perhaps not even an option, severe discursive contradictions within a given policy field could give rise to an ideational crisis.
6. How may we conceptualise the internalisation of externally triggered ideational change? From a sociological institutional perspective, it has been suggested that such processes may be studied as the inflow and diffusion of new ideas. The conceptualisation of diffusion processes is no doubt a helpful description of how ideas are carried from one context to another in certain instances. However, sometimes the carrying of ideas from one context to another is less orderly and may perhaps rather be described as a process of translation. Particularly in the case of the CAP, it may be argued that: if ideas embedded in this field enjoy a high degree of institutionalisation then it may be expected that the introduction of new ideas does not happen easily. Thus, the concept of translation enable us, for instance, to capture the partial and selective institutionalisation of ideas, where certain ideas already embedded in the field up for study may be upheld fully, partially or possibly mutate with the new ideas being introduced.This line of thinking, which seeks to avoid externalising
The Common Agricultural Policy and Organic Farming: An Institutional 199 Perspective on Continuity and Change
explanations of change, also gave rise to an empirical analysis that does not claim a priori, for instance, that Community enlargements or relationships with international trading partners are exogenous to the CAP.
Although the involved agents may hold, for instance, that the sources of certain problems necessitating CAP attention stem from outside of the CAP, the actual conceptions very much form part of the CAE' as a policy field as understood through the discursive institutional optic. Translations are thus seen as endogenous and ongoing processes conditioned by contacts with other policy fields or social contexts. For instance, to varying degrees, Community enlargements have given rise to various problems within the CAE' for the greater part of the time since 1980. Likewise, relationships with international trading partners have been institutionalised concerns of the CAP since the early 1990s.
That is, alongside, for instance, issues related to surplus production and environmental depletion, Community enlargements and relationships with international trading partners form part of the common concerns among a set of identifiable agents and are dealt with along the lines of commonly recognised processes within the CAP (cf. definition of a policy field in Chapter 3). To be sure, Community enlargements and relationships with international agricultural trading partners are not primarily seen as forming part of the CAP due to the definition of a policy field drawn upon in the current study. Rather, it appeared in the empirical analysis that conceptions relating both to Community enlargements and relationships with international agricultural trading partners have, in fact, been guiding for some of the problems and solutions central to CAP during certain periods of the existence of this policy field. Essentially, the concept of translation and the empirical research have suggested that perhaps -
when it comes to the study of ideas -the CAP is not as sectorised a policy field as it is commonly considered to be.
7. From within the historical institutionalism it has been suggested, for instance, that policy-oriented learning in a policy sub-system may give rise to ideational change. Learning processes are here seen as, among other things, the product of competing advocacy coalitions and conflicts between beliefs systems.
This approach to the study of endogenously generated ideational change is no doubt rewarding in cases where competing and institutionalised advocacy coalitions and belief systems already exist. However, it appears less appropriate in cases - such as the institutionalisation of organic farming within the CAP -
which is characterised by - at least at first - less well-established coalitions and non-institutionalised belief systems. The discursive institutional approach thus suggest that in such situations it may be helpful to zoom-in on conflicts over meaning rather than on institutionalised beliefs and coalitions.
The proposed conceptualisation of a dynamic of institutional change relating to conflicts over meaning, appeared particularly useful in capturing conflicts over meaning in the second half of the 1980s. The conceptualisation of conflicts over meaning also appeared helpful in capturing conflicts on the issues to be included and excluded, on the agents to be included and excluded, and on the
processes that should guide the policy field concerned with organic farming as it was evolving during the period from 1993 to 2005. Arguably, however, the quality of the conflicts over meaning identified throughout the period from 1993 to 2005 differs from that identified in the second half of the 1980s. On the one hand, both conflicts over meaning identified in the second half of the 1980s and during the period from 1993 to 2005, involve conflicts over the articulation of problems, their sources and solutions. On the other hand, however, and contrary to the conflicts over meaning identified in the second half of the 1980s, the conflicts identified during the period from 1993 to 2005 also involve conflicts over the inclusion and exclusion of agents as well as over the processes that should guide the policy field at hand. Arguably, the conflicts over meaning identified in the second half of the 1980s have consequences in terms of the actors, who may or not be accepted within the CAP, and for the processes guiding the CAP. It could also be argued that further empirical investigation may possibly reveal conflicts over the type of agents to be included and excluded, as well as the processes that guided the CAP in the second half of the 1980s. However, it seems that the quality of the conflicts over meaning, and conflicts over borders, somehow differs and further theorisation is need on this matter. Additionally, it should be noted that conflict over meaning is a concept that seeks to capture an endogenous dynamic of change in the meaning system or discourse through which agents are assumed to interpret and give meaning to the world. In that sense, the formation of preferences is also considered endogenous to such meaning systems. However, the discursive institutional approach to the study of institutional change, fall short of specifying the exact nature of the interrelationship between, on the one hand, the discursive and institutional order and, on the other hand, the formation of preferences. It has been suggested elsewhere that the discursive and institutional order 'shape' preferences, yet additional theorisation is needed in this regard.
8. Against the background of the CAE' reform literature, the CAE' has been assumed to make up a policy field, which may be distinguished from other fields in terms of a series of disputes around a common concern among a set of agents that operate through commonly recognised processes. This field definition has led to, for instance, considering successive enlargements and international trade issues as endogenous to the CAP insofar as disputes over such issues involve agents and processes familiar to the CAP. The conclusions made, should be seen in the light of the definition of a policy field drawn upon and are not readily comparable to the most common distinctions made in the CAP reform literature about which issues, agents and processes should be considered endogenous and exogenous in terms of the CAE'. However, the field definition used has not been adopted in order to increase confusion and has not been chosen randomly. The general point is that discursive and institutional change - when thought of along the lines of the discursive institutional approach proposed - appears through processes of articulation and institutionalisation.
The Common Agricultural Policy and Organic Farming: An Institutional 201 Perspective on Continuity and Change
For instance, Community enlargements and international trade negotiations are institutionalised concerns to the extent that they have become so, through processes of articulation and institutionalisation within the CAP. This line of thinking, on the one hand, differ the most from explanations of institutional change as a product of abrupt external factors or shocks. On the other hand, although it is only hinted at in the current context, the line of thinking arising out of the discursive institutional definition of a policy field may differ less from theoretical frameworks that explain change with reference to developments and links between various levels of negotiation (cf., for instance, Patterson 1997;
Coleman and Tangermann 1999).
In relation to the concerns raised about the definition of a policy field, it should be noted that a field description is a comprehensive task and, arguably, particularly so when it comes to the CAE'. Whereas the current study has offered a description of an emerging field concerned with organic farming within the CAP, it has only sporadically pointed to certain characteristics of the CAE' field, which have otherwise been assumed to exist. The latter is particularly important in terms of the conclusions drawn in relation to processes of translation. The conceptualisation of translations holds that the progress of such processes in one social context or policy field is conditional on contacts with other social contexts or policy fields. Consequently, in order to identify the translation of concepts and conceptions in a given field, then the first consideration has to be that such conceptions must not - before translation - form part of the discursive and institutional order of this field. It should also be possible to identity the field, which has made the concepts and conceptions available for translation.
The empirical analysis of processes of translation in the 1970s and the early 1980s has thus identified both concepts and conceptions, which in the first place were not part of the discursive and institutional order within which translations were taking place, and also identified the contexts, which made certain concepts and conceptions available for translation. Moreover, it has been indicated that certain concepts and conceptions translated within the CAE' in the period afier 1993 may have been made available by people involved in alternative farming.
However, this conclusion draws on a very limited empirical material and, in general, it has been assumed, that through further empirical analysis, it would be possible to identify a field - or a number of fields - distinguishable from the CAE' from which concepts and conceptions have been selected for translation.
Hence, not only is the empirical analysis of possible processes of translation in the period afier 1993 very limited, further empirical analysis may possibly also disclose that the spreading of concepts and conceptions holding, for instance, that organic farming at this point in time is faced by a number of problems, has progressed through processes of diffusion - as conceptualised from within the sociological institutionalism - rather than translation.
9. Related to the above, from certain quarters of the sociological but also the rational choice institutional perspective, it has been suggested that policy entrepreneurship is enabled by the ideational and institutional environment