Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Hees, Eric

Titel

Trekkers Naast De Trap: Een Zoektocht Naar De Dynamiek in De Relatie Tussen Boer En Overheid

Ort / Verlag

ProQuest Dissertations & Theses

Erscheinungsjahr

2000

Quelle

ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• This book describes a sociological expedition to the core of the relationship between farmers and government in the Netherlands. It focuses on the concept of mediation of agricultural policies between government and the farming target group.A starting point in this expedition is the rejection of the idea of policy-formation as a rational-synoptical chronology, in which policy is the result of a well-defined rational choice by politicians and administrators from different scenario's. Instead, policy formation in this context is understood as an incremental process: policies as a result of interaction between context induced actors. However, instead of being coincidental the interactions show up patterns of regularity that formed the motivation for this study.Policy mediation is defined as the interrelated moments of preparation, formation, implementation and evaluation of policies, which by means of interactive processes, in which various actors (public servants, politicians, citizens, farmers, etc.) participate with their groups and projects (strategically),are geared to one another in such a manner, that exactly therefore a legitimacy is obtained which otherwise would definitely be absent.The target group of agricultural policies is a so-called diffuse one. That is, in need of intermediary structures able to mediate policies. The Dutch Agricultural Board (Landbouwschap) played this intermediary structure role between 1954 en 1996, when it promptly disappeared. In the meantime, several farmers' cooperative initiatives in one way or another have assumed the role of intermediary organizations. Central government tended to standardize their attitude towards these structures, in order to manage the policy mediation fluently.The objective of this investigation, however, is to analyze and maintain the diversity of intermediary organizations. The reason is the assumption that successful policy mediation depends on the taking account of the specificity of each structure. The central questions therefore are:What structures have arisen for agricultural policy mediation?How can a more dynamic and legitimate policy mediation process be established? Chapter 2 provides a theoretical approach to the relation between farmer and government, defining it as a specific instance of the relation between actor and structure. Instead of adhering rigidly to dualistic theories, which focus on the complete determination of individuals by their surrounding structure (determinism) or on the complete absence of such a determination (voluntarism), this study uses 180 Trekkers naast de trap duality as a key concept. Duality emphasizes the co-existence of constraints and opportunities presented by social structure surrounding the individual; individuals actively make and remake the social structure.The relation between citizen and government is the subject of a process of legitimization. Public administration and policies are legitimized by:a. the procedure followed, under certain criteria (the instrumental side)b. the policy objectives (the social contract side)c. the interaction between procedure and objectives.The chapter ends by presenting a social scientific tool for understanding this legitimization process: policy mediation.In Chapter 3 policy mediation is placed in the context of the centuries-old Dutch sociocultural tradition of subsidiarity and functional decentralization. The social charter of neo-corporatism is known for its emphasis on consensus, compromise and consultation. But growing claims, policy overload, role distortions of the roles played by public and private parties, and public opinion have rocked this traditional charter and raised questions about the legitimacy of policy making processes.Different solutions to this difficulty are possible, varying from a stronger state to a stronger consensus model. This study assumes that new investments will be made in interdependence and participative democracy. Various examples can be found in the Dutch situation: coproduction of local policies, covenants between government and private parties, and the Green Polder Model. Nevertheless, there is cause for doubt because of a gap between the leaders and the rank and file, and the possible use of interaction out of self-interest; in other words, the risk of pseudoparticipation. Field studies are urgently needed to throw light on this issue.Chapter 4 is an overview of the legitimization of agricultural policies in the Netherlands since the 19th century. The co-production tradition of farmers' organizations and central government, founded on a consensus about the type of agricultural development to be pursued and the need for consultation and compromise, led to the formation of a policy community - or more precisely, iron triangle - consisting of farmers' leaders, the agriculture ministry and national politicians. From the late 1960s tensions grew between these parties and the iron triangle eroded, leaving a policy mediation vacuum. Farmers reacted by protesting or adapting or taking individual initiatives, and by creating new collective organizations, which themselves were the seeds of new arrangements. The subsequent chapters describe the investigation of these new arrangements.Chapter 5 is a methodological intermezzo. It explains why the sociological exploration is founded in daily reality, describing as many characteristics of actual initiatives in as much detail as is necessary to allow a clear distinction between policy arrangements to be identified.Chapters 6 and 7 contain an inventory of the variation in possible arrangements, drawn from 14 real collective organizations in the Dutch countryside between 1980 Summary 181 and 1997. By adopting a cluster analysis, six different arrangements were identified: product cooperative, horzelorganisatie, farmers' association, policy cooperative, research cooperative and trade union organizations.In chapter 8 the potential of each arrangement for generating a more dynamic policy mediation is examined, drawing on various examples in the Netherlands. Chapter 9 also examines this potential, but through an evaluation an official policy experiment with eight environmental cooperatives (milieucoöperaties) from 1995 to 1999.Chapter 10 contains a summary of the conclusions of the exploration. The experiences of collective farmers' organizations up to 1997 clearly reveal that the state and its institutions (primarily the agriculture ministry) do not have a firm idea of how to deal with the calls for self-regulation from the grass roots. The state appears paralysed by the pleas for self-regulation on the one hand and the need to maintain principles of good governance, such as equal rights and fair judgement, on the other hand. Tailor-made policy solutions can conflict with the tendency towards generic policy issued from the centre.By way of recommendations, several factors that can 'trigger' an impetus for a more dynamic and prosperous relation between government and farmers have been derived from the exploration. In the first place, actual situations on the ground should be understood better and more systematically by all of the parties involved to prevent missed opportunities for successful policy mediation. In addition, cooperative ventures should not automatically be put into one category. Regional identity, local culture and specificity are important factors for successful policy mediation along the lines of self-regulation. The recognition and acknowledgement of the role local initiatives can play in successful policy arrangements should be expressed more through incentives instead of penalties. State institutions should stimulate farmers to adopt a more entrepreneurial stance and reward them for doing so.Another factor that may trigger a more dynamic relationship is the maintenance of the face-to-face character of policy mediation. The personal commitment of the parties involved, crucial within the agricultural population with its many individual interests and responsibilities, depends on face-to-face contact. This means more emphasis should be laid on the role of local rather than central government.