Journal of Rural Studies 18 (2002) 225231

Guest editorial

A mode of production for fragile rural economies: the territorial accumulation of forms of capital
1. Introduction The course of the Foot and Mouth Disease in the United Kingdom, preceded by the BSE outbreak (and possibly succeeded by economic fallout from the September 11th terrorism events in the USA), has created a major crisis in the UK rural economy. This crisis, although coming at the end of a long-term series of troughs and general socio-economic decline in many agriculturally dependant areas, might, according to some commentators, turn out to be the worst of them all. As such, it is focussing minds on how to respond to it once the immediate problem of farm hygiene has been solved. The debate concerns not only how to resurrect the economic vibrancy of the affected areas but also the relationship of the rural economy to wider society and, therefore, the nature of future public intervention in the rural social economy. The crisis has already generated a number of studies of its social and economic impact (for example: Bennett et al., 2001; Countryside Agency, 2001). This paper, however, contributes to the debate by speculating on the nature of a new model of rural economy: relevant in the rst instance to presently ailing areas but also capable of wider application. Whatever else it has done, the crisis has created an opportunity for a radical reappraisal of how we conceptualise the rural economy and, therefore, the nature of public intervention. This re-assessment might be most protably pursued if guided by in order to motive for action (as opposed to because of thinking). In other words, what sort of rural social economy do we want to achieve? Moreover, are there forces, albeit embryonic, already abroad in European rural society and polity that could be moulded and brought into the mainstream of intervention and socio-economic activity in the pursuit of a robust system? Should the crisis be seen as an opportunity to redirect public intervention towards the encouragement of a new conceptualisation of the rural economy? This paperbuilding on the ideas of Bourdieu (forms of capital) and the neo-Marxists (modes of production theory)identies some of the elements of this new conceptualisation. Although of a speculative nature, the proposal is based rmly on empirical observations of a particular intervention of the European Commission (the LEADER Initiative) and of the phenomenon of cultural regionalism.

2. The germ of a new approach Certainly, there are arguments in favour of not returning to business as usual (for which we can use orthodox agricultural sectoral policy as shorthand). First, the long-term history of economic and social fragility of many rural areas reects the declining capacity of state (and suprastate)-supported industrial, capitalist agriculture to sustain many rural economies. The logic of the agricultural-food system results in unrelenting pressures on farmersas individualised producersto reduce costs (a function of consumer behaviour and the oligopoly power of the retail sector). Moreover, orthodox agricultural sectoral policy is not only dogged by criticisms of budgetary cost but may also be itself a reactionary force preventing the adaptation by rural society to the new conditions. Second, experiments (public interventions and quasiautonomous activity) into alternative approaches to rural development have been indicating some of the nature and dynamics of a new approach for which we could use the generic terms territorial or neoendogenous (Ray, 2001a). On the European Union level, they include specically rural development interventions (particularly, Objective 5b programmes and the LEADER Initiative); interventions to encourage cultural diversity (for example, Culture 2000 programme of DGX) and institutional innovations for European regional governance (Committee of the Regions). National and regional governments (and government agencies) have also launched territorial rural development initiatives, such as PRODER in Spain ! rez, 2000) and Contrat de Pays in France (Esparcia Pe (Buller, 2000) as an outcome of decentralisation trajectories within European nation states. Finally, there is a plethora of initiatives emerging from the voluntary sector in the form of village- or district-led development activity and cultural and environmental programmes of regional/national non-governmental organisations.

0743-0167/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 7 4 3 - 0 1 6 7 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 0 3 - 7

226

Guest editorial / Journal of Rural Studies 18 (2002) 225231

2.1. A way of understanding phenomena such as Foot and Mouth and BSE The BSE outbreak can be seen as, in essence, an example of the failure of quality control. Despite the industrialisation of much of the agricultural system, forces alluded to above prevented a number of agricultural actors from full conformity to the industrial production ethos. One can go back at least to the writings of Marx to nd expressions of the view that economic relationsincluding productionalways exist in a set of social relationships. The actions of economic actors are governed, and legitimised, by the particular society in which they operate. Yet, there is a sense in which elements of contemporary agric-food production have reduced these relationships to the pursuit of national food security and relatively low retail prices. BSE and other food hygiene scares signal that production was not entirely in tune with the changing nature of societal signals. Consequently, agricultural production was not delivering optimal benets to the rural economy. The Foot and Mouth outbreak, however, reminded us of the connectivity within the agricultural system (farm producers, market places, abattoirs, etc.). This connectivity exists particularly on the national level and, to a lesser extent, on the European level. The concept of connectivity concerns ows through the system (and between the system and its environment). Under normal conditions, these ows are made up of the factors of production: livestock, seed, energy/feed and people. Indeed, these ows constitute the system. Under suboptimal or crisis conditions, however, other material ows through the connections; namely disease and adverse producer publicity. Thus, as presently organised, the system is vulnerable to contamination, resulting in sub-optimal performance. This, in turn, can have adverse impacts on non-agricultural, rural production. The Foot and Mouth outbreak illustrated a paradoxical relationship of agriculture to rural society. On the one hand is the declining contribution of agriculture to the economic vibrancy of many areas. Yet, on the other hand, the sector still has the capacity to have a major negative impact on rural social and economic life. It is still the case, therefore, that agricultural crises translate into rural crises and vulnerability. Thinking about agriculture in this way presents us with a three-fold challenge. First, how might ows through the system be restructured so as to facilitate better regulation (quality control)? Is it possible to conceive of systems whereby regulation is built into the logic of production so that regulation becomes a vital and positive feature (rather than a restriction on production and protability)? Second, could the system be reconstituted so that agricultures abiding impact on

rural areas (and its particular relationship with those which are socio-economically vulnerable) be harnessed as a positive factor. This leads on to the third question; namely, how might the duality between the agricultural economy and the wider rural economy be reconceptualised or even removed? In other words, how, theoretically, could agriculture be re-embedded into the general well-being of rural areas, in terms of activity and of public intervention?not for the rural economy to equate with the agricultural sector, but to see agriculture as, in most cases, one of the integrated players in a rural economy. The territorial/neo-endogenous approach to rural development can provide answers to these questions.

3. Territorialisation and modes of production The re-organisation of rural socio-economic activity and intervention around regional and local territories has already begun (although, to date, it has tended to be conned to disadvantaged areas and introduced only at the margins of mainstream ofcial interventions). Underlying the territorialisation of the rural economy is the notion that a new mode of production could be brought into being. Modes of Production theory, as set out by Marx (in Giddens, 1971), was concerned with how one of a small number of modes would characterise a given society and particularly with how the interplay of factors could, with time, lead to the emergence of capitalism. The purpose of Modes of Production theory was to demonstrate that economic systemseven one as pervasive and seemingly natural as modern capitalism are, in fact, constructed by socio-political forces, and that they exist in, and are maintained by, historically contingent social relations. The non-capitalist modes feudal society and the Asiatic modewere interesting to Marx primarily because their existence (historically and contemporaneously) demonstrated the socially constructed nature of capitalism. The neo-Marxist development of Modes of Production theory, however, began to explore the possibilities that in any given contemporary society, more than one mode could be operating: a capitalist mode and noncapitalist modes, particularly in the non-Western world (Schuurman, 1993). The neo-Marxist agenda raised the question of whether, despite the inexorable rise of capitalism to its current form, other modes could survive that might enable disadvantaged local people to build a vibrant economy and socio-cultural life. In pursuit of this agenda, attempts were made to identify further noncapitalist modes of production: such as the peasant mode. However, the dominant mode would still be that of capitalism, linking a region/nation into wider capitalistic relations. The point of Modes of Production analysis

Guest editorial / Journal of Rural Studies 18 (2002) 225231

227

was to show, rst, how the capitalist mode, although manifestly dominant and expanding, does not necessarily result in the annihilation of other pre-existing modes. Second, an interrelationship is said to exist between capitalism and its alternatives in any location: capitalism being able to exploit the local supply of cheap labour and thereby extracting sometimes excess prots, whilst actors in the other mode might nd ways, informally, to benet from mainstream capitalist activity. This raises questions about the nature and trajectory of present day Western capitalism. In particular, if economies/production are formed out of social relations and if, moreover, the European rural economy is performing sub-optimally (see introduction), then could one or more new modes of production emergemodes that would be more effective? Indeed, are they already in the process of emerging? Indications of the social relations between producer and consumer that might protably be recruited into the proposed mode of production can be found in Lash and Urry (1994). They suggest that a new mode of productionconsumption is not only emerging but that its emergence is a logic of advanced consumer society. The forces of globalisation have given rise to a reexive human subjectivity (p. 5) in which the individualas consumer or citizenhas acquired an enhanced capacity for agency. Consumer/global capitalism has led production increasingly to replace material and labour value with design value. The trajectory is towards production and consumption being based less on utility and more on the symbolism of the good or service; it is the production and consumption of signs. The rationale of the capitalist dynamic and of the actions of individuals are driven (insofar as we are consumers) by a (greater or lesser) consciousness of the aesthetics of consumption and therefore of production (aesthetic reexivity). Capitalism is increasingly driven by the valorisation and accumulation of this subjectivity. In the words of Lash and Urry, capitalism is reorienting itself towards reexive accumulation. Moreover, accumulation is being organised around a plethora of overlapping territories whose boundaries have little to do with those of nation states. These exible places are created and sustained through the interplay of local and extra-local forces, and come to represent arenas of socio-economic, cultural and political activity. They are exible in being rich, yet ambivalent, in meaning and available for multiple constructions of individual and social identities, malleable over time. Spacethrough the dynamics of advanced consumer capitalism and social movements such as cultural regionalismis being re-differentiated and imbued with symbolic value. These places are innately exible and subjective.

Another set of social relations useful for the present purpose was explored by Fukuyama (1995) in an investigation of the relations of social capital to economic development. He starts from the currently popular belief that liberal-democratic political institutions and market-oriented economics, as the emerging world order, depend on a healthy and dynamic civil society (p. 4), the fundamental underpinning of which being social capital/trust. In his view, the distribution and nature of social capital is a function of national or regional cultures; it is accumulated through cultural mechanisms such as religion, tradition and historical habit. Social capital is, thus, inherited ethical habityit is not rational choice in the sense of objective consideration of alternative ways of achieving an end (pp. 3435). Fukuyamas thesis is that human action, and economic prosperity in particular, can be explained by the individualist, utility-optimising, rational decisionmaker paradigm only 80% of the time. The remaining, yet crucial, 20% is explained by the role of social capital because a fundamental characteristic of human nature is that people have a need of norms and rules binding them to others. In contrast to societies based on individualism or on kinship-bound relations (dominance of kinship-controlled enterprises in China is cited as a prime example), countries with large accumulations of social capital (in addition to nancial capital and physical resources) are proving to be, in the Fukuyama thesis, more economically successful. His explanation for this is that social capital-as-trust works by reducing transaction costs. Minimised transaction costs promote the acquisition of scale leading, he claims, to optimal economic performance. Here, then, is a description of a type of relations between producers which promotes optimal performance in capitalist society. The concepts of reexive production and trustnetwork have much to contribute to the purpose of this paper in speculating on a new mode of production for the ailing and vulnerable areas of rural Europe. They do not challenge the essential principles of capitalism: the appropriation of wealth by the owners of land and capital; and thus a structuring of social relations into working class and capital class; and capital uidity (location and sectoral) in pursuit of optimal conditions. Yet they also see new modes of capitalist production emerging, bringing new principles and modus operandi to advanced capitalism. On their own, however, Lash and Urry, Giddens and Fukuyama are not sufcient for our present purpose. For this, we must explore more deeply how such ideas could be applied to (rural, fragile) territorial economies. The rest of this paper is devoted to conceptualising the territorial processes that would characterise the emerging model.

228

Guest editorial / Journal of Rural Studies 18 (2002) 225231

4. A neo-endogenous mode of production In order to deal with this last point, we must return to the re-territorialisation of rural Europe and the related neo-endogenous socio-economic development activity referred to above. Potentially applicable to any subnational, geographical scale, the main components of the territorial/neo-endogenous approach are threefold. First, it suggests that development is best animated by focussing on territories of need rather than on certain sectors of the rural economy. Moreover, the scale of territory must be smaller than the national or regional level. Second, economic and other development activity are reoriented to valorise and exploit local resources physical and humanand thereby to retain as many of the resultant benets within the local area. Third, development is contextualised by focusing on the needs, capacities and perspectives of local people; the development model assumes an ethical dimension by emphasising the principle and process of local participation in the design and implementation of action and through the adoption of cultural, environmental and community values within a development intervention. The rhetoric offers the prospect of local areas assuming greater inuence over development by reorienting it around locally specic resources and by creating structures to sustain the local development momentum after the initial intervention. The neo-endogenous approach can be interpreted from a number of directions: as a style of public intervention; as a manifestation of participative/active society and so on (Ray, 2000). Here, however, it is of interest as a potentially new mode of production for the rural areas of Europe. This new mode is still capitalistic in that individual economic units pursue optimal protability which, in turn, drives the process of capital accumulation. Equally, principles of self-interest and competition may also be present. As a mode of production, the neo-endogenous approach operates along three axes: capital accumulation; producerconsumer relations; and regulation. 4.1. First axis: the nature of capital accumulation The essence of the new mode of production is that economic activity is refracted through a collective, territorial logic. Moreover, the accumulation process requires the territorial integration of capital other than in its purely nancial form. The forms of capital are: cultural, educational, nancial and social. Cultural capital can be thought of as territorial intellectual property or place-specic factors of production. Social capital describes co-operative/trustful relationships between actors. Theoretically, the presence of social capital reduces transaction costs and enables participants to reap the benets (socio-psycological and

economic) of co-operative activity. Educational capital incorporates the notion of cultivating of personal life chances. Capital refers to a capacity to produce prots and to reproduce itself in identical and expanded form (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 241). Each form of capital can be invested to earn protseither nancial or in-kind which, according to the Webers spirit of capitalism would be retained in the form of an expanded stock of capital. The point about forms of capital is that their separate prot-earning and accumulation are interrelated. In Bourdieu (1973), an argument is made for the relationship between cultural capital formation and educational capital. He argues that educational capital is created and transmitted primarily through postprimary institutional education. The educational sphere, supported by certain family environments, creates in individuals (students) the capacity to participate in cultural capital; a competence is cultivated in individuals so that they acquire the means of appropriating cultural capital. Bourdieu drew the material for his analysis from national level culture and state educational institutions; he was solely interested in how high culture becomes valorised above other forms and, especially, how the participation in and beneting from this (materially and prestigiously) was conned to certain social classes. Indeed, Bourdieu was able to conclude that the way in which institutions created educational capital worked to maintain a particular social structure. Bourdieus work is important for the working out of the neo-endogenous mode of production in two ways. First, it highlights the interrelated nature of the forms of capitalcultural, educational, social and nancial through the process of accumulation. Secondly, it stresses the embodied nature of the capital accumulation process. Where Bourdieu is not helpful, however, is in his insistence on class analysis; the purpose of this paper in sketching a new mode of production is to adapt Bourdieus ideas to initiatives to improve the collective socio-economic well-being of the people of local/ regional territories. The new mode of production would have to include, therefore, both individual and collective reexive action to build a pool of territorial common resources (forms of capital). The various actors of a territory would pursue their separate goals but also engage in voluntary, co-operative activity, directly and indirectly, to accumulate the forms of capital at the territorial level. Thus, the type of social relations that would guide the operation of the new mode would be a mixture of market exchange and voluntary reciprocity. The mode of production would be based on the discovery, or creation, of place-specic resources together with a strategic process of capital accumulation. Indeed, it is the logic of accumulation that dictates the nature of

Guest editorial / Journal of Rural Studies 18 (2002) 225231

229

production and provides the rationale for voluntary collective activity. Accumulationas social, cultural and educational capitalprimarily, is embodied in people as individuals and so it is the dynamic relationship between individuals, social groups and territories that is of crucial interest in the mode of production. The mode of production would, therefore, have to create mechanisms for the stimulation of accumulation in the various domains of rural society. First, the action of local private businesseswhether agricultural or otherwould be inuenced by their being aware of the benets of contributing to the accumulation of forms of capital in the territory. At one level, this concerns reexive production through the creation of goods and services with a territorial identity. This, in turn, requires enterprises to explore forms of business organisation, marketing and the relationships with local and wider society which would feed into the process of capital accumulation. The exploitation and accumulation of the local capital base are interrelated activities, the one driving the other. The business ethic is thus supplemented by aspects of reciprocal activity: between local businesses, between business and other domains of society and between local actors and those in other territories. Interventions such as the European Unions LEADER Initiative have also demonstrated the potentially reinforcing dynamic of interlocal reciprocity, that is, between local territories on a regional, national or transnational level (Ray, 2001b). The domestic realm is another important domain of accumulation. Rural development studies have long recognised its role, particularly in terms of farm household pluriactivity strategies. The territorial mode of production emphasises the domestic realm yet further, as an actor in capital accumulation: households are key actors in cultural capital, particularly in the intergenerational communication of local knowledge and customs. They function as arenas of social capital and complex units of economic production. In the Marxist view of capitalism, a key social relation is that between wage labour and nancial capital. In the neo-endogenous mode of production, however, all local individuals are, potentially, the embodiment of the process of territorial capital accumulation. This means that they are to be seen not so much as factors of production to be bought at the lowest cost but as a medium in which accumulation can be cultivated. Educational provision at the local or regional level is vital for the embodiment of educational and therefore cultural capital in local people. In addition, it can serve the purpose of cultivating local patriotism among young people which, in turn, can contribute to social capital accumulation. Parochialism may be avoided by the introduction of an ethos of reexivity and internationalism.

Finally, the voluntary sector has been identied as a crucial actor in the accumulation of territorial capital. This is manifestly so in terms of social and cultural capital but it can also include economic capital (through community enterprises, etc.). The voluntary sector can be a force for the social control of production and development activity. The territorial approach works by re-orientating socio-economic organisation around the mobilisation of local resources (tangible and socio-cultural) and the devolution of (appropriate levels of) power and responsibility to the territory to design and implement action (Ray, 2001a, b). In fact, these territories operate on three planes. First, each local level operates as a discrete unit and this requires an understanding not only of the geographical meaning of local and how such units come into being, but also of the processes and relationships within them. Second, these territories will have a set of dynamic relationships with the state and suprastate (particularly, the EU/European Commission). This plane mirrors the dynamic of contemporary decentralisation of politico-administration within nation-states and, therefore, the modus operandi of the managerial state. Finally, the European Unions LEADER Initiative has illustrated the emerging importance of the third plane: interlocality (Ray, 2001b). This concerns the politico-economic relationships between territorial economies on regional, national and transnational levels. In effect, these three planes represent the dimensions of economic organisation (i.e. production) and of system regulation.

5. Second axis: people, factors of production, producer consumer relationship The new mode of production is dened by the accumulation of forms of capital but is it still capitalism as we generally understand the term? Weber dened capitalism in terms of six essential characteristics (Novak, 1991) of which three are useful for the purposes of this paper. First, in capitalist society, labour must be commoditised. As opposed to slavery, serfdom or communism, individuals are free to sell their labour to the highest bidder. As capitalist society is also one of increasing division of labour, workers must sell their labour in an attempt to satisfy the totality of their needs and wants. Second, capitalists act rationally in pursuit of optimal prots and capital accumulation. Weber saw this logic as the essential spirit that drives capitalism. Giddens (1971) notes that this is very different from the logic which rationalises actions in subsistence peasant economies or in the privileged traditionalism of guild craftsmen. Third, capitalism is characterised by impersonality: production being increasingly separated from

230

Guest editorial / Journal of Rural Studies 18 (2002) 225231

the domestic realm; and membership of the capitalist class unrestricted by kinship or caste/class. According to Marx (in Giddens), the commoditisation of labour creates a sense of alienation. As producers, workers recognise themselves less and less in the nal products; hyper division of labour, high volume production and mechanisation create a psychological distance between worker and product. Neither does the worker exercise any control over the fate of a product once it leaves the factory gate. The intrinsic satisfaction that might formerly have been possible in artisan production, or production for ones own use, is greatly diminished. However, as Giddens comments in his discussion of Marx, the commoditisation of labour also means that individual workers are credited with possessing personal capital in the form of their time, energy, strength and intelligence. The proposed new mode of production builds on this idea by characterising local individuals as embodying local forms of capital (cultural, social and educational). In this sense, all local people acquire an enhanced status as capitalists. By working in the new mode of production, individuals are investing their personal capital which brings not only nancial returns (as wages or prots) but also returns-in-kind as accumulated embodied capital. But rather than being a reversion to the elitism of guild craftsmen, this accumulation process would be available to all local people who chose to subscribe to the new mode of production, that is, it simultaneously accumulates as collective capital. As for reasoned action by capitalists in pursuit of optimal protability, this would remain central to the new mode. The competitive and growth imperatives of capitalism would be supplemented, however, by an awareness of the collective nature of territorial forms of capital; this capital being both means and ends of production. Although continuing to function as autonomous economic units in an environment of market exchange relationships, territorial actors would voluntarily subscribe to a supplementary set of reciprocal relations. This reciprocity, although in some cases based on altruism, could just as easily be driven by instrumental values: that is, that individual enterprises, especially those in fragile economies, would see the benet to them of contributing to the cultivation of the territorys capital. In turn, this would manifest as a general sense of local patriotism: a loose form of social control which would also serve to modify another characteristic of capitalismthe mobility of nancial capital and expert skills. This is not, however, to argue for the return to a form of Marxs Asiatic mode of productionrepresented by: self-sufcient village-commune organisation; tight social control of behaviour; and private property overshadowed by public property (Giddens, 1971). This would

be too resistant to change. In the new mode, it is only intellectual property which is collectivised. Moreover, the interlocal plane, mentioned above and which is central to the dynamic of the new mode, would help to stem the rise of local reactionary forces. Returning again to the concept of impersonalitythis time looking at the consumer sideMarx noted the inevitable rise of commodity fetishism, referring to the impoverishment of pre-capitalist, direct (even emotional) relations between producer and consumer. In this, consumption is driven by the value placed solely in the product, rather than by an awareness of the individual contribution and needs of the workerproducers. In Marxist literature, this is a state of affairs to be regretted in that it dehumanises part of the social world. The new mode, however, would pursue the reinvigoration of local social economies by de-fetishising territorial products and services. This would involve the cultivation of their symbolic component so that products come to be identied with the specic territory of origin. Consumption and production become imbued with the culture of the producing territory. Thus, culture becomes commoditised but in the form of territorial (common), intellectual property. Yet this is a particular type of commoditisation which serves as one of the mechanisms in the accumulation of each of the territorial forms of capital. A neo-endogenous mode of production distinguishes itself by investing the relationship between producer and consumer with an element of symbolic exchange.

6. Third axis: social systems, regulation and economic integration We can turn now to the third axis of the mode of production. Along this axis are described the ideal relations between the various actors of a territory. At a general level, these relations would determine how a territoryhaving subscribed to the new modemight operate as a production entity and thereby function more effectively than the rural economy as presently constituted: more effective both in terms of the socioeconomic needs of territorial actors, agricultural and non-agricultural; and in terms of responding to the roles assigned to rural areas by wider society. The rst axis consists of the processes of accumulation of interrelated forms of capital. The socio-economic integration of actors within a territory takes the forms of market exchange and reciprocal relationships. The nature of the integrating mechanism can be glimpsed if territories are thought of as social systems so that the organisms of the system would be represented by territorial actors. In turn, each territorial economy would itself operate as an organism in a wider system (a pan-European system of rural territorial economies).

Guest editorial / Journal of Rural Studies 18 (2002) 225231

231

According to general systems theory, component organisms are connected to each otherdirectly or indirectlyby relations or ows. In the social realm, these ows consist of information; social systems function as entities of communication. An important characteristics of such systems is autopoieses, dened as the capacity of organisms to monitor, regulate and adapt to the overall conditions within the system and between the system and its environment. Autopoieses occurs through the management of information by organisms about each other and, thereby, about the system as an entity (Luhmann, 1995). In the territorial mode of production, autopoieses would operate as a function of the logic of capital accumulation. Component actors (organisms) would modify their production activity so as to be consistent with the collective, territorial needs which are inherently consistent with their own, individual needs. In this way, food production and distribution would become embedded in the territorial logic; the mode of production would act as a social (including ecological) control on actor behaviour. Local actorsseparately and mutuallywould act so as to avoid system shocks such as a Foot and Mouth outbreak, BSE or environmental degradation. Having subscribed voluntarily to a territorial logic, producers would assume an aspect of self-regulation. In other words, a particular world of production would come into being, i.e. sets of practices involving conventions and the shared ways of understanding they entail (Hudson, 2001, p. 27). Co-operative activity between territorial economies (production, marketing, lobbying, etc., see Ray, 2001a, b)that is, between territories as organisms of larger systemsconstitutes another plane along which information about system performance would ow. Regulation at the territorial level would thus be reinforced by the interlocal level. Finally, what role would be played by the state and supra-state in this mode of production? First, mechanisms would be needed to assist the regional, national and transnational ow of information. Second, the claim to title over territorial resourcesthe acquisition of formal intellectual property rights for commoditised local culturewould require institutional legitimacy and legal protection. Thus, regulation would occur as a function of production mode logic, information ow and state

and supra-state intervention. Third, in terms of models of economic integration, Polanyi spoke not only of market exchange and reciprocity but also of the option of redistribution (McRobie, 1994). States would need to be aware of the differential capacity of territories to instigate the new mode. Moreover, states would have to monitor the issue of intra-territorial redistribution, ensuring that all local actors have the opportunity to participate in the collective enterprise.

References
Bennett, K., et al., 2001. The impact of the Foot and Mouth crisis on rural rms. Research Report, Centre for Rural Economy, University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Bourdieu, P., 1973. Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In: Brown, R. (Ed.), Knowledge, Education and Cultural Change. Tavistock, London. Bourdieu, P., 1986. The forms of capital. In: Richardson, J.G. (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Greenwood, New York. Buller, H., 2000. Re-creating rural territories: LEADER in France. Sociologia Ruralis 40 (2), 190199. Countryside Agency, 2001. Foot and Mouth disease: the state of the countryside. Countryside Agency, Wetherby. ! rez, J., 2000. The LEADER programme and the rise of Esparcia Pe rural development in Spain. Sociologia Ruralis 40 (2), 190199. Fukuyama, F., 1995. Trust: the Social Virtues of and Creation of Prosperity. Free Press, New York. Giddens, A., 1971. Capitalism and Modern Social Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hudson, R., 2001. Producing Places. Guildford Press, London. Lash, S., Urry, J., 1994. Economies of Signs and Space. Sage, London. Luhmann, N., 1995. Social Systems. Stanford University, California. McRobie, K., 1994. Humanity, Society and Commitment. Black Rose, ! al. Montre Novak, M., 1991. The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism. IEA, London. Ray, C., 2000. The EU LEADER programme: rural development laboratory. Sociologia Ruralis 40 (2), 163171. Ray, C., 2001a. Culture Economies. CRE Press, Newcastle upon Tyne. Ray, C., 2001b. Transnational co-operation between rural areas: elements of a political economy of EU rural development. Sociologia Ruralis 41 (3), 279295. Schuurman, F., 1993. Beyond the Impasse. Zed, London.

Christopher Ray Centre for Rural Economy, Agriculture Building, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK E-mail address: christopher.ray@ncl.ac.uk