by sustainable development theorists and the logic of Agenda 21, and facilitated by increasingly so-
phisticated information technology. Both the mo- tivational and social capital roles of cultures
resurface in current discussion of the economic position of disadvantaged regions in an increas-
ingly competitive EU Committee of the Regions, 1996. In particular, it is argued that socially,
cultural rootedness is based upon belonging rather than upon accomplishment and therefore
forms a secure plank in the platform of human self-identity; politically, cultural vibrancy can be a
stimulating source of cohesion and of long-term confidence that the networks involved are sustain-
able over time; and economically, cultural assets are exploitable through product differentiation in
the quest for market share. These can be signifi- cant factors in development, leading regions to
make long-term investments and to forge eco- nomic relations with the outside world Bassand,
1993.
In view of these important claims regarding the purpose and potential of traditional cultures, a
culturally homogenous world appears unattractive in sustainable development terms. Although the
continuing existence of traditional cultures in rural areas guarantees neither sustainability nor
economic vibrancy, such cultures have character- istics which improve the probability of sustainable
ways of living and developing. The sustainability debate has taught that economic, social and envi-
ronmental problems and, more importantly, their solutions are as much cultural as technological
and institutional. Cultural diversity, therefore, of- fers humanity a variety of ways of developmental
interaction and avoids the difficulties associated with any monoculture — namely, a loss of mate-
rial for new paths of economic, social and envi- ronmental evolution, and a danger that resistance
to unforeseen problems is lowered. A policy re- quirement of cultural diversity seems justifiable,
therefore, in general sustainable development terms; taking a Hicksian view of sustainability,
cultural diversity increases the probability that human societies develop without undermining
their economic, social or environmental capital bases.
3. Traditional cultures and endogenous development
The nature of economic activity is changing in Europe’s rural areas, a change conceptualised as
the ‘post-productivist
transition’ Ilbery
and Kneafsey, 1997 in which rural people need to
seek alternative ways of making a sustainable livelihood less heavily dependent on publicly-sup-
ported agricultural production. Yet, the logic of modernism and globalisation has caused many of
Europe’s localities to perceive themselves as disfa- voured by national policy or other external forces.
Further, by devaluing traditional cultures, mod- ernism has reduced the importance of locality by
replacing the large array of local knowledge sys- tems and techniques with an exclusive normative
technological system of interlinked innovations van der Ploeg, 1992. The extent of the discon-
nection between farming practice and locality has varied between regions according to their individ-
ual social, technological, locational and resource circumstances, but in general terms the weakness
of locality is reflected in the fact that external technological and market circumstances come to
represent the conceptual standard against which the utility of local resources is judged.
The postmodern response to economic periph- erality and decline in many rural regions suggests
a reversion by local actors to the ‘art de la lo- calite´’, if development of their regions is to be
socially, economically and environmentally sus- tainable van der Ploeg, 1992; Ray, 1998. In a
market economy, however, the issue is equally important from a consumer perspective. Two of
the consequences of postmodern concern with the quality of life are that globalisation can reinforce
ethnicity and awareness of cultural diversity, and that public goods such as environmental quality,
tradition and culture can be part of consumer choice. Redistribution of economic activity away
from rural areas, particularly from marginal re- gions, has resulted in a renewed search by con-
sumers for ‘authenticity’ and for products and services associated with tradition, heritage and
culture, and this represents a potential marketing opportunity for regions able to differentiate their
outputs appropriately Jenkins and Parrott, 1997.
Far from traditional cultures being ‘ethnographic monuments’ in Engels’ disdainful phrase, tradi-
tion, myth, values and symbol can be made ‘avail- able’ to consumers through products and images
that reflect multiple forms of alternative social identity. In this sense, cultural diversity is an
economic asset which, marketed appropriately, can generate sustainable income and employment
Committee of the Regions, 1996.
Exploitation of cultural diversity for rural de- velopment can be taken still further as a complex
endogenous process. The ethnic cores of tradition engraved on the popular consciousness of rural
society give weight to ‘cultural markers’ Ray, 1998, such as traditional products and produc-
tion methods, local languages and folklore, and historic sites and landscapes. Their role has three
important dimensions; instrumentally, they are assets to be exploited or conserved; representa-
tionally, they define territorial identity to the out- side world; and inspirationally, they are a source
of local ethics and motivation. Endogenous devel- opment can be characterised as a bottom-up pro-
cess that uses all three dimensions of cultural markers as key resources. The process recognises
cultural models as indispensable local resources which structure the interpretation of extra-local
forces and determine local practices in terms of local needs and solutions to local problems
Feyerabend, 1987. Under endogenous develop- ment, the extra-local is deconstructed and recom-
posed to suit local conditions, perspectives and interests Iacoponi et al., 1995, and local re-
sources thereby become the conceptual standard against which the utility of the extra-local is eval-
uated. In practical terms, by making best use of local resources such as people and local knowl-
edge, endogenous development is claimed to have the potential to create more employment than
modernist development forms van Dijk and van der Ploeg, 1995, and to result in positive ap-
proaches to environmental conservation, product quality, efficiency of resource use, and retention
of value generated locally. Further, under a com- prehensive view of costs, endogenous develop-
ment may potentially be cost-effective even in conventional economic terms and before taking
account of its environmental, social and employ- ment benefits van der Ploeg and Saccomandi,
1995. The conceptualisation of endogenous develop-
ment can be sharpened by the use of Actor-Net- work Theory ANT Cooke and Morgan, 1993;
Murdoch, 1995. Farming, for example, can be seen as the point of intersection of various do-
mains, including the natural world, the family, the local community, the market, the world of tech-
nology, and the world of policy. Farmers establish networks within these domains, thus defining an
interactive space that goes beyond the simple commercial networks with which neo-classical
economics is concerned. Livestock producers in rural Wales, for example, faced with severe mar-
keting difficulties associated with negative secular trends in red-meat consumption, have established
innovative networks with other producers, institu- tions, and consumers in order to differentiate
their products and develop market niches Jenkins and Parrott, 1998; Ilbery and Kneafsey, 1999. An
important element of this networking is the trans- formation of natural resources and symbolic rep-
resentations such as unspoilt landscapes into marketable products. This process requires what
Harvey 1989 calls ‘structured coherence’ of sym- bolic capital, shared ideologies and patterns of
interaction which can motivate local actors to create appropriate networks and ensure that
products embody locality. In principle, such co- herence resides within traditional cultures in
which the transmission of values via relationships is crucial Hannerz, 1990, and it provides local
actors with strategic capacity reaching beyond passive acceptance of the conventional market
and
technological relations
proposed by
modernity. ANT emphasises that market relations and the exchange of goods are embedded in a
broader set of socio-cultural relations which are especially apparent in rural areas. Social defini-
tions of moral behaviour and of quality of life, production processes and products, for example,
are crucial elements in the forging and sustaining of networks, and traditional cultures represent
one mechanism by which the required social cohe- sion is acquired.
In addition to cultural markers and local re- source mobilisation, ANT highlights endogenous
development’s crucial dependence on linkages with the extra-local, as represented by markets,
technology, policy, social trends, and in the EU availability of structural funding. Such networks
can represent enabling opportunities, and local control of access to them enables local actors to
undertake and sustain a distinctive way of life. From a practical standpoint, local strategies for
the exploitation of niche markets, such as those for speciality foods or handcrafts, can be devel-
oped through the use of appropriate extra-local product differentiation and marketing techniques
OECD, 1995; Ilbery and Kneafsey, 1999; while from a conceptual viewpoint, local character can
be translated into intellectual property through the use of extra-local regulatory frameworks such
as the appellation d
’
origine controˆle´e system for French wines Moran, 1993. The dynamic ten-
sion of inter-relations between the local and the extra-local forms much of the arena in which
strategic choices can be made. Yet this tends to be neglected in conventional agricultural economic
analysis which, despite empirically observable variability in the degrees of commoditisation
practiced in different localities, treats each rural economic activity as a process to be optimised in
relation to prevailing price and market relations. van der Ploeg 1992 shows that styles of farming,
for example, vary in their technical and market orientation and are not simply derived from pre-
vailing market and technological conditions. They are best seen as ‘multi-dimensional social con-
structions’, part of the ‘cultural repertoire’ of rural communities, and the outcome of strategic
reasoning by producers and communities medi- ated through networks of communication, co-op-
eration and co-ordination. As the Welsh livestock example shows, the strategic consequences of net-
work inter-relations are increasingly important for rural regions at a time of unfavourable product
markets, food safety problems, and environmental concern.
An ANT-based theory of rural development, therefore, considers the nature of the association
between economic actors and the interactive bal- ance between local and extra-local forces. It high-
lights the costs involved in network interaction, the power relations involved, and the extraction
of value; and it can provide strategic guidance on local resource use, institutional intervention, tech-
nological innovation, and the conditions under which local actors can retain control and value.
Under the conventional modernist model of agri- culture, the distribution of control and value-
added are perceived as increasingly in favour of the extra-local, forcing further decline on Eu-
rope’s marginal rural regions. Re-valorisation of the local through endogenous development, how-
ever, suggests that differentials of power and value-retention can be shifted in favour of the
local. The growing diversification of production and consumption activity in rural areas means
that rural resources have the opportunity to ‘re- define their own use and exchange value’ Mars-
den et al., 1992 through an increase in the significance of local distinctiveness brought about
by a forging of networks for postmodern eco- nomic ends.
4. Rural development and EU agricultural policy
