IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01286845.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Legitimizing farmers' new knowledge, learning and practices through communicative action: Application of an agro-environmental policy

Author

Listed:
  • Jean-Pierre del Corso

    (LEREPS - Laboratoire d'Etude et de Recherche sur l'Economie, les Politiques et les Systèmes Sociaux - UT Capitole - Université Toulouse Capitole - UT - Université de Toulouse - UT2J - Université Toulouse - Jean Jaurès - UT - Université de Toulouse - Institut d'Études Politiques [IEP] - Toulouse - ENSFEA - École Nationale Supérieure de Formation de l'Enseignement Agricole de Toulouse-Auzeville)

  • Charilaos Kephaliacos

    (LEREPS - Laboratoire d'Etude et de Recherche sur l'Economie, les Politiques et les Systèmes Sociaux - UT Capitole - Université Toulouse Capitole - UT - Université de Toulouse - UT2J - Université Toulouse - Jean Jaurès - UT - Université de Toulouse - Institut d'Études Politiques [IEP] - Toulouse - ENSFEA - École Nationale Supérieure de Formation de l'Enseignement Agricole de Toulouse-Auzeville)

  • Gaël Plumecocq

    (AGIR - AGroécologie, Innovations, teRritoires - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - Toulouse INP - Institut National Polytechnique (Toulouse) - UT - Université de Toulouse, LEREPS - Laboratoire d'Etude et de Recherche sur l'Economie, les Politiques et les Systèmes Sociaux - UT Capitole - Université Toulouse Capitole - UT - Université de Toulouse - UT2J - Université Toulouse - Jean Jaurès - UT - Université de Toulouse - Institut d'Études Politiques [IEP] - Toulouse - ENSFEA - École Nationale Supérieure de Formation de l'Enseignement Agricole de Toulouse-Auzeville)

Abstract

This article examines the role of communication in the process that guides economic actors to integrate the moral obligations implied by adopting sustainability principles in their action choices and to reexamine their practices. We analyze two approaches to implementing agro-environmental measures that encourage farmers to preserve water resources. Verbal interactions between farmers and agricultural advisors, who are part of these policy programs, are analyzed drawing on Jürgen Habermas's theory of communicative action. The discourse analysis used here shows that communicative action encouraged participants to reexamine the validity of the technical, experiential, and normative knowledge that legitimized their reasons for acting. This study brings to light the fact that, in the context of a business primarily oriented towards making a profit, committing to sustainable development does not only operate in technical terms; such a commitment also requires collective validation of the effectiveness of alternative farming practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Jean-Pierre del Corso & Charilaos Kephaliacos & Gaël Plumecocq, 2015. "Legitimizing farmers' new knowledge, learning and practices through communicative action: Application of an agro-environmental policy," Post-Print hal-01286845, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01286845
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.05.017
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-01286845
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-01286845/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.05.017?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard B. Howarth & Matthew A. Wilson, 2006. "A Theoretical Approach to Deliberative Valuation: Aggregation by Mutual Consent," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(1), pages 1-16.
    2. Laura Hartman & Robert Rubin & K. Dhanda, 2007. "The Communication of Corporate Social Responsibility: United States and European Union Multinational Corporations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 74(4), pages 373-389, September.
    3. Ali Douai, 2009. "Value theory in ecological economics: the contribution of a political economy of wealth," Post-Print hal-00721172, HAL.
    4. Norgaard, Richard B., 2004. "Learning and knowing collectively," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 231-241, June.
    5. O'Hara, Sabine U., 1996. "Discursive ethics in ecosystems valuation and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 95-107, February.
    6. Meppem, Tony & Bourke, Simon, 1999. "Different ways of knowing: a communicative turn toward sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 389-404, September.
    7. Vatn, Arild, 2005. "Rationality, institutions and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 203-217, November.
    8. Giuseppe Munda, 2008. "Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation for a Sustainable Economy," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-540-73703-2, September.
    9. Alex Y. Lo & Clive L. Spash, 2013. "Deliberative Monetary Valuation: In Search Of A Democratic And Value Plural Approach To Environmental Policy," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(4), pages 768-789, September.
    10. Zografos, Christos & Howarth, Richard B. (ed.), 2008. "Deliberative Ecological Economics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195696974.
    11. Giuseppe Munda, 2003. "Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation (SMCE)," UHE Working papers 2003_04, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Departament d'Economia i Història Econòmica, Unitat d'Història Econòmica.
    12. Geoffrey M. Hodgson, 2012. "From Utilitarianism to Evolution in Ecological Economics," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Julien-François Gerber & Rolf Steppacher (ed.), Towards an Integrated Paradigm in Heterodox Economics, chapter 7, pages 147-163, Palgrave Macmillan.
    13. Wilson, Matthew A. & Howarth, Richard B., 2002. "Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 431-443, June.
    14. Martinez-Alier, Joan & Munda, Giuseppe & O'Neill, John, 1998. "Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 277-286, September.
    15. Arild Vatn, 2005. "Institutions and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2826.
    16. Lo, Alex Y., 2013. "Agreeing to pay under value disagreement: Reconceptualizing preference transformation in terms of pluralism with evidence from small-group deliberations on climate change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 84-94.
    17. Clive L. Spash, 2008. "Deliberative Monetary Valuation and the Evidence for a New Value Theory," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(3), pages 469-488.
    18. Thomas Dietz & Paul C. Stern & Amy Dan, 2009. "How Deliberation Affects Stated Willingness to Pay for Mitigation of Carbon Dioxide Emissions: An Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(2), pages 329-347.
    19. Vatn, Arild, 2009. "An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2207-2215, June.
    20. Ali Douai, 2009. "Value theory in ecological economics: the contribution of a political economy of wealth," Post-Print hal-00398044, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Isabel Miralles & Domenico Dentoni & Stefano Pascucci, 2017. "Understanding the organization of sharing economy in agri-food systems: evidence from alternative food networks in Valencia," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(4), pages 833-854, December.
    2. Roberta Rigo & Thomas Houet, 2023. "Do Land Use and Land Cover Scenarios Support More Integrated Land Use Management?," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-19, July.
    3. Kleftodimos, Georgios & Gallai, Nicola & Rozakis, Stelios & Képhaliacos, Charilaos, 2021. "A farm-level ecological-economic approach of the inclusion of pollination services in arable crop farms," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    4. Claudio Vitari & Christophe David, 2018. "One-structure-fits-all or how the specific identity of the Permaculture movement fits into the general structure of the networks," Post-Print halshs-01923833, HAL.
    5. Immaculate Maumoh & Emmanuel H. Yindi, 2021. "Understanding the Farmers, Environmental Citizenship Behaviors Towards Climate Change. The Moderating Mediating Role of Environmental Knowledge and Ascribed Responsibility," Papers 2102.12378, arXiv.org.
    6. Puech, Camille & Brulaire, Arnaud & Paraiso, Jérôme & Faloya, Vincent, 2021. "Collective design of innovative agroecological cropping systems for the industrial vegetable sector," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    7. Nadia Adnan & Shahrina Md Nordin, 2021. "How COVID 19 effect Malaysian paddy industry? Adoption of green fertilizer a potential resolution," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(6), pages 8089-8129, June.
    8. Tiago Teixeira da Silva Siqueira & Danielle Galliano & Geneviève Nguyen & Ferenc Istvan Bánkuti, 2021. "Organizational Forms and Agri-Environmental Practices: The Case of Brazilian Dairy Farms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-19, March.
    9. Buchs, Arnaud & Petit, Olivier & Roman, Philippe, 2020. "Can social ecological economics of water reinforce the “big tent”?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lo, Alex Y. & Spash, Clive L., 2011. "Articulation of Plural Values in Deliberative Monetary Valuation: Beyond Preference Economisation and Moralisation," MPRA Paper 30002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Vargas, Andrés & Lo, Alex Y. & Rohde, Nicholas & Howes, Michael, 2016. "Background inequality and differential participation in deliberative valuation: Lessons from small-group discussions on forest conservation in Colombia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 104-111.
    3. Lo, Alex Y., 2013. "Agreeing to pay under value disagreement: Reconceptualizing preference transformation in terms of pluralism with evidence from small-group deliberations on climate change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 84-94.
    4. Bunse, Lukas & Rendon, Olivia & Luque, Sandra, 2015. "What can deliberative approaches bring to the monetary valuation of ecosystem services? A literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 88-97.
    5. Christos Zografos & Richard B. Howarth, 2010. "Deliberative Ecological Economics for Sustainability Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(11), pages 1-19, October.
    6. Bartkowski, Bartosz & Lienhoop, Nele, 2018. "Beyond Rationality, Towards Reasonableness: Enriching the Theoretical Foundation of Deliberative Monetary Valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 97-104.
    7. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chr, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    8. Farrell, Katharine N., 2011. "Framing the Valuation of Ecosystem Services: A Theoretical Discussion of the Challenges and Opportunities Associated with Articulating Values that Reflect the Economic Contributions of Ecological Phen," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114362, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Leslie Carnoye & Rita Lopes, 2015. "Participatory Environmental Valuation: A Comparative Analysis of Four Case Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-23, July.
    10. Spash, Clive L., 2013. "The shallow or the deep ecological economics movement?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 351-362.
    11. Saarikoski, Heli & Mustajoki, Jyri, 2021. "Valuation through deliberation - Citizens' panels on peatland ecosystem services in Finland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    12. Lo, Alex, 2014. "The Problem of Methodological Pluralism in Ecological Economics," MPRA Paper 49543, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Lienhoop, Nele & Schröter-Schlaack, Christoph, 2018. "Involving multiple actors in ecosystem service governance: Exploring the role of stated preference valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 181-188.
    14. Lowe, Benjamin H. & Genovese, Andrea, 2022. "What theories of value (could) underpin our circular futures?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    15. Schläpfer, Felix, 2016. "Democratic valuation (DV): Using majority voting principles to value public services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 36-42.
    16. Spash, Clive L., 2007. "Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 690-699, September.
    17. Michael B. Wironen & Robert V. Bartlett & Jon D. Erickson, 2019. "Deliberation and the Promise of a Deeply Democratic Sustainability Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, February.
    18. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & de Groot, Rudolf & Lomas, Pedro L. & Montes, Carlos, 2010. "The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1209-1218, April.
    19. Spash, Clive L., 2007. "Deliberative Monetary Valuation (DMV) in Theory," MPRA Paper 101132, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Ali DOUAI & Matthieu MONTALBAN, 2009. "Institutions and the environment: the case for a historical political economy," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2009-12, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural innovations; Learning processes; Communicative action theory; Agricultural advice; Agro-environmental policy;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01286845. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.