Journal of Rural Studies 38 (2015) 52e64

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rural Studies

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrurstud

‘Neo-productivist’ agriculture: Spatio-temporal versus structuralist

perspectives
Geoff A. Wilson a, *, Rob J.F. Burton b
a
School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Plymouth University, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK
b
Centre for Rural Research, University Centre, Dragvoll, N-7491, Norway

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Critical commentators of agricultural/rural change in advanced economies have begun to refer to ‘neo-
Received 28 October 2013 productivist’ pathways of change. However, conceptualizations of neo-productivism have so far largely
Received in revised form failed to provide a robust analytical framework for understanding the propelling forces, processes and
26 January 2015
characteristics of complex modern agricultural pathways. This article analyses two key approaches used
Accepted 8 February 2015
Available online 16 February 2015
to conceptualize neo-productivism: an actor-oriented spatio-temporal perspective (the AOST approach)
which focuses mainly on geographical and temporal-historical characteristics in the adoption of neo-
productivist actor spaces, and structuralist interpretations which see neo-productivism predominantly
Keywords:
Neo-productivist agriculture
as a response to macro-political regime change. There is an underlying assumption in both that pro-
Neo-productivism ductivist and non-productivist pathways of agricultural change can be identified in different guises and
Structuralist approaches that the notion of neo-productivism can be situated in relation to productivist/non-productivist con-
Actor-oriented approaches cepts. However, they differ in their temporal conceptualisations of agricultural change (i.e. neo-
Productivist pathways productivism as productivist resurgence versus productivist approaches adapted to match the new
Non-productivist pathways political realities of an era influenced by non-productivism), processes (i.e. non-productivist pathways
forced by events ‘back’ towards productivist-dominated pathways versus neo-productivism as a shift
from a state-led system of support responsible for driving state productivism, to market-based drivers
enabled by the gradual withdrawal of the state), and spatial differentiation (i.e. complex geography of
actor spaces in the adoption of neo-productivist pathways versus locked-in productivist pathways
working alongside multifunctional agriculture). The article concludes with some critical thoughts about
the utility of the term ‘neo-productivism’, but also argues that the term allows researchers to further
nuance conceptualisations of the complex spatial, temporal and structural changes that characterise
modern agriculture in any area of the globe.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Since the early 1990s, a key debate in rural geography in the
English-speaking world has revolved around a possible shift from
‘productivist’ to ‘post-productivist’ to multifunctional agricultural
and rural spaces. Partly in response to Cloke's (1989) incisive crit-
icism of rural geography as a relatively atheoretical field of research
prone to borrow theories from other fields, critical commentators
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: geoff.wilson@plymouth.ac.uk (G.A. Wilson), rob.burton@
bygdeforskning.no (R.J.F. Burton).
such as Lowe et al. (1993), Marsden et al. (1993) and Ward (1993)
theorized a postulated transition from an agriculture character-
ized by globalization, profit-maximization and intensification (the
‘productivist’ era) to an agriculture shaped by relocalisation, con-
servation and extensification (the ‘post-productivist’ era). While
some authors have more or less accepted this possible shift as a fact
(e.g. Ilbery and Bowler, 1998; Mather et al., 2006), many others have
criticized the implied temporal linearity, spatial homogeneity and
global complexity that underpins assumptions surrounding the
‘post-productivist transition’ (e.g. Wilson, 2001, 2007; Evans et al.,
2002; Walford, 2003). As a result, some have suggested that pro-
ductivist and post-productivist pathways occur simultaneously
with a ‘multifunctional’ territory as a ‘middle ground’ characterized
by hybrid agricultural and rural pathways with both productivist

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.02.003
0743-0167/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 G.A. Wilson, R.J.F. Burton / Journal of Rural Studies 38 (2015) 52e64
and post-productivist tendencies (e.g. Wilson, 2001, 2007; Brouwer
and van der Heide, 2009) e notions that also apply in a developing
world context (e.g. Wilson and Rigg, 2003). As a result, and based
on Wilson's (2007, 2010) deconstruction of the term ‘post-pro-
ductivism’ as an inadequate linear term that implies something
following on temporally from productivism, we will use the more
neutral notion of ‘non-productivism’ which allows for hybrid, par-
allel and simultaneous productivist and non-productivist
pathways.
Recently, a new conceptual notion of ‘neo-productivist’ agri-
cultural spaces has emerged mainly among English-speaking aca-
demics (and here mainly in Europe and Australia/New Zealand)
that builds on above-mentioned debates, although with different
definitions, meanings and processes depending on the perspectives
of the authors. This has led Burton and Wilson (2012: 54) to argue
that “the notion of neo-productivism itself is poorly defined in the
literature.” Slee et al. (2011: 57), for example, have equated neo-
productivism to multifunctional objectives in observing that
“neo-productivists argue [that] the pursuit of on-farm income
stability through livelihood diversification is key to the future of
agricultural livelihoods”, whereas Brunori et al. (2012) contended
that neo-productivists are those who are reasserting the produc-
tivist argument while deriding alternative food systems such as
organic production as ‘not safe’ and catering for the upper classes.
Mitchell and de Waal (2009: 165), on the other hand, use ‘neo-
productivist’ to describe “a particular type of post-industrial land-
scape of accumulation” where, despite evidence of multi-
functionality, a dominant discourse of profit has resulted in a
landscape that is heavily commercialised e i.e. akin to a strongly
profit-driven commercial multifunctionality.
None of these interpretations, however, are in keeping with the
notions of renewed productivism (not always referred to as ‘neo-
productivism’) as they appear in wider debates. As the concept of
‘productivism’ is closely aligned with the productivist era, those
describing a continuation of productivist forms have introduced
prefixes to distinguish between old and new. In particular, in the
2000s the concepts of ‘market productivism’ (Tilzey, 2000; Potter
and Tilzey, 2005), ‘competitive productivism’ (Dibden et al.,
2009), ‘cooperative productivism’ (Burton and Wilson, 2012), and
even a more ‘sustainable’ form of productivism referred to as ‘neo-
productivism’ (e.g. Evans et al., 2002; Marsden and Sonnino, 2008)
emerged. Whatever the most suitable approach to understanding
neo-productivism may be (see below), the apparent need for
another ‘ism’ describing contemporary agricultural pathways em-
phasizes the fact that agricultural change continues to be complex
and dynamic, and that theoretical assumptions about agricultural
(and other) processes developed in the 1990s may no longer be
sufficient to explain agricultural processes in a rapidly globalizing
world.
In this article we analyse two perspectives aimed at under-
standing neo-productivism and its possible interlinkages with
productivism, non-productivism, multifunctionality and other
concepts of agricultural change. We focus mainly on debates in
Europe and Australia/New Zealand, where discussions of neo-
productivism have been most pronounced (e.g. Mitchell and de
Waal, 2009; Burton and Wilson, 2012). Although the analysis
will have particular relevance for academic debates on agricultural
change, it is also increasingly important at a time of intensifying
pressures on global agricultural systems through climate change,
rapidly increasing demand for more and new types of food
(population growth; shift in food consumption patterns towards
meat in transition economies with implications for agriculture in
the developed world; etc.), and continuing pressures for the
53
protection of remnant wildlife habitats threatened by agricultural
expansion. The first perspective can be described as the agency-
oriented spatio-temporal (AOST) perspective which has roots in
sociological, human geography and anthropological in-
terpretations of agricultural change. It primarily focuses on un-
derstanding how individual actors and actor spaces are shaped by,
and in turn shape, neo-productivist spaces through changing at-
titudes, identities and land use management approaches over
space and time. This approach builds on, and is closely interlinked
with, work by authors such as Ward (1993), Winter (2003), Ilbery
and Bowler (1998), Wilson (2001, 2007, 2008) or Walford (2003),
and is also associated with approaches in the 1980s and 1990s
which focused on individual agents in agricultural and rural
change processes (see in particular Long and van der Ploeg, 1995;
van der Ploeg, 2003). The AOST perspective also intersects with
meso-level actors and processes, for example through a range of
localised and personal networks around the farmer ranging from
the family to social movements through which individual farm
actors are often part of wider networks of farmer organisations
(Van der Ploeg, 2003).
The second, structuralist perspective, is rooted largely in polit-
ical economy interpretations of agricultural change, with a focus on
the role of macro-scalar, institutional, and policy-driven processes
that influence neo-productivist pathways (hereafter referred to as
the ‘structuralist approach’). This approach argues that neo-
productivism is an adaptive response by entrenched productivist
systems to the political changes following the collapse of global
productivism. This approach builds on, and is closely interlinked
with, work by commentators such as Marsden et al. (1993), Lowe
et al. (1993), Potter (1998), Potter and Burney (2002), Marsden
(2003), Potter and Tilzey (2005) or Marsden and Sonnino (2008),
but has also been given particular impetus through recent critical
studies from a New Zealand/Australian perspective where, it is
argued, more ‘traditional’ European productivist/non-productivist
models may not apply (e.g. Holmes, 2002; Dibden and Cocklin,
2005; Dibden et al., 2009).
We argue that the timing is particularly apt to scrutinize these
debates for four reasons. First, sufficient time has now elapsed
since the first conceptualizations of productivism/non-
productivism in the early 1990s to test the robustness of the
concept both empirically (e.g. through evidence gathered in
various published case studies) and theoretically (e.g. by analysing
in detail the wealth of critical academic publications on the sub-
ject). Second, the concept of neo-productivism is strongly associ-
ated with neo-liberalism (e.g. Potter and Tilzey, 2005, 2007; Burton
and Wilson, 2012) and, as debates about the relationship between
neo-liberalism, agriculture and the environment have developed
(e.g. Higgins, 2001; Potter, 2006; Wilson, 2007), a poorly concep-
tualized terminology could hamper progress in these debates.
Third, since the world food crisis in 2007/08 and with projections
for a world population exceeding 9 billion in 2050, many govern-
ments have taken the opportunity to reopen the Malthusian
argument (Horlings and Marsden, 2010). This has given voice to
protagonists for the development of a technologically based and
corporate driven ‘bioeconomy’ to push for a renewed ‘sustainable’
intensification of agriculture. Fourth, as the impact of globalization
on rural areas has accelerated across the globe (Potter and Tilzey,
2007), agricultural systems are becoming correspondingly more
complex and, consequently, require more subtle conceptualizations
than the original relatively linear productivist/post-productivist
model suggested. Indeed, the world in the 2010s is different from
that of the early 1990s when notions of productivism and non-
productivism were first mooted.
54 G.A. Wilson, R.J.F. Burton / Journal of Rural Studies 38 (2015) 52e64
2. Neo-productivism as resurgent productivism: the AOST
approach
The actor-oriented spatio-temporal approach (AOST approach) to
neo-productivism focuses predominantly on understanding
geographical and temporal-historical characteristics in the adoption
of neo-productivist pathways by specific actor groups, ranging from
local to meso-level actor spaces. With its roots in disciplines such as
sociology, human geography and anthropology it primarily focuses
on understanding how actors ‘on the ground’ and their associated
networks of interaction (e.g. farmers; cooperatives) are shaped by
and, in turn, shape neo-productivist spaces through changing atti-
tudes, identities and land use management approaches over space
and time. Most crucially, and as has frequently been observed by
sociologists, business studies scholars and geographers, AOST-based
studies generally accept that many farms remain managed in the
interests of the family, with the needs of the family guiding farm
development. In this sense, the farmer as an actor is not seen as a
monad within a historically or spatially specific space but as part of
complex networks and collectivities of farmers that also influence
individual decisions (van der Ploeg, 2003; Wilson, 2007). This
highlights the importance of understanding meso-level as well as
micro-level processes, thereby acknowledging that market forces or
high level policies encouraging multifunctionality are not outside of
human agency. In contrast to the structuralist approach explored
below, in the AOST approach ‘neo’ implies a temporal term, i.e.
something that follows on from something else, possibly replacing it
in the process. The ‘spatial’ component, meanwhile, suggests com-
plex spatial processes in the adoption of neo-productivist pathways,
implying that a shift to neo-productivism will not affect all agricul-
tural/rural actors and spaces in similar ways. In other words, the
AOST approach implies that there is a pronounced geography of neo-
productivism embedded within complex space-time histories of
specific actor spaces and localities.
In order to conceptualize neo-productivist spaces from an
AOST perspective, we first need to understand key processes
identified in the critical rural geography literature to understand
agricultural and rural change. As Fig. 1 highlights, four key spatio-
temporal pathways emerge from these debates: pathways domi-
nated by non-productivist action and thought; productivist
dominated pathways; pathways dominated by super-productivist
action and thought; and pathways dominated by neo-
productivism. Wilson (2007, 2010) suggested that these path-
ways can be situated along a spectrum of strong and weak
Fig. 1. The AOST approach: a spatio-temporal view of neo-productivism as ‘resurgent productivism’.
Source: authors.
multifunctionality, with non-productivist systems often showing
strong multifunctionality (i.e. usually well developed natural
capital and relatively strong social and cultural capital), produc-
tivist systems usually characterized by moderate to weak multi-
functionality (often with an over-emphasis on economic capital at
the expense of social and natural capital), and super-productivist
pathways often showing weak multifunctionality with a single
focus on maximum production, profit maximization and weak
horizontal integration of globalised super-productivist actors. It is
important to highlight that in the AOST conceptualization these
four pathways are dominated by specific activities and that in any
pathway other influences also tend to exist (Holmes, 2006;
Brouwer and van der Heide, 2009).
In this view, non-productivist dominated pathways are charac-
terized by what some term ‘traditional’ agriculture in often ‘old’
farming systems. These farming systems are usually relatively
extensive and, therefore, often environmentally friendly and
strongly multifunctional. As Fig. 1 shows, this approach suggests
that historically all agricultural spaces began as non-productivist
systems, and most agricultural spaces in the pre-industrial era
can, therefore, be classified as non-productivist (Wilson, 2001).
However, there is much historical evidence that highlights that
ancient agricultural systems were not by default non-productivist,
emphasizing temporal non-linearity. Wilson and Rigg (2003:
691e692), for example, argued that “the historical agricultural
geography of the non-western world demonstrates that ‘produc-
tivist’ regimes existed long before many modern technologies of
production”. The example of China is interesting in this respect,
where the treatment of seed rice with pesticides (e.g. arsenic)
dates from the early Han dynasty (206 BC to AD 220), where the
Song emperor Zhenzong embarked on a focused and well-
supported attempt to boost production from AD 1000 initiated
by a series of development policies so sweeping in scope and in
result that they could be compared with the recent Green Revo-
lution of Asia (Bray, 1986). Other historical territories where cen-
tral structures of authority coordinated and directed agriculture
also created a mix of non-productivist and productivist spaces, and
included Central and South America (in particular the Maya, Aztec
and Inca civilisations), southeast Asia (Java, Burma, Cambodia and
Thailand) and the Baliem Valley in New Guinea (Wilson and Rigg,
2003).
In contemporary farming systems, billions of people still rely on
subsistence or low-intensity non-productivist farming systems, as
do many farming territories not well connected to global markets
 G.A. Wilson, R.J.F. Burton / Journal of Rural Studies 38 (2015) 52e64
(Pretty, 1995; Marsden, 2003). Most importantly for the AOST
conceptualization, such non-productivist spaces also include ac-
tors that may have intensified agriculture in the past but that, often
for complex reasons linked to macro-structural (e.g. agri-
environmental policy [AEP]; quota systems to reduce agricultural
over-production in Europe during the 1980s and 1990s) and actor-
agency related reasons (e.g. adoption of conservation-oriented
attitudes by landholders; critique of neo-liberal and capitalist-
driven agricultural processes; relocalisation movement), have
extensified formerly more intensive production (Bailey et al.,
2010). Key examples of the latter are the many rural spaces in
Europe eligible for AEP funding. These are often characterized by
extensification or maintenance of low-intensity ‘traditional’
farming systems based on green subsidies provided by AEPs and/or
by altruistic motivations of landholders (Wilson, 2008). In addi-
tion, in countries such as the UK over 50% of all agricultural land
sold since the 2000s has been purchased by ‘lifestyle’ or ‘hobby’
farmers with evident non-productivist extensification processes
(Winter, 2003; see the arrow showing ‘rediscovery of non-
productivist pathways’ in Fig. 1). Similarly, recent moves towards
‘relocalisation’ of food production e as epitomized, for example,
through the burgeoning transition town movement (Bailey et al.,
2010) e have encouraged local farmers to extensify and reloc-
alise food production. However, a plethora of case studies has also
highlighted that adoption of non-productivist action and thought
in territories that had once been more productivist is usually
spatially heterogeneous, with a complex mosaic of productivist
and non-productivist agricultural spaces often existing side-by-
side (Evans et al., 2002; Walford, 2003; see also Wilson, 2007,
for a comprehensive discussion).
In the AOST approach, productivist dominated agricultural spaces
occur, by default, on territories that at one point in time had been
non-productivist e i.e. productivism did not emerge out of a vac-
uum but is linked to historically complex antecedent agricultural
pathways characterized by non-productivism (see Fig. 1). Produc-
tivism is generally seen here as a pathway of agricultural
modernization characterized by “a commitment to an intensive,
industrially driven expansionist agriculture with state support
based primarily on output and increased productivity” (Lowe et al.,
1993: 221). Productivist-dominated agricultural pathways may by
no means only be characteristic of ‘modern’ agriculture in the in-
dustrial era, but throughout agricultural system evolution some
productivist tendencies may have been present (Pretty, 1995). Yet,
while in some rural systems (e.g. China) productivist tendencies
may have been present for millennia (see above), in most other
areas they are a recent development, usually associated with post-
war intensification linked to policies encouraging national self-
sufficiency (Marsden et al., 1993). This led to the ‘classic’ produc-
tivist territories in Europe that ‘became’ productivist largely after
World War Two (e.g. most lowland areas), some of the ‘old’ low-
lying farming areas in North America since the early 20th century
(e.g. Montana; see Raban, 1997), and early settled fertile and easily
accessible farming areas in Australia, New Zealand, Argentina or
South Africa (see ‘productivist pathways’ arrow in Fig. 1) (Wilson
and Memon, 2005). In these areas, processes of intensification
and the transformation of horizontally integrated family farming to
vertically/globally integrated intensive farming was driven largely
by technological change increasing opportunities for productivity
increases (Potter, 1998), policies encouraging intensification
(Marsden et al., 1993; Ward, 1993; Dibden et al., 2009), and glob-
alization and trade liberalization ‘opportunities’ (Potter and Burney,
2002; Potter and Tilzey, 2005, 2007; Gray and Le Heron, 2010).
While productivist tendencies continue unabated or have even
intensified (see below) in most agricultural areas of the developed
world, some of the most rapid developments in the transition from
55
non-productivist to productivist agricultural spaces are occurring
in agricultural systems in developing countries and emerging
economies (Rigg, 2006; Piesse and Thirtle, 2009). This is especially
true for territories that were until recently non-productivist, but
that have been increasingly brought into the productivist orbit by
intensification and ‘neo-colonial’ foreign land grab campaigns
aimed at high-intensity food and biofuel production. The latter is
perceived as one of the most problematic productivist de-
velopments, as it is one of the most intensive and, arguably, envi-
ronmentally destructive agricultural intensification processes of
recent decades, especially in the context of palm oil plantations
(Jarosz, 2009). Conversion of non-productivist agricultural spaces
to (mostly) productivist biofuel plantations1 has been particularly
driven by increasing demand and increasing commodity prices
(FAO, 2011). As a result, by 2008 ca 80 million ha of formerly ‘under-
used’ agricultural land in developing countries (often non-
productivist) had been bought or leased by foreign countries
(mainly China, India and Middle Eastern countries) (The Economist,
2012).
Fig. 1 suggests that recently a third agricultural pathway may
have emerged characterized by further intensification and agri-
cultural industrialization of spaces that already were productivist
in the past. Halfacree (1999) was the first to refer to these as super-
productivist pathways. In the AOST conceptualization, the evolu-
tionary sequence here is, therefore, characterized by territories
that once were non-productivist, started to show productivist
tendencies at a certain point in time, and further intensified pro-
duction more recently. In this conceptualization, super-
productivist spaces are mainly found in areas that had been pro-
ductivist for a while, although there are (increasingly frequent)
examples where non-productivist areas (e.g. a shifting cultivation
farming area in tropical forests) have been instantaneously trans-
formed into super-productivist areas through forest clearance for
agricultural export production. The ‘MacDonaldisation’ of former
tropical forest areas in Brazil may be a case in point, as are the
extensive pine forest plantations established by the Ludwig
multinational fibre empire in previously forested territories in
Amazonia (Marsden, 2003).
While productivist territories are usually dominated by pro-
ductivist action and thought but also leave some room for non-
productivist tendencies, super-productivist territories are usually
situated at the weak end of the multifunctionality spectrum
(Wilson, 2007; see Fig. 1). This often gives little room for
manoeuvre, and actors attempting to go ‘against the grain’ in
systems dominated by super-productivist tendencies are increas-
ingly economically and politically marginalized (Potter, 1998;
Marsden, 2003). In the AOST approach super-productivist terri-
tories are, therefore, characterized by highly globalised inter-
linkages of actors who rarely have direct links with the local
communities where their businesses are located (many are
shareholding multinational conglomerates characterized by ‘ab-
sentee owners’ and employed managers running the agricultural
enterprise) (see, for example, Gray and Le Heron, 2010, for New
Zealand). Super-productivist processes reflect this lack of inter-
linkages with the locality and are usually characterized by
production-oriented landscapes with large fields suitable for large
machinery, often devoid of natural field boundaries such as hedges
and trees, and with often pronounced environmental misman-
agement linked to water pollution, lack of natural biodiversity,
polluted soils, and a high carbon footprint (e.g. reliance on high
1
In 2011 53 million tonnes of palm oil were produced globally, 42 million tonnes
of soybean and 23 million tonnes of rapeseed, most of which were used as biofuel
(FAO, 2011).
56 G.A. Wilson, R.J.F. Burton / Journal of Rural Studies 38 (2015) 52e64
levels of mechanization; long-distance food exports; etc.) (Lang,
2010).
Drivers for super-productivist agricultural pathways are com-
plex and vary from area to area, but are generally associated with
rising demand for agricultural commodities linked to global pop-
ulation increase and market speculation, changing food consump-
tion patterns in countries such as China and India, the influence of
climate change on food security, and increasing demand for bio-
fuels displacing food crops (Piesse and Thirtle, 2009; Jarosz, 2009;
Lang, 2010). Since the 2000s, super-productivist tendencies have
been particularly linked to rising commodity prices linked to the
opening of ‘futures’ markets in 2004 that led to a 20-fold increase in
futures trade (including many agricultural commodities) between
2003 and 2008 alone. As a result, speculation by the Chicago Board
of Trade (the largest organization worldwide speculating in agri-
cultural commodities) has substantially influenced world food
prices, demand and, ultimately, the super-productivist intensifica-
tion of agricultural commodity production (especially intensive
dairy, wheat production and biofuel crop production) (Jarosz, 2009;
FAO, 2011). Many argue that this metamorphosis of global food
trade to financial trade has resulted in a partial loss of control over
food production by both nation states and individual landholders,
as food production is no longer directly linked to demand but to
speculation (Lang, 2010). This has resulted in super-productivist
intensification in many parts of the world due to rising profits,
especially in productivist areas near urban centres. For these rea-
sons, there is little evidence that super-productivist agricultural
spaces will become less productivist or even non-productivist in
future, and the few examples mentioned in the literature are those
where super-productivist territories have suffered such large losses
of natural capital (e.g. through climate change, salinisation, soil
erosion, etc.) that intensive farming has become impossible (Jarosz,
2009). In these cases the reversal is usually not towards another
form of productivist farming but towards non-productivism out of
necessity (see Holmes, 2006, for the Australian case).
According to the AOST approach, typical super-productivist
territories affected by drivers encouraging intensification include
areas that had been productivist for a long time and that have
substantially intensified in recent years, especially fertile, flat, low-
lying and easily accessible farm areas such as the Paris Basin
(France) or Emilia Romagna (Italy), North American intensive
farming areas in the Midwest (e.g. Kansas), recent super-
productivist dairy intensification in the Canterbury Plains in New
Zealand's South Island (see below), and areas of the Australian
wheat and cotton belts (Holmes, 2006; Dibden et al., 2009; Jarosz,
2009). Although most super-productivist territories are currently
situated in developed countries with a long legacy of productivism,
many areas in developing countries and transition economies also
have rapidly intensifying productivist territories owned by foreign
interests (see above).
This complexity of spatio-temporal dynamics characterizing
non-productivist, productivist and super-productivist actor spaces
highlights one possible way in which neo-productivist dominated
agricultural pathways can be conceptualized (see Fig. 1). The AOST
approach, thus, suggests that ‘neo’ implies something ‘new’, which
means that neo-productivist territories can only be areas which
were once productivist, then showed tendencies (back) towards
non-productivism, and have since reverted back towards produc-
tivist dominated pathways e recently referred to as the “neo-pro-
ductivist backlash” by Horlings and Marsden (2010: 40) and the
‘comeback’ of productivism by Burton and Wilson (2012). As Fig. 1
highlights, neo-productivist systems are, therefore, losing previ-
ously regained multifunctional quality.
The AOST approach, thus, suggests that key drivers and
appearances of neo-productivist actor spaces are similar to pro-
ductivist and super-productivist processes, such as increased de-
mand for food and fibre based on dietary change, climate change,
commodity speculation, population growth, etc. However, ante-
cedent histories and pathways of agricultural evolution are not
similar, as the spatio-temporal concept of neo-productivist terri-
tories is predicated on the pre-existence of a shift from produc-
tivist tendencies ‘back’ to non-productivist tendencies and
renewed productivist pressures. In this sense the AOST conceptu-
alization of neo-productivism encompasses many of the produc-
tivist systems described by both Potter and Tilzey (2005) and
Dibden et al. (2009), in that it forms a suitable umbrella term to
address the historically highly differentiated processes of pro-
ductivist resurgence.
Key examples of neo-productivist territories include less
favourable farming areas in Europe that became productivist-
dominated in the 1950s, then began to revert back towards non-
productivism through extensification encouraged mainly by
quota systems in the 1980s and 1990s (e.g. capping livestock
numbers and compensating farmers for loss of income) and AEPs
since the 1980s, but that have since the 2000s begun to re-
intensify production (i.e. renewed productivist tendencies)
(Potter, 2006). Probably the most vivid examples of neo-
productivist spaces are areas in Europe that benefited from pol-
icies that allowed farmers to set aside land for five years initially,
and then up to 20 years, to maximize landscape ecological benefits
and to reduce agricultural over-production (many studies have
highlighted how biodiversity increases substantially on less
intensively or set-aside farmland; see Pretty, 1995; Marsden,
2003). However, due to pressures highlighted above, set-aside
policy has now been discontinued and most former set-aside
areas have been reverted to productivist-oriented agricultural
use (i.e. neo-productivist pathway), with resulting destruction of
most biodiversity and landscape ecology gains that had been
accrued while the policy was in existence (Wilson, 2007). Such
territories are closely interlinked with the newly emerging notion
of ‘sustainable intensification’ (Firbank et al., 2013). Neo-
productivist territories can also be found in the American Mid-
west (e.g. Kansas), where pressure from conservationists in the
1990s and early 2000s encouraged landholders to take producti-
vist land out of production but where since the mid-2000s neo-
productivist intensification for biofuel production can be
witnessed.
While in the AOST conceptualization neo-productivism
emerges as a relatively recent process, the discussion has high-
lighted that it is nonetheless predicated on complex antecedent
histories of productivism and non-productivism (see Fig. 1). This
suggests that not many agricultural areas in developing or
emerging economies can yet be classified as neo-productivist, as
most agricultural territories in these areas are just beginning to
display productivist-dominated tendencies (Marsden, 2003;
Wilson and Rigg, 2003). Indeed, due to key global drivers lead-
ing to super-productivist territories in many parts of the world
such as population growth, climate change or changing diets,
there is currently little evidence in developing and emerging
countries of productivist territories showing non-productivist
extensification tendencies as a key precursor for a productivist
resurgence characteristic for neo-productivism. The spatio-
temporal perspective, therefore, supports Marsden and Sonnino's
(2008) and Horlings and Marsden's (2010) notion of neo-
productivism as resurgent productivism in which neo-
productivism appears to be a process relatively unique to agri-
cultural spaces in the developed world that have experienced a
resurgence of non-productivist tendencies in the recent past.
 G.A. Wilson, R.J.F. Burton / Journal of Rural Studies 38 (2015) 52e64
3. Neo-productivism as market productivism and
repositioned productivism: the structuralist approach
In contrast to the AOST approach, how have structuralist-
oriented approaches conceptualised ‘neo-productivism’?
Emphasis in this conceptualisation is placed more on the
assumption that transitional changes in agriculture have always
tended to follow (structural) political and economic change, while
less emphasis is placed on spatio-temporal dimensions of agricul-
tural change e i.e. where ‘structure’ tends to dominate over
‘agency’. We will argue that this understanding of neo-
productivism has been given new impetus through recent critical
studies from the neo-liberal agricultural regimes of Australia and
New Zealand where the ‘European model’ of productivism/non-
productivism (and implicitly the AOST conceptualisation of neo-
productivism) is less applicable. Whereas the AOST approach
originates from debates on spatio-temporal changes in land use,
structuralist approaches have emerged as a result of researchers
seeking ways to explain the emergence of new forms of producti-
vism under specific policy regimes. As such, whereas arguments for
the AOST approach can be found almost anywhere that changes in
land-use have occurred, structural arguments are generally
attached to specific policy approaches. Consequently, to outline
structuralist perspectives on neo-productivism, this section pre-
sents examples of specific multifunctional and neo-liberal policy
regimes from where the approach emerged (i.e. the EU, Australia,
and New Zealand).
The starting point of this structuralist conceptualisation is the
fact that during the 1980s many countries found that the pro-
ductivist model that had worked in the post-war era was failing as
a result of globalisation pressures, over-production, low com-
modity prices and, consequently, an unsustainable cost to the state
of subsidising productivist agriculture (Marsden et al., 1993).
While some regions such as the EU who had set out social and
developmental goals for agriculture in the post-war period still
advocated a need to compensate farmers to maintain rural areas
(Potter and Tilzey, 2005; Wilson, 2007), for New World economies
with no tradition of state-led rural development the justification
for agricultural subsidies was always purely an economic one
(Potter, 1998). Consequently, in the 1980s countries such as New
Zealand and Australia embraced the nascent neo-liberal political
model and rigorously applied its principles to the agricultural in-
dustry by withdrawing almost all production and supporting
payments (Wilson, 1994), while Europe embarked on the devel-
opment of a multifunctional framework for rural support e
acknowledging farmers for their non-agricultural contribution to
the environment, society and the wider economy through
continued but decoupled payments (Wilson, 2007; Brouwer and
van der Heide, 2009).
As highlighted above, during the productivist period producti-
vism had become structurally and ideologically entrenched within
the agricultural industry (Wilson, 2001), but with the demise of the
politics of direct production support, farmers pursuing a produc-
tivist agenda found themselves in radically different political re-
gimes. While the Australasian region enabled industries to
effectively select their own pathway through a ‘hands off’ approach,
European countries continued to lead the development of agricul-
ture by promoting multifunctionality and, consequently, to
continue along locked-in productivist pathways working alongside
multifunctional agriculture. This division is starkly evident in aca-
demic conceptualisations of neo-productivism that emerged in the
2000s with a perceived division between neo-productivism under
neo-liberal regimes, and neo-productivism under multifunctional
regimes (Gray and Le Heron, 2010). Yet, in contrast to the spatially
57
and temporally organised AOST perspective, this structuralist
perspective argues that neo-productivist forms are defined through
the ways in which productivist approaches have been adapted to
match the new political realities of the non-productivist era e
leading to not one (as in the post-war productivist regime), but
multiple productivist outcomes. Neo-productivism, in this sense,
reflects and describes the way both the agri-industry and farmers
have perpetuated productivist spaces despite the absence of Fordist
policies accredited by many with the creation of ‘productivism’ (cf.
Marsden et al., 1993; Ward, 1993).
In the following we will attempt to disentangle some of these
conceptual strands by discussing the possible role of neo-
productivism within multifunctional political regimes (Section
3.1), neo-productivism in neo-liberal political regimes (Section 3.2),
and how neo-productivism may have found expression in macro-
structural change (Section 3.3).
3.1. Neo-productivism within multifunctional political regimes
Structuralist approaches have long argued that following the
demise of policies promoting productivism, the European Union
and aligned European states (such as Norway and Switzerland)
focused attention on promoting multifunctionality. While some of
Europe's more market oriented trading partners such as New
Zealand, Australia and Canada have continued to view this move
with suspicion (e.g. Potter, 2006; Dibden et al., 2009), multi-
functionality has become accepted by the EU as a legitimate
recognition of the joint production of commodity and non-
commodity outputs by agriculture, and the public goods nature of
non-commodity products (Brouwer and van der Heide, 2009).
However, as with neo-productivism, there are different con-
ceptualisations of multifunctionality (Wilson, 2007). Marsden and
Sonnino (2008) for example, suggested that in policy discussions
multifunctionality can be seen as pluriactivity within an agro-
industrial model, the loss of agriculture's centrality in a non-
productivist era, or part of a sustainable development paradigm
that sees the future of agriculture as integrated with the future of
rural communities and the wider economy. The advent of multi-
functional policies is thus seen in the structuralist interpretation to
limit the potential for neo-productivism in Europe. However,
within the structuralist research framework, commentators have
also noted that a ‘new productivism’ has emerged in Europe in two
forms: ‘market productivism’, and ‘neo-productivism’ (Morgan
et al., 2010).
From this perspective, market productivism represents a
continuation of former productivist approaches by exploiting the
increasing market rhetoric in European politics. Tilzey (2000) and
Potter and Tilzey (2005, 2007), in particular, contended that it
emerged from attempts to combine a neo-liberal programme
embracing the ideology of the free market with elements of
continued state support e a partial resistance to unfettered liber-
alisation. In market productivism the economic assistance from the
CAP thus continues to provide considerable support for producti-
vist land use, yet such intensive industrial land uses are required to
comply with the environmental objectives of the policy in order to
receive subsidies. Researchers argue, however, that progressive
removal of subsidies is likely to further strengthen this market
productivist position, with Tilzey (2000: 289) contending that the
ultimate abandonment of agricultural support would leave the
free-market to drive rural development, resulting in “a perpetua-
tion of productivism, driven this time however by market imper-
atives rather than by the overtly political objectives of the CAP. In
the resulting competitive ‘race to the bottom’ the high opportunity
costs of diverting land, investment and management to
58 G.A. Wilson, R.J.F. Burton / Journal of Rural Studies 38 (2015) 52e64

conservation use or to environmentally beneficial extensification key concept in agricultural policy e in particular, in the increasingly
mean that environmental ‘policy reach’ will be limited.” neoliberal countries of New Zealand and Australia. In recognising
In sharp contrast to the AOST conceptualisation, the key defining this issue, and following Burton and Wilson (2012), the term
factor of neo-productivism is seen here as the shift from the state- ‘repositioned productivism’ could be used instead in accordance
led system of support responsible for driving state-productivism, to with Marsden and Sonnino's (2008) observation that it involves the
market-based drivers enabled by the gradual withdrawal of the ‘re-positioning’ of productivist farming to be central to broader
state. Features of state-productivism e such as ideological security, aspects of sustainable rural development. In not referring to it as
industrialisation, negative environmental externalities, commerci- ‘sustainable productivism’ this would acknowledge Anderson's
alisation, technologically driven agriculture, and an increase in (2009) concerns that the central objective of the approach is not
environmental damage (Wilson, 2001) e may all be present but are necessarily increased sustainability.
now facilitated by commercial production objectives and ideolog-
ically fuelled by the need to sustain the growing global population.
3.2. Neo-productivism within neo-liberal political regimes
Potter and Tilzey (2005) suggested that the outcome of this
bimodal regime is likely to be increasingly differentiated rural
Whereas ‘market productivism’ proposes the continuation of
spaces, and suggest that multifunctionality may eventually exist
conventional productivist forms within multifunctional regimes
only in that neo-productivist spaces given over to capital lie
competing against a policy framework broadly supportive of state
alongside their multifunctional counterparts rather than being
intervention, in countries where neo-liberalism is firmly
embedded within a multifunctional spectrum of decision-making
entrenched the structuralist approach suggests that productivism
as suggested by the AOST approach.
has a clear space within which to operate. In particular, New Zea-
The second structuralist approach views neo-productivism as an
land and Australia have long promoted increased production as the
alternative strategy for surviving within a multifunctional space,
solution for their export-driven agricultural industries (Wilson and
one of willingly adapting productivism through the infusion of new
Memon, 2005). As this production orientation continued through
multifunctional objectives as part of a marketing strategy. Unlike
and after market liberalisation, it is argued in the structuralist
market productivism, where productivist objectives are directly
conceptualisation that rather than exemplifying neo-productivism
(although decreasingly) in conflict with state policy, this form of
agriculture in these countries represents simply a continuation of
productivism may be seen as an attempt to create a more sus-
productivism such that any spatio-temporal representation of
tainable form of productivist agriculture. For example, both
productivism is likely to indicate continuity rather than change.
Marsden and Sonnino (2008) and Morgan et al. (2010) have
However, alterations to governmental and institutional structures
labelled the Welsh Agri-Food Strategy as ‘neo-productivist’ as it
as part of the liberalisation process represent a major reconfigu-
continues to place strong emphasis on securing, expanding and
ration of the agricultural industry, from a pseudo-socialist state
adding value to conventional markets but simultaneously focuses
controlled sector to one almost completely independent of state
on enhancing the sustainability and multifunctionality of Welsh
control.
farming. Evans et al. (2002: 321) similarly labelled ‘organic farming’
It can be argued that two forms have emerged in this new space.
and ‘integrated farming systems’ as neo-productivist as they are
First, the Australian model of competitive productivism2 developed
committed to sustainable food production rather than to ‘envi-
in response to the opening up of international agricultural markets
ronmental conservatism’ and, in this sense, consist of “environ-
(for example, the promotion of free-trade agreements; Gray and Le
mentally sensitive farming through the extension of productivist
Heron, 2010), the almost complete withdrawal of state subsidies
principles” akin to emergent rhetoric of ‘sustainable intensifica-
(Wilson, 1994), an ideological shift towards individual re-
tion’. Thus, they argue, these systems are neither productivist, nor
sponsibility (e.g. the reclassification of drought from an unavoid-
non-productivist. Although some suggest that this move towards
able act of God to an avoidable consequence and consequent
sustainability represents a genuine moderation of the productivist
withdrawal of state support for most drought events; cf. Higgins,
approach, others are not so convinced. In particular, Anderson
2001), the restructuring and privatisation of extension services,
(2009) maintains that, as its primary objective remains expan-
and the promotion of “high-tech, intensive farming practices, farm
sionary capital accumulation, this form of productivism differs little
amalgamations, training to increase ‘capacity’ and other efficiency
from ‘old’ productivism except that it attempts to disguise its true
measures” (Dibden and Cocklin, 2005: 136). In keeping with neo-
nature through minor adjustments to industrial practices. In this
liberal philosophy, the government has simultaneously intro-
sense, Anderson's critique would seem to suggest a type of ‘resur-
duced a self-regulatory ‘light-touch’ approach to environmental
gent productivism’ akin to the AOST conceptualisation of neo-
management, preferring self-help approaches such as the Landcare
productivism (see Fig. 1).
movement in Australia rather than the subsidy-led approaches
As with ‘market productivism’, the structuralist approach,
prevalent in Europe.
therefore, does not use ‘neo’ in neo-productivism to indicate spatio-
Although it may appear that neo-liberalism introduced few
temporal transitional change in land use, but to represent hitherto
changes for Australian farmers, political economists have argued
unclassified forms of productivism that have emerged following
that competitive productivism has had the effect of boosting the
the demise of the policy-led productivist era. However, the co-
productivist orientation of Australian agriculture further in some
existence of this form of productivism, specifically termed ‘neo-
places such as the intensive cotton and wheat belts (Holmes, 2002,
productivism’ by both the researchers that outlined its existence
2006). While the originators of the term ‘competitive producti-
(Evans et al., 2002; Marsden and Sonnino, 2008) and subsequently
vism’ (Dibden et al., 2009) contend that it is similar to market
by others (e.g. Ilbery and Maye, 2010; Morgan et al., 2010; Perkins,
productivism, it could be argued that a facilitating neo-liberal
2012) with other neo-productivist forms, suggests that the term
government creates entirely different conditions. Consequently,
‘neo-productivism’ should not be reserved solely for these more
unlike market productivism e where Potter and Tilzey (2005)
sustainable forms of productivism (as the AOST perspective sug-
gests). In fact, it could be argued that this term offers a rather
Eurocentric perspective on what ‘new productivism’ represents as 2
Note that the same arguments that apply for competitive productivism in
the productivist era simultaneously ended in other parts of the Australia could equally be applied in the New Zealand case, however, to the best of
world without the subsequent emergence of ‘sustainability’ as a our knowledge, this has yet to be done.
 G.A. Wilson, R.J.F. Burton / Journal of Rural Studies 38 (2015) 52e64
suggested that non-productivist and neo-productivist land uses
may occur side by side e competitive productivism in Australia
may create an environment which, while not exclusionary to
multifunctional agriculture is at least unfavourable to it (Holmes,
2006; Andree  et al., 2010).
The second form of neo-productivism in neo-liberal markets can
be seen to be derived from a similar political environment to that of
competitive productivism. According to Burton and Wilson (2012),
cooperative productivism emerged as a result of the restructuring
process in the mid-to late-1980s when agriculture in New Zealand
transitioned from heavy state control to arguably the most market-
driven agricultural sector in the world. During that process the
existing state-supported and sectorally-based cooperative man-
agement and marketing organisations were not dismantled, but
rather allowed to evolve into new forms appropriate to new market
values. For the dairy industry, this ultimately led to the merger of
the two largest co-operatives (New Zealand Dairy Group and Kiwi
Co-operative Dairies) and the New Zealand Dairy Board in 2001 to
form dairy giant Fonterra, a co-operatively managed organisation
that controls 96% of New Zealand's milk production (The
Economist, 2012).
In this context, cooperative productivism, although developing
in an environment similar to competitive productivism, shows a
number of marked differences to its competitive and market
counterparts. First, as its cooperative origins would suggest, coop-
erative productivism is somewhat of an anathema to neo-
liberalism. Rather than forcing farmers to compete against each
other as in competitive productivism, cooperative productivism
derives its strength and productivist orientation from its power as a
near monopsony, the willingness of its members to follow a pro-
ductivist ideology, and the fortuitous alignment of this ideology
with corporate objectives of capital accumulation and expansion
(Burton and Wilson, 2012). Second, as with competitive producti-
vism, overarching neo-liberal governance provides co-operative
productivism with opportunities for environmental exploitation
unavailable to market productivist forms. That weak environmental
regulations in New Zealand (Barnett and Pauling, 2005) have hel-
ped propel the dairy industry forward is evident from the low levels
of compliance (35% of New Zealand dairy farmers were not fully
compliant with environmental regulations in 2010; Gray and Le
Heron, 2010) and the significant environmental problems
emerging in pastoral areas of New Zealand (e.g. Wilson and
Memon, 2005; Baskaran et al., 2009).
Third, the arrangement of over 90% of New Zealand's dairy
farmers into a single corporate form provides a powerful political
force for productivism lacking in the case of Australia's ‘competitive
productivism’. Although it is difficult to ascertain how important
this political power is, the current New Zealand government, while
eschewing market interference, has shown no such reluctance to
interfere with regional governance or internal government de-
partments when their objectives have clashed with dairy expan-
sion/intensification (Burton and Wilson, 2012). At the same time
Fonterra, in the face of rising concern for the environmental impact
of the dairy industry and heightened speculation about the intro-
duction of new regulatory approaches to deal with environmental
externalities, issued a blunt reminder to the government and
people of New Zealand by commissioning the 2010 report ‘Dairy's
role in sustaining New Zealand: the sector's contribution to the
economy’ (Baskaran et al., 2009; NZIER, 2010). Effectively, co-
operative neo-productivism, through its representation of the
majority of people working in an industrial sector, has claims of
legitimacy not only through economic might, but also representa-
tive legitimacy that can both deal with and sometimes conflict
directly with other legitimate forms of governance.
59
3.3. Neo-productivism, neo-liberalism and macro-structural change
It is evident, therefore, that the structuralist conceptualisations
of neo-productivist systems suggest that there has been no simple
regime transition from productivism to non-productivism/
multifunctionality to neo-productivism. This approach, thus, ar-
gues that, following the collapse of the almost global state-
productivist regime, productivism did not vacate rural spaces, but
rather adapted to changes in policy regimes e multifunctional in
the northern, neo-liberal in the southern hemisphere. In the
northern hemisphere case, it is possible to argue that not all signs of
state-led productivism are present. In particular, the decline of the
productivist model coincided with far stronger environmental
measures in combination with the decoupling of payments from
production to try to address environmental and oversupply issues
(Wilson, 2007; Brouwer and van der Heide, 2009). In the Southern
hemisphere case, the neo-liberal reforms of the 1980s may have
also changed the nature of productivism. In this case, however, the
key transitions result from a change in the role of government from
a command and control position to a ‘hands-off’ approach to agri-
culture e allowing industries and grassroots organisations to pur-
sue their own productivist agendas while government clears trade,
regulatory and environmental obstacles (Holmes, 2002; Dibden
and Cocklin, 2005).
New Zealand provides a good example of how neoliberalism's
‘hands off’ approach affects the development of neo-productivism.
Here post-liberalisation transitional pathways have been varied
and strongly sectoral. The post-liberalisation sheep and beef sector
followed a competitive model with farmers contracting to supply
individual companies on a fully competitive basis (Gray and Le
Heron, 2010) e an outcome suggestive of competitive producti-
vism. In contrast, the kiwifruit industry chose a very different
approach. While retaining their co-operative nature as Zespri Group
International,3 the industry emphasised the high quality and
distinctiveness of the fruit rather than bulk production and, unlike
Fonterra's expansionist policy and global objectives (see above), the
kiwifruit industry has chosen to keep its production largely within
New Zealand. In addition, the entire industry converted to inte-
grated or organic production in the late 1990s, leaving no con-
ventional kiwifruit production within Zespri (Burton and Wilson,
2012). Instead of focussing on increasing production volumes as a
way to profitability, the kiwifruit industry has focused on meeting
quality assurance standards including environmental and social
sustainability. In this way, it more closely resembles repositioned
productivism.
To an extent these multiple pathways are the result of the his-
torical development of the industries e for example, the develop-
ment of alternative markets and marketing strategies by the dairy
industry in the 1960s or the heavy reliance of the sheep/beef in-
dustry on production subsidies at the time of neo-liberalism that
led to a rapid reduction in sheep numbers and provided room for
dairy expansion (Barnett and Pauling, 2005). However, it may also
be attributable to the nature of the product. New Zealand's milk
exports are mainly in powdered form and can be easily shipped,
transported, stored and converted to a wide variety of products. Its
key markets are countries such as China, the Middle East and
ASEAN countries where demand is for bulk, cheap commodities
(NZIER, 2010; The Economist, 2012). In contrast, the kiwifruit in-
dustry through Zespri is exporting mainly fresh produce to high
income markets that can support premium prices, in particular the
EU, Japan, and the US (Kilgour et al., 2008). Structuralist
3
Note that Zespri is not formally a co-operative but a grower-controlled company
that functions as a co-operative (Kilgour et al., 2008).
60 G.A. Wilson, R.J.F. Burton / Journal of Rural Studies 38 (2015) 52e64
conceptualisations, therefore, would suggest that within the same
neo-liberal space the competitive productivist sheep/beef sector,
the co-operative productivist dairy sector, and the co-operative
‘repositioned’ kiwifruit sector can be found side-by-side, with the
production and organisational approaches of the industries driven
by a combination of historical development and type of product/
market they are supplying.
These pathways may, however, not be completely independent.
For example, within the sheep/beef and dairy sectors in New Zea-
land there is increasing integration of farming systems as a result of
the intensification of the dairy industry. In particular, as many dairy
farms are becoming reliant on imported feed, a major supple-
mentary feed industry is emerging. Although it has been suggested
that this could result in a more sustainable form of sheep/beef
farming as it would allow for a reduction in capital stock numbers,
it was recently noted by NZMAF (2011) that a ‘marked increase’ in
income from dairy support between 2007 and 2011 has supported
the maintenance of high stocking rates on sheep farms. Conse-
quently, the income generation from the sector following the
super-productivist pathway could be seen as providing a means for
the struggling sheep/beef sector to maintain its own productivist
pathway.
The latter is a particularly vivid example of the complexities of
neo-productivist agriculture in neo-liberal spaces, and emphasises
why taking a structuralist, political economy oriented, view of the
politics and development of different forms of neo-productivism
may provide an important additional perspective to AOST ap-
proaches outlined in Section 2.
4. Discussion and conclusions
The rationale for this article was based on the fact that critical
commentators of agricultural (and rural) change have begun to
refer to ‘neo-productivist’ pathways of change (Marsden and
Sonnino, 2008; Morgan et al., 2010; Burton and Wilson, 2012) e
pathways that are increasingly important to understand in light of
rapidly increasing pressures on global agriculture emanating from
climate change and globalization processes. Yet, and similar to
earlier debates on the possible transition from ‘productivism’ to
‘non-productivism’, conceptualizations of neo-productivism have
so far largely failed to provide a robust (enough) analytical frame-
work for understanding the propelling forces, processes and char-
acteristics of complex modern agricultural pathways. To address
this issue, we have analysed two key approaches used to concep-
tualize neo-productivism. The first, neo-productivism conceptual-
ized from an actor-oriented spatio-temporal perspective (the AOST
approach), focuses on geographical and temporal-historical char-
acteristics in the adoption of neo-productivist actor spaces at micro
and meso levels, with an emphasis on understanding spatially and
temporally different adoption of neo-productivist action and
thought. The second approach, strongly influenced by political
economy interpretations of agricultural change, focuses on struc-
turalist interpretations of neo-productivism conceptualised as a
response to macro-political regime change, suggesting that tran-
sitional changes in agriculture have tended to follow political and
economic change.
Both approaches share many common features. First, there is an
underlying assumption in both that productivist and non-
productivist pathways of agricultural change can be identified in
different guises and that the notion of neo-productivism can be
situated in relation to productivist/non-productivist concepts. In
particular, there is little disagreement about the meaning and
constituent processes underpinning both productivism and non-
productivism, although, as below highlights, there are
pronounced differences in perceived temporal components that
characterise productivism and non-productivism (e.g. Marsden and
Sonnino, 2008; Burton and Wilson, 2012). Second, both approaches
are based on the belief that empirical evidence can be found to
substantiate the existence of productivism, non-productivism and
neo-productivism from both the developed and developing world.
Yet, while the AOST approach has tended to focus on experiences in
Europe (where arguably a conceptualisation of neo-productivism
as a temporal process following on from productivism is easiest)
(e.g. Mather et al., 2006; Wilson, 2007), structuralist in-
terpretations of neo-productivism also examine the experience of
(ultra)neo-liberal economies (e.g. Antipodes, US) where the impact
of macro-structural market forces may be at their most evident (e.g.
Dibden et al., 2009). Third, there is an underlying assumption in
both approaches that drivers influencing agricultural pathways are
related to the wider influence of institutional, political (especially
the role of policy), social, environmental (e.g. climate change or the
need for more environmentally sustainable farming systems) and
economic processes (e.g. neo-liberalism; food substitution through
biofuel production; impact of speculation in global futures mar-
kets) that unevenly impact upon rural actors and territories to
create complex neo-productivist spaces (e.g. Potter, 2006; Burton
and Wilson, 2012). The latter particularly highlights that it may
be difficult to identify ‘tidy’ divisions between structural processes
(policies, politics, ideologies) and actor-driven land use changes e
i.e. as is often the case with concepts attempting to understand
agricultural change (e.g. transition from productivism to non-
productivism) boundaries are often blurred. Finally, both ap-
proaches allow identification and simultaneous existence of multi-
ple productivist and non-productivist agricultural territories (e.g.
Wilson, 2008).
However, as Table 1 highlights, there are also pronounced dif-
ferences between AOST and structuralist approaches to neo-
productivism which reflect their respective theoretical and philo-
sophical positions. With regard to differences in temporal con-
ceptualisations of productivism/non-productivism, for example,
the AOST approach suggests that some productivist spaces have
become more productivist in recent decades (super-productivism),
while non-productivist areas are seen to include most agricultural
areas before industrialization, some upland areas or less intensively
used areas in the developed world that never became fully pro-
ductivist, territories in large parts of the developing world and in
emerging economies, and formerly productivist territories that
have attempted to ‘rediscover’ the strong multifunctionality of non-
productivist farming (Walford, 2003; Wilson, 2007, 2010). This
suggests that there is little evidence in developing and emerging
countries of productivist territories showing non-productivist
tendencies as key precursor for productivist resurgence that char-
acterizes neo-productivism. Structuralist approaches, meanwhile,
are predicated on the assumption that many countries found that
the productivist model that had worked in the post-war era has
been failing as result of globalisation pressures, over-production,
low commodity prices and unsustainable cost to the state of sub-
sidising productivist agriculture, suggesting that non-productivist
tendencies can be observed in almost all territories that have
rejected the productivist model (e.g. Marsden et al., 1993; Potter
and Tilzey, 2005). ‘Market productivism’ is particularly seen as a
continuation of former productivist approaches by exploiting
increasing market rhetoric in European politics (e.g. Potter and
Tilzey, 2007).
Differences between the AOST approach and structuralist in-
terpretations of agricultural change are particularly evident in
conceptualisations of neo-productivist concepts. In the AOST
framework ‘neo’ implies a temporal term, i.e. something that

Table 1
Differences in conceptualisations of neo-productivism between AOST and structuralist approaches.
Neo-productivist concepts
and processes
Disciplinary/theoretical
interlinkages
Temporal conceptualisations
of productivism/
non-productivism
Neo-productivism as
a concept
Conceptualisations of
neo-productivist
agricultural processes
Spatial differentiation of
neo-productivism
Interlinkages with
multifunctionality
Source: authors.
G.A. Wilson, R.J.F. Burton / Journal of Rural Studies 38 (2015) 52e64
AOST approaches
 Agency- and actor-oriented: influenced by sociology, human
geography, anthropology
 Non-productivist areas include
Ø most agricultural areas before industrialization
Ø some upland areas or less intensively used areas in the
developed world that never became fully productivist
Ø territories in large parts of the developing world and in
emerging economies
Ø formerly productivist territories that have attempted to
‘rediscover’ the strong multifunctionality of non-productivist
farming
 Little evidence in developing and emerging countries of
productivist territories showing non-productivist tendencies as
key precursor for productivist resurgence that characterizes neo-
productivism
 ‘Neo’ implies temporal term, i.e. something that necessarily
follows on from something else, possibly replacing it in the
process
 Neo-productivist resurgence: key drivers and appearances of
neo-productivist
actor spaces similar to productivist and super-productivist pro-
cesses, but antecedent
histories and pathways of agricultural evolution not similar, as
spatio-temporal concept of neo-productivist territories is predi-
cated on pre-existence of shift from productivist tendencies ‘back’
to non-productivist tendencies and renewed
productivist pressures
 Neo-productivism as a relatively recent process (one or two
decades at most): not many agricultural areas in developing or
emerging economies can yet be classified as neo-productivist, as
most agricultural territories in these areas are just in process
of beginning productivist-dominated tendencies
 The shift from non-productivist-dominated to productivist/
super-productivist-dominated tendencies characterizes most
spatio-temporal agricultural processes on the globe
 Recent changes in agricultural commodity demand have led to
new pathway of
neo-productivism in areas that were once productivist-
dominated, became more non-productivist, and have been
‘forced’ by global events ‘back’ towards
productivist-dominated pathways
 Key drivers and appearances of neo-productivist actor spaces
similar to productivist and super-productivist processes
 Complex spatial heterogeneity in actor spaces in adoption of neo-
productivist pathways
 Shift to neo-productivism will not affect all agricultural/rural
actors and spaces
in similar ways
 Pronounced geography of neo-productivism embedded within
complex space-time histories of specific actor spaces and localities
 Non-productivist systems with tendencies of strong
multifunctionality
 Productivist systems usually showing moderate to weak
multifunctionality
 Super-productivist pathways often showing weak
multifunctionality
 Neo-productivist systems are losing previously regained
multifunctional quality
61
Structuralist approaches
 Structuralist views predominate, influenced mainly by political
economy approaches
 Productivism ended with the demise of state-led ‘productivist
policies’ in late 1980s
 New configurations (neo-productivism) represent adaptation of
productivist land management to new political realities
 Neo-productivism is not a single transitional spatio-temporal
element, but occurs in multiple and distinct forms that repre-
sent new adaptations to changing political realities. ‘Neo’ thus
refers to new relationships between politics and agricultural
production, rather than to a temporal replacement of something
old
 There are three key themes to
neo-productivism
Ø Repositioned productivism adapted to sustainability
objectives of multifunctional regimes/markets
Ø Market productivist
seeking productivist niches in multifunctional regimes
Ø Competitive and
cooperative productivism. Southern hemisphere forms
adapted to strongly neoliberal environment
 Division between neo-productivism under neo-liberal regimes,
and neo-productivism under multifunctional regimes, i.e. neo-
productivism as response to new political realities in Europe that
maintain many objectives and approaches of old-style producti-
vism while reflecting changing values in society
 Key defining factor of neo-productivism is shift from state-led
system of support responsible for driving state-productivism, to
market-based drivers enabled by gradual withdrawal of state
 Neo-productivism reflects how both agri-industry and farmers
have perpetuated productivist spaces despite absence of Fordist
policies accredited by many with creation of productivism
 Rather than exemplifying neo-productivism per se, intensive
agriculture in neo-liberal economies represents competitive
productivism or co-operative neo-productivism
 Australasian region enabled industries to select own approach to
agriculture through ‘hands-off’ arrangement
 European countries have continued to lead the development of
agriculture by promoting multifunctionality and to continue
along locked-in productivist pathways working alongside multi-
functional agriculture
 Multifunctionality may exist only in that neo-productivist spaces
given over to capitalist processes lie alongside their multifunc-
tional counterparts rather than being embedded within multi-
functional spectrum of decision-making
 Multifunctionality seen as pluriactivity within an agro-industrial
model, loss of
agriculture's centrality in a non-productivist era, or part of sus-
tainable development paradigm that sees future of agriculture as
integrated with future of rural communities and the wider
economy
 Advent of multifunctional policies seen to limit potential for neo-
productivism in Europe
62 G.A. Wilson, R.J.F. Burton / Journal of Rural Studies 38 (2015) 52e64
necessarily follows on from something else, possibly replacing it in
the process (e.g. Wilson, 2001). The notion of ‘neo-productivist
resurgence’ is important, based on the idea that while key drivers
and appearances of neo-productivist actor spaces are similar to
productivist and super-productivist processes, antecedent histories
and pathways of agricultural evolution are not. This concept is,
therefore, predicated on the pre-existence of a shift from produc-
tivist tendencies ‘back’ to non-productivist tendencies and renewed
productivist pressures (e.g. Walford, 2003). The AOST approach,
thus, sees neo-productivism as a relatively recent process (one or
two decades at most), and suggests that not many agricultural areas
in developing or emerging economies can yet be classified as neo-
productivist, as most agricultural territories in these areas are just
beginning to develop productivist-dominated tendencies (Wilson
and Rigg, 2003). In contrast, the structuralist interpretation sees
neo-productivist processes as defined through the ways in which
productivist approaches have been adapted to match the new po-
litical realities of the non-productivist era, leading to not one but
multiple productivist outcomes (e.g. Potter and Tilzey, 2005;
Marsden and Sonnino, 2008). ‘Neo’ in this sense is used in the
context of a new relationship between agriculture and agricultural
policies, and neo-productivism is conceptualised either as a new
approach to productivism that emerged when countries such as
Australia and New Zealand embraced neo-liberalism in the early
1980s (e.g. Dibden et al., 2009) or as a response to the new policy
objectives of sustainable rural development (sustainable intensifi-
cation) that emerged with the demise of the productivist era in
Europe in the late 1980s.
These differences are also reflected in conceptualisations of neo-
productivist processes. AOST proponents argue that the shift from
non-productivist-dominated to productivist/super-productivist-
dominated tendencies characterizes most spatio-temporal agri-
cultural processes on the globe, and that recent changes in agri-
cultural commodity demand have led to a new pathway of neo-
productivism in areas that became more non-productivist and
have been forced ‘back’ towards productivist-dominated pathways
(e.g. Walford, 2003; Wilson, 2007). Key drivers and appearances of
neo-productivist actor spaces in this context are seen to be similar
to productivist and super-productivist processes. The structuralist
perspective, on the other hand, recognizes a division between neo-
productivism under neo-liberal regimes, and neo-productivism
under multifunctional regimes (e.g. Potter, 2006; Morgan et al.,
2010). The key defining factor of neo-productivism in this sense is
a shift from a state-led system of support responsible for driving
state-productivism, to market-based drivers enabled by the gradual
withdrawal of the state. The structuralist approach argues, there-
fore, that neo-productivism reflects the way both agri-industry and
farmers have perpetuated productivist spaces despite the absence
of Fordist policies accredited by many with the creation of pro-
ductivism (e.g. Marsden and Sonnino, 2008). Rather than exem-
plifying neo-productivism per se, intensive agriculture in neo-
liberal economies is, therefore, seen to represent competitive pro-
ductivism or co-operative neo-productivism (e.g. Burton and
Wilson, 2012).
This also has repercussions for differences in conceptualisations
of the spatial differentiation of neo-productivism. While AOST pro-
ponents tend to emphasise complex spatial heterogeneities in
micro- and meso-level actor spaces in the adoption of neo-
productivist pathways, they also suggest that the shift to neo-
productivism will not affect all agricultural/rural actors and
spaces in similar ways (e.g. Evans et al., 2002; Mather et al., 2006).
AOST approaches, therefore, suggest a pronounced geography of
neo-productivism embedded within complex space-time histories
of specific actor spaces and localities (e.g. Wilson, 2007). The
structuralist perspective, however, suggests that the Australian and
New Zealand governments enabled industries to select their own
approach to agriculture, while European countries continued to
lead the development of agriculture through the promotion of
multifunctionality, and that they have continued along locked-in
productivist pathways working alongside multifunctional agricul-
ture (e.g. Potter, 2006; Dibden et al., 2009).
The latter particularly highlights the importance of interlinkages
of neo-productivist conceptualisations with multifunctionality.
AOST proponents such as Wilson (2007, 2008) usually base their
arguments around normative assumptions of multifunctionality,
suggesting that productivist systems usually show moderate to
weak multifunctionality, while super-productivist pathways often
depict weak multifunctionality, and non-productivist systems have
tendencies of strong multifunctionality. They argue, therefore, that
neo-productivist systems are losing previously regained multi-
functional quality. The structuralist perspective, meanwhile, sug-
gests that multifunctionality may exist only in that neo-
productivist spaces given over to capitalist processes lie alongside
their multifunctional counterparts rather than being embedded
within a multifunctional spectrum of decision-making (e.g. Potter,
2006). In this context, multifunctionality is seen as pluriactivity
within an agro-industrial model, the loss of agriculture's centrality
in a non-productivist era, or part of a sustainable development
paradigm that sees the future of agriculture as integrated with the
future of rural communities and the wider economy. As a result, the
advent of multifunctional policies is seen to limit potential for neo-
productivism in Europe (Morgan et al., 2010).
Should the notion of ‘neo-productivism’, therefore, be used to
refer solely to more sustainable forms of productivist agriculture,
while the term ‘repositioned productivism’ could be used in its
place? These debates highlight that regardless of whether the AOST
or structuralist perspective is employed, restricting the term ‘neo-
productivism’ to only one of the existing forms of productivism is
problematic. For example, where researchers employing the AOST
perspective describe a region as ‘neo-productivist’ they are unlikely
to wish to infer a more sustainable form of productivism, but rather
to simply indicate that the area has followed a particular transition
out of productivism and then back again. From the structuralist
perspective, however, it seems entirely valid to describe producti-
vist approaches that have evolved in neoliberal systems under
different structural conditions as new forms of productivism, yet, in
this case, the productivist form that has emerged is far from that
envisaged in repositioned productivism in Europe. Future empirical
research is, therefore, needed to help further disentangle these
conceptual (and philosophical) divisions.
In conclusion, although sharing some commonalities, the AOST
and structuralist approaches to neo-productivism differ substan-
tially in their conceptual and philosophical framing of agricultural
change, and neither necessarily provides a conclusive answer about
how to understand neo-productivist spaces. Indeed, above discus-
sion has highlighted both the possible advantages and disadvan-
tages of using the notion of ‘neo-productivism’ to describe recent
trends in agricultural change. Advantages are that ‘neo-producti-
vism’ allows researchers to further nuance conceptualisations of
the complex spatial, temporal and structural changes that charac-
terise modern agriculture in any area of the globe. Indeed e
whether from an AOST or structuralist (or any other) perspective e
in an increasingly globalising world that leads to rapidly increasing
differentiation of agricultural areas, neo-productivist spaces are
likely to assume ever more importance in future. On the other hand,
critics may rightly argue that adding yet another ‘ism’ to the
existing plethora of ‘isms’ (productivism, non-productivism, etc.)
already used to conceptualise agricultural and rural change may
 G.A. Wilson, R.J.F. Burton / Journal of Rural Studies 38 (2015) 52e64
further complicate (and over-emphasise) academic views of agri-
cultural and rural processes that may confuse, rather than aid,
stakeholders (especially practitioners and ‘grassroots’ actors) in
their quest towards improved sustainability and stronger multi-
functionality. Indeed, this analysis highlights that more critical
engagement is necessary with regard to the introduction of more
‘isms’ to explain contemporary agricultural change, and that,
arguably, more meaningful and robust terms may help practi-
tioners and policy-makers more than purely academically-
grounded abstract terms and concepts. We, therefore, hope that
arguments developed here will spark further debate by critical
commentators interested in further understanding agricultural and
rural change in a globalised world.
Acknowledgements
Geoff Wilson is very grateful for financial support from the
Plymouth University Seale-Hayne Educational Trust and the Ge-
ography Pump-Priming-Fund for a visit to New Zealand from
January to April 2012. We also gratefully acknowledge the support
of the Norwegian Research Council through the BIOSMART research
project (Managing the transition to a ‘smart’ bioeconomy, project
no.). Both authors particularly wish to thank the many interviewees
in New Zealand who provided valuable insights into neo-
productivist aspects of the current farming regime.
References
Andree, P., Dibden, J., Higgins, V., Cocklin, C., 2010. Competitive productivism and
Australia's emerging ‘alternative’ agrifood networks: producing for farmers'
markets in Victoria and beyond. Aust. Geogr. 41 (3), 307e322.
Anderson, D., 2009. Productivism and ecologism: changing discourses in TVET.
Work Learn. Sustain. Dev. 8 (1), 35e57.
Bailey, I., Hopkins, R., Wilson, G.A., 2010. Some things old, some things new: the
spatial representations and politics of change of the peak oil relocalisation
movement. Geoforum 41 (4), 595e605.
Barnett, J., Pauling, J., 2005. The environmental effects of New Zealand's free market
reforms. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 7, 271e289.
Baskaran, R., Cullen, R., Colombo, S., 2009. Estimating values of environmental
impacts of dairy farming in New Zealand. N. Z. J. Agric. Res. 52, 377e389.
Bray, F., 1986. The Rice Economies: Technology and Development in Asian Societies.
Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Brouwer, F., van der Heide, C.M. (Eds.), 2009. Multifunctional Rural Land Manage-
ment: Economics and Policies. Earthscan, London.
Brunori, G., Malandrin, V., Rossi, A., 2012. Trade-off or convergence? The role of food
security in the evolution of food discourse in Italy. J. Rural Stud. 29, 19e29.
Burton, R.J.F., Wilson, G.A., 2012. The rejuvenation of productivist agriculture: the
case for ‘cooperative neo-productivism’. In: Almås, R., Campbell, H. (Eds.),
Rethinking Agricultural Policy Regimes: Food Security, Climate Change and the
Future Resilience of Global Agriculture, Research in Rural Sociology and
Development, vol. 18. Emerald UK Group Publishing Limited, pp. 51e72.
Cloke, P., 1989. Rural geography and political economy. In: Peet, R., Thrift, N. (Eds.),
New Models in Geography, vol. 1. Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 164e197.
Dibden, J., Cocklin, C., 2005. Sustainability and agri-environmental governance. In:
Higgins, V., Lawrence, G. (Eds.), Agricultural Governance: Globalization and the
New Politics of Regulation. Routledge, London, pp. 135e152.
Dibden, J., Potter, C., Cocklin, C., 2009. Contesting the neoliberal project for agri-
culture: productivist and multifunctional trajectories in the European Union
and Australia. J. Rural Stud. 25, 299e308.
Evans, N., Morris, C., Winter, M., 2002. Conceptualizing agriculture: a critique of
post-productivism as the new orthodoxy. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 26 (3), 313e332.
FAO [Food and Agriculture Organisation], 2011. The State of Food Insecurity in the
World 2011. FAO, Rome.
Firbank, L.G., Elliott, J., Drake, B., Cao, Y., Gooday, R., 2013. Evidence of sustainable
intensification among British farms. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 173, 58e65.
Gray, S., Le Heron, R., 2010. Globalising New Zealand: fonterra co-operative group,
and shaping the future. N. Z. Geogr. 66, 1e13.
Halfacree, K.H., 1999. A new space or spatial effacement? Alternative futures for the
post-productivist countryside. In: Walford, N., Everitt, J., Napton, D. (Eds.),
Reshaping the Countryside: Perceptions and Processes of Rural Change. CAB
International, Wallingford, pp. 67e76.
Higgins, V., 2001. Calculating climate: ‘advanced liberalism’ and the governing of
risk in Australian drought policy. J. Sociol. 37, 299e316.
Holmes, J., 2002. Diversity and change in Australia's rangelands: a post-productivist
transition with a difference? Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 27, 362e384.
Holmes, J., 2006. Impulses towards a multifunctional transition in rural Australia:
63
gaps in the research agenda. J. Rural Stud. 22, 142e160.
Horlings, I., Marsden, T.K., 2010. Towards a real green revolution? Exploring the
conceptual dimensions of a new ecological modernization of agriculture that
could ‘feed the world’. In: Working Paper Series 54Centre for Business Re-
lationships, Accountability, Sustainability and Society, Cardiff.
Ilbery, B., Bowler, I., 1998. From agricultural productivism to post-productivism. In:
Ilbery, B. (Ed.), The Geography of Rural Change. Longman, Harlow, pp. 57e84.
Ilbery, B., Maye, D., 2010. Agricultural restructuring and changing food networks in
the UK. In: Coe, N., Jones, A. (Eds.), Reading the Economy: the UK in the 21st
Century. Sage, London, pp. 166e180.
Jarosz, L., 2009. Energy, climate change, meat, and markets: mapping the co-
ordinates of the current world food crisis. Geogr. Compass 3 (6), 2065e2083.
Kilgour, M., Saunders, C., Scrimgeour, F., Zellman, E., 2008. The Key Elements of
Success and Failure in the NZ Kiwifruit Industry. Lincoln University Research
Report No. 311. Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit, Lincoln (NZ).
Lang, T., 2010. Crisis? What crisis? The normality of the current food crisis. J. Agrar.
Change 10 (1), 87e97.
Long, N., Van der Ploeg, J.D., 1995. Reflections on agency, ordering the future, and
planning. In: Frerks, G., den Ouden, J.H. (Eds.), In Search of the Middle Ground:
Essays on the Sociology of Planned Development. Wageningen Agricultural
University, Wageningen, pp. 64e78.
Lowe, P., Murdoch, J., Marsden, T., Munton, R., Flynn, A., 1993. Regulating the new
rural spaces: the uneven development of land. J. Rural Stud. 9, 205e222.
Marsden, T., 2003. The Condition of Rural Sustainability. Van Gorcum, Assen (NL).
Marsden, T., Murdoch, J., Lowe, P., Munton, R., Flynn, A., 1993. Constructing the
Countryside. UCL Press, London.
Marsden, T.K., Sonnino, R., 2008. Rural development and the regional state: denying
multifunctional agriculture in the UK. J. Rural Stud. 24, 422e431.
Mather, A.S., Hill, G., Nijnik, M., 2006. Post-productivism and rural land use: cul de
sac or challenge for theorization? J. Rural Stud. 22, 441e455.
Mitchell, C.J., de Waal, S.B., 2009. Revisiting the model of creative destruction: St.
Jacobs, Ontario, a decade later. J. Rural Stud. 25, 156e167.
Morgan, S.L., Marsden, T., Miele, M., Morley, A., 2010. Agricultural multifunctionality
and farmers' entrepreneurial skills: a study of Tuscan and Welsh farmers.
J. Rural Stud. 26, 116e129.
NZMAF, 2011. Situation and Outlook for New Zealand Agriculture and Forestry.
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Wellington (NZ).
NZIER, 2010. Dairy's Role in Sustaining New Zealand d the Sector's Contribution to
the Economy. Report to Fonterra and Dairy NZ. New Zealand Institute of Eco-
nomic Research. http://www.Fonterra.com/wps/wcm/connect (last accessed
17.02.11.).
Perkins, C., 2012. Neo-productivism, farm families, and technologies in Dundee,
Scotland, UK. In: Harakova, H., Boscoboinink, A. (Eds.), From Production to
Consumption: Transformation of Rural Communities in Europe. LIT Verlag,
München, pp. 165e180.
Piesse, J., Thirtle, C., 2009. Three bubbles and a panic: an explanatory view of recent
food commodity price events. Food Policy 34, 119e129.
Potter, C., 1998. Against the Grain: Agri-environmental Reform in the United States
and the European Union. CAB International, Wallingford.
Potter, C., 2006. Competing narratives for the future of European agriculture: the
agri-environmental consequences of neo-liberalisation in the context of the
Doha round. Geogr. J. 172 (3), 190e196.
Potter, C., Burney, J., 2002. Agricultural multifunctionality in the WTO: legitimate
non-trade concern or disguised protectionism? J. Rural Stud. 18, 35e47.
Potter, C., Tilzey, M., 2005. Agricultural policy discourses in the European post-
Fordist transition: neoliberalism, neomercantilism and multifunctionality.
Prog. Hum. Geogr. 29 (5), 1e20.
Potter, C., Tilzey, M., 2007. Agricultural multifunctionality, environmental sustain-
ability and the WTO: resistance or accommodation to the neoliberal project for
agriculture? Geoforum 38, 1290e1303.
Pretty, J.N., 1995. Regenerating Agriculture: Policies and Practice for Sustainability
and Self-reliance. Earthscan, London.
Raban, J., 1997. Bad Land: an American Romance. Picador, London.
Rigg, J., 2006. Land, farming, livelihoods, and poverty: rethinking the links in the
rural South. World Dev. 34 (1), 180e202.
Slee, B., Whitfield, R., Whitfield, S., 2011. Discourses of power: the development of
small-scale hydropower in North East Scotland. Rural. Soc. 21 (1), 54e64.
The Economist, 3rd November 2012. Fonterra: land of milk and money. Economist
70.
Tilzey, M., 2000. Natural Areas, the whole countryside approach and sustainable
agriculture. Land Use Policy 17, 279e294.
Van der Ploeg, J.D., 2003. The Virtual Farmer: Past, Present and Future of the Dutch
Peasantry. Van Gorcum, Assen (NL).
Walford, N., 2003. Productivism is allegedly dead, long live productivism: evidence
of continued productivist attitudes and decision making in south-east England.
J. Rural Stud. 19, 491e502.
Ward, N., 1993. The agricultural treadmill and the rural environment in the post-
productivist era. Sociol. Rural. 33, 348e364.
Wilson, G.A., 2001. From productivism to post-productivism … and back again?
Exploring the (un)changed natural and mental landscapes of European agri-
culture. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 26 (1), 77e102.
Wilson, G.A., 2007. Multifunctional Agriculture: a Transition Theory Perspective.
CABI, Wallingford.
Wilson, G.A., 2008. From ‘weak’ to ‘strong’ multifunctionality: conceptualising
farm-level multifunctional transitional pathways. J. Rural Stud. 24, 367e383.
64 G.A. Wilson, R.J.F. Burton / Journal of Rural Studies 38 (2015) 52e64

Wilson, G.A., 2010. Multifunctional ‘quality’ and rural community resilience. Trans.
Inst. Br. Geogr. 35 (3), 364e381.
Wilson, G.A., Memon, P.A., 2005. Indigenous forest management in 21st century
New Zealand: towards a ‘post-productivist’ indigenous forest-farmland inter-
face? Environ. Plan. A 37, 1493e1517.
Wilson, G.A., Rigg, J., 2003. ‘Post-productivist’ agricultural regimes and the South:
discordant concepts? Prog. Hum. Geogr. 27 (5), 605e631.
Wilson, O.J., 1994. ‘They changed the rules’: farm family responses to agricultural
deregulation in South Island, New Zealand. N. Z. Geogr. 50 (1), 3e13.
Winter, M., 2003. Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism.
J. Rural Stud. 19, 23e32.