1The aim of this study is to describe agriculture and farmers in the context of the rural gentrification process. Two key aspects are considered: the spatial differentiation of rural gentrification and the differentiation of the social structure in rural areas. The background for this analysis is rooted in the changes in the social structure of rural Poland. Over the past 30 years, there has been a transition from an industrial to a post-industrial economic order as the economy undergoes transformation and adapts to market principles. Around 2000, 60% of employees worked in the tertiary sector, 30% in the secondary sector, and 10% in the primary sector. This period also marked the onset of deindustrialization. Unlike in Western Europe during the 1960s and 1970s, the flow of agricultural exodus in Poland does not primarily go to large industrial companies but, at least in a significant part, seeks employment in the tertiary sector, which is dominated by small and medium-sized enterprises.
- 1 Each socio-professional group is defined by a certain level of education (recommended by ISCED) and (...)
- 2 However, it should be noted that due to their already large share, the dynamics of proletarisation (...)
2There is a confluence of transformative processes in rural areas, with depeasantization, proletarianization, and gentrification occurring concurrently. Table 1 illustrates this phenomenon, particularly evident when socio-professional groups are grouped into relatively hom*ogeneous segments of the social structure1: middle class, farmers, and workers. The least dynamic process (with a value of 122.1) is proletarianization, defined as an increase in the proportion of various worker categories within the social structure. The bulk of this process unfolded between the 1960s and 1980s, with the path toward worker occupations and the associated social status being rather intricate; most peasants underwent an intermediate stage, initially transitioning to peasant-workers. In the early 1990s, workers comprised 2/5 of the rural population. Twenty-five years later, their share has grown to half. In summary, workers, now constituting 50% of the rural population, represent the dominant segment in the rural social structure2.
- 3 Peasant-workers is a category that includes people who combine work on their own farm (usually a sm (...)
- 4 Jacek Kochanowicz (1988) called this modernisation “flawed”/“defected” and claimed that it resulted (...)
3While proletarianization can be viewed as an “old” process, having persisted for more than half a century, two other processes demand attention: depeasantization and gentrification. The first of these, depeasantization, is not a recent development, although the conclusion of Polish “peasantry” occurred much later than in the West (Halamska, 2004), and it followed a distinct course compared to Central European countries where collectivization eradicated peasantry. In Poland, the concept of “abandoned collectivization” (in the 1950s and 1960s (Swain, 1999)3 and the policy of repressive tolerance (Gorlach, 1989) prevented the full modernisation of farms and the widespread professionnalisation4. In the 1960s, the professionalization of peasantry was facilitated by the relaxation of the compulsory supplies system and the introduction of agricultural contracting, which bound family farms to a socialist quasi-market. An important criterion for inclusion in the group of “farmers” was the source of income, with work on the family farm as the sole or primary source. The group of “professional farmers” defined in this manner in the late 1980s and early 1990s constituted around a third to a quarter of the rural population.
4A further decline in agricultural employment occurred in the second half of the 1990s and the following decade. During this time, significant changes took place in the operation of family farms. Since 1990, the post-traditional peasant farms, characterized by diversification, have been exposed to the assertive influences of the market economy. Under this influence, there was further diversification among farms and farmers: approximately one-third of family farms strengthened their ties with the market, expanding in size and intensifying production. This entailed the professionalization of farms and the marketization of production, exemplified by an orientation towards consumer needs. The social identity of farmers also undergoes evolution: former peasants transform into professional farmers, farmer-producers, and farmer-entrepreneurs. In defining their identity, individuals more frequently emphasize elements associated with ownership and possession, and they more readily perceive their connections with other non-agricultural entrepreneurs.
Table 1. Evolution of the socio-occupational structure of the countryside in the period 1992-2015 in%.
Agrandir Original (jpeg, 237k)
- 5 The basis for an analysis of evolution of rural social structure was based on the databases of the (...)
* The analysis omits - due to its small size - group 0 „armed forces”, whose share in the rural population is approximately 0.5%. The social structure in individual years was reconstructed using data from the Polish General Social Survey and data from the “Social Diagnosis” survey5.
Source: compiled on the basis of Halamska, Zwęglinska-Gałecka, 2023
- 6 It is worth to address the issue of displacement. Initially, following studies on urban gentrificat (...)
5A new process that emerged in the early 1990s was rural gentrification, leading to an increase in the middle class's share in the social structure. Rural gentrification, according to Keith Hoggart (1997), is defined as the process of saturating the rural social structure with individuals occupying higher positions in social stratification. This definition is more focused on the social consequences of the process, specifically changes in the social structure6. There is also a broader definition of the process (see Guimond, Simard, 2010; Nelson, Pistre et al., 2008), which considers various consequences - economic, social, and cultural - as integral aspects of the process. The description of rural gentrification, understood in this broader sense, typically encompasses demographic, socio-economic, cultural, and spatial changes.
6This is how, using a broad definition of the process, rural gentrification in Poland should be characterized. Unlike approaches commonly found in the literature suggesting that rural gentrification “originates from the city”, such a perspective does not accurately capture the essence of the phenomenon in the Polish countryside. In Poland, rural gentrification has been shaped by two distinct groups of factors (Zwęglińska-Gałecka, 2021). The rural middle class expanded due to (a) an elevation in the educational attainment of the rural population, a consequence of the post-1989 “educational boom”. Higher levels of education entitled individuals to occupy elevated positions in the socio-professional structure. Between 1988 and 2021, as indicated by data from National Censuses, the number of people in rural areas with at least a secondary education tripled, increasing from around 15% to 47%.
7This expansion was complemented by (b) the migration of former urban residents to rural areas and the migration of well-educated rural youth from peripheral areas to metropolitan regions. In the early 2000s, a positive migration balance was observed in rural areas (in general) for the first time. In 2015, the rural migration balance was 24.0 thousand, while twenty-five years earlier in 1990, it was negative at -112.7 thousand. Intra-rural migration played a significant role, evidenced by the positive migration balance being predominantly concentrated in approximately one-third of municipalities primarily situated near large urban centers (Stanny, Rosner, Komorowski, 2018). This leads to the conclusion that processes of depeasantization, proletarianization, and gentrification are occurring in Poland at varying spatial rates.
8The reference to the notion of rural gentrification, especially concerning changes occurring in the social structure of rural Poland, has opened up a broad field of analysis and allowed for the identification of correlates and subsequently the consequences of the ongoing process in the social structure. It is essential to emphasize that the understanding of rural gentrification as a process of saturating the social structure with the middle class segment is relatively new in the analyses of Polish researchers, although it has become quite common in recent years in Western studies. In Poland, the novelty of rural gentrification as a research subject primarily stems from the scale of the phenomenon, notably the considerably larger presence of the intelligentsia in rural areas than before (Grzelak, 1981). The character of this presence also seems to be changing: while in the past, intellectuals in rural areas were attributed a specific social mission, nowadays many individuals with higher education who settle in rural areas experience a sense of degradation or defeat (Gorlach, 2005; Szafraniec, 2011; Wasielewski, 2012). For the current rural middle class (or its predominant part), the choice of residence is the result of their own decision; they not only “consume” rurality (which is often the case with urban gentrifiers), but also actively engage in various ways in the life of rural communities. Analyses of rural gentrification focus on the function and role of the middle class in the development process of rural areas, providing insights into the characteristics of the rural middle class and the contemporary structure of “rural Poland”.
9Taking these considerations into account, the subsequent section of the article will delve into selected aspects of the most dynamic process in recent years, namely rural gentrification. While its identification brings us closer to the features of the process and its consequences, it does not exhaust the subject. Instead, it opens up further avenues requiring analysis. Among them is the exploration of the social structure of rural Poland, particularly its spatial differentiation and the diversity of its segments. The characterization of farmers as a segment of the social structure is also an important and intriguing thread.
10In the proposed article, specific attention will be dedicated to (a) the evolution of the agricultural sector itself in two types of units - those undergoing intensive gentrification and those where the process of rural gentrification is not occurring - and (b) the characteristics of farmers in these units.
11I assume that the presence or absence of rural gentrification may exert a significant influence on the development of the agricultural sector and the progressive (or lack of) de-agrarianization, i.e., the increase of non-agricultural activities in the structure of the local economy. This aspect is also relevant to the characterization of farmers as a segment of the social structure. Clearly, the nature and dynamics of gentrification can have diverse impacts on agriculture.
12The literature suggests that gentrification, particularly through escalating land prices, may result in the loss of agricultural land and diminished agricultural production, leading to a decline in the number of farms and reduced agricultural productivity. Additionally, cultural changes—often challenging to comprehend—may occur, potentially encompassing shifts in farming practices. The emerging rural middle class might harbor distinct preferences and demands for agricultural products, influencing the types of crops cultivated or the adoption of alternative farming methods (see Tommassi, 2018). For instance, there could be a heightened emphasis on organic or specialty crops to align with the preferences of the gentrifying population.
13Gentrification can also instigate alterations in the social structure and cultural dynamics in rural areas, indirectly impacting agriculture by reshaping social networks, community support systems, and local traditions that historically supported agricultural activities. Concurrent with demographic changes, there might be a loss of agricultural knowledge and the intergenerational transmission of agricultural practices. It is important to note that the impact of rural gentrification on agriculture is not uniform and may vary depending on the specific context and characteristics of the gentrification process.
- 7 These were: change in rural population between 2002 and 2016; change in migration balance between 2 (...)
14Primarily, the foundation for discerning counties with varying levels of gentrification occurrence was the rural gentrification index, formulated based on its correlates7, observed in my own research and described in the literature. The point value of the index was established to denote the level of rural gentrification, ranging between 0 and 8. The rural gentrification index was derived from an extensive case study (Burawoy, 1998), aligning the investigated Polish case with findings from national and international studies (e.g., Guimond, Simard, 2010; Darling, 2005). Insights from articles by Pierre Pistre (2013) and Peter B. Nelson, Pierre Pistre, Julien Dellier and Frederic Richard (2008) were also employed. These authors sought to delineate the spatial extent of rural gentrification in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States, identifying a set of indicators (correlates) associated with the process.
15Building on this foundation and adapting the indicators to the available Polish statistical data, an eight-element index of rural gentrification correlates was crafted. It was assumed that the level of gentrification corresponds to the score of the index. This methodology was applied across all districts of the 314 rural districts, assigning one point for each index value surpassing the threshold.
Figure 1. Classification of counties according to the dynamics of rural gentrification in 2002-2016.
Agrandir Original (jpeg, 189k)
Source: own elaboration based on Zwęglińska-Gałecka 2022, 2020
Figure 2. Selected gentrified and non-gentrified counties with an indication of the boundaries of the Urban Functional Areas.
Agrandir Original (jpeg, 135k)
Source: own elaboration based on Zwęglińska-Gałecka 2022, 2020
- 8 Specifically, land counties. With a word of explanation, it should be mentioned that there are two (...)
16Rural gentrification index facilitated the identification of counties where this process occurs most intensively and those where the process is nearly nonexistent. Rural gentrification is not a uniform process, as illustrated in Figure 1, and manifests itself to varying degrees of intensity in 98 units, constituting 31.2% of the districts. In these units, a minimum four out of eight correlates displayed remarkably elevated index values. Their spatial positioning along the metropolitan-periphery axis prompted the classification of two types of rural local units: peripheral and metropolitan. The assignment to one or the other category was determined by a point-based gentrification index, developed using extensive statistical data8, the peri-metropolitan counties were classified as those with the highest and the peripheral counties as those with the lowest index values. This corresponded to their spatial location. The 50 units with the highest indices (peri-metropolitan counties) and 50 with the lowest (peripheral counties) were – arbitrarily – taken for further analysis (Figure 2).
17Peri-metropolitan counties are predominantly units located in close proximity to large cities. Previous research suggests that this type of area undergoes a transition away from agriculture, with services taking its place, showcasing the reliance of these economies on nearby metropolitan cities (Marini, Mooney, 2006). In these dynamically evolving units, a discernible transformation into residential areas is observable; farms are diminishing, and those that persist are no longer primarily engaged in livestock farming—instead, there is a prevalence of organic farms and others primarily focused on plant production. Local businesses in these areas are oriented toward catering to the needs of the nearby metropolis, with a majority of residents employed there. Unemployment is nearly nonexistent, and the human capital, gauged by both education and competency levels, is high. The social structure is closely entwined with the economy, with a significant presence of the middle class. An essential complement to the evolving social structure is the substantial number of service workers.
18On the opposite end of the development spectrum are peripheral counties. These areas are characterized by low spatial accessibility, suboptimal housing conditions, and a limited development of the non-agricultural economic sector (see Stanny, Rosner, Komorowski, 2018). The prevalence of an agricultural function and the underdeveloped non-agricultural sector lead to the concentration of non-agricultural jobs in local government institutions and public service providers (health, education, police, etc.), making the state the most significant non-agricultural employer in these regions. It is noteworthy that maintaining a sufficiently high population in these units is challenging; most of them already experience a declining population due to both negative population growth and a consistent outflow of migration.
- 9 It is Poland's largest structured and online collection of information on socio-economic and demogr (...)
- 10 “Social Diagnosis” is a comprehensive, interdisciplinary research project of a panel nature - the r (...)
19The study made use of foundational data collected in publicly available databases. These were data from the Bank of Local Data of the Central Statistical Office (BDL GUS)9 and - already mentioned - data from the “Social Diagnosis 2015”10 survey. The former was used to describe the economy and agriculture in two types of units, the latter to describe farmers as a segment of the social structure. The analysis scheme referred to principles of the comparative method. For each unit of the sample of peri-metropolitan counties and each of the control (peripheral) group, as well as segments of the social structure, the same set of indicators was developed by taking raw data from the above-mentioned databases. Further, a single measure of each indicator was prepared for all 50 counties in one group and 50 counties in the other group, so that comparisons could be made between them and the distance separating them could be indicated. A median value was calculated for each indicator in analysed groups of units. For comparison, the results obtained were compared with the corresponding data for Poland as a whole or, where possible, for rural part of the country. The indicators are presented in tabular form.
- 11 GDP is aggregated to the level of subregions (NUTS 3).
20The economic transformation inherent in rural gentrification, as previously mentioned, is characterized by the gradual abandonment of agriculture (see Ghose, 2004; Yang, Hui, Lang, Li, 2018). Before delving into this aspect, for the sake of clarity, the structure of local economies in the two types of counties will be outlined. Traditionally, the economy is categorized into three sectors: agriculture (Sector I), industry (Sector II), and services (Sector III). Generally, their significance in the economy's development is assessed based on each sector's contribution to GDP. While data from extensive statistics allows for the determination of the sectoral structure of the economy at the national or regional level, achieving the same precision at the local level is challenging11.
21For that reason, this paper utilizes the ratio of the number of people employed in each sector relative to the total number of employees. It's worth noting that in Poland, the numbers of people employed in agricultural, industrial, and service sectors have been continuously and quarterly estimated since the mid-1990s (Jankowska, Majka, 2016). The overarching trend, characteristic of most developed economies, is a decline in employment in agriculture and an increase in the number of people working in services.
22At the local level, the tri-sectoral employment structure exhibits significant differentiation. There is a conspicuous disparity in the distribution of employees among the three sectors between the two types of counties. The service sector holds the largest share in peri-metropolitan areas, with industry and construction following closely, and agriculture having the smallest share. In peripheral counties, the proportions differ: the share of those working in agriculture exceeds 50%, slightly more than a quarter are employed in the service sector, and the remainder work in Sector II. This points to a distinct profile and developmental trajectory of the local economy in these counties. Gentrified local economies undergo a process of economic urbanization, moving toward multifunctionality, defined as “a new strategy for their development, relying on the rural economy being based on diverse, non-agricultural farming functions” (Hasinski, 1999, p. 52).
Table 2. Structure of the local economy (2020).
Agrandir Original (jpeg, 49k)
Source: own elaboration based on BDL GUS
23The employment structure in peri-metropolitan counties closely mirrors that observed at the national level, with the service sector employing the highest number of individuals in both cases.
24The diminishing significance of agriculture in peri-metropolitan counties is discernible through data indicating the proportion of non-agricultural entities in the total number of economic entities, as well as personal income tax (PIT) and corporate income tax (CIT) revenues to the municipal budget per 1 PLN of agricultural tax revenue. A substantial (or increasing) number of economic entities in an area correlates with non-agricultural employment, allowing inferences about the pace of rural area transformation in terms of changing roles within the socio-economic system, particularly in the context of multifunctional development (see Śleszyński, 2009).
25The former indicator offers insights into the quantity of economic entities (notably treating large and entirely small entities equally), while the latter - PIT and CIT revenues to the municipal budget per 1 PLN of agricultural tax revenue - partially illustrates the level of development of non-agricultural branches of the economy in rural areas (see Stanny, Rosner, 2014). It is essential to note that only a portion of personal and corporate taxes collected in a given municipality contributes to the local budget, albeit consistently as a fixed percentage. In contrast, agricultural tax constitutes go in its entirety to the municipal budget. Income taxes in typically agricultural municipalities are not substantial; the smaller they are, the more significant the role of agriculture in a given unit.
Table 3. “Agrarianisation” versus de-agrarianisation.
Agrandir Original (jpeg, 105k)
Source: own elaboration based on BDL GUS
26Both the first and second indicators exhibit significantly higher values in gentrified counties, suggesting a relatively low significance of agriculture for the economies of these counties. The deagrarianization accompanying rural gentrification is further underscored by the third indicator included in Table 3 - the indicator of the number of KRUS pension recipients per 100 post-working age people. Its elevated percentage indicates a historical connection of many rural inhabitants to agriculture, providing insight into the process of deagrarianization with a certain delay, but still highlighting clear differences in the types of economies. This indicator reached its lowest values in peri-metropolitan counties, indicating the withdrawal from agriculture, the emergence of other (non-agricultural) functions, and the connection to the suburban and peri-metropolitan location of gentrified counties. All indicators discussed here unequivocally signify the relatively low importance of agriculture in the economies of peri-metropolitan counties. The intensity of the ongoing changes is further evidenced by the fact that all three discussed indicators in these counties have exceeded the values observed, on average, at the national level.
27The socio-occupational structure is intricately connected to the economic structure, serving as a defining factor that distinctly sets apart the analyzed countiess. In a simplified view, it can be stated that peri-metropolitan counties comprise “middle-class villages,” where the share of this category totals 30.3%. In non-gentrified counties, the share of the middle class is notably lower, not surpassing one-fifth of the population. The distribution of working-class segments logically varies: in peri-metropolitan counties, it comprises just over two-thirds, while in peripheral counties, it constitutes four-fifths. In gentrified counties, the advantage of workers over farmers is nearly threefold, whereas in non-gentrified areas, the ratio of workers to farmers is only about one and a half times.
Table 4. Socio-professional structure in two types of counties (%).
Agrandir Original (jpeg, 67k)
Source: own elaboration based on “Social Diagnosis 2015” survey database
28Moving forward, I will delve into the characteristics of two segments of the social structure: farmers and the middle class. Despite the declining economic significance of farmers, they remain a crucial and traditional element in the social makeup of the countryside. The middle class, on the other hand, holds importance primarily due to its pivotal role in the currently most dynamic process of changes in the social structure of rural Poland. For the purpose of this analysis, I will omit the segment of workers, whose share in the social structure has remained relatively stable for many years.
29To illustrate the characteristics of the selected segments in the analyzed types of units, I will employ classic indicators such as demographic, education, and income differentiation. These can be regarded as typical, standard measures of social stratification.
30The gender structure is depicted as percentages of men and women in the total population. Regardless of whether rural gentrification is occurring, women outnumber men in the middle-class segment, with the gender disparity being more pronounced in peripheral counties. In contrast, the segment of farmers exhibits a male predominance in both types of counties. Moving on to the age structure, both types of counties show a younger population in the middle class, evidenced by higher percentages of individuals aged 20-39. It is worth noting that peripheral counties have a higher proportion of young residents overall. While gender and age do not significantly differentiate between the two types of units, more pronounced differences emerge between the two segments of the structure.
Table 5. Indicators of demographic differentiation of farmers and middle class in two types of counties.
Agrandir Original (jpeg, 110k)
Source: own elaboration based on “Social Diagnosis 2015” survey database
31Three features - education, occupations, and income - are highly correlated with each other. Pursuing a profession, as per its sociological definition, necessitates education and skills acquired through the educational process. However, education and occupation are contingent on remuneration for the work performed, contributing to personal income and family/household income.
32The analysis of educational levels in the two types of counties does not reveal clear differentiation. In peri-metropolitan counties, there is a slightly higher percentage of people with higher education, while in peripheral areas, there is a prevalence of individuals with secondary and lower education. A distinct axis of educational differences emerges between the middle class and farmers. In both types of counties, representatives of the middle class are significantly better educated than farmers. The relatively small percentage of farmers with higher education suggests that the process often referred to in the literature as the “farmers bourgeoisization” with one of its indicators being the education level of farmers (Laferte 2014, 2018), has limited scope in Poland.
Table 6. Educational level of farmers and middle class in two types of counties.
Agrandir Original (jpeg, 77k)
Source: own elaboration based on “Social Diagnosis 2015” survey database
33The economic position of an individual is linked to the socio-professional position but also to the industry of the workplace or even its spatial location. Therefore, the next element of the analysis is the income of the population, which is a manifestation of economic capital. It is generally assumed that “the higher the formal education, occupational status, and income, the higher the stratification position” (Słomczyński, Janicka, 2013, p. 79). However, a high level of education does not always correlate with a high professional position and high income.
Table 7. Personal monthly net income from work (in PLN).
Agrandir Original (jpeg, 42k)
Source: own elaboration based on “Social Diagnosis 2015” survey database
34Overall, the differences in average monthly personal income between the analyzed counties are significant, exceeding 20%. This clearly indicates a connection between personal income and the structure of the economy (see Halamska, 2018). Higher average incomes are achieved in economies that are dynamic, characterized by high “economic density” (Halamska, 2013) and can be described as a “metropolitan and entrepreneurial economy” (Marini, Mooney, 2006).
35The analyzed average monthly personal income in peri-metropolitan counties is higher than in counties where the gentrification process does not occur. It is also noteworthy that in both types of counties, higher incomes are recorded in the middle-class segment. The size of the gap between the middle class and farmers also depends on the type of county. In peri-metropolitan counties, this difference is about 70%, while in peripheral counties, it is slightly more than double.
36In Poland in recent decades, the process of structural change with the greatest dynamics is gentrification, responsible for the reconfiguration of rural social structure. It exhibits different spatial dynamics, being stronger in peri-metropolitan counties where there is saturation of the social structure with the middle-class segment, and a relatively small share of farmers. In contrast, it is clearly weaker in peripheral counties where the share of farmers and workers reaches three quarters of the population, and the share of the middle class does not exceed one-fifth.
37The economic and social effects of gentrification are considered in the literature as an inherent part of the transformation. Researchers emphasize that the emergence of gentrifiers, as a “disruption” of the previous order, can be the basis for social and economic reconfiguration. Rural gentrification contributes to economic restructuring, shifting away from agriculture toward economies dominated by the service sector. This comparative analysis reveals that in peri-metropolitan counties, rural gentrification and deagrarianization are advanced, evident in the atypical composition of social structure in rural Poland. Economically, the recomposition of social fabric manifests in the strengthening of processes initiated by the transition from an industrial to a post-industrial type of economy. These counties are characterized by a service-based economy and residents whose professional lives are oriented towards careers in nearby cities, indicating the diminishing influence of the “rurality syndrome” (Gorlach, 2005). In contrast, peripheral counties, as model rural areas, maintain the dominance of agriculture.
38The analyses undertaken in this study reveal relatively small differences between the two types of counties, indicating moderate social differentiation. Stronger differences arise from the status of segments of the social structure. The middle class, irrespective of its spatial location, is characterized by higher education and higher income. The metropolitan market, absorbing well-educated professionals moving to suburban countryside, may influence the wage differentiation between the middle class and farmers. It is crucial to emphasize that economic factors, such as earned income, are not isolated; they are linked to a specific occupational structure and hierarchy, contributing to a “certain vertical arrangement of higher and lower social positions, differing in prestige, level of consumption, and lifestyle” (Piotrowska, 1998, p. 77). This is evident in differences in the level of human capital (of which educational level is a component) between representatives of the middle class and farmers.
