Farmers and Politics in France

FARMERS AND POLITICS IN FRANCE papers by Pierre Coulomb H~lHne Delorme Bertrand Hervieu Marcel Jollivet Philippe Lacombe translated and edited by Michael Tracy THE ARKLETON TRUST Farmers and politics in France FARMERS AND POLITICS IN FRANCE papers by Pierre Coulomb H6lkne Delorme Bertrand Hervieu Marcel Jollivet Philippe Lacombe translated and edited by Michael Tracy THE ARKLETON TRUST First published 1991 by The Arkleton Trust Enstone, Oxon OX7 HH, UK © The Arkleton Trust 1991 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a mechanical system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission, in writing, of The Arkleton Trust. Printed and bound in Great Britain by Win. Culross & Son Limited, Coupar Angus, Perthshire, Scotland ISBN 0 906724 37 6 The original publication upon which this book is based was entitled LES AGRICULTEURS ET LA POLITIQUE and was published in 1990 by Presses de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques, Paris under the direction of P. Coulomb, H. Delorme, B. Hervieu, M. Jollivet and Ph. Lacombe Support for this translated edition has been given by the French Ministry of Culture and by the US Department of Agriculture- the latter through the Joint Exchange Programme between the Arkleton Trust, the Aspen Institute in Washington D.C. and the Canadian Agricultural and Rural Restructuring Group PREFACE by Michael Tracy The French political science association (AFSP) 1 has held three conferences, in 1956, 1970 and 1987, on the political behaviour of French farmers. At the 1987 event, numerous papers were presented: most of them (54) were published in a 600-page volume entitled Les Agriculteurs'et la Politique.2 This publication included a general introduction and six papers which, while reviewing the contributions on different topics, were important essays in their own right. These seven papers have been translated here. They mainly refer to the period since 1970. They have been slightly up-dated since presentation in 1987, and for this translation the authors have provided some additional comments in footnotes or epilogues. The reasons for bringing this work to the attention of anglophone readers are at least twofold. Firstly, in the agricultural policy field, it is well-known that France, with the biggest agricultural sector among the Member States of the European Community, has had a preponderant influence over the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). This influence must be taken into account in any explanation of the CAP's formation and evolution: it is also highly relevant in the current (1991) context of "CAP reform" and of "Uruguay Round" negotiations on trade liberalisation. Secondly, in the area of political science, increased attention has been given in recent years to the policy-making process in agriculture in developed countries. This interest I See Annex V for list of acronyms. 2 Coulomb, P. etal., dir., Presses de la Fondation nationale des sciences politiques: Paris, 1990. The previous conferences were published (same publisher) under the following titles: Fauvet, J. et Mendras, H., dir., Les paysans et la politique dons la France contemporaine, 1958; and Tavernier, Y., Gervais, M. et Servolin, C., L'univers politique des paysans dans Ia France contemporaine, 1972. 3 E.g. Moyer, W.and Josling, T.E. Agricultural Policy Reform: Politics and Processin the EC and USA, Harvester-Wheatshcaf: New York and London, 1990; Pelkmans, J. (ed.) Can the CAP be reformed?, European Institute for Public Administration: Maastricht, 1985; Petit, M. et al., Agricultural Policy Formation in the European Community: the Birth of Milk Quotas and CAP Reform. Elsevier: Amsterdam, Oxford, New York, Tokyo, 1987; Schmitt, G., "Warum die Agrarpolitik ist, wie sic ist, und nicht, wie sic sein sollte", Agrarwirtschaft, 33(5) (pp. 129-36), 1984; SeniorNello, S.M. "An application of public choice theory to the question of CAP reform", EuropeanReviewofAgricultural Economics, I I (pp. 2 61-83), 1985; Winters, L.A., "The political economy of the agricultural policy of industrial countries", European Review of Agricultural Economics, 14 (pp. 285-304), 1987. vi PREFACE reflects the continuing dependence of agriculture on public support and protection, and the realisation that farm pressure groups, despite the reduced number of farmers, remain powerful. In this context, the French situation is'particularly significant. French agriculture has undergone tremendous structural and social change: the active population in agriculture fell from 4.5 million in 1958 to under 1.4 million in 1989; the number of holdings from 1.7 million in 1966 to 0.9 million in 1987. As in other Western European countries, this has also been a period of great technological change in farming practices. Inevitably, therefore, agricultural policy has been a major issue in France. There has been intense debate on the goals and the methods of policy. For example, to what extent should modernisation be pursued?-is it desirable to create larger and more viable farms, thus enabling agriculture to contribute to the nation's wealth and export capacity, but pushing out of production many small holdings and possibly causing whole regions to be abandoned? Are farms to be considered as businesses, or do they have a predominantly social role? Does the future lie with "farmers" or with "peasants"? Should price support be the main instrument of policy, or should structural reform get greater emphasis? Do the aims and methods of the CAP correspond to the needs of French agriculture? How should French agriculture relate to the world market? Such debate has taken place, in the first instance, within the farming community. As interests are diverse, the issues have divided large farmers from small, arable farmers from livestock producers, the established generation against the young, prosperous regions against the less-favoured, and so on. There has never been much unity in the representation of farmers, but in this period the dominant role of the mainly conservative FNSEA has been tested, as rival groups have sprung up on its right and especially on its left, and have demanded governmental recognition. The political parties and successive Governments have faced a dilemma. They ignore at their peril the demands of the farm organisations. French farmers quickly become militant, their demonstrations easily turn to violence; and the farming vote is not to be neglected in presidential, parliamentary or local elections. On the other hand, French consumers and taxpayers do not represent a significant political force. So the tendency of the authorities is, at the least, to avoid confrontation with the farmers: some politicians (Jacques Chirac is a notable example) may actively seek their electoral support. Nevertheless, other considerations intervene. The CAP imposes constraints, particularly as regards levels of price support. Though farm leaders and politicians have occasionally flirted with the idea of withdrawing from the CAP, it has had to be recognised that, on balance, the preferential Community market and Community financial support for production and exports are indispensable to French agriculture. Not surpris- ingly, France has tended to resist attempts to "reform" the CAP by reducing price levels or curbing the volume of output. Nevertheless, as surpluses have built up and the disposal of the growing French production potential has proved more and more difficult, -'9q MICHAEL TRACY vii the need for some action has had to be recognised. It was a French Minister of Agri- culture, Michel Rocard, who presided over the decision by the Community's Council of Ministers in 1984 to introduce milk delivery quotas. Continuity of policy has however been lacking. The first years of the Fifth Republic after 1958 were characterised, in agriculture as elsewhere, by "reforming Gaullism", reflected particularly in the introduction of structural reform measures. Under de Gaulle's successor as President of the Republic, Georges Pompidou, there was a return to more traditional policies, attempting to safeguard the existence of as many farms as possible. The next President, Val6ry Giscard d'Estaing, emphasised the export role of French agriculture, and hence the need to make French agriculture more competitive. The election in 1981 of the first Socialist President, Franqois Mitterrand, quickly fol- lowed by the establishment of a Socialist majority in Parliament, was a major upheaval, reflected particularly in an unsuccessful attempt to break the power of the mainstream (largely right-wing) farm organisations. Following the parliamentary elections of 1986 which led to the appointment as Prime Minister of the neo-Gaullist Jacques Chirac, several of the Socialist initiatives were reversed. In 1988 Mitterrand was re-elected and the Socialists again formed a Government, but this time appeared unwilling to take measures that would upset the majority of farmers. Two recent works in English contribute to our understanding of this turbulent period: John Keeler has analysed relations between farmers and the State under the Fifth Republic, up to 1983 (his work includes illuminating case-studies of three contrasting regions); Mark Cleary gives a broad picture of developments from 1914 to 1985.1 The interest of the papers translated in the present volume is that here we have Frenchmen talking to Frenchmen (the AFSP conference was a purely national affair). Anglophone readers may

Load more