Abstract
This paper describes a role for rural sociology in linking agrifood system vulnerabilities to opportunities for encouraging sustainability and social justice. I argue that the California rice industry is particularly vulnerable for two reasons. First, a quarter of rice growers’ revenues derive from production-based subsidies that have been recently deemed illegal by the World Trade Organization. Second, about half of California’s rice sales depend on volatile export markets, which are susceptible to periodic market access disruptions. Such vulnerabilities present political opportunities to reconfigure the connection between production and consumption. By exploring how production subsidies could be transformed into multifunctionality payments, and investigating new regional markets, rural sociology can contribute to discussions about how to encourage a more sustainable and socially just California rice industry. My discussion aims to prompt rural sociologists to explore similar questions in comparable agrifood systems.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
However, there is considerable difference between discourse and implementation. Despite years of talks on the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture, which seeks to improve market access, reduce export subsidies, and substantially reduce domestic support, most of the industrialized nations have yet to apply neoliberal rules of engagement to their own agriculture.
References
Buttel, F. 2003. The global politics of GEOs: The Achilles’ heel of the globalization regime? In Engineering trouble: Biotechnology and its discontents, ed. R. Schurman and D. Kelso, 152–173. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Buttel, F., and H. Newby. 1980. Toward a critical rural sociology. In The rural sociology of the advanced societies: Critical perspectives, ed. F. Buttel and H. Newby, 1–35. Montclair, NJ: Allanheld, Osmum, and Co.
Economic Research Service. 2001. Briefing room: Rice background. U.S Department of Agriculture, http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/rice/background.htm. Accessed 20 Dec 2004.
Environmental Working Group. 2006. Farm subsidy database. http://www.farm.ewg.org/farm/progdetail.php?fips=06000&progcode=rice. Accessed 10 July 2006.
Guthman, J. 2004. Agrarian dreams: The paradox of organic farming in California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hinrichs, C.C. 2000. Embeddedness and local food systems: Notes on two types of direct agricultural market. Journal of Rural Studies 16 (3): 295–303.
Kloppenburg, J. 2004. First the seed: The political economy of plant biotechnology. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Pudup, M., and M. Watts. 1987. Growing against the grain: Mechanized rice farming in the Sacramento Valley, California. In Comparative farming systems, ed. B. Turner and S. Brush, 345–384. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Vos, T. 2000. Visions of the middle landscape: Organic farming and the politics of nature. Agriculture and Human Values 17: 245–256.
Warner, K. 2007. Agroecology in action: Extending alternative agriculture through social networks. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Jill Harrison, Steven Wolf, two anonymous reviewers, and Harvey James, for helpful comments on earlier drafts, and Kaden Koffler and Tim Krupnik for sustained rice conversations. The usual disclaimers apply.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mulvaney, D.R. Identifying vulnerabilities, exploring opportunities: reconfiguring production, conservation, and consumption in California rice. Agric Hum Values 25, 173–176 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9123-3
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9123-3