波罗的海农村多元化：一个地方的透视【外文翻译】

本科毕业设计（论文）外文翻译原文：Rural diversification in the Baltic countryside: a local perspective AbstractToday ‘‘rural diversification’’ is high on the agenda in rural development. This article analyses rural diversification under conditions of post-socialist economic transition using case areas in Latvia and Estonia. The study shows that transition from centrally planned economy to market economy has had an enormous impact in the rural areas. Agricultural production and employment has decreased dramatically and rural unemployment is high. The conditions for rural diversification the first years after independence depended a lot on the local presence of non-farm activities before the split up of collective farming, in both production facilities but also in the skills and relations people had. Since independence, markets for traditional rural services and products have decreased. The extent to which local businesses find markets outside the local area and people have been able to integrate into the new labour market of service and construction jobs often in urban areas are essential for the diversification of the rural economy. Most rural inhabitants only have skills in large-scale agriculture and limited contacts to outside the local area which makes exploiting new opportunities difficult. The local capacity for withholding, developing and inducing new activities is weak.The challenge for rural development policy is to extend the possibilities of the rural inhabitants to exploit new opportunities.IntroductionDecreasing employment opportunities in agriculture is an all-European problem. In Western Europe the proportion of the rural population during most of the twentieth century has fallen steadily. In Eastern Europe this fall has been more dramatic. About 20% of the populations were employed in agriculture in the Baltic States 10 years ago, only 5% are employed today. This is similar to the EU average. However, still 30% of the population lives in rural areas (Rural Development Programmes 2004a, b).In Latvia and Estonia many rural areas suffer from persisting unemployment and poverty (Alanen 2004; Tisenkopfs 1999). Rural diversification seems essentialto avoid increasing poverty and is high on the agenda for rural development in the years to come. The EU Common Agricultural Policy 2007–2013 focuses on three thematic axes laid down in the new rural development regulation of which ‘‘diversification of the rural economy’’ is one of them (European Commission 2005).This article analyses the rural diversification under conditions of post-socialist economic transition and discusses opportunities and constraints for rural diversification. The project is an exploratory studyinto how people make a living and rural business development in two study regions in Latvia and Estonia respectively.Theoretical background and approachIn diversification studies the centre of attention is dominantly the farm household and its abilities for finding new activities and employment. There are two types of activities; ‘‘farm diversification’’ which are on-farm activities like tourism activities or alternative farm production and ‘‘employment diversification’’ which is employment away from the farm (Bryden et al. 1992; Chaplin et al. 2004). Policy makers assume that ‘‘farm diversification’’ makes a significant contribution to rural development. Alternative activities on farms are expected to help absorbing some of the excess farm labour, alleviate poverty and contribute to the development of employment in rural areas (e.g. Council Regulati on 1999). The funding for ‘‘diversification’’ within the EU focuses dominantly on farm diversification stimulating tourism activities and alternative farm products at individual farms.However, most empirical studies still shows that farm diversification are small-scale activities related to conventional agriculture such as machinery services and add little incomes. ‘‘Employment diversification’’ is much more widespread (e.g. McNally 2001).As my focus is rural development, my working definition of ‘‘rural diversification’’ and the ‘‘nonfarm economy’’ also includes the broaderrural economy not confined to agriculture and the farm household. Some rural areas in Western Europe, particularly around cities and popular resorts, have experienced an increase in population and economic activities not involved or related to the farm sector. It has often been connected to an increasing movement of people, tourists and investments from urban to rural areas. This observed trend has been described asthe ‘‘urban-rural sh ift’’ or the ‘‘rural turn around’’ (e.g. Murdoch et al. 2003; North 1998).The transition and diversificationResearch into rural issues in post-socialist countries has mainly focused on agricultural restructuring. The following part examines the emerging research on post-socialist rural change and tries to point to features that characterise the rural areas in transition and are important for the understanding of diversification.The farm householdMany small farms are a common feature in the Eastern European countryside today. The socialist agricultural system comprised of large-scale agricultural enterprises and small household plots that farm workers cultivated. During the transition land has been restituted to former owners and privatised by farm workers. The aim of the restitution of land was in the Baltic countries based on the idea of creating family farms similar to the traditional Western European model, however, the‘‘family farms’’, are today, uncommon. A dual structure of farms has re-emerged; large-scale privatised, often corresponding to the former socialist farms, and small household farms dominatingly oriented towards self-subsistence . Also many urban dwellers received land back in restitution which most often is left to grow wild (Baldock et al. 2001). The rural businessIn the post-socialist countryside, the rural business activities other than farming can be divided into privatised enterprises and self employed service businesses. Non-agricultural production like processing plants, distilleries and bakeries were connected to the large farms. Such units have been called the ‘‘resilient units’’ (Andor 1997) because while the large farms have closed, they have often continued their operations, although at a much lower level of activity than before (Nikula 2004).The rural populationCharacteristic for the post-socialist countries is that a larger share of the population lives in rural areas than in Western Europe. ‘‘Underurbanisation’’ is often emphasised as a central feature of socialist rural–urban relations (Szelenyi 1996). Underurbanisation means that housing construction in urban areas did not keep pace with industrial development. Workers continued to live in villages where they also could benefit from plot farming while commuting to work. This group of people has been called the ‘‘worker peasants’’ (Andor 1997). The rural areas had,however, a population that was almost entirely made up of local farmers and workers and there did not exist an ex-urban ‘‘middleclass’’ group. The regional differencesA distinction in CEEC-literature is often made between former ‘‘agricultural regions’’ and ‘‘industrial regions’’ (Raagmaa 1997; Swain 2000). In traditionally heavily industrialised regions industries have often closed and there are few employment opportunities. Agricultural regions were often specialized producing for large markets in the Soviet Union and other Eastern European countries. Since their traditional markets often have disappeared such regions also suffer from unemployment. Raagmaa (1997) argues that there are no real peripheral areas in the Baltic States as the countries are small and people can commute by car to the urban centres from anywhere in the country and therefore all rural areas have the possibility of becoming a ‘‘recreational regions’’ where people recreate and live.Approaching diversification—the local perspectiveThe Baltic countries are no longer part of the Soviet Union but are reintegrating with the European and global economy. The frame conditions for rural areas have changed dramatically. Transition research has largely been written in terms of the marketisation of economic relations and the privatisation of property. The level of research has mainly been macro-scale. The perspective of this research project isfrom the micro-scale exploring the activities, experiences and capacities of rural inhabitants within the changing rural locale. In the transition context a bottom-up approach seems increasingly important as the local transition is not a straightforward expression of new frame conditions and macrostructures as the collapse of the system have made change even more dependent on the specific area and on individual capacities. MethodsThe local areas and their populations are focused on with the help of case studies exploring the situation of the rural inhabitants and the local business activities in two specific regions. The typology of post-socialist rural regions discussed in the theoretical background; ‘‘agricultural regions’’ and ‘‘industrial regions’’ formed the basis for the selection of the study regions. The intention was not to select representative cases for the average rural area in the Baltic States, and the intention is not to make generalisations for the whole countries or for all rural areas. However, the case studies represent different types of areas and the results should have high relevance for rural development and diversification in similar areas and situations. The case studies are in different countries because the initial set-up of the research project involved partners from all Baltic States including Lithuania.In Estonia Viljandi county was selected as an agricultural region. Rezekne county was selected as an industrial region. In connection withboth study regions parallel data collection, including surveys, interviews, and collection statistical data, has been conducted. This has included a survey on household incomes and activities, interviews with households and businesses, interviews with key informants and collection of secondary data. Data was collected in 2001 and 2002. The data collection is mainly based around a household study and a business study. The household study is conducted in one particular rural municipality in each county. The business study then covers businesses in the same municipality but also includes 5 more rural municipalities in the respective counties to get a wider representation of businesses. The household study is made up of a questionnaire survey with 95 household in each municipality, which is around 1/5 of all households in each municipality. Households were picked out randomly by knocking on the door in every fifth house or apartment block. About 20–25 of these households were then interviewed.Empirical findingsIn both study areas during the Soviet period all land and property were nationalised and one large collective farm approximately covered what is the rural municipality territories today. The collective farms were transformed into co-operative farms in the early 1990s. In the Estonian area the cooperative stopped operation in 1995 because of government pressure to split up the farm. In the Latvian area it still exists, however,on a much smaller scale than before as both much of the land and machinery have been privatised and given back to former owners.The rural businessSmall-scale farm diversificationIn both areas prior to transition, large-scale agriculture was the backbone of the rural economy. Most of the non-farming activities were enterprises servicing the local farm sector or processing farm products. From this diversified large-scale agricultural production, farm-related activities are small scale like home-brewing, agro-services or sausage making for exchange and own subsistence in the local area. Transforming businessesThe splitting up of the large farms resulted in several privatized businesses that prior were processing or servicing units in the collective farms. There were e.g. some industrial bakeries, breweries, canneries, slaughterhouses, fish processing, dairies, gravel extraction and manufacturing of building materials and farm services like agro-service stations and mechanical workshops. These were in all cases privatized by their former managers or the collective farm manager. After independence these transforming businesses initially had buildings, a product to build on and contacts to markets in the former Soviet Union. Rural industrialisationInvestments into the production facilities, finding new markets andnew products are needed in order to stay in production. This new demand has left most production companies; sawmills as well as privatized processing units, to rely on decreasing local markets or close. But in the Estonian area some wood and food processing industries (approximately 5) have come into the rural area with capital and products from outside. There are two furniture makers, a sawmill, a company producing carbonated spring water and a candle manufacturer. They are part of urban industries or foreign companies or they have large foreign investments and produce for the national market or export abroad. The companies use some local supplies such as mouldings and local water for springwater while timber and other supplies are from Tallinn and abroad. The incoming businesses have located in the area mainly because they could buy former collective buildings cheap often through personal contacts to local mayors and because there are good roads to Tallinn. RetailThere are two-three grocery stores in each rural municipality. Many were started by former collective managers. A leader of a collective farm now runs a wholesale market in the county capital and two rural stores: ‘‘I had through my position as leader of a collective farm good connections to wholesale markets and import businesses in Riga. These were important in order to start in retail’’. Another former collective manager says: ‘‘It was easy to buy the shop premises cheap. I got themfor nothing. I knew the collective manager well’’. These leading positions gave good local networks and the businessmen have all relied on personal contacts for obtaining inexpensive buildings and production facilities. There were also smaller family businesses that started in retail often based on particular skills, contacts or means from sale of timber in the first years after independence.Tourism and business servicesIt has also been sawmill owners that until recently have been investing in tourism. There are some tourists coming to the areas but most tourism providers depend on the local market. The tourism businesses aim at a market of tourists from the capital areas, but until now it has mainly been people from the counties that hold parties or on weekends use the saunas or fish in the lakes on the land of the tourism business. They bring their own food and drinks and give little income for the business owners. At the moment there are more tourism businesses than there are tourists. The few that make an income have specialised in specific markets like hunting tourist or religious groups from abroad based on specific personal cont acts. An Estonian hotel owner says: ‘‘I had been in Finland through the church. Here I made contacts with religious groups that now come every year holding religious camps’’. The rural labour marketIn the local areas most jobs people also had before independence.These jobs are in the transforming businesses, the municipal administration, the local schools and kindergartens. However, this employment often has a temporary character. A man working in the Latvian co-operative farm describes his job like this: ‘‘I have worked here all my life. Before we got paid all year now we just get paid when there is something to do’’. Many people do not see local job opportunities besides keeping such irregular ‘‘old’’ employment as they only have skills in agriculture which are not very sought after today. Employment possibilities in public services have also decreased. A former teachers says: ‘‘There are no jobs for teachers in the countryside. Agricultural specialists, teachers and farm workers all fight for the same jobs in construction and sawmills…Our good educations are of no use anymore’’.The local labour market in traditional rural industries and unskilled work have diminished markedly while there has been some increase in employment for skilledpeople in wood processing, bookkeeping and computers.ConclusionThe rural economy has changed dramatically during transition. Before independence the rural economy in the two study regions was centred around large-scale farming. During privatisation assets from the large farms and state enterprises were distributed among the ruralpopulation. Most people got land back in restitution or privatised their household plot while some privatised buildings, workshops or processing plants. After privatisation the rural population was dominated by small farmers with varying assets and income opportunities and some people running privatised businesses. Household incomes are today diversified. For some people the income in the collective farm has been substituted by private business activities or a steady wage job, but many people have only found unstable employment or self employment providing little incomes and often depend on pensions; more like a ‘‘down-ward adaptation’’.Rural diversification was expected to be able to alleviate poverty, but diversification is not always an ‘‘upward’’ adaptation. The population and activities are more diverse but an increasing inequality between people can also be observed. Certain individual skills and assets have been necessary to possess in order to find employment and to start business.The local labour market has decreased markedly since independence. Traditional rural industries and farm work have diminished. Salaried employment in urban construction is a key income source for households and it is distinctive that the local labour market is of minor importance in household incomes. The few new businesses have created few employment possibilities for local inhabitants as these demand skills inservices and wood processing which many locals do not have. The rural business activities are today in local services and some industrial production. Increasingly contacts to capital areas and Western markets, suppliers and investors are necessary for rural business development. Today there are some privatised enterprises and localselfemployed engaged in rural business but increasingly incoming businesses with external capital and business networks take over (Herslund & Sørensen 2004).In order to encourage a stronger non-farm economy traditional funding for farm diversification needs to be complemented by education that help people obtain new skills and contacts to outside the area.Source ：Lise Herslund Rural diversification in the Baltic countryside: a local perspective Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008译文：波罗的海农村多元化：一个地方的透视摘要“农村多元化”是目前农村发展的重要议程。