Book Review

Brox, O. (2006) The Political Economy of Rural Development: Modernisation WithoutCentralisation? (Delft: Eburon Academic Publishers) 133 pages

Norwegian rural sociologist Ottar Brox (b. 1932) is one of the most prominent socialscientists in Norway and has influenced the country’s academic, political and laydiscourses on rural development for close to half a century. He has published a largenumber of academic works on a wide range of sociological issues, of which hisoutstanding 1966 volume, Hva skjer i Nord-Norge? (‘What happens in northernNorway?’) has attained the status of a classic of Norwegian sociology. From hisposition as professor at the then newly established ‘frontier’ university in Tromsø, theworld’s northernmost university, he furthermore played an important role in the 1972campaign against Norwegian membership of the EEC, which resulted in Norway’s novote on membership. Brox also served one term in the socialist Left party in theNorwegian parliament (1973–1977), since when he has consistently represented acritical voice in Norwegian society, within academia as well as in the political andpublic debate.

However, with a very few exceptions he has not addressed the international aca-demic audience of rural sociology but published his works in Norwegian only. Now aselection of his works in English has finally been gathered in one volume, The PoliticalEconomy of Rural Development: Modernisation Without Centralisation? The collectiongives an overview of Brox’s key works, from his 1964 observations on the state’sunsuccessful attempts at rural development in northern Norway to his recent interestin the use of migrant labour in European agribusiness. The book is edited by JohnBryden and the late Robert Storey, who have written an introduction presenting Brox’sworks and arguing for their relevance for present-day rural studies.

The articles cover a wide range of topics central to the discipline of rural sociology,focusing on the primary industries, rural economic development and rural out-migration. An underlying issue in Brox’s writings is the relationship between centraland state planners and rural lay actors. He forcefully demonstrates how centralistattempts to plan for the ‘good rural society’ are doomed to fail, and in Norway havedone so consistently ever since the World War II.

In the article, ‘Let us now praise dragging feet’ (chapter 3) he makes the case for an‘amalgam of laissez faire, populism and “statism” ‘ as the key to good rural develop-ment, arguing that rural populations have the capacity to create their own futures,based on local resources, and are not dependent on the ideas of the planning bureau-crats located in the capital. The role of the state should be reduced to regulationagainst what Brox generally conceptualises as the worst enemy of rural life: capitalistactors who attempt to exploit the rich natural resources in the peripheries. State

© 2007 The Author. Journal Compilation © 2007 European Society for Rural Sociology.Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UKSociologia Ruralis, Vol 47, Number 3, July 2007 ISSN 0038–0199

intervention should not be conceived as state subsidies to needy, marginalised anddisempowered rural communities to make up for the unwanted but inevitable socialcosts of modernisation (urbanisation), but rather as the results of the rural regions’successful claim to their part of the national wealth, to which they have as legitimatea claim as urbanites. As such, Brox’s works represents an early, and still relevant,contribution to the literature on endogeneous rural development.

On the other hand, Brox’s studies of northern Norway illustrates the interdepen-dence between rural and urban areas by showing how national political and economiccontexts define the limits of rural communities’ chances to thrive. The institutionalrules of the game, for example, in terms of who is permitted to harvest the naturalresources (small-scale fishermen or the owners of trawlers?), decide economic devel-opment in rural regions. Depopulation of marginal settlements results from therewriting of these rules; for example, when the state encourages large capital invest-ments in the fisheries which outdistance the traditional fishermen–farmers along thecoast. In other words, there are limits to endogeneous rural development when it isnot supported by state power. It is not the occasional entrepreneuristic individuals, thefiery souls, but the rural actors’ collective political struggle on the national politicalscene that decides the future of the countryside.

However, Brox’s argument goes further. The interdependence between rural andurban areas is not only relevant for understanding rural change but also for under-standing the development of the national state, including the urban regions. Heneatly argues that the rise of the Norwegian urban labour class that provided thefoundation for the Norwegian version of the welfare state was helped by politicalmeasures that provided for viable rural primary industries in the post-war period.Rather than flocking to the cities, rural people in Norway were able to establish areasonable standard of living in the periphery by using political leverage. Thus, apersistent lack of labour was created in the cities in the post-war years, which gavelabour the upper hand in negotiations with capital, leading the way to the develop-ment of the modern Norwegian social-democratic welfare state. As indicated by thetitle, Brox therefore conceives of the Norwegian way of modernisation in the twentiethcentury very much a result of the lack of rapid rural to urban centralisation – mod-ernisation does not presume centralisation.

The stated rationale for this book is that the Norwegian case, and Brox’s analysis ofit, are instructive for analysis in other countries presently undergoing rapid moderni-sation and urbanisation. Certainly, inspiration may be found. However, one of thestrengths of Brox’s analysis is his emphasis on the historical and national context inunderstanding rural development. As a result, it is difficult to transfer the findings inempirical analyses of one region in one historic period (northern Norway in thetwentieth century) to other locations in other periods of time.

Brox, for example, suggest that present-day changes in Eastern Europe may sharetraits with the Norwegian case of the twentieth century. The rapid upheaval of therural economies in these nations following the enlargement of the EU have resultedin increased industrialisation of the primary industries, followed by depopulation ofthe countryside. These developments are in many ways similar to those discussed byBrox. While the overall logic of his analysis may be inspirational in understandingthese processes, it is doubtful that the more empirically based works are directly

294 Book review

© 2007 The Author. Journal Compilation © 2007 European Society for Rural Sociology.Sociologia Ruralis, Vol 47, Number 3, July 2007

applicable to the Eastern European countries. For example, Brox’s analysis of ruralNorway in the last century presumes the absence of foreign migrant labour in thenational economy, which by and large was the case in Norway until recently. However,this is definitely not the true for the new Eastern European EU member states, whereboth inbound and outbound labour migration streams are inherent features of therural economy.

In fact, Brox delivers a strong argument against labour migration, which in hisview has no other beneficiaries than the capitalists’ interest. Starting with anecdotalevidence from Spanish agribusiness, which often relies on cheap and docile importedlabour from Africa, he advocates closed national state borders to enhance the nego-tiating power of the national labour force vis-à-vis capital interests (chapter 11). Broxdeserves credit for approaching the issue from an alternative perspective that is rarelyadvanced in today’s debate on labour migration in Europe, and he manages to identifyand problematise key features of the economic logic underlying the phenomenon.However, the analysis seems stronger in its rhetoric than in its scientific approach.For example, his discussion of the benefits for sending countries (both at micro andmacro levels) is somewhat one-sided, and he mainly disregards the positive effects ofmigrant work on their economies. His alternative is to allow these countries todevelop their own labour-intensive economies rather than exporting cheap labour tomore advanced economies. However, given the present political climate where closingborders for migrant labour does not seem very likely, neither in the short nor the longrun, I would expect few rural sociologists to engage in Brox’s debate on alternatives tothe deregulated European labour market.

Due to the character of the book, a collection sampling more than 40 years of work,the articles included are not very up to date with regard to contemporary theoreticaldevelopments in rural sociology. This criticism also applies to the most recent of theworks in the collection. Brox quotes other scientists only sparsely, and he seldomrelates his arguments directly to that of other academics in the field of rural studies.Brox has never attempted to write for an international scientific audience but it seemshe has also not attempted to situate his writings more within the international bodyof literature in the field of rural sociology.

This is unfortunate. To be sure, Brox has never taken part in the cultural turn inrural studies, nor in the subsequent re-theorisation of the concept of ‘rurality’. In hisanalysis, the rural regions’ economic base is still dominated by primary production,and he does not pay much attention to what recent theorists in the field label thepost-productivist, or the consumer-based, countryside. Nevertheless, his worksprovide important criticisms on the relevance of explanations that focus on ‘soft’cultural factors. For example, he strongly and convincingly critiques the idea, popularin contemporary rural research, that rural-to-urban migration primarily reflects theurban values of individuals. Instead, Brox demonstrates how an analysis of localeconomies far better explains why some youngsters leave the countryside and othersdo not. It is not the fancy cappuccino bars in the cities, but rural youths’ lack of ruralsources of income, which force them to abandon the periphery.

Brox’s writings are also illustrative of the need for class-sensitive perspectives tounderstand social processes in rural regions. Though never explicitly elaborating onthe concept of class, he shows how rural actors’ differentiated access to resources

295Book review

© 2007 The Author. Journal Compilation © 2007 European Society for Rural Sociology.Sociologia Ruralis, Vol 47, Number 3, July 2007

(such as land and other productive capital) influences their strategies, actions andoutcomes. For example, he argues that it is primarily the unpropertied rural youthwho are attracted by low-skilled wage labour in urban industries. Propertied ruralactors may also out-migrate; however, Brox explains this by their ability to transferrural capital resources into investments in urban economies and thus to join theurban middle class.

It would have been interesting to see Brox present a more explicit critique of thenew ‘post-modern’ features of the field of rural sociology. He definitely providesengaging criticisms of contemporary streams in the discipline but leaves it to thereader to identify the implications of these in relation to the existing body ofknowledge.

Brox’s role in Norwegian academic debate, and his parallel success in gainingattention in the wider public debate, is not only a matter of substance but just as muchdue to his style of presentation. He engages in the important debates, in which hemanages to identify some key issues of the matters in question, and then to providean innovative as well as provocative analysis in a clear and no-nonsense writing style.This is also the case with this volume in English. Soundly based on his own empiricalresearch from northern Norway over half a century, the volume outlines importantlessons of relevance to rural development. The collection may not provide up-to-dateanswers to key issues in contemporary rural sociology, but nonetheless, Brox’s con-tributions most definitely help to stimulate rural sociological thought.

Johan Fredrik RyeCentre for Rural Research, Norway

296 Book review

© 2007 The Author. Journal Compilation © 2007 European Society for Rural Sociology.Sociologia Ruralis, Vol 47, Number 3, July 2007