CHAPTER TWO: RURAL DEVELOPMENT THEORIES AND CONCEPTS
2.3 RURAL DEVELOPMENT
51 | P a g e
52 | P a g e
Agricultural areas such as forestry areas are commonly rural. But, for statistical and/or administrative purposes, the definition and meaning of rural differ from country to country. Another important issue that is relevant to the purposes of this study is that, in rural areas, especially in South Africa, most resources are communally owned, (Hinze, 2004). Shaw and Williams (1994) see rural areas as idylls for escape from the pressures of modern urban-industrial life inorder to rekindle the human spirit. Patmore (1983) describes rural areas as a ‘wilderness’ that offers restorative and psychological reward to those stressed by urban life. There are different types of rural areas, which can be classified according to how accessible they are to the occupants of the urban areas. The GCSE (2019) diagram below (Figure 2.1) shows different classifications of rural areas.
Figure 2.1: Different classifications of rural areas Source: GCSE (2019)
Rural areas change over time. These changes are caused by:
• Economic factors – tourism income, farming profitability, primary sector jobs.
• Environmental factors – land use, pollution, conservation.
• Social factors – population change and migration, leisure-time activities, retirement (GCSE, 2019).
53 | P a g e
In rural areas in South Africa, mostly African people do not have access to basic services such as electricity, water and sanitation, and social and health services, leaving the community excluded and marginalised. The plight of the rural community and their families is their exclusion from a decent life, their failure to receive sufficient supportive measures from government, and their reluctance to make attempts to improve their lives (not because they are ignorant or lazy but because they have been side-lined).
2.3.2 Understanding of Rural Development
Many scholars agree that there is no common and acceptable definition for rural development. The concept has been used in innumerable ways, each with its own distinct focus. The most relevant definition of rural development for the purposes of this study is derived from Anriquez and Stamulous (2007:3): “development that benefits rural populations, where development is understood as the sustained improvement of the population’s standards of living or welfare”. Consequently, rural development is seen as partly playing the role of empowering communities by building their capacity to enable them to make sustainability a priority or choice in their livelihood activities in good times and in times of shock and stress. Although there may be various forms of stimulation for development (especially through the provision of financial resources) from other regions, every rural development strategy harnesses its own local natural resources to bring about improved livelihoods to its low-income households and to the region in general. In analysing the value of rural development, Anriquez and Stamulous (2007:3) state:
“… promotion of the rural economy in a sustainable way has the potential of increasing employment opportunities in rural areas, reducing regional income disparities, stemming pre-mature rural-urban migration, and ultimately reducing poverty at its very source. In addition, development of rural areas may contribute to the preservation of the rural landscape, the protection of indigenous cultures and traditions, while rural societies could serve as a social buffer for the urban poor in periods of economic crisis or social urban unrest”.
54 | P a g e 2.3.3 Rural Development Discourse
In analysing the characteristics of rural development, this study focuses on five types of discourse, also termed socio-political discourses of rural development (RD), as set out by Hermans et al. (2010) and Frouws (1998: a) agri-ruralist, b) hedonist, c) utilitarian, d) nature conservation, and e) community sustainability.
According to Frouws (1998:58), in the agri-ruralist discourse, farmers are the stewards of the countryside, the carriers of rural values closely endorsing such aspects as “food production, nature and landscape conservation, open spaces and cultural heritage, etc.”. Agricultural craftsmanship, family farms and traditionalism should constitute the main features of agricultural production, with little space left for for markets to organise the sector, as in the capitalist system (Hermans et al., 2010). The agri-ruralist discourse combines both the agrarian component, emphasising the productivism and competitiveness of agriculture to sustain economic dynamism in the countryside through exports, employment, and income, and the rural component of focusing on the preservation of nature (Frouws, 1998). Improvement in technology is, therefore, encouraged although it should be limited to the extent that family production is not replaced by agro-industrial production (Hermans et al., 2010). The state too has a supportive role to play; it provides farmers with financial and institutional means to implement this “ecological modernisation” (Frouws, 1998). On the other hand, the social dimension is also central to this discourse: ─. Because the only criticism of the agri-ruralist discourse is the pollution of the rural environment through modern farming methods, farmers need to establish a new “social contract” with society by practising multi-functional agriculture that meets the social demand for items ranging from healthy foods and pure drinking water to attractive landscapes and country recreation (Frouws, 1998:58).
The hedonist discourse emphasises instead the cultural dimension of rurality. A rural area has “a cultural function in the sense that it should provide a certain quality of life through beauty, attractive landscapes and quietness” (Frouws, 1998:62). According to Frouws (1998:62), “this discourse originates from the “urban elite”, composed of nature conservationists, biologists, artists, and estate owners who see the countryside/
55 | P a g e
rural areas as the “garden of the city””. The priority for rural development is to regenerate the aesthetic characteristics of the rural scenery to provide authenticity to urban incomers. One point of criticism against the hedonist discourse is that “the interests of rural inhabitants are not meaningfully considered” (Frouws 1998:63).
Hermans et al. (2010) note that rural development is conceptualised according to economic dimensions in the utilitarian discourse. For example, according to Frouws (1998:60), rural areas need instead to be “integrated into the dynamics of modern markets for housing, recreation, food specialities, high-tech agriculture, attractive business parks, and so on”, as they are economically underdeveloped because of the inefficiency of their regulatory systems. Rural areas can develop if there is openness to innovative economic activities and investment (Elands and Wiersum, 2001). In this discourse, the countryside is considered a mere commodity where natural spaces should satisfy “productive and consumptive needs” (Frouws, 1998:61).
Elands and Wiersum (2001) highlighted that the agri-ruralist discourse promotes an endogenous form of rural development (i.e., where rural development is conceived as a process in which development is the result of local initiatives) while the hedonist and utilitarian discourses emphasise the role of external forces in this process (i.e., rural development is conceived of as a process in which development is the result of forces emanating from outside the rural areas).
Based on the work of Elands and Wiersum (2001); Hoggart, et al. (1995) add two additional discourses that are relevant to this study and that deal with the broader debate on rural development, especially as it concerns developing countries:
community sustainability and nature conservation. In the community sustainability discourse, isolation and poor economic dynamism characterise rural areas, which need to be revitalised with improved living conditions. Rural development should therefore aim at creating a minimum set of social and economic structures (Elands and Wiersum, 2001) for the rural population. Employment and income need to be supported through state intervention and regulation and compared to the utilitarian discourse; market forces should have a very limited role to play. The nature conservation discourse criticises the intrusion of agriculture into wild areas and the threat it constitutes for biodiversity. Nature has intrinsic values, which need to be
56 | P a g e
preserved for future generations instead of being consumed in the process of development. In terms of this discourse, eco-development is promoted instead of rural development, with the final objective being to recover a balance between the rural and wilderness areas (Elands and Wiersum, 2001). This means that in this discourse the conservation and improved management of natural elements are not considered as tools for rural development, but rather as the ultimate objectives.