The restructuring of rural Spain?

Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 63}80

The restructuring of rural Spain? Keith Hoggart *, Angel Paniagua
Department of Geography, King's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, UK
Instituto de Economn& a y Geograxa, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientixcas, c/ Pinar 25, Madrid 28006, Spain

Abstract This paper explores the utility of ideas derived from the rural restructuring literature for understanding contemporary trends in rural Spain. It concludes that the processes that analysts associate with rural restructuring are of little help in understanding the Spanish context. As regards capitalist markets, the Spanish countryside is not characterised by economic diversi"cation, professionalism, environmentalism and consumerism on a scale that resembles anticipations derived from the restructuring literature. For state processes, lethargy is a more appropriate adjective than restructuring. Likewise, social and cultural change in civil society are subdued versions of trends that beset Spanish society.  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Our purpose in this paper is to explore how ideas about rural restructuring help us understand the evolving character of rural Spain. What underscores this interest is the self-evident bias in writing on rural restructuring toward the Anglo-American world or, if more generally, toward capitalist production relationships (or even more narrowly toward agriculture). The attraction of undertaking a broad analysis of a nation that has been subject to many case/sectoral studies but little general commentary in the English-language rural literature is to o!er a check on dominant ideas in English-language publications. Marsden (1996, p. 247) captures the cautions we have in mind, when noting how: &The broader political economic world within which the rural is situated has shifted in directions which necessitate more than ever a need for the analysis of the richness and diversity which challenge the reifying tendencies of macroanalysis.' Our previous paper raised the spectre of exaggerating commentaries on the extent and inter-related nature of the so-called restructuring processes in rural England (Hoggart and Paniagua, 2001). What characterised that paper is acceptance that the processes embodied in restructuring ideas are in operation, but with less intensity and covering a narrower canvass than is often implied. In

* Corresponding author. Tel.: #44-20-7848-2713. E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Hoggart).

this paper the question is somewhat di!erent. Here our question is whether restructuring ideas o!er a good guide when exploring processes that impact on rural Spain. By focusing on a single southern European country, we are not seeking to reach the conclusion that &it is di!erent'. If we do not expect processes to be the same in rural Surrey as in the Highlands of Scotland, why should we expect Surrey to be the same as AndalucmH a? The aim is not to make pointed illustrations of di!erence, but to elucidate dissimilarities in order to provide a base for deeper understanding. By way of illustration, note the oft-proclaimed conservative social and political orientation of rural residents (especially farmers), which is found in publications on numerous advanced economies (e.g. Boussard, 1990; Marsden et al., 1993). This vision of agrarian (or more generally rural) socio-political values contrasts with reported political activism in Canada (Brym, 1978), Ireland (Clark, 1975), Italy (MacDonald, 1963), Portugal (Bermeo, 1986), Russia (Jenkins, 1982), Spain (Collier, 1987), the USA (Howe, 1986) and, at some points in time, even England (Charlesworth, 1994). The temporal reference at the end here is critical, for in many cases rural (or agrarian) radicalism has been limited in its temporal incidence. This does not mean that radicalism is not a theme (or potentiality) in rural socio-political values (e.g. Knoke and Henry, 1977). The key to greater understanding of socio-political values is knowledge about the causes and uneven longevity of &incidents' of rural radicalism (and other socio-political forms), just as an appreciation of rural restructuring requires teasing out the uneven incidence and character of societal

0743-0167/01/$ - see front matter  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 7 4 3 - 0 1 6 7 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 3 7 - 1

64

K. Hoggart, A. Paniagua / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 63}80

transformations. In both cases it is a disservice to imply that trends are &universal'. Underlying this view is recognition of various in#uences on rural change, each of which coalesce in particular ways in di!erent contexts, with change processes building on and being penetrated by the peculiar historical evolution of places. Of course, places are not &unique', in the sense that local residents determine the future social trajectory of their locality (albeit, note signi"cant local manipulations of broader societal forces; Haan, 1997; Gray, 2000). Contemporary rurality cannot be understood unless we recognise the major transformative effects of events far from local hills and dales, as seen in the major trans"gurations of European agriculture following the arrival of commercially competitive New World grain harvests (e.g. Harrison, 1985; Johansen, 1987; Perren, 1995), or the impact of opportunities for emigration to the New World had on sites of destination and departure (e.g. Jones, 1960; MacDonald, 1963). More recently, of course, so-called globalisation processes are much touted as dominant forces in societal change. However, we are more cautious in ascribing too much emphasis to globalisation. This is not to de-emphasize its importance, but to caution that such trans-national forces are translated into particular meanings within national and local contexts (Allen and Thompson, 1997; Weis, 1997). Moreover, there is something of a reverse #ow in these transactions. The localisation of the global is a catchy-phrase but, as seen in marketing strategies designed to increase regional farm commodity sales (Moran, 1993; Ilbery and Kneafsey, 1998), an important counter-current exists in globalising the local. Inevitably, not all localities are equally impacted by such trends, but there is also no uniformity in the manner in which global forces are internalised in localities. Papadopoulos (1997) illustrates this neatly in an agricultural context, by showing how EU regulations are not anonymous extra-local forces but are internalised and transformed so as to be manipulated and utilised in ways that correspond with dominant local social relationships. Although an interaction e!ect is involved, rather than being simply an extra-local imposition, the #ows that bind local and extra-local agents are a resource. This is not to say that such resources can be controlled easily, as national governments regularly "nd in their interactions with multinational corporations (cf. the 1999 German Government's reaction to the takeover of Mannesmann by Vodafone). But this does not demean the importance of the local (or national) in promoting change. The extent to which interactions between local and extra-local can be seen as dependent or resource-providing is an empirical question. To explore this question analysts need to be clear on the dimensions along which to explore interactions between agents. Set within a framework of trying to understand processes of rural transformation, regulation theory presents one key-hole through which to spy on such relationships

(Goodwin et al., 1995). As approached in this paper, the intention is not to provide a theoretical treatise or critique of regulation theory, but to utilise some of its messages (e.g. about the social reproduction of capitalism never being guaranteed) to investigate the forces that impinge on processes of rural transformation. The attraction of regulation theory stems from a combination of factors. Included amongst these are recognition that efforts to regulate change processes vary in their &success', acknowledgement of the involvement of a variety of actors, in state, civil society and capitalist settings, alongside more di$cult to categorise mutations of the same, plus awareness of the local impact of actions at di!erent spatial scales. Herein the national and local scales are most evident, partly because they are commonly utilised for group formation and institutionalisation, alongside providing a recognised framework for ideological manipulation (e.g. on the importance of the state in gender relations, see Shortall, 1999). This does not exclude other spatial scales being instrumental, as seen in the growing importance of the European Union, albeit the EU depends heavily on national government agreement for major decisions, with its policies predominantly requiring national articulation, as opposed to uniform application across its territory. The (intra-national) regional level is also important in some contexts, but generally owes its position to compromises associated with nation-building and maintenance. For analytical purposes, therefore, the regional scale is often an integral element in the national scale, even if it veers more toward the local arena if its institutions and articulations are fragmented and informal. In part drawn by interest in providing a comparative base to explore contrasts between nations, the approach taken in this paper is to examine relationships in capitalist markets, state institutions and within civil society, as used in our previous paper (Hoggart and Paniagua, 2000). In adopting this approach we are a long way from providing an encompassing vision of regulationist ideas. Of three central regulation theory concepts, &mode of regulation', &socialisation' and &structural coherence' (for a commentary on these in a rural setting, see Cloke and Goodwin, 1992), it is the latter that attracts most of our attention. The rationale for this is the intention of exploring how images in the rural restructuring literature inform understandings of trends in rural Spain. The pertinence of regulation theory to this exploration comes from its recognition that diverse forces impinge on modes of regulation and socialisation, with compromises between these pressures inducing disparity in process outcome. Also critical are the conditions under which structural coherence can be said to exist or have existed. In the case of Spain, a key divergence from mainstream messages in the restructuring literature comes from the very di!erent hegemonic bloc that characterised Spain in the middle decades of the 20th century. Most obviously

K. Hoggart, A. Paniagua / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 63}80

this was seen in political domination by an authoritarian dictatorship, that sought to pursue autarky policies, which had highly detrimental e!ects on economic growth and human welfare. Verging on economic collapse, the autarky policy was abandoned under the 1959 Stabilisation Plan, which threw open the economy to outside investment and foreign visitors, as well as allowing Spanish citizens to seek work north of the PyreH neH es (Harrison, 1993). The impact was enormous, as agriculture saw its share of the national workforce fall from 40% in 1960 to less than 20% shortly after democratisation in 1976 (Etxezarreta and ViladomiuH , 1989). Pre-1959 Spain revealed a structured coherence against which future change can be assessed. But a baseline of 1976 is also appropriate, as this was when democracy was declared, with the years from 1959 until the mid-1970s seeing massive economic and demographic change (Cuadrado Roura, 1991). However, in the context of ideas on rural restructuring, the economic, political and social adjustments that occurred over these years occupy a similar position. Fundamentally, the driving forces underlying dominant societal relationships did not change. Even if it was slow moving, pre-1959 Spain was in a modernisation phase, with the magnitude of transformation seen between 1959 and 1976 highlighting how laggardly modernisation processes had been in the past. Change in both eras carried hallmarks of modernism, Fordism and Keynes. Set in this context, this paper will not seek to dwell on change before democratisation, except when this indicates ongoing quantitative adjustments in rural living. More of concern is whether there has been a qualitative shift since democratisation toward a rural society in which traces of post-modernism, post-Fordism and the neo-liberal state are manifest. In asking this question in the context we set, the underlying assumption is not that Spain is being dragged along by universal forces that propel it in a particular direction. Rather we seek to explore how the conditions of the past intersect with national and international forces to determine contemporary trends in the Spanish countryside. The &start' structural coherence in Spain is di!erent from that pertaining in northern Europe prior to the oil price hikes of the early 1970s (or even as compared with 1945). As with other countries in southern  This might seem a strange comment, given that Spain was ruled by a Fascist dictatorship. However, as many commentators have made clear, the Franco Regime is more accurately portrayed as authoritarian than Fascist (Tusell GoH mez, 1985). Moreover, it was a pragmatic regime, that proved to be remarkably adaptive in its quest to retain power (Giner and Sevilla, 1984). The Regime was not directed by ideological ends, nor by a quest to mobilise the masses for political ends. What its agents did reveal is a sensitivity to the need to appease the masses at critical moments, in order to preserve the Regime's authority (e.g. while strikes were still illegal, in 1974 Spain was in the top "ve European nations in terms of workdays lost due to strike action; Coverdale, 1979).

65

Europe, relatively speaking Spain had a small manufacturing bourgeoisie, with a historical legacy of nondemocratic politics, that relied heavily on clientelism and repression (Giner, 1985). State systems retained a central position in economic a!airs of a more intense and more enduring kind than elsewhere in the current EU, yet state welfare regimes were poorly developed (Esping-Andersen, 1990). Of particular interest to the rural economy, agriculture had an extremely poor productivity record (Cruz, 1987), with the giant farms of the south being especially guilty in this regard (Salmon, 1992), even though the rural economy until recent decades was dominated by agriculture. Against this backcloth, the circumstances of Spanish society have changed very rapidly since 1976, for democratisation was quickly followed by accession to the EU. In combination, with Spain as an enthusiastic supporter of democracy and EU membership (Nugent, 1991), the conditions were set for rapid shifts in culture, economy, polity and society. The rapid internationalisation of the economy since 1959 (Kleinman and Sington, 1989), which provided high-tech inputs into the economy (Mun oz et al., 1979), coincided with governmental objectives that favoured economic transformation based around high-tech options (Brasslo!, 1993). The scene should have favoured rapid transformation. But would there be a transfusion for rural society?

2. Production change in rural Spain? Our start position for Spanish rural society was certainly one that called out for change. Throughout the 20th century, the Spanish rural economy has been in a perilous state. One consequence was massive rural depopulation. The 1991 "gure of 24% of the national population living in places of less than 10,000 inhabitants might appear large, but it pales besides the 48% value for 1950 (PeH rez Yruela, 1995). Rural population losses might have been even higher but for restrictive labour and migration policies under the Franco Regime (Bradshaw, 1985). But after 1959 the introduction of freedom of movement led to rapid rural depopulation as farm labourers #ocked to economically buoyant places, such as Barcelona, Madrid, and rapidly growing tourist resorts (Camarero, 1993), as well as to France, Germany and Switzerland (Izquierdo Escribano, 1992). The 1970s world recession saw many emigrants return, but often  The landed elite in Spain engaged in rent-seeking rather than productive pro"t-making (Giner and Sevilla, 1984). Often this was associated with absentee-ownership. Landowners commonly lived in the city, with one of the main roles for land being hunting (Salmon, 1995).  It should also be noted that only 10% of the Spanish surface area is considered to have good soil quality, with just 43% capable of being used for agriculture (Wright, 1977). Moreover, 75% of farmland is unsuitable for irrigation, owing to its terrain or due to a lack of rainfall (Way, 1962).

66

K. Hoggart, A. Paniagua / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 63}80

Fig. 1. Spain's 17 Autonomous communities.

not to home villages. In the 1970s urbanisation of the population continued (Nadal, 1984). Only tourism expansion on the littoral and limited commuter growth near large cities led to rural population growth (Cuadrado, 1992, CardeluH s et al., 1999). Continuing rural decline largely resulted from poorly paid, insecure farm jobs (Mansvelt Beck, 1988; Etxezarreta, 1992), for most rural areas still o!er few employment alternatives to agriculture and agro-processing (Cuadrado, 1992). Of course, one of the problems with referring to &rural Spain' is the high level of variability within the country (e.g. Brenan, 1950). It would be inappropriate to dwell on debates on regionalisation, although literature on this certainly exists (e.g. Villaverde Castro, 1987). Rather, for heuristic purposes, we note distinctive regional types that raise di!erent issues for rural change. The "rst type consists of the agricultural regions. In terms of employment in places of less than 2000 inhabitants (referred to here as &small communities'), at the 1991 census these regions had agricultural shares well above the national average of 34.5% (INE, 1992a). Delineated by Spain's 17 Autonomous communities (Fig. 1), this regional type comprises AndalucmH a (49.7% in small communities worked agriculture in 1991), Asturias (44.8%), Cantabria (39.3%), Extremadura (48.0%) and Galicia (48.1%). In

terms of their economic dynamics, the other end of the spectrum is occupied by service-centred regions. These are comprised of tourism centres, such as Islas Baleares (with 57.1% in small communities in services) and Islas Canarias (46.3%), although some coastal provinces in AndalucmH a, Comunidad Valencia and Catalun a also record services employment well above the national average of 32.0% (Barke et al., 1996). Small communities in the Madrid region also have a high service reliance (44.1%), which indicates that this regional type is more than tourism-dependent, as it incorporates recreation centres for larger cities. The third regional type is distinguished by its manufacturing workforce. In all Spanish settlements of less than 2000 people, 20.0% of the labour force is in manufacturing. In Pais Vasco (37.6%), Navarra (33.1%) and Catalun a (29.2%) the "gures are higher, and small communities in these regions have few working in agriculture (e.g. only 16.0% in Pais Vasco). The last regional type embodies the variety that exists at the regional scale, for these provinces have employment shares in small communities close to the national average for each of agriculture, manufacturing and services. This regional type includes AragoH n, Castilla-La Mancha, Castilla-LeoH n, Comunidad Valencia, La Rioja and Murcia. Most representative of the national picture is Castilla-La

K. Hoggart, A. Paniagua / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 63}80

Mancha, with 31.9% in agriculture, 20.4% in manufacturing and 30.7% working in services. In this paper we use many examples from this last regional type, as it provides a picture close to the Spanish norm (insofar as a nation as diverse as Spain can be said to have a norm, but we wish to avoid constantly punctuating our commentary with regular asides about exceptions here and there). Of course, there is economic and demographic variety within these inland provinces, as seen in the impact of uneven concentrations of farm commodities on economic change (e.g. Mykolenko et al., 1987). But in order to capture how far change in rural Spain can be said to be following restructuring processes, we will focus less on intra-regional divergence than on general trends in the countryside. In terms of agricultural change, since entry into the EU in 1986, Spanish farmers have experienced more competition for sales at home, as well as bene"ting from access to new markets (PeH rez Yruela, 1995). Accession to the EU increased pressure on the competitive position of Spanish farming (San Juan Mesonada, 1993), although there have been some positive gains. Thus, both in the year of accession (1986) and a decade later, Spain was a modest net exporter of food commodities (Commission of the European Communities, annual). In income terms, many Spanish farmers have done well from EU membership. For instance, while 1986 farmer income was only 86.7% of the Spanish national average, by 1993 it was 100.5% (El Pan& s, 6 July 1995). While income per farm unit increased by 18.8% in Italy and 26.5% in the Netherlands, the 1985}1994 rise for Spain was the highest in the EU (121%), with Germany in second place with 79.5% (Etxezarreta and ViladomiuH , 1997). Yet these "gures conceal as well as reveal. For one, this upward income tendency has been associated with sharp falls in farm numbers. Between 1985 and 1996, for instance, the agricultural population fell by 46.6%. In addition, a large element in income growth has come from EU subsidies. Some 25% of farm income now comes from these subsidies, and this "gure rises to 50% (and stands at 65% for 1985}1996 income growth) in regions that specialise in cereal production, such as Castilla-La Mancha and Castilla-LeoH n (Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y AlimentacioH n, annual-1, 1997 edition. Moreover, long-established productivity problems on Spanish farms have not gone away (Cruz, 1987). Illustrating the general picture, the Anuario de Estadistica Agraria reports that, expressed in constant 1980 prices, farm production fell from 1444 to 1357 thousand million pesetas between 1986 and 1996 (Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y AlimentacioH n, annual-2).

 This fall is partly a result of new CAP arrangements after 1992 (e.g. set-aside), but also owes much to drought, which saw production fall to below 1200 thousand million pesetas in both 1992 and 1993 (at constant 1980 prices).

67

Success stories tend to be associated with shifts in production, such as the growing specialisation in Mediterranean products, like fruit and vegetables. There have been sharp rises in farm income where horticulture has expanded (Tout, 1990; Gavira, 1992). Explaining this phenomenon, PeH rez Yruela (1995) noted that production under 15,000 ha of plastic in AlmermH a is equivalent to the monetary yield from 600,000 ha under wheat. This recasting of commodity balances has increased trade with the rest of Europe. So, whereas 25% of "nal agricultural production was exported in 1985, by 1996 the "gure was 51% (Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y AlimentacioH n, annual-1, 1997 edition). But success is matched by decline. For dairy products, for instance, imports have risen and exports have fallen. Spanish farming has experienced relative economic and demographic decline. Whereas the sector accounted for 5.8% of GNP in 1987, by 1996 this had fallen to 3.5%. According to The Economist (1999, p. 58), Spain now relies on agriculture for less of its GDP than Denmark, Finland and Ireland, and is within a percentage point of France, the UK and the USA. This sectoral change, alongside intensi"ed competition for commodity sales, has induced less stable working conditions. The number of farm workers continues to fall sharply (INE, annual-1), with depopulation characterising agriculturally dominated localities, even though nearby rural zones experience net in-migration (e.g. Hoggart, 1997). To understand what is happening, it is necessary to appreciate the low productivity of Spanish farms. They still use half the fertiliser of their Italian counterparts and a quarter of that in France; despite recent increases (PeH rez Yruela, 1995). For large and small farms, less intensive, low input practices are common (Cruz, 1987). This might appear to o!er scope for productivity rises. However, the small size of farms and the old age of many farmers militates against capital investment. Added to which, reform of the CAP has lowered the price of some commodities, which has dampened the impetus toward intensi"cation (Mata Porras, 1995). The characteristic response to all this has been cost-cutting and labour shedding. These tendencies are evident even in the more pro"table commodity sectors. Thus, expansion in fruit and vegetable cultivation is associated with the utilisation of low-paid immigrant workers on short-term, insecure contracts, if they are contracted at all (e.g. Etxezarreta, 1992; Hoggart

 It should also be noted that, in response to food provision problems in the 1950s, the rapid expansion of easy agricultural credit resulted in large-scale mechanisation. For some farmers, mechanisation proved to be a major factor in improved farm incomes (e.g. Harding, 1984). However, for many others, mechanisation was introduced with little sense of purpose or ensuring "t-for-purpose, with the consequence that its application was often wasteful, even &irrational' (e.g. Segrelles Serrano, 1989). These past experiences have fed into current attitudes towards changing farm production practices.

68

K. Hoggart, A. Paniagua / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 63}80

and Mendoza, 1999). With levels of farm labour unemployment running at 50% in some months (PeH rez Yruela, 1995), there is little incentive to seek full-time farm labourer jobs. In this context it is no surprise to "nd shortages of farm labour are common, especially in the more buoyant regional economies. But even where labour shortage results from farmers not being able to retain workers (as opposed to ditching them), the primary response has not been to mechanise but to rely on seasonal, in-migrant labour (Etxezarreta, 1992). Lost labour inputs also derive from the actions of family members. Thus, according to the 1989 agricultural census (INE, 1991), the spouse of the farmer worked on 29.4% of farms, and contributed 18.7% of total farm labour, with the latter "gure falling to 17.0% by 1995 (INE, 1995). Farm work is becoming more focussed on a few family members. As an illustration, while 22% of farm family members worked only on the farm in 1989, by 1995 the "gure was 37% (INE, 1991, 1995). Most evidently, this focussing is seen for male farmer-managers, with those who only do farm work rising from 26 to 46% over the same years. Rather than moving toward multiple jobholding, family members are either concentrating their activities on farm work or are opting out of the sector completely. The lack of alternative work in agriculture-dominated rural areas heightens prospects of the latter option, with the emigration of some household members raising the need for full-time farm work amongst those who remain. This is not the model of farm diversi"cation that punctuates writing in the rural restructuring mould (e.g. Ilbery et al., 1997). Although CAP reform and heightened pressure for environmental inputs are impacting on the agricultural sector across Europe (Ilbery and Bowler, 1998), these forces have not made a deep impression in Spain. For one, shifts in agricultural production are toward commodities that receive di!erent CAP (and global market) treatment from dominant farm products in the north of the continent (e.g. OECD, annual); the peculiarities of the Spanish situation partly being recognised in EU policies designed speci"cally for the Spanish situation (e.g. Paniagua, 2000b). For another, partly allied to the division of state functions between the (regional) Autonomous Communities (AACC) and the national government (the former has responsibility for implementing agricultural and environmental initiatives), there has been delay in the preparation and enactment of environmental measures, compared with other CAP reforms (Paniagua, 2000a). As one illustration, after the Spanish agri-environmental programme was adopted by the EU STAR Committee in January 1995, only two programmes were put into e!ect in Spain in that year. In 1995, France and Germany had more than "ve million hectares covered by agri-environmental measures, but Spain designated just 89,802ha. While perhaps not the worst performer, Spain's agri-environmental commitment has been inferior

to many EU countries (Commission of the European Communities, 1996). Moreover, Spanish agri-environmental measures represent a limited translation of Community legislation (Garrido and Moyano, 1996; Paniagua, 2000a). Central to this lethargy is little change in farmers' productivist mentality (e.g. Izcara Palacios, 1998), even if this mentality is not driven by the same notions of agricultural modernisation as in northern Europe (Cruz, 1987). Illustrating this, in a 1996 nationwide opinion survey, only 18.4% of farmers attached importance to environmental deterioration (Paniagua and GoH mez, 1997). Some 90% of Spanish farmers believe that their productive behaviour helps conserve the environment (Commission of the European Communities, 1988). The shift toward more environmentally sensitive farming is resisted in Spain, with farmers actively favouring farm intensi"cation (e.g. Tout, 1990). Indeed, even when more environmentally conscious farm (and processor) practices are identi"ed, these rest on shaky economic foundations. More ecologically sound programmes also "nd it di$cult to recruit participants and fail to shift farmer values away from a central concern with pro"tability (e.g. Remmers, 1994). If the European agricultural theatre is now showing a post-productivist play, then Spanish farmers have failed to grasp they are actors, not the audience (Paniagua, 2000a). Further questioning the applicability of a north-central European model of agricultural change is the limited nature of change in other rural sectors. This is signi"cant as it limits the capacity of Spanish farmers to engage in pluriactivity. In the case of tourism, for example, the link between farm diversi"cation and tourism-recreation promotion is limited. In particular, in spite of the strong emphasis on rural tourism in the LEADER Programme (Barke and Newton, 1997), as well as in Autonomous Community development programmes (Cuadrado, 1992), the bulk of tourism development is concentrated in a few mountainous areas and a restricted range of places that are deemed to have &attractive' rural landscapes. Thus, at the regional scale, more than half of all rural tourists are found in Castilla-LeoH n (20.2%), AndalucmH a (16.9%) and Castilla-La Mancha (12.5%; Secretaria General de Turismo, 1995). This is after considerable e!ort to expand rural tourism, with 53% of LEADER I projects on tourist promotion (Blanco and Benayas, 1994). In some cases these e!orts have yielded results, as seen in the rise of rural tourism establishments in Castilla-LeoH n from 40 in 1994 to 290 in 1997 (Junta de Castilla y LeoH n, 1997). However, across the country as a whole, rural tourism establishments make a meagre contribution to rural employment. As one illustration, according to

 One indication of this is the low level of professionalisation amongst farmers. Just 2.5% at the 1989 census had acquired technical training through a professional or university course.

K. Hoggart, A. Paniagua / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 63}80

Francisco Mun oz-Escalona the number of rural houses for rent to tourists in 1996 was just 2378, with an estimated employment of one person per house, so total employment for Spain is about 3000 persons. On farms also, tourism growth is limited in extent, as well as being concentrated in a few regions (GarcmH a-Ramon et al., 1995a). Moreover, the potential for farm diversi"cation through tourism is likely to remain limited given the reasons people take rural holidays. Here visiting (attractive) natural environments (31.5%) and visiting family (49.8%) are dominant considerations (Secretaria General de Turismo, 1995). Both of these o!er few prospects for expanding tourism outside existing rural destinations. Most evidently, this is seen for family visits, which commonly involve returning to a parental or second home in a village that was left for an urban job (e.g. Mansvelt Beck, 1988). To put this point in context, in terms of understanding the contribution of service industries to local economies, a sharp division needs to be drawn between &agricultural' and &rural' areas (this applies at regional and intra-regional scales). The former has a heavy income reliance on primary sector activities, alongside associated public subsidies. Some rural places might appear to have a substantial service sector (with almost one-third working in services in &small communities'), but jobs are prone to be associated with traditional farm activities, rather than indicating new job openings. Moreover, in places that have su!ered from high emigration, non-farm services tend to rely heavily for custom on the holidays of former emigrants. These returnees put little into the accommodation sector, as they stay in family dwellings or (commonly) have their own second home (as a result of inheritance or retaining their previous main home). In contrast with such places, a small number of &rural' places have more diversi"ed and buoyant service economies. These villages commonly focus on tourism or serve urban consumption preferences. Most evident in the latter case are municipalities in AACC like Madrid, where 44.1% of the labour force in small communities work in services (most notably bars, restaurants and accommodation). &Rural' zones with such dynamic service industries are very restricted in spatial extent. They tend to be near or on the coast, in a few mountainous zones and near major cities. In terms of non-tourist-related activities, one of the few areas of real growth has been the

 This is a personal communication from Dr. Francisco Mun ozEscalona, a tourism researcher at the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cienti"cas. These estimates are based on Spanish tourist guides.  As one illustration, Mansvelt Beck (1988, p. 152) estimates that onethird to one-half of annual bar takings in villages in the eastern Montes Orientales of Granada come during the few weeks when former residents return from Catalun a for village "estas (with the dates of the "estas often having been changed to "t the vacation calendar of employers in Catalun a).

69

provision of farm "nancial services. Thus, from 1980 to 1992, a period when 900,000 farm jobs were lost, there was a 34% growth in service jobs targeted at the primary sector. Most important here was the three-fold rise in employment in insurance and "nancial services (INE, annual-1). However, this growth was from a relatively low level, so the absolute number of jobs created was paltry. Even so, this does indicate that agriculture is taking part in the general trend toward the tertiarisation of the economy. Indeed, at least in terms of the number of "rm, that exist (broadly) rural areas are doing rather well in this regard. For the period 1995}1999, for instance, growth in the total number of "rms in Spain ran at 9.5% for places with fewer 10,000 inhabitants compared with 8.7% for larger centres. Not much di!erence here, but for companies in the professional and service sectors the numbers were 41.3 and 23.7% (INE, annual2). Again we need to be careful about regional di!erences, with the 13.3 and 4.0% "gures for Catalun a revealing more buoyancy in service sector growth in smaller centres in this region than in Castilla-La Mancha (8.5 and 7.7%). Yet the growth of a tourism and the dynamism of its fruit and vegetable production (Tout, 1990), undoubtedly helps give the surprising "gures of 43.6 and 20.0% for AndalucmH a, although again the meagre presence of such services in this region in 1995 helps give an in#ated vision of growth in small centres here. In reality, for most of rural Spain there are few job openings outside agriculture and farm services, although the expansion of state services * such as health centres * has provided opportunities for some to reject emigration (e.g. Navarro, 1999). Most evidently in mainstream agricultural zones, and especially for women, workers are forced to take low-paid farm work or emigrate. GarcmH a Ramon and Cruz (1996) provide indicative evidence, in reporting that 45 of the 50 female farm labourers they interviewed in Osuna, AndalucmH a, would abandon agricultural work if other jobs were available. Their realism over what was likely to be available is seen in 39% stating that they would prefer to be a house servant, 26% a factory worker and 10% a shop attendant. Away from traditional farm areas, possibilities are greater because manufacturing provides a base for economic diversi"cation. Table 1 illustrates this, with manufacturing

 The absence of job openings has come to be associated with a shift into self-employment. Thus, according to a 1998/1999 study conducted by the bank Caja Espan a and the farm labourer organisation ASAJA, 65% of all self-employed workers in Spain live in rural areas (this is taken from a personal communication from the Head of the Gabinete de Prensa of ASAJA, plus a report in the Valladolid publication Campo Regional, June 1999). While this will include some farmers, the clear indication that farmers are not central to this trend is the "nding that 73% of these self-employed workers are under 35 years of age, whereas age structure of Spanish farmers is biased toward the over-50s (Commission of the European Communities, annual).

70

K. Hoggart, A. Paniagua / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 63}80

Table 1 The 1995 distribution of non-farm employment in Girona, Catalun a

% for whole province % in province in places of under 2000 people % job share for places of 2000 people or less

Manufacturing

Small-scale services

Medium-scale services

9.1

24.4

39.7

14.8

18.6

38.3

40.0

18.7

23.7

Source: computed from Generalitat de Catalunya Institut d'EstadmH stica de Catalunya (1996) and INE (1992a).

accounting for 40% of non-farm employment in smaller communities in Catalun a, which puts these centres above the province-wide average. The fact that the same applies for building activity, with shares of 15.5% (province) and 20.9% (rural), highlights the dynamism of this regional economy. Yet one needs to be careful in interpreting this picture in too positive a light. Centres with less than 10,000 inhabitants in Catalun a accounted for 21.1% of all "rms in the region in 1999 but only 14.5% of the more dynamic professional and service "rms (INE, annual-2). These "gures are comparable with the whole of Spain, which recorded equivalent numbers of 21.5 and 12.5%. The picture away from tourism centres and more buoyant economies, in agricultural and inland centres, is less positive. Thus, for Castilla-La Mancha the shares recorded for places with under 10,000 inhabitants in 1999 were 51.7% (all "rms) and 31.8% (professional and service "rms), with 19.4 and 10.6% in AndalucmH a (INE, annual } 2). This comes as little surprises given SabateH Martinez's (1996) observation that six sectors account

 Readers might object that there is likely to be unevenness in the size of "rms, so "rm size information alone is not too illuminating. O!ering some indication that it is a reasonable measure of trends, INE (annual-2) provides data on the size of "rms in settlements above/below 10,000 population. For "rms with 0, 1}5, 6}19, 20}99 and more than 100 employees, smaller centres account for 22.3, 20.9, 19.8, 17.3 and 13.0% of all 1999 companies in Spain. So there is a smaller size e!ect in more rural zones. However, when we look at growth over the 1995}1999 period the trend is for smaller centres to see as much or more expansion amongst "rms with more employees. Thus, the respective growth rates for "rms with no employees was 0.9% (smaller centres) and 4.1% (larger centres), but was 20.5 and 12.4% for those with 1}5 workers, 28.8 and 20.6% for those with 6}19, 39.6 and 31.7% for those with 20}99 and 18.2 and 20.4% for those with more than 100. This picture of higher growth rates in smaller centres for all bar "rms with no employees or more than 100 is replicated even in inland regions like Castilla-La Mancha, with the pattern in more buoyant economies like Catalun a showing more rapid expansion in all size brackets in smaller centres.

for about two-thirds of rural manufacturing employment in central Spain (clothing, food processing, footwear, furniture, leather and textiles), with production facilities mainly concentrated in larger rural settlements. The enticement of appropriate local resources (like vegetable and fruit processing close to irrigated lands) is a major attraction (Precedo et al., 1991); although nationally even agro-processing tends to be concentrated in or near larger centres (Cannata, 1982). Beyond this, a further attraction is that production costs are estimated to be 15}20% lower than in urban centres. In good part this is associated with the availability of female labour (SabateH Martinez, 1996), with many women taking low-paid jobs in order to stay in a rural location (GarcmH a Ramon and Cruz, 1996; Navarro, 1999). In this regard, rural manufacturing is associated with capitalists using locational change to maintain pro"tability (e.g. Baylina and GarcmH a Ramon, 1998). Notably, this shift into rural locations, or indeed the emergence of endogenous manufacturing expansion in smaller settlements (Va`zquez-Barquero, 1992), is not often associated with high-tech industry or growth-propelling sectors. For vast swaths of rural Spain, manufacturing does not infuse local economies with economic dynamism but o!ers a minor cushion of poorly paid jobs for those leaving farming or wishing not to emigrate. This is the retrenchment of old industries, not the emergence of positive economic vibrations. In a nutshell, the basic premises of rural restructuring ideas do not "t comfortably alongside what is happening in the economy of rural Spain. Far from diversi"cation and post-productivism, agriculture is characterised by growth in full-time farm engagement (amongst those who stay in farming at least), with traditional productivist values still dominant. If we can trace signi"cant threads of causal connection from past structures, then this comes in the form of a reluctance to engage e!ectively in farm productivity improvements. Most evidently this is seen in responses to labour shortages, which have been dominated by the utilisation of poorly paid immigrant labour or reducing the time devoted to farming. In manufacturing we similarly "nd more of the same. Rather than being captured by processes that are restructuring the countryside into a qualitatively di!erent economic entity, manufacturing activity, along with general development e!orts, continue to focus on larger centres, most evidently provincial capitals (Serrano MartmH nez and King, 1994). What crumbs of manufacturing investment fall on the rural sphere have ties to exploiting low wages and inferior job prospects rather than a fundamental economic realignment. Like in agriculture, changes tend to be linear and quantitatively. They are not qualitatively distinct. The sectors that see growth are &traditional' rural activities, not harbingers of a new economic dynamism. For sure there are exceptions, just as there are rural areas with dynamic service industries. Yet these are restricted in geographical scope, with the primary driving force

K. Hoggart, A. Paniagua / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 63}80

largely being spin-o!s from buoyant metropolitan economies (e.g. Barcelona and Madrid) or tourism expansion (e.g. Alicante and MaH laga). Rural economies are changing but they hardly follow a pattern northern European commentators would be comfortable calling restructuring.

3. Rural Spain and the changing state While associations between organisational arrangements and broader restructuring processes are not inevitable, in Spain the reorganisation of political administration has been a key factor in fostering rural di!erentiation. This arises because of the decentralisation of authority that followed the transition to democracy. Signi"cantly for rural areas, with the creation of the Autonomous Communities (AACC) as a regional tier of government, prime responsibility for agriculture and environment was transferred from the national state to the regions between 1979 and 1996 (Barcelo and GarcmH a, 1986). By the 1990s this decentralisation meant that each region could introduce its own policy programme. The national government retains control of issues related to national economic planning but the Autonomous Communities have the capacity to direct regional economic change through programmes for woodlands, farm structures, water resources and irrigation, amongst others (Paniagua and Rodriguez, 1989). Decentralisation led to a plethora of legislation. In the environmental "eld, for instance, there were 3569 legislative enactments between 1986 and 1995 (357 a year). This legislative e!ort impacted on rural areas through a welter of protection and nature conservancy measures, with 69 national and 917 Autonomous Community regulations in the "rst 10 years of Spain's EU membership. Positioning these initiatives, Barcelo and GarcmH a (1986, p. 47) explain that &2 the Ministry of Agriculture acts as the coordinating, planning and regulating organisation for all activities; the AACC are the organisations responsible for management, administration, regulation and legislation' (this distribution of authority is very similar for environmental policy). The overall signi"cance of these changes lies in their potential to promote a distinctive regional impetus in development processes. Yet these changes have not been primary driving forces in socio-economic change. For agriculture, for instance, the general opinion is that the sector is more highly regulated than in the past, but this is attributed more to membership of the EU than to state decentralisation (Lamo de Espinosa, 1997). In similar vein, changes at the local government level have not been primary driving forces in rural change. In fact, change in this sphere has been relatively minor (GarcmH a FernaH ndez, 1997). Structurally, 18.8% of municipalities disappeared between 1950 and 1981 as a result of rural depopulation (INE, 1986). Otherwise, the formation

71

of &mancomunidad' as ®ional' service providers has been the most notable change, as these eased provision problems for small municipalities. However, in reality local government has limited capabilities. Although the picture varies somewhat by AACC, in general municipalities are responsible for parks and recreation, sanitation and water, and land-use planning and urban development. To pay for these functions municipalities rely primarily on property taxes. Wealthier areas are consequently capable of doing more than poorer ones, with the overwhelming share of grants from higher tier government coming as per capita payments, so there is little compensation for uneven service need or local wealth (SoleH Vilanova, 1989). Given the state of rural economies in general, this allocation system results in relatively impoverished rural councils. Even for the regulation of land-use, there is little to suggest that rural areas have been transformed in recent decades. Under the Franco Regime, Spain had a #imsy land-use planning system (Keyes et al., 1993). What passed for rural planning involved little more than colonising new lands and expanding irrigation (Giner and Sevilla, 1984; Paniagua and Rodriguez, 1989). Only since 1992 has land-use classi"cation been compulsory in rural zones. Before this, the dominant mode of planning was sectoral, with policies targeted at regional or state levels. In this framework, the administrative corps dominated proceedings and priorities. Under the Franco Regime, this meant special favours for regime supporters (Medhurst, 1973). With Guarda Civil support, the old, landowner-dominated, patronage system dominated rural Spain (Kenny, 1960). As with rural England (e.g. Johnson, 1972), the power of the landed elite began to diminish some time ago. There are various reasons for this decline. One was the perilous state of agriculture, which partly resulted from the Franco Regime maintaining low food prices in order to appease urban dwellers (PittRivers, 1971). As a consequence of low returns land prices fell to such a level that farm labourers found it possible to acquire land and become peasant farmers in some regions (Remmers, 1994). Removal of restrictions on outmigration following the near collapse of the Spanish economy in 1959 provided some re-balance in power relations between landowners and farm labourers (Martinez Alier, 1971; Mansvelt Beck, 1988). As one symptom of this re-balancing, with rural labour shortages heightening, between 1957 and 1967, farm labourer wages increased by 267% (Harrison, 1985), with a 10-fold hike reported for 1959}1977 (Mansvelt Beck, 1988). Moreover, in the face of near collapse in food markets, the Franco Regime clamped down on the black market, from which landowners had made a monetary killing (Harding, 1984). A barrage of agricultural reform was decreed in the 1950s and 1960s, which added to the altered power balance (e.g. through o!ering cheap agrarian credit). Democratisation added to the impetus, with

72

K. Hoggart, A. Paniagua / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 63}80

the social security blanket that now covers rural Spain lessening reliance on landowner favours. The introduction of democratic elections also encouraged municipal e!orts to improve services, with sports centres, cultural activities and leisure facilities now sought as symbols of local progress (PeH rez Yruela, 1995). However, these changes have not been fundamental, as the authority vested in municipalities is slight, with limited take-up of progressive opportunities by rural councils. The &mancomunidad' initiative, for example, only covers around one-eighth of municipal Spain, and just as this organisational form emerged, Spain saw the disappearance of supra-municipal planning in favour of local planning (DomineH and MartmH nez, 1993, p.156). Yet local planning has been slow to penetrate into rural areas. Illustrating this, while places of more than 50,000 inhabitants all had land-use planning procedures in both 1972 and 1992, with 89% of places of 10,000}50,000 having them in 1972 and 99.5% in 1992, even by 1992 only 51% of places with fewer than 1000 residents had a land-use planning system. Since that year there has been a top-down enforcement of planning processes on small municipalities. But the potential of land-use planning as an implement in change comes from the potency of development pressures. In the agricultural zones that dominate so much of rural Spain these pressures are limp to say the least. Even the clientelist gatekeeper roles that used to exist for local leaders have largely gone, as the characteristic di$culties of dealing with Spanish bureaucracy can now be circumvented by using gestores administrativos, a regulated profession that acts on behalf of citizens (Ferrer Mateo, 1991). For much of rural Spain, &power vacuum' captures more of the mood than governance restructuring. But this is not all of Spain. In some places development pressures are apparent, so local leaders are able to impose themselves on change processes. However, even where growth is occurring, municipal leaders "nd their decision spheres constrained. In tourism-dominated centres, for instance, while growth pressures are intense, easy substitutes are available. With small municipal areas, if single places wish to restrict tourism expansion

they "nd this does little to stem the onslaught of environmental change, for neighbouring areas undergoing expansion are su$ciently close that this directly impacts on them (Pacione, 1977; Morris and Dickinson, 1987). Where development pressure is less intense, new con#icts have emerged, even if these are not widespread, nor as yet intense. Most evidently these have arisen in localities with growth in second homes, where a degree of political and social change has induced con#ict over the provision of municipal services. This issue arises because those who do not live in a home for 6 months of the year are not automatically eligible for registration in the local Padron (register of local residents) and as such their eligibility for municipal services is discretionary. Con#ict over this issue is largely con"ned to areas close to metropolitan centres, or at least within long-distance commuting ranges of such centres (which often means staying in the city for the working week). In villages in Segovia, Guadalajara and Avila, con#ict has arisen when local mayors have refused to extend the envelope of municipal services to peripheral estates of new second or temporary residences (on such developments, see Weatherley, 1982). The decision here appears to owe more to the cost of service provision than to social con#ict. Nevertheless, as we shall see below, traces of antagonism towards &newcomers' do exist. All in all, however, such &political' dynamics are not plentiful, with an air of docility rather than innovation surrounding the rural political scene. It has to be said that the Spanish state has undergone fundamental transformation over the last 25 years. The reality for rural zones, however, is that change has been far from traumatic. The major focus of change has been at the AACC level. The reported shifts from government to governance that capture so much attention in UK government circles have made little impression on rural Spain, with issues like privatisation of slight concern at the local (rural) level (GarcmH a FernaH ndez, 1997). While such changes might be seen as local manifestations of national change processes in the UK, in Spain they do not even appear as manifestations of national initiatives in rural zones.

4. Change in civil society  As one example, in AndalucmH a and Extremadura, two regions with particularly large landholdings and a tradition of large-scale casual labour on land holdings, the national government has introduced unemployment payments for farm labourers. These are only available in these two regions. From 1984 to 1995 bene"ciaries from this system were farm labourers whose pay was less than the minimum o$cial wage, provided they had worked for a minimum of 60 days in the previous year. In 1995 the period was reduced to 40 days, then in 1997 to 35 days. As GarcmH a Ramon and Cruz (1996) report, workers in these regions are now better able to accept work that "ts their own circumstances, rather than being subservient to landowners and the vagaries of migrant farm labour opportunities, as in the past (Mansvelt Beck, 1988).  These "gures are computed from unpublished data at the Ministerio de Obras Publicas y Transportes and the Instituto Nacional de EstadmH stica.

In terms of underlying sentiments and trends, there is some basis for expecting an England-centred rural restructuring thesis to be of assistance in interpreting change processes in Spanish civil society. As expressed in the national CIRES-94 public opinion survey, some 43.4% of the Spanish population would prefer to live in a place with less than 5000 inhabitants. This compares with "gures of 32.7% for places with around 50,000 residents, 16.4% for places with half a million, and 5.4% for metropolitan centres of around "ve million (Centro de Investigaciones de la Realidad EconoH mico y Social, 1994). This attitudinal position stands in stark contrast

K. Hoggart, A. Paniagua / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 63}80 Table 2 Year of construction of buildings in places of under 2000 inhabitants Pre}1900 1900}1920 1921}1940 1941}1960 1961}1980 1981}1990 21.4%

8.6%

8.2%

15.6%

28.5%

15.9%

Source: INE (1992b).

with long-term trends of rural depopulation (Nadal, 1984; Camarero, 1993). However, in recent years, rural population losses have been reversed in many locations (Camarero, 1993; Romero GonzaH lez and Albertos Puebla, 1996), with increased rates of housing construction in the countryside (Table 2). By the 1990s net migration between urban and rural areas had become more balanced. One reason for this is increased awareness of the di$culties of living in (large) urban centres. Large cities, in particular, are accumulating an image of being expensive to live in, of posing di$culties in buying or renting accommodation (especially if quality is taken into account), and of o!ering little by way of well-paid work (Ministerio de EconommH a y Hacienda, 1986). At the same time positive sentiments are attached to farming and rural areas in general. Thus, in the Eurobarometer survey of 1988, when compared with other EU nations, a high percentage of Spanish citizens felt that farmers were treated unfavourably by current market and policy circumstances (Commission of the European Communities, 1988). Compared with a Europe-wide "gure of 50%, some 67% of Spaniards felt farmers were treated less favourably than the population as a whole. This view is accompanied by a generally high standing for farming as an occupation (De Miguel, 1993). But despite this favourable underpinning, when we explore rural restructuring ideas on housing and the emergence of a &rural service class', the pertinence of these ideas is brought into question. In a situation of limited restraint on housing development (Keyes et al., 1993), &real' demand for rural living should be re#ected in population growth. In fact, the pro-rural population drift in Spain has limited spatial coverage (Romero GonzaH lez and Albertos Puebla, 1996). Taking municipalities with a population rise of at least 15% between 1981 and 1991 to illustrate this, such centres are highly concentrated in: 1. Mediterranean coastal areas, especially those with diversi"ed economies, like Catalun a, or those with  As one indication, in-migration into places of less than 2000 inhabitants over the 1991}1996 period a!ected 12.1% of the population, compared with a "gure of 12.3% for places with more than 10,000 residents. Likewise, the percentage of the Spanish population living in places of less than 10,000 did not change over this period. That said, all size categories below 5000 inhabitants on average lost population over the period, even if these losses were not large (e.g. INE, annual-3).

73

major tourism industries (Catalun a, the Costa del Sol, Islas Baleares, Islas Canarias and the Valencia coast); 2. Commuter settlements in the Barcelona and Madrid regions; and, 3. More scattered rural zones, with speci"c stimuli behind rural growth. These include: the middle mountains of Castilla-La Mancha and Castilla-LeoH n, which have seen important long-distance commuting and tourism expansion; the commuter belt between the urban centres of LeoH n and Valladolid, which incorporates Palencia and its Renault factory (with this factory and area seeing substantial employment growth from the mid-1970s into the 1990s); extended areas of Navarra, which bene"t from being on the main line of communication of the Ebro Valley, linking Pais Vasco, Zaragoza and Catalun a, with the area also bene"ting from farm specialisation on asparagus and wine production; and, Villanueva-Don Benito, &La Serena', in the province of Badajoz (southern Extremadura), which was a famous zone of underdevelopment in the Franco era, but has received special attention under democracy (with large investment in irrigation and local development schemes). These limited growth zones do not permit comfort in asserting the likely prospect of a new &service class' developing. This discomfort is enhanced when we explore the characteristics of demographic and housing change. Most evidently, many &new' residents in rural areas are return migrants, who often live in villages on a seasonal basis (although some engage in long-distance commuting, by retaining a city residence and staying in it during the week). As one indication of this, in AndalucmH a the highest rate of in-migration amongst migrants born in their destination municipality was for places with fewer than 2500 residents (Hoggart, 1997). In all, almost three-quarters of in-migrants into such municipalities were born within the same province, compared with under half in places with at least 25,000 inhabitants (28% as opposed to 14% were born in the same municipality). This represents a continuing a$rmation of the importance of family and locale in Spanish rural society (see Brenan, 1950, on the importance of the pueblo). Emigrants commonly retain possession of a family home and return to it for vacations (e.g. Brandes, 1975; Mansvelt Beck, 1988). The signi"cance of this for rural life is starkly brought out when computations are made of the ratio of second homes to primary residences in municipalities with less than 2000 inhabitants (Nomenclator, 1996). The average ratio for settlements in each Autonomous Community shows that the number of second homes is greater than the number of "rst homes in "ve AACC. With 100 representing equality between the two (i.e. second homes comprise 50% of the housing stock), the highest second-home representations are in Madrid (162), and regions with

74

K. Hoggart, A. Paniagua / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 63}80

important tourism industries like Comunidad Valenciana (155), Islas Baleares (131), Catalun a (110) and Murcia (109). But there are also signi"cant second-home numbers in places with small tourism industries and relatively meagre commuter "elds. Included amongst these are Castilla-La Mancha (88), La Rioja (71), AragoH n (68), Castilla-LeoH n (62), AndalucmH a (59) and Extremadura (47). With the exception of Extremadura, these "gures indicate that at least one-third of dwellings in smaller settlements are second homes (with rapid expansion in second home numbers occurring in association with, and consequent upon, massive population losses in the 1960s and early 1970s; Barke, 1991). Let us put this in context. We have seen that rural Spain has recorded enormous population losses over time. Quite apart from the impact this has had on housing availability, one of its more important consequences has been a major disruption in farm households. Despite warm sentiments toward farmers, the last 30 years has seen a growing unwillingness to work in the sector (e.g. GarcmH a Ramon et al., 1995b; Navarro, 1999). Investigators document young people leaving farming because of its low social status, even when this means taking lower paid urban jobs (e.g. Greenwood, 1976), with immigrants called on to "ll seasonal demand for farm labour in expanding production sectors (e.g. Hoggart and Mendoza, 1999). O!ering an illustration of the depth of feeling involved, in a 1990 national survey of rural parents, only 5.0% wanted their daughters and just 14.3% their sons to enter farming (Navarro, 1999). These "gures contrast with the share wanting their children in local non-farm jobs (40.7 and 36.6%, respectively), or who preferred that they left home rather than accept farm work (23.4 and 20.5%). Linked to many parents seeing education as a primary vehicle through which children can escape farm work (e.g. GarcmH a Ramon and Cruz, 1996), an associated sentiment favours children leaving their home community completely (30.8 and 28.7%, respectively). Antagonism to farm employment is not a new occurrence, with the unwillingness of women to marry farmers or farm labourers also contributing to

 Spanish agrarian censuses reveal continued losses of agricultural workers aged 25 years or less, with growth in numbers for those in the 55}64 and over 65 year age groups (Enciso RodrmH guez and SabateH Prats, 1995). In 1993, 80.3% of Spanish farmers were 45 years or older (Commission of the European Communities, annual).  Navarro (1999) shows that rural women want to remain in rural areas but a lack of job opportunities commonly means they have to leave. Investment in formal education increases the chances of remaining, as it provides access to more local employment openings. But if state policies lead to insu$cient educational opportunities, this is prone to be associated with &#ight'. The state is also in#uential as a source of white-collar employment, as rural jobs of this kind are commonly in public services (education, health, etc.). In this way, the expansion of public services has important consequences for broadening the rural employment base, especially for women.

changes in male attitudes toward working in the sector (e.g. Douglass, 1975). For farm households this has resulted in the family increasingly taking a nuclear form, with husband and wife, and increasingly not even one adult child, living or working on the farm. Indicative of this, male farm-managers now undertake more than 60% of farm labour (INE, 1991). In the cereal-dominated lands of central Spain, the loss of family support, and an inability to recruit paid labourers, has meant that farmers have adopted simpli"ed, less labour intensive forms of production. This has often been accompanied with recognition that family members do not want to inherit the farm, so longer term investment to raise farm productivity is less of a priority. With recent &losses' from set-aside o!ering a further limit on productive activity, many farmers in central Spain now only work for 3 or 4 months a year. With families scattered through outmigration, this often means farmers do not live in their home village for a major part of the year. At the same time, with many former emigrants inheriting family farms, a new trend is emerging which sees &urban farmers' taking a bigger role in agricultural communities. These &urban farmers' commonly do not own farm machinery and often pay professional farmers to do their agricultural work (or, following practices associated with earlier emigration, rent out land; Brandes, 1975; Harding, 1984), and spend comparatively little time in the countryside. This means that many rural localities in continental Spain experience a seasonal deserti"cation of population (much like &second-home villages' in tourism zones). In many cases villages are essentially summer communities. Signi"cantly in this regard, the "gures for second homes given above are averages for Autonomous Communities. Within these regions there are signi"cant concentrations of seasonal residences. For instance, "eldwork by one of the authors in northern Soria suggests that the summer population in certain villages is 3 or 4 times greater than in winter. To be clear, inward summer population in#uxes are not restricted to those with agricultural interests. There are many elderly people who return to their village of origin during the summer months. Of course,

 Research in a number of countries has identi"ed a trend toward less farm work being undertaken by women (Siiskonen, 1988; Arkleton Trust (Research) Ltd., 1992; Hillebrand and Blom, 1993), although studies in Germany and Italy suggest that a feminisation of the farm labour force has occurred, or at least was taking place in the early 1980s (Douglass, 1984; Pfe!er, 1989). In Spain female labour on farms did increase by 20% between 1967/1969 and 1986. However, since joining the EU in 1986 this trend has reversed. Thus, between 1989 and 1995 the proportion of women living on farms who had farm production responsibilities fell from 21.1 to 16.2%. This tendency is associated with patriarchal succession, with increased mechanisation in some "elds reducing labour demands, and less people being willing to accept farm work.

K. Hoggart, A. Paniagua / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 63}80

for those who left rural zones in the mass exodus of the 1960s and early 1970s, many are now close to or at retirement age (e.g. in Galicia the "gure is reported to be 26%; Precedo Ledo and Grimes, 1991). For some the anticipation of retirement has led to longer stays in former home villages. In this regard movement by those who are close to retirement is part of a broader pattern of seasonal, weekly and daily moves that bind rural areas closer to cities. For these &migrants', the main residence can be either rural or urban. For instance, within a zone of up to 200 km from Madrid, there is a growing trend for workers in small towns and villages to travel into Madrid for construction work. They do this in organised travel groups, sometimes through small "rms, and travel weekly from their rural homes to Madrid for work. However, we should note that a lack of dynamism characterises many Spanish cities (Cheshire and Hay, 1989; Serrano MartmH nez and King, 1994), with the result that the urban "elds of large cities are less buoyant and extensive than those in northern Europe. This lessens pressure for change in the countryside, as well as opportunities for rural residents to take up city jobs, unless they live part-time in the city or engage in lengthy daily journeys. The essential message is that population movement in rural Spain is becoming more complex, especially in its temporal manifestations. As indicated in a previous section, there are still large shortfalls in job creation in rural areas, so the prospects of a service class in#ow are restricted, except in peri-urban zones (Romero GonzaH lez and Albertos Puebla, 1996). With the exception of recreation and tourism zones, it is unlikely that service employment will increase rapidly in areas beyond the daily (or weekly) commuting range of large cities. Certainly farmers are not diversifying into spheres that generate new economic imperatives. Added to which, large, multi-branch companies are not relocating plants that bring service class jobs into rural areas. Another possibility is that former employees establish their own buiness in high amenity areas, whether in manufacturing or services. A sense that this might be occurring in rural Spain can be derived from migration trends, with migrants into rural areas coming disproportionately from the 40 to 64 age range. This is most likely to be the group with su$cient resources and contacts to establish an enterprise, or to work at a distance from a home o$ce, even if this is simply because they are more likely to have acquired two homes (through inheritance or through accumulated income providing the purchasing power), so they can engage in weekly commuting. Signi"cantly in this regard, even in the agricultural regions of AndalucmH a, this age group has a positive net migration balance in municipalities of under 2500 population (with the balance being close to that for large centres; Hoggart, 1997; see also Garcia Sanz, 1996). Yet these in#ows are still small in scale. Moreover, many in-migrants are returnees. Thus, in recent "eldwork in the

75

Tierras Altas in Soria, which is the most depopulated province of Castilla-LeoH n (itself the most depopulated region in Spain), seven out of 10 in-migrants were returnees (INE, 1993). These returnees are often establishing a base for eventual retirement during the time they are still in employment, or have inherited property and "nd their changed (urban) working conditions enable them to engage in long-distance commuting. The importance of return migrants in Spanish rural in#ows clearly makes for a di!erent social condition than that associated with English rurality. In general, return migrants "t into rural communities more readily than &newcomers'. The kind of con#ict between farmers and in-migrants, in-migrants and manual workers or even between in-migrant groups, that the English rural literature paints, are less likely to occur. Even if in-migrants are &newcomers', con#ict is less likely, as housing is rarely a scarce resource in rural zones. Despite high levels of second home ownership, rural Spain still o!ers an abundance of properties for those who want them. For instance, at the 1990 census of housing, empty or abandoned dwellings in places of under 2000 population constituted 20.2% of the housing stock (INE, 1992b). In addition to which, social policy o!ers favourable income bene"ts for rural manual workers, which encourages many to stay in the countryside. Most overtly this is seen in special subsidies for farm labourers in AndalucmH a and Extremadura. Yet relatively high subsidy levels under the CAP (compared with previous Spanish payments) means that farmers in cereal regions of the interior now have less incentive to leave. In some cases, for instance, 50% of their earnings now come from CAP receipts (Lamo de Espinosa, 1997). Added to which, some AACC governments are putting considerable e!ort into local development plans, aimed at job creation in rural zones (e.g. Castilla-LeoH n, Catalun a, Pais Vasco), with shifts in public services like health care, although still in its infancy, adding to rural job creation (Navarro, 1999). Not that all e!orts are focused on job formation, for some AACC administrations, like that for Castilla-LeoH n, have introduced their own pension and pre-retirement schemes, so helping residents stay in rural locales. Taken together, and viewing demographic shifts in occupational terms, it is clear that the rural &service class' is limited to a few areas of Spain. Data by occupation in rural areas point to continuing decline in agricultural occupations and an associated relative growth in other occupations. In some cases this relative growth means little more than the same traditional service sector jobs now constituting a larger share of the local workforce,

 Temporary residents are associated with some con#icts, as mentioned in the previous section. However, these are principally disagreements about paying for and providing municipal services, rather than indications of tension arising from social (class) divides.

76

K. Hoggart, A. Paniagua / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 63}80

owing to agricultural decline (Paniagua, 1997). This is not to say that consumption activities are not developing in rural areas. More to emphasise that they are limited in geographical extent. That stated, there is no doubt that signi"cant social change has occurred in rural Spain. Notable change began to occur before the mass emigration in the 1960s (Harding, 1984), but population losses further strained the former, highly localised social order (e.g. Pitt-Rivers, 1971), with a multitude of studies recording how profound the changes of more than 20 years ago were (e.g. see almost any chapter in Aceves and Douglass, 1976). Even after massive depopulation, most of Spain was still left with a &traditional' rural society that was dominated by agriculture. However, over the last three decades new layers of economic activity have been superimposed on this traditional structure, with tourism having profound impacts on the farm sector in coastal regions (Greenwood, 1976; Hermans, 1981), as well as on the economies of these regions in general (Morris, 1992; Naylon, 1992). In truth, however, tourism development has been highly focused on a few geographical regions, with the majority of the interior left largely unscathed (Pearce and Gimmeau, 1985; Barke et al., 1996). With manufacturing activity largely in small-scale, traditional units (Va`zquez-Barquero and Hebbert, 1985; Lewis and Williams, 1988), punctuated relatively infrequently by (often foreign) larger scale or high-tech industries (Lagendijk and van der Knaap, 1993; Peck and Stone, 1994), the prospects of profound population change occurring across a broad rural canvass are slim. For most of rural Spain, what we are left with is relatively slow social change. If technological adjustments in work practices ease ties with o$ces, this might prompt more city professionals to seek a rural home. But it has to be noted that Spain is not a leading high-technology economy (despite government e!orts; Brasslo!, 1993), so any such tendency is likely to start more slowly and embody smaller numbers than elsewhere. We can provide a suggestive illustration of this by drawing on internet &yellow pages' data on the existence of &the professions' in rural municipalities (taken here as places of less than 5000 inhabitants). Examining two contrasting provinces, we "nd that professionals are a rare occupational category in rural zones. For example, even amidst the economic buoyancy of Girona, only 75 professionals are listed in the 22 rural municipalities that record them, but 82 rural municipalities record no professionals at all. In Guadalajara, an interior province, only 31 of 281 rural municipalities list residents with professional occupations, with just 67 recorded for these 31 places. These "gures are speci"c examples of a general trend in rural Spain. Examined in terms of precise occupations, many professional people have legal occupations, with virtually no professional occupations associated with urban consumer and producer services (e.g. business services). Where these do exist, numbers are restricted to one or two per

municipality, with very few municipalities recording any at all. Placed alongside measures that have helped manual workers retain their rural homes, the message is that the rural population is likely to retain its &traditional' character for some time to come. Whereas English rural society might be regressing toward a mythological past, mainstream Spanish rural society still pumps the past through its main arteries. Rather than glorifying what was (or what people would like to assume the past was) like, the impetus for many is still toward (social) modernisation, which might help them break out of social deprivation (e.g. Majoral, 1991; GarcmH a Ramon and Cruz, 1996; SabateH Martinez, 1996; Navarro, 1999). Rural modernisation is still waited for. Post-modernisation is some way o!.

5. Conclusion Our intention in this paper has been to ask if ideas on rural restructuring help us understand processes and patterns of change in the Spanish countryside. If we compare the structural coherence of rural Spain at the mid-point or even at the end of the Franco Regime with today, then the conclusion reached is that this is not the case. There has been no fundamental transformation of rural society. Of course there has been change, and some of it has been on a grand scale, even if its extent is more limited. Thus, small villages like Benidorm have been transformed into large towns since the 1960s, with complete changes in economic functions and lifestyle. More generally, there have been huge population losses, with inevitable consequences for local social structures, alongside a transformation of economic opportunities for those who leave and remain (e.g. Brandes, 1975). As agriculture has continued to decline, massive e!orts have been put into encouraging new economic enterprises, especially in the tourism sector. These changes have made an impression on rural areas but they cannot be said to have restructured the countryside. In terms of the economy, agriculture and its related industries and services still dominate. There is little in these sectors that smells of diversi"cation in any fundamental way. Likewise there is no cheery message about high-tech industry #ocking to less populated areas or of a bounty of new "rm formations. A lack of buoyancy amongst larger urban centres also weakens urban "eld e!ects on commuter-belt territories (the exceptions are Barcelona and Madrid, but there are possibilities this situation will change given the recent economic strength of the Spanish economy, albeit how enduring this is only time will tell). Meanwhile, environmentalism has still to rear its head in an e!ective way. Hardly surprising in this context the professionalisation of countryside populations has made little headway. The rural economy has changed little in

K. Hoggart, A. Paniagua / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 63}80

a qualitative sense. For civil society there are even signs of a retreat into the past, for large shares of &new' rural populations already have strong ties with rural areas, including their &new' home village. Moreover, in many parts of the nation rural depopulation is still a common demographic feature. The huge number of second homes that have resulted has not helped transform rural society, as these are components of a family-centred social network, rather than playground objects for the urban middle classes. Built into this picture of little change, gender relations retain a strong traditionalist impression (Navarro, 1999). Rural society is waiting to be transformed, it is not disoriented by a maelstrom of &foreign' impulses that fragment its "gurative soul and reinvent its basic cultural, economic, political and social precepts. One of our concerns is that there is still a prevalent tendency in contemporary writing to &generalise' from the English-speaking world to other places. When we take ideas of how rural areas are being transformed, this tactic does not work for Spain. Globalisation might be held to be an important process, but it is not generating uniformity, even within nations covered by the same supranational legal framework (see also van der Dries and Portela, 1994). As a result an awareness of the impact of national contexts is important for improved understanding of rural change processes (e.g. Buller, 1992; Hoggart et al., 1995; Mingione, 1995). Unfortunately, we still "nd theorisation at this level immature. Perhaps one way to start an improvement process is explicitly to be &nationally' re#exive in examinations of rural change. To clarify this clumsy expression, we are suggesting that analysts should not simply devote more attention to understanding rural processes in other countries, but should explicitly utilise the understanding so gained to re-examine their own nations. We suspect that developing understanding in this way will make many of the implicit assumptions and pre-conceptions that so characterise interpretations of (single nation) ruralities more transparent. This could lead to a questioning of key conceptualisations and understandings. We can o!er one example of this in action, which is this and its associated paper (Hoggart and Paniagua, 2001). These started out as an exploration of how the rural restructuring literature could help us understand change in rural Spain. Through exploring dimensions of change and their conceptualisation in Spain and in England, a growing dissatisfaction de-

 We do not wish to imply that this statement is &universally' true but we note the manner in which English language publications are so prevalent in the academic world. Despite the importance of recent theoretical contributions initially written in other languages (e.g. Castells, 1977; Beck, 1992), researchers whose "rst language is not English are increasingly drawn to English language publications and their ideas. This still results in a bias towards reporting empirical "ndings and theorisations grounded in the experiences of the English-speaking world.

77

veloped over the way rural restructuring ideas were used to interpret change in the English countryside. This appreciation then fed into a critical re-examination of the Spanish context. In arguing for a more explicitly re#exive agenda, we do not wish to restrict our comments to cross-national dimensions (or more generally geographical ones). What we emphasise is the need for a more e!ective incorporation of longer term change processes (the temporal dimension) and positionalities with regard to rural life (gender, ethnicity, age, etc.).

References Aceves, J.B., Douglass, W.A. (Eds.), 1976. The Changing Faces of Rural Spain. Schenkman, Cambridge, MA. Allen, J., Thompson, G., 1997. Think global, then think again * economic globalization in context. Area 29, 213}227. Arkleton Trust (Research) Ltd., 1992. Farm Household Adjustment in Western Europe 1987}1991, Vols. 1 and 2. O$ce for O$cial Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Barcelo, L., GarcmH a, J.M., 1986. Aspectos regionales de la polmH tica agraria en Espan a. Estudios Territoriales 22, 29}54. Barke, M., 1991. The growth and changing pattern of second homes in Spain in the 1970s. Scottish Geographical Magazine 107, 12}21. Barke, M., Newton, M., 1997. The EU LEADER initiative and endogenous rural development: the application of the programme in two rural areas of Andalusia, southern Spain. Journal of Rural Studies 13, 319}341. Barke, M., Towner, J., Newton, M.T. (Eds.), 1996. Tourism in Spain. CAB International, Wallingford. Baylina, M., GarcmH a-Ramon, M.D., 1998. Homeworking in rural Spain: a gender approach. European Urban and Regional Studies 5, 55}64. Beck, U., 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. originally published as Risikogeselleschaft: Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne, 1986. Sage, London. Bermeo, N., 1986. The Revolution Within the Revolution: Workers Control in Rural Portugal. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Blanco, R., Benayas, J., 1994. El turismo como motor del desarrollo rural. AnaH lisis de los proyectos de turismo subvencionados por LEADER I. Revista de Estudios Agro-Sociales 169, 123}147. Boussard, I., 1990. French political science and rural problems. In: Lowe, P.D., Bodiguel, M. (Eds.), Rural Studies in Britain and France. Belhaven, London, pp. 269}285. Bradshaw, R., 1985. Spanish migration: economic causes, grave social consequences. Geography 70, 175}178. Brandes, S.H., 1975. Migration, Kinship and Community: Tradition and Transition in a Spanish Village. Academic Press, New York. Brasslo!, W., 1993. Employment and unemployment in Spain and Portugal: a contrast. Journal of the Association for Contemporary Iberian Studies 6 (1), 2}24. Brenan, G., 1950. The Spanish Labyrinth, 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Brym, R.J., 1978. Regional social structure and agrarian radicalism in Canada. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 15, 339}351. Buller, H., 1992. Agricultural change and the environment in Western Europe. In: Hoggart, K. (Ed.), Agricultural Change, Environment and Economy. Mansell, London, pp. 68}88. Camarero, L.A., 1993. Del ED xodo Rural y del ED xodo Urbano: Ocaso y Renacimiento de los Asentamientos Rurales en Espan a. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y AlimentacioH n, Madrid.

78

K. Hoggart, A. Paniagua / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 63}80

Cannata, G., 1982. Cooperation in the agrofood industry: Spain, Greece and Portugal. Food Policy 7 (2), 125}132. CardeluH s, J., Pascual de Sans, A., Solano, M., 1999. Migracions, Activitat Econo`mica, i Poblament a Espanya. Universitat Auto`noma de Barcelona Servei de Publicacions, Bellaterra. Castells, M., 1977. The Urban Question: A Marxist Approach. originally published as La Question Urbaine 1972. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Centro de Investigaciones de la Realidad EconoH mico y Social, 1994. These "gures were computed from magnetic tape "les held by the Centro. The data on these "les are drawn from a survey conducted in December 1994, in which 1200 interviews were completed. Charlesworth, A., 1994. The spatial di!usion of riots: popular disturbances in England and Wales 1750}1850. Rural History 5, 1}22. Cheshire, P.C., Hay, D.G., 1989. Urban Problems in Western Europe. Unwin Hyman, London. Clark, S., 1975. The political mobilisation of Irish farmers. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 12, 483}499. Cloke, P.J., Goodwin, M., 1992. Conceptualizing countryside change: from post-Fordism to rural structured coherence. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 17, 321}336. Collier, G.A., 1987. Socialists of Rural Andalusia: Unacknowledged Revolutionaries of the Second Republic. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA. Commission of the European Communities (annual). Basic Statistics of the Community. O$ce for O$cial Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Commission of the European Communities, 1988. Eurobarometro: Los Europeos y su Agricultura. O$ce for O$cial Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Commission of the European Communities, 1996. La SituacioH n de la Agricultura en la UnioH n Europea: Informe de 1995. O$ce for O$cial Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Coverdale, J.F., 1979. The Political Transformation of Spain After Franco. Praeger, New York. Cruz, J., 1987. Political and economic change in Spanish agriculture 1950}85. Antipode 19, 119}133. Cuadrado, M., 1992. El Desarrollo del Mundo Rural en Espan a: Informe Preliminar, Vols. 1 and 2. IRYDA, Madrid. Cuadrado Roura, J.R., 1991. Structural changes in the Spanish economy: their regional e!ects. In: Rodwin, L., Sazanami, H. (Eds.), Industrial Change and Regional Economic Transformation. Harper Collins, London, pp. 168}201. De Miguel, A., 1993. La Sociedad Espan ola 1992/93. Alianza Editorial, Madrid. DomineH , V., MartmH nez, P., 1993. La cobertura del planeamiento urbanmH stico en Espan a. Estudios Territoriales: Ciudad y Territorio 95/96, 151}162. Douglass, W.A., 1975. Echalar and Murelaga: Opportunity and Rural Exodus in Two Spanish Basque Villages. Hurst, London. Douglass, W.A., 1984. Emigration in a South Italian Town: An Anthropological History. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ. Enciso RodrmH guez, J.P., SabateH Prats, P., 1995. DinaH mica ocupacional de la mano de obra no asalariada en las explotaciones agrarias espan olas. Agricultura y Sociedad 76, 245}264. Esping-Andersen, G., 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Polity, Cambridge. Etxezarreta, M., 1992. Transformation of the labour system and work processes in a rapidly modernizing agriculture: the evolving case of Spain. In: Marsden, T.K., Lowe, P.D., Whatmore, S.J. (Eds.), Labour and Locality. David Fulton, London, pp. 44}67. Etxezarreta, M., ViladomiuH , L., 1989. The restructuring of Spanish agriculture and Spain's accession to the EEC. In: Goodman, D., Redclift, M.R. (Eds.), The International Farm Crisis. Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 156}182.

Etxezarreta, M., ViladomiuH , L., 1997. El avance hacia la internacionalizacioH n: croH nica de una deH cada de la agricultura espan ola. In: Agricultura y Sociedad en la Espan a ContemporaH nea. CISMAPA, Madrid, pp. 317}355. Ferrer Mateo, J., 1991. Improving access to administration in Spain. In: Batley, R., Stoker, G. (Eds.), Local Government in Europe. Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 146}154. GarcmH a FernaH ndez, C., 1997. The privatization of public services in Spain. In: Lorrain, D., Stoker, G. (Eds.), The Privatization of Urban Services in Europe. Pinter, London, pp. 133}146. GarcmH a Ramon, M.D., Cruz, J., 1996. Regional welfare policies and women's agricultural labour in southern Spain. In: GarcmH a Ramon, M.D., Monk, J. (Eds.), Women of the European Union. Routledge, London, pp. 247}262. GarcmH a Ramon, M.D., Canoves, G., Valdovinos, N., 1995a. Farm tourism, gender and the environment in Spain. Annals of Tourism Research 22, 267}282. GarcmH a Ramon, M.D., Cruz, J., Salaman a Segura, I., Villarino PeH rez, M., 1995b. Mujer y Agricultura en Espan a: GeH nero, Trabajo y Contexto Regional. Oikos-Tau, Barcelona. Garcia Sanz, B., 1996. La sociedad rural ante el siglo XXI. Madrid, MAPA. Garrido, F., Moyano, E., 1996. Spain. In: Whitby, M.C. (Ed.), The European Environment and CAP Reform. CAB International, Wallingford, pp. 86}104. Gavira, L., 1992. La estructura segmentada del mercado de trabajo rural en AndalucmH a. Revista de Estudios Regionales 31, 87}104. Generalitat de Catalunya Institut d'EstadmH stica de Catalunya, 1996. LocalitzacioH de l'Activitat Economica 1995: Establiments, Super"cies i Professionals * Per Comarques i Municipis. Barcelona. Giner, S., 1985. Political economy, legitimation and the state in southern Europe. In: Hudson, R., Lewis, J.R. (Eds.), Uneven Development in Southern Europe. Methuen, London, pp. 309}350. Giner, S., Sevilla, E., 1984. Spain: from corporatism to corporatism. In: Williams, A.M. (Ed.), Southern Europe Transformed. Harper & Row, London, pp. 113}141. Goodwin, M., Cloke, P.J., Milbourne, P., 1995. Regulation theory and rural research: theorising contemporary rural change. Environment and Planning A 27, 1245}1260. Gray, J., 2000. The Common Agricultural Policy and the re-invention of the rural in the European Community. Sociologia Ruralis 40, 30}52. Greenwood, D.J., 1976. Unrewarding Wealth: The Commercialization and Collapse of Agriculture in a Spanish Basque Town. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. de Haan, H., 1997. Locality, identity and the reshaping of modernity: an analysis of cultural confrontations in two villages. In: de Haan, H., Long, N. (Eds.), Images and Realities of Rural Life. Van Gorcum, Asses, pp. 153}177. Harding, S.F., 1984. Remaking Iberia: Rural Life in Aragon under Franco. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Harrison, J., 1985. The Spanish Economy in the Twentieth Century. Croom Helm, London. Harrison, J., 1993. The Spanish Economy: From Civil War to the European Community. Macmillan, Basingstoke. Hermans, D., 1981. The encounter of agriculture and tourism: a Catalan case. Annals of Tourism Research 8, 463}479. Hillebrand, H., Blom, U., 1993. Young women on Dutch family farms. Sociologia Ruralis 33, 178}189. Hoggart, K., 1997. Rural migration and counterurbanization in the European periphery: the case of AndalucmH a. Sociologia Ruralis 37, 134}153. Hoggart, K., Mendoza, C., 1999. African immigrant workers in Spanish agriculture. Sociologia Ruralis 39, 538}562. Hoggart, K., Paniagua, A., 2001. What rural restructuring? Journal of Rural Studies 17, 41}62. Hoggart, K., Buller, H., Black, R., 1995. Rural Europe: Identity and Change. Arnold, London.

K. Hoggart, A. Paniagua / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 63}80 Howe, C., 1986. Farmers' movements and the changing structure of agriculture. In: Havens, A.E., Hooks, G., Mooney, P.H., Pfe!er, M.J. (Eds.), Studies in the Transformation of US Agriculture. Westview, Boulder, CO, pp. 104}149. Ilbery, B.W., Bowler, I.R., 1998. From agricultural productivism to post-productivism. In: Ilbery, B.W. (Ed.), The Geography of Rural Change. Longman, Harlow, pp. 57}84. Ilbery, B.W., Kneafsey, M., 1998. Product and place: promoting quality products and services in lagging rural regions of the European Union. European Urban and Regional Studies 5, 329}341. Ilbery, B.W., Healey, M.J., Higginbottom, J., 1997. On and o!-farm business diversi"cation by farm households in England. In: Ilbery, B.W., Chiotti, Q., Rickard, T. (Eds.), Agricultural Restructuring and Sustainability: A Geographical Perspective. CAB International, Wallingford, pp. 135}151. INE (annual - 1). Encuesta de PoblacioH n Activa. Instituto Nacional de EstadmH stica, Madrid. INE (annual - 2). DIRCE: Directorio Central de Empresa. Instituto Nacional de EstadmH stica, Madrid. INE (annual - 3). Anuario Estadistico, 1992. Instituto Nacional de EstadmH stica, Madrid. INE, 1986. RelacioH n de Municipios Desaparecidos desde Principios de Siglo. Instituto Nacional de EstadmH stica, Madrid. INE, 1991. Censo Agrario 1989. Instituto Nacional de EstadmH stica, Madrid. INE, 1992a. Censo de PoblacioH n de 1991: Poblaciones de Derecho y Hecho de los Municipios Espan oles. Instituto Nacional de EstadmH stica, Madrid. INE, 1992b. Censo de Edi"cios, 1990. Instituto Nacional de EstadmH stica, Madrid. INE, 1993. Encuesta SociodemograH "ca 1991: Resultados Nacionales * Movimientos Migratorios y Vivienda, Vol. II. Instituto Nacional de EstadmH stica, Madrid. INE, 1995. Encuesta de Estructuras de las Explotaciones Agrarias, biannual. Instituto Nacional de EstadmH stica, Madrid. Izcara Palacios, S.P., 1998. Farmers and the implementation of the EU Nitrates Directive in Spain. Sociologia Ruralis 38, 146}162. Izquierdo Escribano, A., 1992. La InmigracioH n en Espan a 1980}1990. Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social, Madrid. Jenkins, J.C., 1982. Why do peasants rebel?: structural and historical theories of modern peasant rebellions. American Journal of Sociology 88, 487}514. Johansen, H.C., 1987. The Danish Economy in the Twentieth Century. Croom Helm, London. Johnson, R.W., 1972. The nationalisation of English rural politics: Norfolk South West, 1945}1970. Parliamentary A!airs 26, 8}55. Jones, M.A., 1960. American Immigration. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Junta de Castilla y LeoH n, 1997. Anuario Estadistico de Castilla y LeoH n 1997. Valladolid. Kenny, M., 1960. Patterns of patronage in Spain. Anthropological Quarterly 33, 14}23. Keyes, J., Munt, I., Riera, P., 1993. The control of development in Spain. Town Planning Review 64, 47}64. Kleinman, J., Sington, P., 1989. Spain: The Internationalisation of the Economy. Euromoney Publications, London. Knoke, D., Henry, C., 1977. Political structure of rural America. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 429, 51}62. Lagendijk, A., van der Knapp, G.A., 1993. Foreign involvement in the Spanish automobile industry. Environment and Planning A 25, 1663-1676. Lamo de Espinosa, J., 1997. La DeH cada Perdida, 1986}1996: La Agricultura Espan ola en Europa. Mundiprensa, Madrid. Lewis, J.R., Williams, A.M., 1988. Factories in the "eld: small manufacturing "rms in rural southern Europe. In: Linge, G.J.R. (Ed.), Peripheralisation and Industrial Change. Croom Helm, London, pp. 113}130.

79

MacDonald, J.S., 1963. Agricultural organization, migration and labour militancy in rural Italy. Economic History Review 16, 61}75. Majoral, R., 1991. Women in Spanish agriculture. Iberian Studies 20, 42}61. Mansvelt Beck, J., 1988. The Rise of the Subsidised Periphery in Spain. Nederlandse Geogra"sche Studies 69, Utrecht. Marsden, T.K., 1996. Rural geography trend report: the social and political bases of rural restructuring. Progress in Human Geography 20, 246}258. Marsden, T.K., Murdoch, J., Lowe, P.D., Munton, R.J.C., Flynn, A., 1993. Constructing the Countryside. UCL Press, London. Martinez Alier, J., 1971. Labourers and Landowners in Southern Spain. Allen and Unwin, London. Mata Porras, M., 1995. In#uence of the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Community on socio-economy and land degradation. In: Fantechi, R., Peter, D., Balabinis, P., Rubio, J.L. (Eds.), Deserti"cation in a European Context. O$ce for O$cial Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, pp. 509}521. Medhurst, K.N., 1973. Government in Spain: The Executive at Work. Pergamon, Oxford. Mingione, E., 1995. New aspects of marginality in Europe. In: Hadjimichalis, C., Sadler, D. (Eds.), Europe at the Margins: New Mosaics of Inequality. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 15}32. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y AlimentacioH n, annual-1. La Agricultura, la Pesca y la AlimentacioH n en Espan a. Madrid. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y AlimentacioH n, annual-2. Anuario de EstadmH stica Agraria. Madrid. Ministerio de EconommH a y Hacienda, 1986. Programa de Desarrollo Regional. Espan a 1986}1990: Vol.1. Madrid. Moran, W., 1993. Rural space as intellectual property. Political Geography 12, 263}277. Morris, A.S., 1992. Spain's new economic geography: the Mediterranean axis. Scottish Geographical Magazine 108, 92}98. Morris, A.S., Dickinson, G., 1987. Tourist development in Spain: growth versus conservation on the Costa Brava. Geography 72, 16}25. Mun oz, J., RoldaH n, S., Serrano, A., 1979. The growing dependence of Spanish industrialisation on foreign investment. In: Seers, D., Schaffer, B., Kiljunen, M.-L. (Eds.), Underdeveloped Europe. Harvester, Hassocks, pp. 161}176. Mykolenko, L., de Raymond, Th., Henry, P., 1987. The Regional Impact of the Common Agricultural Policy in Spain and Portugal.. O$ce for O$cial Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Nadal, J., 1984. La PoblacioH n Espan ola: Siglos XVI a XX.. Ariel, Barcelona. Navarro, C.J., 1999. Women and social mobility in rural Spain. Sociologia Ruralis 39, 222}235. Naylon, J., 1992. Ascent and decline in the Spanish regional system. Geography 77, 46}62. Nomenclator, 1996. Nomenclator de las Ciudades, Villas, Lugares, Aldeas y DemaH s Entidades de PoblacioH n con Especi"cacioH n de sus NuH cleos. INE, Madrid. Nugent, N., 1991. The Government and Politics of the European Community. Macmillan, Basingstoke. OECD, annual. Agricultural Policies, Markets and Trade. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris. Pacione, M., 1977. Tourism: its e!ects on the traditional landscape in Ibiza and Formentera. Geography 62, 43}47. Paniagua, A., 1997. Agricultores joH venes y comunidades rurales de ancianos: un anaH lisis municipal en Castilla y LeoH n. Revista de Estudios Regionales 49, 87}114. Paniagua, A., 2000a. European processes of environmentalization in agriculture: a view from Spain. In: Buller, H., Hoggart, K. (Eds.), Agricultural Transformation, Food and Environment: Perspectives on European Rural Policy and Planning * Volume 1. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 131}166. Paniagua, A., 2000b. Analysis of the evolution of farmers' early retirement policy in Spain: the case of Castille and LeoH n. Land Use Policy 17, 113}120.

80

K. Hoggart, A. Paniagua / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 63}80

Paniagua, A., Rodriguez, V., 1989. Agrarian reform and land settlement in Spain since 1939. Iberian Studies 18, 91}116. Paniagua, A., Gomez, C., 1997. Agricultura, Agricultores y Problemas Ambientales; Un anaH lisis a TraveH s de las Encuestas de OpinioH n sobre Medio Ambiente. Report to Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y AlimentacioH n, Madrid. Papadopoulos, D.A., 1997. Side e!ects of bureaucratic formalism: some administrative aspects of CAP implementation in Greece. Sociologia Ruralis 37, 287}301. Pearce, D.G., Gimmeau, J.-P., 1985. The spatial structure of tourist accommodation and hotel demand in Spain. Geoforum 16, 37}50. Peck, F., Stone, I., 1994. &Sunrise in the Costa del Sol?: Global Restructuring, State Policies and Local Economic Change in the Electronics Sector in Southern Spain'. University of Northumbria Division of Geography and Environmental Management Occasional Paper 6, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. PeH rez Yruela, M., 1995. Spanish rural society in transition. Sociologia Ruralis 35, 276}296. Perren, R., 1995. Agriculture in Depression 1870}1940. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pfe!er, M.J., 1989. The feminization of production on part-time farms in the Federal Republic of Germany. Rural Sociology 54, 60}73. Pitt-Rivers, J.A., 1971. The People of the Sierra, 2nd Edition.. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Precedo Ledo, A., Grimes, S., 1991. Urban transition and local developments in a peripheral region: the case of Galicia, Spain. In: Bannon, M.J., Bourne, L.S., Sinclair, R. (Eds.), Urbanization & Urban Development. University College Dublin Department of Urban and Regional Planing, Dublin, pp. 97}107. Remmers, G., 1994. Ecological wine-making in a depressed mountainous region in southern Spain. In: van der Ploeg, J.D., Long, A. (Eds.), Born From Within. Van Gorcum, Assen, pp. 101}127. Romero GonzaH lez, J., Albertos Puebla, J.M., 1996. Spain: return to the south, metropolitan deconcentration and new migration #ows. In: Rees, P.H., Stillwell, J., Convery, A., Kupiszewski, M. (Eds.), Population Migration in the European Union. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 175}189. SabateH Martinez, A., 1996. Women's integration into the labour market and rural industrialisation in Spain. In: GarcmH a Ramon, M.D., Monk, J. (Eds.), Women in the European Union. Routledge, London, pp. 263}281. Salmon, K.G., 1992. AndalucmH a: An Emerging Regional Economy in Europe. Junta de AndalucmH a ConsejermH a de Economia y Hacienda, Sevilla. Salmon, K.G., 1995. The Modern Spanish Economy: Transformation and Integration into Europe,, 2nd Edition.. Pinter, London.

San Juan Mesonada, C., 1993. Agricultural policy. In: Barbado, A.A. (Ed.), Spain and EC Membership Evaluated. Pinter, London, pp. 49}59. Secretaria General de Turismo, 1995. La Demanda TurmH stica Espan ola en Espacio Rural o de Interior: SituacioH n Actual y Potencial. Mimeo. Ministerio de EconommH a y Hacienda, Madrid. Segrelles Serrano, J.A., 1989. La MecanizacioH n Agraria en la Provincia de Alicante. Generalitat Valenciana Conselleria d'Agricultura i Pesca. Serrano MartmH nez, J.M., King, R.L., 1994. &Urban Systems and Regional Organisation in Spain'. University of Sussex Geography Laboratory Research Paper 12, Falmer. Shortall, S., 1999. Women and Farming: Property and Power. Macmillan, Basingstoke. Siiskonen, P., 1988. The role of farmers and farm wives in agrarian change. In: Ingold, T. (Ed.), The Social Implications of Agrarian Change in Northern and Eastern Finland. Suomen Antropologinen Seura Toimituksia 22, Helsinki, pp. 91}98. SoleH Vilanova, J., 1989. Spain: developments in regional and local government. In: Bennett, R.J. (Ed.), Territory and Administration in Europe. Pinter, London, pp. 205}229. The Economist, 1999. Pocket World in Figures: 2000 Edition. Pro"le Books, London. Tout, D., 1990. The horticulture industry of AlmermH a Province, Spain. Geographical Journal 156, 304}312. Tusell GoH mez, J., 1985. The Democratic Centre and Christian Democracy in the elections of 1977 and 1979. In: Penniman, H.R., Mujal LeoH n, E.M. (Eds.), Spain at the Polls 1977, 1979 and 1982. Duke University Press, Raleigh, NC, pp. 88}128. van der Dries, A., Portela, J., 1994. Revitalization of farmer managed irrigation systems in TraH s-os-Montes. In: van der Ploeg, J.D., Long, A. (Eds.), Born From Within. Van Gorcum, Assen, pp. 71}100. Va`zquez-Barquero, A., 1992. Local development initiatives under incipient regional autonomy; the Spanish experience in the eighties. In: Garofoli, G. (Ed.), Endogenous Development and Southern Europe. Avebury, Aldershot, pp. 165}183. Va`zquez-Barquero, A., Hebbert, M., 1985. Spain: economy and state in transition. In: Hudson, R., Lewis, J.R. (Eds.), Uneven Development in Southern Europe. Methuen, London, pp. 284}308. Villaverde Castro, J., 1987. A typology of the Spanish regions: a proposed approach. Iberian Studies 16, 35}48. Way, R., 1962. A Geography of Spain and Portugal. Methuen, London. Weatherley, R.D., 1982. Domestic tourist and second homes as motors of rural development in the Sierra Morena, Spain. Iberian Studies 11, 40}46. Weis, L., 1997. Globalization and the myth of the powerless state. New Left Review 223, 1}27. Wright, A., 1977. The Spanish Economy 1959}1976. Macmillan, London.