Rural Economies

06-Cloke New-3295-06.qxd 7/29/2005 12:22 PM Page 9292APPROACHES TO RURAL STUDIESstudies. Such a position often derives from aMarxism focused on the eventual colonization ofall space by capital that levels any differencebetween rural and urban. Indeed, today, transportationand communication technology permitsthe location of industrialization and servicesector development (especially, informationtechnology services) in rural places that mayhave little or nothing in their ‘natural’ environmentassociated with the particular product orservice, other than the availability of cheaperlabour. Yet, we contend, in common with otherauthors in the present text, that there is still, inthe fundamental demographic fact of low populationdensity, both a material as well as asocially constructed and meaningful differenceassociated with the rural in general and with ruraleconomies more specifically. Of course, nearlyall modern states recognize the existence of ruralplaces and design some policy in accord withspecific definitions or understanding of the rural.Further, most people in these societies carrysome idea, however formed, of a distinct ruralenvironment (see Bodenstadt, 1990; Jacob andLuloff, 1995; Singleman, 1996).At the most fundamental or micro levels ofinteraction, the multiplex character of status androle structures in rural places lays a foundation ofoverlapping norms associated with these variousroles. This diminishes the capacity for ruralpeople to interact in accordance with only economicrole expectations. Though urban ethnicenclaves may be somewhat similar, this is in contrastto the relatively simple series of discretebilateral role interactions characteristic of mosteconomic transactions in urban places. This isSimmnel’s point when he notes the correspondence,if not reduction, of urban social interactionto exchange value and its calculating anonymity.Economic interaction within rural places is morelikely to take place in the context of ‘other thaneconomic’ relationships (kinship, cohort, neighbour,friendships, etc.) that bring distinctive butoverlapping normative expectations and obligationsto bear on the economic transaction. Thus,urban and rural network structures differ in bothform as well as substance, in turn, giving rise todistinctive social capital formation (Beggs et al.,1996). Whether this is a curse (to the neo-classicaleconomist, for example) or a blessing (to thesocial capital analyst) is debatable. Our point hereis only that the economic actor cannot, under suchcircumstances enjoy the normative autonomy ofsingular rationality that exists in the relativeanonymity of the urban economy and that thismay generate a fundamental difference in ruralmicro-economic behaviour and institutions.Globalization raises the question of whetheror not we can continue meaningfully to discussplace-specific economies, as implied in notionsof a ‘rural economy’, an urban economy, or evena national economy. From some points of view,globalization involves the homogenization ofplaces, cultures, values, etc. Another view is theparadoxical renewed emphasis on the very distinctivenessof locale as each place finds its nichein the global division of labour. This chapterwill argue that there are still, even in the mostadvanced industrialized societies, distinguishablerural places that differ in significant ways from’other than rural’ places Further, it is argued thatconsiderable variability among rural places notonly exists as remnants of the past but that suchdifference continues to be preserved and, sometimeseven newly constructed, by the processesof modernization and globalization.We view this conceptual distinction of ruraleconomies as referring to a dialectical tensionwithin a unified whole where the rural and urban(and all that lies between) define, structureand transform each other. Marsden (2003: 151)argues explicitly for a need ‘for both analyticaland policy reasons to move away from thestrictly geographically defined notion of “localrural area’’’ and to recognize the differentiationof rural spaces as ‘caught up in different webs oflocal, regional, national and international supplychains, networks and regulatory dynamics’. Inthis sense, understanding of the economies ofrural places demands the recognition of morethan the influence of adjacent urban places but ofother places both near and far; both’ other rural’places as well as ‘other than rural’ places. Here,again, Marsden’s (2003: 142) conception of‘rural spaces as ensembles of local and non-localconnections, of combinations of local actions andactions “at a distance’’’ is useful.Defining the ruralA rural area is usually defined as a less denselypopulated area. In fact the city – the oppositepole of rurality – is by definition a concentrationof people and activities for commercial and institutionalpurposes (Sorokin et al., 1930). The significanceof the rural in US policy has led tosometimes complicated means for defining ruralareas. On one hand, the US federal government(USDA, 2004) defines ‘rural areas’ as ‘places(incorporated or unincorporated) with fewer than2,500 residents and open territory’. On the otherhand, there is also a 10-category scale measuringa continuum of ‘urban influence’ among counties.

06-Cloke New-3295-06.qxd 7/29/2005 12:22 PM Page 9494APPROACHES TO RURAL STUDIESWe are unaware of any such comparableclassification schemes for the collection of statisticaldata on rural Europe.RURALHISTORICAL BACKGROUNDMETROThe distinction of rural and urban is not one inwhich the two entities can be understood as independentfrom one another but as integrally ordialectically tied to one another as two parts of awhole. Max Weber (1978: 1217) recognized thiswhen he noted that: ‘Historically, the relation ofthe city to agriculture has in no way been unambiguousand simple.’ The differentiation betweenurban and rural is usually argued to have emergedwith the transition from nomadic to settled agricultureand the creation of an agricultural surplus(e.g., Henslin, 2002; Palen, 1997). The appearanceand exacerbation of various forms of socialinequality were aspects of struggles for controlof that surplus. Urban development involved theflow of surplus from the countryside, often alongwith the owners of that surplus, to the city tobetter manage their investments in commercialand, eventually, industrial activities. Ironically,this spatial division of labour, which dependedupon the surplus produced in rural places, simultaneouslyalso established a hierarchical structureof power, with the city dominating the countrysideeconomically and politically.The dominant economic explanation forthe concentration of economic as well as political,religious and educational activity inurban places is that distance is a cost for transactionsof material goods or services. The spatialconcentration or centralization of activityis expected to generate economic efficienciesin the total cost of production (Weber, A.,1899). Such cost reductions are referred to aseconomies of agglomeration. Rural economieswere usually, then, originally based upon extensiveagriculture and/or extractive industry (forexample, agriculture, forestry and fishing), primarysector activities with high ratios of spaceto population. Commerce and public affairs constitutedthe core or urban economies because ofthe existence of economies of agglomeration. Interms of consumption, twentieth century Fordistmass production demanded sales in huge quantities,a function which urban populations morereadily satisfied. Cities also functioned as networknodes for transportation to reach distantmarkets. 2Figure 6.1 The exodus from rural tometropolitan areasModernization: escape from the countrysideSome towns and cities grew quickly intometropolitan areas, leaving many rural economiesbehind in per capita income. Most rural economiesbecame synonymous with lagging orbackward economies, as if frozen at an earlystage of development, producing mainly primarygoods. On the other hand, urban economies wereidentified with advanced economies, characterizedby manufacturing (secondary sector) andservice provision (tertiary sector). ‘Rural’ wasoften associated with poverty, lack of opportunities,traditionalism and isolation, while ‘urban’was associated with wealth, opportunity, modernityand concentration. The modernizationprocess primed an out-migration flow from traditionalrural areas to metropolitan areas. Bythe second half of the twentieth century warningswere put forward that the exodus fromthe countryside – attracted by wage differentialsand opportunity expectations – would soonempty traditional rural areas while congestingmetropolitan areas.Desertion of rural areas (often deprived oftheir most valuable human capital) was oftenforecast as the biggest threat to local ruraleconomies. In many cases, the pace and intensityof urbanization facilitated the perception, if notthe reality, of an association of the urban withovercrowding, class conflict, criminal behaviour,moral decay and various forms of environmentalpollution. In this context, nostalgia for idealizedrural settings began to take root in the minds ofcity dwellers. Bell’s account of the ‘rural idyll’(Chapter 10 in this volume) provides an excellentdiscussion of this complex and contradictoryframing of the rural (see also Cloke andMilbourne, 1992).

06-Cloke New-3295-06.qxd 7/29/2005 12:22 PM Page 9696APPROACHES TO RURAL STUDIESfarm production (butter churns, saws, etc.) intohousehold consumption items that now merelydecorate the home in the fashion of suburbia.Thus, the globalization process can, somewhatironically, be seen as a force countering theagglomeration forces. While the latter had beenthe primary determinant of industrial location inthe past, this is now a function of a contradictorytension between both centripetal (agglomeration)and centrifugal (decentralizing) forces (Krugmann,1995). For many rural areas that run the riskof abandonment through the modernizationprocess, the centrifugal force that pushes capitalaway from the center and toward the peripheryhas been a salvation. The counter-movement ofcapital and opportunities flowing to the countrysidehas deeply transformed rural economic andsocial structures. Clearly, it can no longer bedescribed merely with the ‘traditional/modern’dichotomy, but rather, as a ‘patchwork’ ofdiverse, local economies.To develop ideal types that reflect the compositionof this emergent patchwork, we need to identifythe internal characteristics of local places thatplay a role in responding to the external stimuli.An increasing body of literature (Harrison andHuntington, 2000) points to local cultures as themajor determinant of the pattern pursued by localeconomies. By ‘culture’ we mean the transmissionof values, beliefs (unexamined assumptions)and norms (standard operating procedures) thatreflect ‘what has worked’ in the history of aregion’s population (Triandis, 1996; Cloke, 1997;for the linkage between economic developmentand rural culture, see the special issue of SociologiaRuralis, 38 (1), 1998). Differences between,as well as within, both Europe and the Americasthat cannot be explained merely by variablefactors of production (land, labour, capital)exemplify these cultural factors.THE CONTEMPORARYPATCHWORKFollowing Marsden (2003: 103), the analysis ofrural change and differentiation necessitates ‘thedevelopment and refinement of typologies’. Aswe stated at the end of the previous section, theconstruction of contemporary ideal typical ruraleconomies demands an account of both globalforces and local responses in terms of economicstrategies. The former may consist of capitalsupply or demand for goods. The latter willdepend on the local endowment of resources (thatis, physical, financial, human and social capital)as well as on the culturally rooted values systemof that specific society, which may facilitate orhinder the local economy’s capacity to takeadvantage of global opportunities.Marsden (2003) lays out four ideal types thatcharacterize socio-political relations in the Britishcountryside. In the following, we will elaboratethree other ideal types that characterize the economicrelations of rural regions These types ofrural economies (rent-seeking, dependent, entrepreneurial)can be associated with Marsden’s typesfor a more nuanced analytical framework. Marsdencharacterizes the preserved countryside as ‘attractive’rural regions in which recent growth has stimulateda new middle class increasingly inclinedtoward preservationist political regulation of thelocal economy focused on the creation of a servicesector and clean industry. His contested countrysidetends to lie outside the core commuter corridorsand ‘as yet may be of no special environmentalquality’. It is characterized by an incompleteusurpation of political regulation by the newcomerswho find themselves in conflict with the longstandinglandowning resident farmers over manyissues associated with the local economy anddevelopment. The paternalistic countryside ischaracterized as still being under the sway of establishedlarge landholders and farmers who exert relativelyunchallenged regulatory control overminimal economic development. The clientelisticcountryside is associated with rural regions that areeconomically dependent on transfer paymentsassociated with political institutions and subsidy ofagricultural production. However, Marsden’stypology has much more to do with social relationshipsand political governance rather than withthe local economy per se, the theme of the presentchapter. Marsden accomplishes this with respectto the conditions of contemporary Britain, ourtypology seeks a broader scope. Nevertheless, wewill note points of convergence with Marsden’stypology. In the following section, we present threeideal types of rural economies. The first two ofthese, the rent-seeking economy and the dependenteconomy, are argued to pose impediments thathinder economic development consistent with theopportunities presented by globalization. The lattertype, the entrepreneurial economy, on the otherhand, is argued to tend toward the facilitationof rural economic development in the context ofglobalization.Rent-seeking economyRent-seeking economies refer to those rural areaswhose resources are mainly based on agriculture

06-Cloke New-3295-06.qxd 7/29/2005 12:22 PM Page 97RURAL ECONOMIES 97and extractive industry. As we have seen in theprevious section concerning the historical background,these are typical features of rural areas,insofar as the original division of labour betweenurban and rural economies localized industrialand administrative activities in the city, leavingthe countryside to space-consuming activitiessuch as farming and mining. Moreover, these naturalresources are deeply embedded in a specificlocality, and cannot be reproduced elsewhere. Itis the non-replicable nature of monopolizedgoods which forms the basis of this concept of‘rent’. According to Ricardo, land has differentialproductivity that accounts for surplus falling intothe hands of landlords without the need forinvestments, due to the monopolization of nonreplicableresources. Profit needs investment,rent does not. However, investment is the mostproductive factor in economic growth (Levineand Renelt, 1992). Consequently, rent-seekingstrategies tend to constitute an obstacle foreconomic development.Contemporary research confirms this theoreticalaccount, showing that ‘nations having thegreatest abundance of natural resources tend toperform more poorly than those that do not havean abundance of natural resources’ (G. Sachs,quoted by Lindsay, 2000). Besides the aboveconsideration, claiming that rent-seeking strategieshinder economic growth because of an associatedlack of investment, Lindsay explains thatpoor economic performance is due to the commoditynature of rent-seeking products. Asis often noted in discussions of the shift from aproduction-driven to a consumer-driven agriculture,commodity prices in recent decades havebeen declining because producers have less controlover them. Although many nations areexporting a greater amount of raw materials inthese days, they are earning less money in realterms. ‘In today’s global economy, a comparativeadvantage in natural resources does not assureeconomic prosperity’ (Lindsay, 2000: 285).Rent-seeking economies are thus trapped in alow income status that is not easy to escape, giventwo primary constraints: the social structure ofeconomic power and the character of local valuessystems (Freudenburg, 1992). Rent-seeking economiesusually flourish in marginal areas, whereclass structure is polarized and local culture isdeeply affected by isolation. Within the classstructure of the rent-seeking economy, a fewfamilies often control the majority of a valuablenatural resource (be it land, oil, coal, forest, coastline,etc.) The monopolistic or oligopolistic structureof ownership, diminishes the need for landlordsto diversify the local economy. This, in turn, oftenlays the material basis for the social relations thatMarsden refers to as the ‘paternalistic’ countryside.Even when opportunities arise from outside,as with the recent population turnaround, the economicstrategy of landlords does not diverge froma rent-seeking one, as in the re-utilization of existingbuildings for newcomers (Spencer, 1997).Rent-seeking economy is usually associatedwith a local culture that is averse to any change,even the smallest, because it considers change as athreat to its own entire value system. In these‘tight’ cultures, the cost to elites of cultural changenecessary to economic development is perceivedas greater than the benefits that the latter maybring, and is thus opposed. Scholars find examplesof such ‘tightness’ of local culture in some geographicalareas more than in others. For instance,among industrialized countries, Southern Europeis one of these regions where rural areas, despitetheir change in appearance, are often described asfirmly rooted in traditional customs (Hogart andPaniagua, 2001; Jansen, 1991).Moreover, rent-seeking economies may resultin highly unstable settings from a political andinstitutional point of view because the hegemonicconstruction of reality is based on the ‘imageof the limited good’ (Foster, 1965). According tothis perspective, ‘goods are limited’ given theirnatural and irreproducible character. While thisrationality is often associated with a ‘peasant’perspective, it is also fundamental to a local eliteworldview, with significant subsequent impactson local resource utilization. Constructed as a‘zero-sum game’, the only way to climb the socialladder is by appropriating the limited good itself,whether it is land, oil, coal, or political power.One consequence is that it does not lure foreigninvestments from outside, even in a time of globalfluid capital movement such as the current one.Rather, foreign investments are more likely tobe directed towards rural areas with differentstructural and cultural characteristics.Dependent economyBy ‘dependent economies’ we refer to localitieswhose income is primarily derived from externalsources. The population turnaround witnessed byrural areas from the 1970s on, is indeed mainlydue to external sources. Such sources may be ofa private as well as of a public nature: for example,a large factory built by a multinational corporationbelongs to the first category, while theextension of public services such as most schoolsand public or state supported hospitals wouldexemplify the second category.

06-Cloke New-3295-06.qxd 7/29/2005 12:22 PM Page 9898APPROACHES TO RURAL STUDIESDependence on the private sector is usuallygrounded in a locally high ratio of labour tocapital, in which the former factor of productionis relatively cheap, thus attracting global flows ofcapital in search of lower costs of production. Inrural Europe, this is the situation in many of theformer state socialist countries. However, thecapacity of these areas to attract resources fromoutside is not due merely to material factors (thatis, the labour/capital ratio). It also demands aspecific attitude on the part of the population:private corporations must find a ‘friendly’ environmentto make investments. Recently, Irelandhas exemplified such an environment attractingglobal business interests. Irish rural areas havebeen among the most successful in Europeattracting industrial plants from abroad (Curtinand Varley, 1986).On the other hand, if the population is hostile(for example, high rates of crime or corruption,worker absenteeism, political instability), as inthe case of Southern Italy (Leonardi, 1995),investments will be made elsewhere. In such hostileenvironments, dependence on the publicsector rather than from the private sector is morelikely. Where local areas have not been able toattract foreign investments, the state has oftencompensated through Keynesian policies aimedat building infrastructure (such as roads, landreclamation, afforestation) and services (educationand public health, for example), in order tocreate jobs and raise the standard of living ofthese populations (Mencken, 2000). There aresimilar tendencies in the former socialist countries,where many rural families are still dependenton social welfare programmes (Brown andKulcsar, 2002). Within the formerly state socialistareas, that will soon be integrated into theEuropean Union, there has been a somewhatuneven benefit from EU funds for infrastructuraldevelopment, based on the vigour with whichdifferent regions and communities within thesenations have pursued such funds.A recent form of rural dependence on the publicsector involves the attraction of waste facilities,penitentiaries and the like (Albrecht et al., 1996).Since most communities refuse to comply withmandatory decisions related to the location ofthese facilities, those that accept them, do so inexchange for financial compensation (Bourke,1994). In the long term, dependent economies –based on either public or private resources – arevulnerable, since the source of investment isoutside the control of the local population.Dependence on public expenditures is fragilebecause the latter depend upon the performance ofthe real economy. For example, most governmentsare no longer willing or able to afford the hugebudget deficits experienced during the 1970s andthe 1980s. In fact, public institutions are aware ofthe vulnerability of those rural economies thatare based on public expenditures (OECD, 2003).Just as we suggested that rent-seeking economieslay the material basis for the prevalence of whatMarsden calls paternalistic social relations,dependent economies facilitate the developmentof what he calls the ‘clientelistic countryside’.Further, where public expenditures are allocatedthrough clientelistic practices, the impact oneconomic growth potentials is often negative.Littlewood (1981) argues that this is becauseclientelism contributes to a reduction of the localpopulation’s collective self-esteem.Dependence on private investment, on theother hand, is often even more volatile, becauseindustrial plants may always flee toward locationswhere the cost of labour is even lower.Through the tendencies of the globalizationprocess, the more remote the region, the lowerwill be the average cost of labour; thus, thegreater the possibility for capital to flee the earliersettlements and to relocate in more remoteareas. However, the fragility of the dependentpattern of development, public or private, can bemoderated by spin-off effects produced by thepresence of a large investment in physical assets.According to some research, local workforcesmay learn entrepreneurial skills and attitudes,and thus the local economy moves toward an‘entrepreneurial economy’ (Hirschman, 1977).Entrepreneurial economyEntrepreneurial economies draw their incomesmainly from the valorization of local resources.Thus, there is a rough overlap with Marsden’spreservationist countryside, although entrepreneurialeconomies reflect a broader scope ofaction. Rather than trying to attract externalcapital investment, whether private or public,they fill the demand for high-quality goods promotedby the globalization process through theirlocal, but socially widespread, tacit knowledge.Paradoxically, most of these goods (local cuisine,furniture, rural tourism and the like) are ‘traditional’and endangered by the standardizationassociated with industrialization. Insofar as thesegoods have traditional features but are integratedinto modern marketing structures, they are sometimesreferred to as ‘postmodern’ (Brunori andRossi, 2000; Buller and Hokkart, 1994; Dahms,1995; Ehrentraut, 1996). Again, Salamon’sdiscussion (Chapter 23 in this volume) of the

06-Cloke New-3295-06.qxd 7/29/2005 12:22 PM Page 99RURAL ECONOMIES 99contemporary consumption of what were oncemeans of rural production as home decor is aninteresting example of this feature.In entrepreneurial economies, labour is not ascheap as in the more remote areas, because modernizationhas brought relatively high standardsof living. By the same token, these areas are notparticularly attractive for foreign industries insearch of cheaper labor. On the contrary, some ofthem have lost industrial plants, which have relocatedto areas where the cost of labour is cheaper.The rural characteristics of these places, alongwith the endowment of modern infrastructures(highways, broadband access, etc.) may, however,attract industries fleeing the city, not in search ofcheaper labor, but better residential places fortheir employees (Beyers and Nelson, 2000;Goe, 2002; Luloff and Swanson, 1990).In all these cases – whether they sell goods orplaces – the cultural factor which characterizesthese economies is the entrepreneurial capability(Anderson and Eklund, 1999; Terluin, 2003).These local businesses tend to be small, completelydifferent from the vertically integrated corporatefirm which represents the main outcome of themodernization process in metropolitan areas.Rather, these small firms reach their economies ofscale through horizontal networks (Piore andSabel, 1989; Putnam, 1993) in which cooperation,more than hierarchy, is the functional value lying atthe top of their cultural system. Social capital hasoften been invoked to explain the main features ofthese entrepreneurial communities (Jóhannessonet al., 2003; Sharp et al., 2002; Zeckeri et al.,1994). Indeed, in some cases, this cooperation ofentrepreneurs has been formalized into an increasinglydiverse array of cooperative organizationsthat facilitate networking potentialities amongenterprises that might otherwise conflict with oneanother in a competitive marketplace and simultaneouslyfunctioning to tie these firms to place,diminishing both dependency and capital flight(Mooney et al., 1996; Mooney, 2004).Generally speaking, the paths of developmentexperienced by entrepreneurial economies are significantlydifferent from one another, since they areculturally rooted. The literature on regional economyspeaks of a ‘Rhinean capitalism’, from thename of the Rhine river cutting across Germanyand France, as distinctive from an ‘Asian capitalism’and from the early model of the ‘Anglo-Saxon capitalism’ (Berger and Dore, 1996).Differences concern the relationships betweenmanagers and shareholders, entrepreneurs andworkers, firms and financial institutions. Withoutentering into the details of such differences, theliterature underscores the idea that each regionaleconomy is profoundly influenced by its owncultural environment (Fukuyama, 1995). 3The existing literature does not adequatelyassess the viability of entrepreneurial communitiesas compared with large metropolitan corporations.However, compared with dependenteconomies, these rural populations exhibit muchmore control over their own destiny. Thesecommunities seem to express the best of the twoworlds (the entrepreneur capability of the citywith the communitarian spirit of rurality).CONCLUSIONFigure 6.3 is a spatial representation of our ruraleconomies’ typology. Metropolitan areas are situatedat the core of territorial space. Metro and nonmetroareas are connected in a web of economictransactions, where metropolitan areas are the sitesof technological, economic and administrativepower. They draw raw materials and commoditiesfrom rent-seeking economies, which are located inthe most peripheral areas. They also draw manufacturedgoods from dependent economies, whereindustrial plants are increasingly located sincethe cost of labor is cheaper. Eventually, theydraw high quality goods from entrepreneurialeconomies, where entrepreneurial skills are associatedwith a preserved, rural environment thatprovides a better quality of life and an escape routefor stressed metropolitan newcomers. Of course,this model is itself of typology. The variable articulationof types leads, as Murdoch notes elsewherein this volume, to an increasingly differentiatedregionalization of rural space.From a historical perspective, it can be said thatnonmetro areas, which experienced a heavy lossof human capital to the city at the beginning of themodernization era, are now witnessing the reversalof the trend that brings opportunities to them.Remote, rural areas, once a site specialized in rawmaterials, may upgrade to a dependent economyhosting an industrial plant from a multinationalcorporation, and eventually become an entrepreneurialeconomy, if spin-off effects produce theemergence of a local capitalist class.The process is neither mechanical, nor deterministic,of course, but it displays a sort of virtuouscycle promoting the integration of remoterural areas into the globalization process. Due toindustry attraction or to public jobs, rural populationmay acquire those skills and the mentalityneeded to move towards the next category, whichis the entrepreneurial economy. By the sametoken, the latter may follow a specific path of

06-Cloke New-3295-06.qxd 7/29/2005 12:22 PM Page 100100APPROACHES TO RURAL STUDIESRent-seeking economiesDependenteconomiesEntrepreneurial economiesMetro areasFigure 6.3The contemporary patchwork of rural economiesdevelopment of its own, linked to the localculture and able to escape the flaws of the earlymodernization and industrialization process.On the other hand, upgrading cannot be taken forgranted. The opposite can also occur, with dependenteconomies being downsized to the level ofrent-seeking economies, or entrepreneurial communitiesdownscaled to the level of dependenteconomies. In the end, all depends on the responsethat the local community is willing, or able to give,to the increasing opportunities emerging from theglobalization process.Against the all-too easy contention that globalizationprocesses are simply levelling all ruraldifference, this analysis suggests that the futureof rural places is not given. Such places are continuously(re)constructing the social, economic,political and cultural structures, and even we mightsay, the nature of, their locale. Both the substanceof that restructuring and the mechanisms bywhich it takes place vary with the types ofeconomies that we have outlined in the abovediscussion. While this restructuring is not ‘pathdependent’ in the strict sense (Stark, 1992), theeffects of these historical economic structuresimpact developmental possibilities. These analyticalconstructs of rent-seeking, dependent, andentrepreneurial economies reflect the materialcontext in which Marsden’s sociological typesdevelop. As we have argued: paternalism is likelygrounded in rent-seeking economies; clientalisticsocial relations flourishes in dependenteconomies; preservationist strategies are oftencause and/or consequence of entrepreneurialeconomies; and the contested countryside reflectsstruggles that are grounded in conflicts betweenthese types of economies, perhaps especiallywhen entrepreneurial aspirations arise to underminetraditional forms of dependency and clientelism,or threaten to diversify a rent-seekingeconomy’s singular resource base, fragmentingelite control.Changes within and between each of thesetypes of rural economies may also be furtherspecified with Marsden’s analytical focus ontransformations associated with regulation, commodificationand spatialization processes. Thisscheme permits a historical and comparativeexamination of rural economies and the contradictorytensions between homogeneity and heterogeneityassociated with globalization. First,an examination of the forms and functions ofregulation can show that rent-seeking, dependentand entrepreneurial economies each entailspecific patterns associated with globalization’sbreaking down (deregulation) of existing regulatorymechanisms and reveal the embryonic formsof re-regulation, that are shaped by the type ofeconomy that currently characterizes the region.Second, Marsden’s focus on the commodificationand resistance to commodification of a regionwill vary with the types of economies we havespecified. Further, this commodification mayreflect an even broader range of regional qualities;from the commodification of natural amenitiessuch as fertile soil, mineral resources oraesthetics to the commodification of the residentsthemselves who might be ‘on display’ as quaint

06-Cloke New-3295-06.qxd 7/29/2005 12:22 PM Page 101RURAL ECONOMIES 101and picturesque villagers or peasants. Resistanceto such commodification might range from oppositionto ‘surface mining’ of coal to refusal tohave one’s image photographed by tourists (as inthe case of many Amish, for instance). Rentseekingeconomies, dependent economies andentrepreneurial economies each have specificinterests in the substance (what gets commodified)of commodification and decommodification.Entrepreneurs, of course, will have immediateinterests in decommodifying some regionalresources while recommodifying others.Finally, Marsden points to the need to examinethe spaces within which actors act through thespatial character of their networks. Sharp (2001),for instance, has provided an exemplary analysisof networks associated with economic developmentof Iowa rural communities. However, thatanalysis focused only on networks within communities.Marsden would point us to the embeddednessof actors within networks that reachbeyond the local community. This focus onspatialization allows us to direct attention at theinteresting contradictory tension discussed aboveconcerning the spatial homogenization, or despatialization,associated with globalization as wellthe opposing force of what is often called ‘localization’or the process of respatialization aslocales seek to reconstruct new identities thatdifferentiate them from both the urban as well asfrom other rural places.Again, the dynamics associated with spatialrelations will play out differently in the differenttypes of rural economies that we have discussedabove. This is most clear in the tendency ofrentseeking economies toward isolation andthe dependent economy’s inherent reliance onexogenous resources through variable networks.Entrepreneurial economies may be particularlyprone to be agents of respatialization as they seekto construct new form of regulation around localspecificcommodities that remain orientedtoward global fonns of investment and consumercapital flows.To ignore these differential effects on eachtype of rural economy is to sabotage effectiveplanning or policy development. However,bureaucratic structures tend to treat any and allplaces as already homogenized or soon-to-behomogenized. The push for the development of amultifunctional village or region (especially pronouncedin the EU) only enhances the need torecognize the unique mix of factors that cometogether in any rural community. Rent-seekingand dependent economy elites, for instance,would have clear interests in disrupting thedevelopment of multi-functional economies,while entrepreneurial economies would likelyembrace this development strategy. Marsden’sconcept of the economies of synergy is particularlyuseful for recognizing the strength or weakness ofinteraction effects of various combinations ofdevelopment projects within a community orregion. Successful rural economies may now andin the future need to focus more on these economiesof synergy and economies of scope thanon economies of scale. The latter dominatedpolicy and economic decision-making in thedevelopment of the increasingly unsustainableagro-industrial model that is now being eclipsedin the construction of new rural economies andcountrysides. Sustainable rural developmentdemands privileging economies of scope andsynergy.Finally, this brings us back to the need toremember that, at the outset of this discussion,we recognized that, in fact, economies do notactually operate independently of other institutions.The concept of social economy (Marsden,2003) explicitly refers to the fact that economicrelations are deeply embedded in ‘other than economic’institutions. There is a pragmatic need torecognize the impact of social, political, regulatory,scientific and cultural spheres in concreterural economic development. This may be evenmore significant in rural development sincethe multiplex role complex of the rural actordemands that they bring the norms and practicesassociated with these other overlapping institutionsin which they are embedded to bear on theireconomic actions. Attempts to separate thesespheres in accord with disciplinary interests or theboundaries of bureaucratic governmental agenciescan only have a disorganizing, ‘Tower ofBabel’ effect on the sustainability project. Failureto remember that our notion of ‘rural economy’is an ideal type and that the rural cannot, in practice,be fully separated from the ‘other than rural’or that the economy cannot be fully separatedfrom the political, the social, the cultural, thescientific etc. may result in the continued fragmenteddevelopment that is increasingly recognizedas unsustainable.NOTES1 The minutes of an official EU meeting held on17 November 2003 in Luxembourg by a Working Groupentitled RURAL DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS notethat during the discussion of the working paper that waspresented, different approaches to several issues such asthe level of geographical detail to be used, the criteriato be used and the subtypologies to be introduced were

06-Cloke New-3295-06.qxd 7/29/2005 12:22 PM Page 102102APPROACHES TO RURAL STUDIESdiscussed. None the less, no common position could bereached. Moreover, several member states would favourcreating different sets of typologies for rural areas ratherthan trying to find a common definition for them.2 Not all scholars agree with such an economic explanationof the origin of the rural–urban divide. Others stresspolitical or religious factors, like the rise of the city-stateand the location of educational centers (Sorokin et al.,1930). Whatever the reasons, most interpretations sharea conviction that the spatial concentration of activities(agglomeration economies) has been the result of along-term evolutionary process which left behind themost remote and isolated areas.3 Of course, cultural capitalism is not a specific matterof rural areas. The above definitions of ‘Rhinean’,‘Asian’ and ‘Anglo-Saxon’ apply to metropolitan aswell as nonmetropolitan areas. But it is reasonable tobelieve that among nonmetro areas, entrepreneurialeconomies will bring more of the cultural mark thandependent economies, for example, the latter being abyproduct of multinational corporations.REFERENCESAlbrecht, S.L., Arney, R.G. and Amir, S. (1996) ‘Thesiting of radioactive waste facilities: what are the effectson communities?’, Rural Sociology, 61 (4): 649–673.Anderson, K. and Eklund, E. (1999) ‘Tradition and innovationin coastal Finland: the transformation of theArchipelago Sea Region’ Sociologia Ruralis, 39 (3):377–393.Beggs, John J., Haines, Valerie A. and Hurlbert, Jeanne S.(1996), ‘Revisiting the rural–urban contrast: personalnetworks in nonmetropolitan and metropolitan settings’,Rural Sociology, 612: 306–325.Berger, S. and Dore, R. (eds) (1996) National Diversity andGlobal Capitalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Beyers, W.B. and Nelson, P.B. (2000) ‘Contemporarydevelopment forces in the nonmetropolitan West: newinsights from rapidly growing communities’, Journal ofRural Studies, 16 (4): 459–474.Bodenstedt, A.A. (1990)‘Rural culture – a new concept’,Sociologia Ruralis, XXX (1): 34–47.Bourke, L. (1994) ‘Economic attitudes and responses tositing hazardous waste facilities in rural Utah’, RuralSociology, 59 (3): 485–496.Brown, D.L. and Kulcsar, L. (2002) ‘Household economicbehavior in post-socialist rural Hungary’, RuralSociology, 66 (2): 157–180.Brown, D.L., Fuguitt, G.V. Heaton, T.B. and Waseem, S.(1997) ‘Continuities in size of place preferences in theUnited States, 1972–1992’, Rural Sociology, 62 (4):408–428.Brunori, G. and Rossi, A. (2000) ‘Synergy and coherencethrough collective action: some insights from wineroutes in Tuscany’, Sociologia Ruralis, 40 (4): 409–423.Buller, H. and Hoggart, K. (1994) ‘The social integrationof British home owners into French rural communities’,Journal of Rural Studies, 10 (2): 197–210.Champion, A.G. (ed.) (1989) Counterurbanization: TheChanging Pace and Nature of Population Deconcentration.London: Edward Arnold.Cloke, P. (1997) ‘Country backwater to virtual village?Rural studies and “The Cultural Turn”’, Journal ofRural Studies, 13 (4): 367–375.Cloke P. and Milbourne, P. (1992) ‘Deprivation andlifestyles in rural Wales: rurality and the cultural dimension’,Journal of Rural Studies, 8 (4): 359–371.Cronon, William (1991) Nature’s Metropolis. New York:W.W. Norton & Company.Curtin, C. and Varley, A. (1986) ‘Bringing industry to asmall town in the West of Ireland’, Sociologia Ruralis,XXVI (2): 170–185.Dahms, F.A. (1995) ‘“Dying Villages”, “Counterurbanization”and the urban field – a Canadian perspective’,Journal of Rural Studies, 11 (1): 21–33.Dahms, Fred and McComb, Janine ‘“Counterurbanization”,interaction and functional change in a rural amenityarea – a Canadian example’, Journal of Rural Studies,15 (2): 129–146.Dollar, David and Kraay, Aart (2002) ‘Spreading thewealth’, Foreign Affairs, 81 (1).Ehrentraut, A. (1996) ‘Globalization and the representationof rurality: Alpine open-air museums in advancedindustrial societies’, Sociologia Ruralis, 36 (1): 4–26.Elliott, J.R. and Perry, M.J. (1996) ‘Metropolitanizingnonmetro space: population redistribution and emergentmetropolitan areas, 1965–90’, Rural Sociology, 61 (3):497–512.Foster, G.M. (1965) ‘Peasant society and the image oflimited good’, American Anthropologist, 67: 293–315.Friedland, William H. (1982) ‘The end of rural societyand the future of rural sociology’, Rural Sociology,47 (Winter): 589–608.Fukuyama, F. (1995) Trust: The Social Virtues and theCreation of Prosperity. New York: The Free Press.Fulton, I.A., Fuguitt, G.V. and Gibson, R.M. (1997) ‘Recentchanges in metropolitan–nonmetropolitan migrationstreams’, Rural Sociology, 62 (3): 363–384.Freudenburg, W.R. (1992) ‘Addictive economies: extractiveindustries and vulnerable localities in a changingworld economy’, Rural Sociology, 57 (3): 305–332.Giddens, Anthony (1990) The Consequences of Modernity.Cambridge: Polity Press.Goe, W.R. (2002) ‘Factors associated with the developmentof nonmetropolitan growth nodes in producer servicesindustries, 1980–1990’, Rural Sociology, 67 (3): 416–441.Grimes, S. (2000) ‘Rural areas in the information society:diminishing distance or increasing learning capacity?’,Journal of Rural Studies, 16 (1): 13–21.Halfacree, K.H. (1994) ‘The importance of “the rural” inthe constitution of counterurbanization: evidence fromEngland in the 1980s’, Sociologia Ruralis, 34 (2–3):165–189.Harrison, L.E. and Huntington, S.P. (eds) (2000) CultureMatters: How Values Shape Human Progress. New York:Basic Books.Henslin, James M. (2002) Essentials of Sociology: A Downto-EarthApproach, 4th edn. Boston, MA:Allyn and Bacon.

06-Cloke New-3295-06.qxd 7/29/2005 12:22 PM Page 103RURAL ECONOMIES 103Hirschman, A.O. (1977) ‘A generalized linkage approach todevelopment, with special reference to staples’, EconomicDevelopment and Cultural Change, 25, Supplement.Hogart, K. and Paniagua, A. (2001) ‘The restructuring ofrural Spain?’, Journal of Rural Studies, 17 (1): 63–80.Jacob, S. and Luloff, A.E. (1995) ‘Exploring the meaningof rural through cognitive maps’, Rural Sociology,60 (2): 260–273.Jansen, A.J. (1991) ‘The future of the periphery of theperiphery’, Sociologia Ruralis, 31 (2–3): 122–139.Jóhannesson, G., Skaptadóttir, V.D. and Benediktsson, K.(2003) ‘Coping with social capital? The culturaleconomy of tourism in the North’, Sociologia Ruralis,43 (1) 3–16.Johnson, Kenneth M. and Beale, Calvin L. (1999) ‘Thecontinuing population rebound in nonmetro America’,Rural Development Perspectives, 13 (3): 2–10.Kolb, J.H. and Brunner, Edmund de S. (1946) A Study ofRural Society. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Krugmann, P.R. (1995) Development, Geography, andEconomic Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Leonardi, R. (1995) ‘Regional development in Italy: socialcapital and the Mezzogiorn’, Oxford Review ofEconomic Policy, 11 (2): 165–179.Levine, R. and Renelt, D. (1992) ‘A Sensitivity analysis ofcross-country growth regressions’, American EconomicReview, 82 (4): 942–963.Lindsay, S. (2000) ‘Culture, mental models, and nationalprosperity’, in L.E. Harrison and S.P. Huntington (eds),Culture Matters.Littlewood, P. (1981) ‘Patrons or bigshots? paternalism,patronage and clientelist welfare in Southern Italy’,Sociologia Ruralis, 21 (1): 1–18.Luloff, A.E. and Swanson, L.E. (1990) American RuralCommunities. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Marsden, Terry (2003) The Condition of RuralSustainability. Assen, Netherlands: Royal Van Gorcum.Marx, Karl and Engels, Frederick (1973) The GermanIdeology: Selected Works. Moscow: Progress Publishers.Mencken, F.C. (2000) ‘Federal spending and economicgrowth in Appalachian counties’, Rural Sociology,65 (1): 126–147.Mooney, Patrick H. (2004) ‘Democratizing rural economy:institutional friction, sustainable struggle, and thecooperative movement’, Rural Sociology. (forthcoming).Mooney, Patrick H., Roahrig, Jerry and W. Thomas Gray,‘The de/repoliticization of cooperation and the discourseof conversion’, Rural Sociology, 61 (4): 559–576.OECD (2003) Introduction to The Future of Rural Policy.Paris: OECD Publications. pp. 11–30.Palen, V. John (1997) The Urban World, 5th edn. New York:McGraw-Hill.Parkin, Michael (1998) Macroeconomics, 4th edn.Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley.Piore, M.J. and Sabel, C. (1984) The Second IndustrialDivide: Possibilities for Prosperity. New York: BasicBooks.Putnam, R. (1993) Making Democracy Work: CivicTraditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.Serow, W.J. (1991) ‘Recent trends and future prospects forurban–rural migration in Europe’, Sociologia Ruralis,31 (4): 269–280.Sharp, Jeff S. (2001) ‘Locating the community field: astudy of interorganizational network structure and capacityfor community action’, Rural Sociology, 66 (3):403–424.Sharp, J.S., Agnitsch, K., Ryan, V. and Flora, J. (2002)‘Social infrastructure and community economic developmentstrategies: the case of self-development andindustrial recruitment in rural Iowa’, Journal of RuralStudies, 18 (4): 405–417.Simmel, Georg (1978) ‘The metropolis and mental life’,from The Sociology of Georg Simmel. New York: TheFree Press.Singelman, J. (1996) ‘Will rural areas still matter in the21st century? or can rural sociology remain relevant?’,Rural Sociology, 61 (1): 143–158.Sorokin, P. Zimmerman, C., Galpin. C.I. (1930) ASystematic Sourcebook in Rural Sociology.Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Spencer, D. (1997) ‘Counterurbanization and rural depopulationrevisited: landowners, planners and the ruraldevelopment process’, Journal of Rural Studies, 13 (1):75–92.Stark, David (1992) ‘Path dependence and privatizationstrategies in East Central Europe’, East EuropeanPolitics and Society, 6: 17–54.Stockdale, A., Findlay, A. and Short, D. (2000) ‘Therepopulation of rural Scotland: opportunity and threat’,Journal of Rural Studies, 16 (2): 243–257.Terluin, I.J. (2003) ‘Differences in Economic developmentin rural regions of advanced countries: an overview andcritical analysis of theories’, Journal of Rural Studies,19 (3): 327–344.Thomson, M.L. and Mitchell, C.J.A. (1998) ‘Residents ofthe urban field: a study of Wilmot Township, Ontario,Canada’, Journal of Rural Studies, 14 (2): 185–201.Triandis, Harry C. (1996) ‘The psychological measurementof cultural syndromes’, American Psychologist,51: 407–415.USDA (2004) ‘Measuring rurality: what is rural?’ UnitedStates Department of Agriculture Economic ReviewService Website: htt :llwww.ers.usda.ov/Briefinurali/WhatisRurallWeber, Adna F. (1899) The Growth of Cities in theNineteenth Century: A Study in Statistics. New York:Macmillan.Weber, Max (1978) Economy and Society, edited byGuenther Roth and Claus Wittich. Berkeley, CA:University of California Press.Zeckeri, A.A., Wilkinson, K.P., and Humphrey, C.R.(1994) ‘Past activeness, solidarity, and local developmentefforts’, Rural Sociology, 59 (2): 216–235.