Diverging Stories on food system transitions. A qualitative analysis of policy narratives in the public consultation on the European Commission’s Farm to Fork Strategy

IF 5.1 1区 社会学 Q1 GEOGRAPHY
Valentin Fiala , Klaus Jacob , Christiane Barnickel , Peter H. Feindt
{"title":"Diverging Stories on food system transitions. A qualitative analysis of policy narratives in the public consultation on the European Commission’s Farm to Fork Strategy","authors":"Valentin Fiala ,&nbsp;Klaus Jacob ,&nbsp;Christiane Barnickel ,&nbsp;Peter H. Feindt","doi":"10.1016/j.jrurstud.2024.103374","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The transition towards more just and sustainable food systems is a major challenge which requires persuasive policy narratives for motivation and coordination. However, research about how relevant European actor groups view crucial elements of food system transitions is scarce. The consultation on the European Commission's Farm-to-Fork Strategy provided an opportunity to analyze how elements of food system transitions are represented and connected in the policy narratives of European stakeholders. A deductive-inductive content analysis of 164 public responses, using an analytical framework based on the multi-level-perspective of food system transitions, found twelve distinct narratives, mostly focused on agricultural production. Ten of them showed clear connections to three established agricultural policy discourses: neomercantilism, multi-functionalism and market liberalism. While the narratives together provided a comprehensive account of transition drivers, challenges, opportunities and responses, individually they presented rather partial perspectives. For example, market-liberal narratives emphasized the role of value chain actors and “consumer choice”, whereas multifunctionalist narratives called for more regulation. Farmers' associations mainly deployed neomercantilist, NGOs multi-functional and industry representatives market-liberal narratives, revealing dissent on the importance and desirability of change. The findings indicate that shifting the discussion venue away from core agriculture policy arenas broadened entrenched discourses only marginally.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":17002,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rural Studies","volume":"110 ","pages":"Article 103374"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743016724001785/pdfft?md5=24675295e3e8ee5a946ef0c96dcfb6c6&pid=1-s2.0-S0743016724001785-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Rural Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743016724001785","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The transition towards more just and sustainable food systems is a major challenge which requires persuasive policy narratives for motivation and coordination. However, research about how relevant European actor groups view crucial elements of food system transitions is scarce. The consultation on the European Commission's Farm-to-Fork Strategy provided an opportunity to analyze how elements of food system transitions are represented and connected in the policy narratives of European stakeholders. A deductive-inductive content analysis of 164 public responses, using an analytical framework based on the multi-level-perspective of food system transitions, found twelve distinct narratives, mostly focused on agricultural production. Ten of them showed clear connections to three established agricultural policy discourses: neomercantilism, multi-functionalism and market liberalism. While the narratives together provided a comprehensive account of transition drivers, challenges, opportunities and responses, individually they presented rather partial perspectives. For example, market-liberal narratives emphasized the role of value chain actors and “consumer choice”, whereas multifunctionalist narratives called for more regulation. Farmers' associations mainly deployed neomercantilist, NGOs multi-functional and industry representatives market-liberal narratives, revealing dissent on the importance and desirability of change. The findings indicate that shifting the discussion venue away from core agriculture policy arenas broadened entrenched discourses only marginally.

关于粮食系统转型的不同故事。对欧盟委员会 "从农场到餐桌 "战略公众咨询中政策叙述的定性分析
向更公正、更可持续的粮食系统过渡是一项重大挑战,需要有说服力的政策说明来激励和协调。然而,有关欧洲相关行动者群体如何看待粮食系统转型关键要素的研究却很少。就欧盟委员会 "从农场到餐桌 "战略进行的磋商为分析欧洲利益相关者的政策叙事中如何体现和连接粮食系统转型的要素提供了一个机会。利用基于粮食系统转型多层次视角的分析框架,对 164 份公众回复进行了演绎-归纳内容分析,发现了 12 种不同的叙述方式,主要集中在农业生产方面。其中十条与三种既定的农业政策论述有明显联系:新饥饿主义、多功能主义和市场自由主义。虽然这些论述综合起来全面阐述了转型的驱动因素、挑战、机遇和应对措施,但它们各自提出的观点却相当片面。例如,市场自由主义的观点强调价值链参与者和 "消费者选择 "的作用,而多功能主义的观点则呼吁加强监管。农民协会主要采用新威权主义的观点,非政府组织采用多功能主义的观点,而行业代表则采用市场自由主义的观点,这表明在变革的重要性和可取性方面存在分歧。研究结果表明,将讨论地点从核心农业政策领域转移到其他领域只能稍微扩大根深蒂固的论述。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
9.80%
发文量
286
期刊介绍: The Journal of Rural Studies publishes research articles relating to such rural issues as society, demography, housing, employment, transport, services, land-use, recreation, agriculture and conservation. The focus is on those areas encompassing extensive land-use, with small-scale and diffuse settlement patterns and communities linked into the surrounding landscape and milieux. Particular emphasis will be given to aspects of planning policy and management. The journal is international and interdisciplinary in scope and content.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信