Development and communication in trade relations: new synergies in theory and practice

ABSTRACT

This article examines trade relations in alternative food networks as a space where communication practices can prove empowering for rural communities. Drawing on a theory of diverse economies, the article offers an alternative view of the global market, highlighting the social relations that underpin market transactions. These relations are then explored through a case study of a farming community in South India and their interactions with private enterprises in North America and Europe. The findings demonstrate how a dialogical communication process between the two groups can contribute to farmers’ well-being beyond economic growth, creating opportunities for more permanent social change.

Cet article examine les relations commerciales des réseaux d’alimentation alternative, perçus en tant qu’espace dans lequel les pratiques de communication peuvent se montrer valorisantes pour les communautés rurales. En s’appuyant sur une théorie des économies diverses, il offre un point de vue alternatif sur le marché mondial, en mettant l’accent sur les rapports sociaux qui sous-tendent les transactions commerciales. Ces rapports sont ensuite explorés à la lumière d’une étude de cas sur une communauté agricole du sud de l’Inde et l’interaction de cette dernière avec des entreprises privées en Amérique du Nord et en Europe. Les résultats démontrent comment un processus de communication dialogique entre les deux groupes peut contribuer au bien-être des agriculteurs, au-delà de la croissance économique, en créant des opportunités pour une pérennisation plus importante du changement social.

El presente artículo examina las relaciones comerciales que tienen lugar en redes alimentarias alternativas; éstas constituyen espacios en que las prácticas en comunicación pueden empoderar a las comunidades rurales. Partiendo de una teoría de economías diversas, el artículo proporciona una visión alternativa sobre el mercado global, haciendo hincapié en las relaciones sociales que forman la base de las transacciones comerciales. En este sentido, dichas relaciones son examinadas a la luz de un estudio de caso sobre una comunidad agrícola del sur de India que analiza sus interacciones con empresas privadas de Norteamérica y Europa. Los hallazgos surgidos de este estudio muestran cómo un proceso comunicativo dialógico entre dos grupos puede contribuir al bienestar del campesinado en su conjunto, más allá del crecimiento económico, generando oportunidades que podrán dar lugar a cambios sociales más duraderos.

KEYWORDS:

• Environment (built and natural) – Agriculture
• Globalisation (inc trade
• private sector)
• South Asia

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Maria Touri is a Lecturer in the Department of Media and Communication at the University of Leicester, UK. Her research interests include participatory and development communication, alternative media and participatory journalism practices, and the role of communication in sustainable development.

Notes

1. I use “communication for development and social change” as a term that captures both institutional efforts for development and efforts for permanent social change in people’s lives on the ground.

2. See Blowfield and Dolan (2014) and McAnany (2014) for a review of cases of businesses and social enterprises involved in innovative projects for social change in developing countries.

3. Examples of non-monetised contributions have been touched upon in the context of Fairtrade – a point to which I return later.

4. Prahalad refers to ICTs, but beyond that, the role of communication in the context of the market has not received much attention.

5. “ … when a cooperative sets its wage levels, when a food seller adjusts her price for one customer and not another, when a farmer allows gleaners to his fields … some recognition of economic co-implication, interdependency and social connection is actively occurring” (Gibson-Graham 2006, 82–83).

6. For the interviews with the farmers, pseudonyms A, B, C, and so on were assigned based on the order with which participants spoke in each group. When more than one group discussion was conducted on the same day, the interviews were numbered. For interviews with buyers, the same pseudonyms were used based on the chronological order in which they were interviewed.