Peripheralisation is a process to which a person, a group or an area might be subjected to. Stigmatisation, selective migration, disconnection, dependence and social exclusion are dimensions of peripheralisation that are interconnected and that accelerate each other’s effects. Structurally disadvantaged rural areas, especially remote small villages in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) are particularly affected by the processes of peripheralisation. While economic decline and ethnic exclusion produced contagious “ghettoes” (Virág 2010) or “internal colonies” (Kóczé 2011) in the last two decades in structurally disadvantaged small villages of Hungary, in the German context the phenomenon of a “rural ghetto” seems to be non-existent. In Germany, mainly East German old industrial towns and rural areas are affected by peripheralisation, selective out-migration, demographic shrinking and demographisation are emphasised here.
Ethnographic research in the case study villages of Eastern Germany and Hungary confirmed that peripheralisation is relational and amongst others national and regional social policies influence how it manifests on the local level. While areas undergoing moderate peripheralisation were able to attract counter-cultural migrants (“back-to-the-landers“, Calvário and Otero 2015), who further counteracted peripheralisation processes, socially excluded people (Roma and long-term unemployed) accumulated in areas undergoing advanced peripheralisation. While counter-cultural migrants (case study G1 and H3), who follow a critique of materialist mainstream culture, modern farming practices, and the globalization of the agri-food systems, were free to decide where to live, the inhabitants of areas undergoing advanced peripheralisation (H2) got locked into spaces which are abandoned by the state, investors and the majority society (non-Roma people). As class, gender, ethnicity and place of residence influences autonomy, the individual and collective autonomy of the counter-cultural migrants is on a higher level than the autonomy of the inhabitants of areas undergoing advanced peripheralisation.
As local initiatives (social and solidarity economy initiatives or rural social enterprises) are created to counteract processes of peripheralisation, the central question of this research is: In the context of peripheralisation how can social and solidarity economy initiatives contribute to local development? To explore in what ways rural social enterprises may (or may not) counteract processes of peripheralisation this study relies on a critical realist ethnography (with participant observation, in-depth interviews and documentary analysis) and on a normative approach of local development, integrating economic, social, and environmental aspects too.
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
In line with the relational approach to individual autonomy (Mackenzie 2014), a normative assumption of social enterprise scholars is that even if social enterprises receive state funding or money from private foundations or churches, they should be able to preserve their organisational autonomy. However, it should be pointed out that existing institutional contexts influence the political and organisational independence of social and solidarity economy (SSE) initiatives. Even if the reunification of Germany resulted in the assimilation of many East German institutions into West German ones, compared to Hungary, East Germany got integrated into a country with a thick institutional system for welfare provision and in which state-civil society relationships are rather characterised by partnership than state control. The current Hungarian government shows authoritarian tendencies, when it limits funding sources for civilian-based initiatives. Such a context, leads to municipality-based and faith-based social enterprises to blossom over civilian-based ones. These organisations are embedded in centralised structures and they often envision development through patronising means and thus reproduce the marginality of the socially excluded (particularly Roma) within the local society. Beyond monetary resources, non-monetary resources, such as volunteers or strong communities with reciprocal behaviour are considered to be potential resources for social enterprises. However, this research showed that with intensifying peripheralisation (eg. the selective out-migration of better-off social strata) SSE initiatives can decreasingly rely on non-monetary resources locally. Even if capitalist integration of CEE influenced negatively village communities, the reciprocal structures still existed in a village undergoing a higher (but not advanced) level of peripheralisation (H3) when the Ministers moved there and started their faith-based social enterprise together with the locals. In contrast, when the colleagues of the Equality Foundation started their civilian-based social enterprise in a village undergoing advanced peripheralisation, structures of reciprocal relations no longer existed there (H2). People in this village had time, but had been experiencing socio-spatial marginalisation (educational and territorial segregation, lack of jobs locally, limited access to public transport and car) for such a long time that they did not have the actual capacity to initiate local development without assistance coming from outside the village.
SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The potential of participative decision-making is recognised by social enterprise researchers as a vehicle to empower marginalised people. From the four case studies only two initiatives (H2, G1) aim explicitly to achieve participative decision-making. Within the two other projects decisions are made through representatives of the community. In the case of the municipality-based social enterprise (H1), dominantly one representative, the Mayor has the power to make decisions, while in the case of the faith-based social enterprise (H3) the community representative, the 8 Presbyters and the Minister (who are all male) have the institutionalised right to make decisions for the community. The two civilian-based social enterprises (G1 and H2) are embedded in differently peripheralised contexts. In the case of advanced peripheralisation (H2) help comes outside of the village, from a development organisation. Building up the capacities of the local stakeholders for participative decision-making is a long-term strategy for the Foundation, which explicitly focuses on the empowerment of Roma and women. In case of moderate peripheralisation (G1) local agents, amongst whom counter-cultural migrants are overrepresented, have a capacity to start their SSE initiatives without help coming from a development organisation. Even if inhabitants of areas undergoing advanced peripheralisation have an agency, they need professional assistance from outside. It is, however, of particular importance that the development organisation follows the philosophy of democratic solidarity and has a capability-based approach. Without such assistance it would be naïve to expect agents of severely peripheralised areas to set up and run SSE initiatives themselves. At the same time it would be also wrong to think that without local knowledge (for example the knowledge of surviving in conditions of deep poverty and lived experiences of institutional racism) “developers” could reach long lasting results. Among the four case studies, the empowerment capacity was the highest in the civilian-based social enterprise (belonging to the Equality Foundation). This was the only initiative that acknowledged the ethnicised (and gendered) structural oppression of Roma (women). In addition to aiming to increase the individual autonomy of their stakeholders (through supporting adult education or providing advices on how to deal with domestic abuse), the organisation also aims to develop the collective autonomy of the inhabitants of the village through their community development project. Without identifying themselves as a Roma feminist organisation, the Equality Foundation has consciously focused on women as partners of local development. The reasoning behind their decision is connected to the role women play in the social reproduction of their households.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
There are life situations, when social needs get prioritised over environmental considerations. Deep poverty is one of those life situations. For example, the daily survival under conditions of housing poverty and extreme cold weather overwrites long-term strategies, such as environmentalism. Due to a lower purchasing power, poorer households have lower levels of consumption too. This, however, does not mean that underprivileged people would not aim to consume more. On the contrary, as our society is dominated by the ideology of capitalist consumerism, to counteract social exclusion consumerism is seen as a strategy towards social integration for people living in deep poverty. The comparison between a Hungarian village undergoing advanced peripheralisation (H2) and a German village undergoing moderate peripheralisation (G1) shows that only people with a higher level of individual autonomy are capable of “decolonizing their imaginary” (Latouche 2011), namely of questioning capitalist consumerism and develop ethical consumption practices.:Contents
List of Abbreviations 11
Figures / Maps / Images 13
Tables 15
1 Introduction 17
1.1 AIMS AND MOTIVATION 17
1.2 THE RELEVANCE OF THE RESEARCH 20
1.3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 21
2 Theorising peripheralisation and local development 23
2.1 PERIPHERALISATION, A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL, SELF-REINFORCING PROCESS 23
2.1.1 Dimensions of peripheralisation 23
2.1.2 Advanced peripheralisation 28
2.2 SOCIAL AND SOLIDARITY ECONOMY AND LOCAL DEVELOPMENT 29
2.2.1 Economic dimension 30
2.2.2 Social dimension: autonomy and empowerment 31
2.2.3 Environmental dimension 36
2.3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS 38
3 Contexts: social and solidarity economy in the context of peripheralisation 41
3.1 PERIPHERALISATION 41
3.1.1 Post-socialist transformation, a historical overview of periheralisation 41
3.1.2 Multi-dimensional peripheralisation in East Germany and Hungary 44
3.1.3 The relational aspect of peripheralisation 48
3.1.4 Advanced peripheralisation, a Hungarian (semi-peripheral) reality 50
3.2 SOCIAL AND SOLIDARITY ECONOMY IN CEE 51
3.2.1 Informal social and solidarity economy 52
3.2.2 Institutionalised social and solidarity economy 54
4 Methodology 59
4.1 TOWARDS A CRITICAL REALIST ETHNOGRAPHY 59
4.1.1 The scope of postmodern reflexive ethnography 60
4.1.2 Critical realism 61
4.1.3 Critical realist ethnography 62
4.2 CASE SELECTION AND COMPARATIVE PROCEEDING 63
Stage 1: Selecting areas undergoing peripheralisation 63
Stage 2: Identifying rural social enterprises 66
4.3 DATA COLLECTION 68
4.3.1 Interviews 69
4.3.2 Participant observation 72
4.3.3 Documents 76
4.4 POTENTIAL AND LIMITATIONS OF THE METHODOLOGY 77
4.4.1 Positivist critiques of the ethnographic approach 77
4.4.2 Anti-realist and postmodern critiques of ethnography 78
4.4.3 Critical realism and political engagement 79
4.4.4 Data analysis and reflections on the field experiences 81
5 Peripheralisation and the local scale 83
5.1 PERIPHERALISATION: THE LOCALITY AND THE CASE STUDY PROFILES 83
5.2 PERCEPTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PERIPHERIALITY IN DIFFERENT CONTEXTS 91
5.2.1 Surviving advanced peripheralisation 91
5.2.2 Uneven access to education 92
5.2.3 Counter-cultural migration 93
5.3 THE MAIN CHALLENGES AND MISSION OF THE CASE STUDY SOCIAL ENTERPRISES 95
6 The interplay between autonomy and local resource-mix strategies 99
6.1 ORGANISATIONAL AUTONOMY AND ACCESS TO FUNDING 99
6.2 MARKET-BASED RESOURCES: EARNED INCOME 102
6.3 NON-MARKET RESOURCES: GRANTS AND SUBSIDIES 106
6.3.1 International governmental funding 106
6.3.2 National governmental funding 114
6.3.3 Non-governmental funding 119
6.4 NON-MONETARY RESOURCES: THE CAPACITIES OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY 120
7 Empowerment capacity of the case study initiatives 123
7.1 DECISION-MAKING STRUCTURES 123
7.1.1 Representative decision-making structures 124
7.1.2 Participative decision-making structures 127
7.2 EMPOWERMENT OF ROMA (WOMEN) 131
7.2.1 The empowerment capacity of rural social enterprises:
a perspective of the Roma 132
7.2.2 A gendered aspect: the empowerment of Roma women 137
8 Environmental considerations 143
8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSCIOUSNESS ON THE LOCAL LEVEL 143
8.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSCIOUSNESS ON THE ORGANISATIONAL LEVEL 145
9 Summary and conclusions 149
9.1 LIMITATIONS AND POTENTIALS OF THE METHODOLOGY 149
9.2 THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS: THE CAPACITY OF SOCIAL AND
SOLIDARITY ECONOMY IN COUNTERACTING PERIPHERALISATION 150
9.2.1 Economic considerations: autonomy and local resource-mix strategies 150
9.2.2 Social considerations: Autonomy and Empowerment 153
9.2.3 Environmental considerations:
environmental consciousness and environmental impact 156
9.3 POLICY IMPLICATIONS FOR LOCAL DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIAL ECONOMY POLICIES 156
10 References 159
10.1 GENERAL WORKS 159
10.2 DATABASES, RELATED MATERIALS 172
10.3 MEDIA SOURCES 172
10.4 WEBPAGES 173
10.5 LEGAL REFERENCES 174
Annex 1 Expert sampling sheet (hu) 175
Annex 2 Information sheet (hu) 177
Annex 3 Information sheet (de) 179
Annex 4 Consent form (hu) 181
Annex 5 Consent form (de) 183
Annex 6 Expert interviews 185
Annex 7 Case study interviews 187
Annex 8 Participant observation 189
Annex 9 Anonymised data sources 193
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:DRESDEN/oai:qucosa:de:qucosa:75843 |
| Date | 03 September 2021 |
| Creators | Mihály, Melinda |
| Contributors | Universität Leipzig |
| Source Sets | Hochschulschriftenserver (HSSS) der SLUB Dresden |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion, doc-type:doctoralThesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesis, doc-type:Text |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.003 seconds