外文翻譯---波羅的海農(nóng)村多元化一個(gè)地方的透視

1、<p>　　本科畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)（論文）</p><p>　　外 文 翻 譯</p><p><b>　　原文：</b></p><p>　　Rural diversi?cation in the Baltic countryside: a local perspective</p><p><b>　

2、　Abstract </b></p><p>　　Today ‘‘rural diversification’’ is high on the agenda in rural development. This article analyses rural diversification under conditions of post-socialist economic transition us

3、ing case areas in Latvia and Estonia. The study shows that transition from centrally planned economy to market economy has had an enormous impact in the rural areas. Agricultural production and employment has decreased d

4、ramatically and rural unemployment is high. The conditions for rural diversification the first years af</p><p>　　Introduction</p><p>　　Decreasing employment opportunities in agriculture is an al

5、l-European problem. In Western Europe the proportion of the rural population during most of the twentieth century has fallen steadily. In Eastern Europe this fall has been more dramatic. About 20% of the populations were

6、 employed in agriculture in the Baltic States 10 years ago, only 5% are employed today. This is similar to the EU average. However, still 30% of the population lives in rural areas (Rural Development Programmes 2004a, b)

7、.</p><p>　　In Latvia and Estonia many rural areas suffer from persisting unemployment and poverty (Alanen 2004; Tisenkopfs 1999). Rural diversification seems essential</p><p>　　to avoid increasi

8、ng poverty and is high on the agenda for rural development in the years to come. The EU Common Agricultural Policy 2007–2013 focuses on three thematic axes laid down in the new rural development regulation of which ‘‘div

9、ersification of the rural economy’’ is one of them (European Commission 2005).</p><p>　　This article analyses the rural diversification under conditions of post-socialist economic transition and discusses op

10、portunities and constraints for rural diversification. The project is an exploratory study into how people make a living and rural business development in two study regions in Latvia and Estonia respectively.</p>

11、<p>　　Theoretical background and approach</p><p>　　In diversification studies the centre of attention is dominantly the farm household and its abilities for finding new activities and employment. There

12、are two types of activities; ‘‘farm diversification’’ which are on-farm activities like tourism activities or alternative farm production and ‘‘employment diversification’’ which is employment away from the farm (Bryden

13、et al. 1992; Chaplin et al. 2004). Policy makers assume that ‘‘farm diversification’’ makes a significant contribution to rural d</p><p>　　However, most empirical studies still shows that farm diversificatio

14、n are small-scale activities related to conventional agriculture such as machinery services and add little incomes. ‘‘Employment diversification’’ is much more widespread (e.g. McNally 2001).</p><p>　　As my

15、focus is rural development, my working definition of ‘‘rural diversification’’ and the ‘‘nonfarm economy’’ also includes the broader rural economy not confined to agriculture and the farm household. Some rural areas in W

16、estern Europe, particularly around cities and popular resorts, have experienced an increase in population and economic activities not involved or related to the farm sector. It has often been connected to an increasing m

17、ovement of people, tourists and investments from urban</p><p>　　the ‘‘urban-rural shift’’ or the ‘‘rural turn around’’ (e.g. Murdoch et al. 2003; North 1998).</p><p>　　The transition and diversi

18、fication</p><p>　　Research into rural issues in post-socialist countries has mainly focused on agricultural restructuring. The following part examines the emerging research on post-socialist rural change and

19、 tries to point to features that characterise the rural areas in transition and are important for the understanding of diversification.</p><p>　　The farm household</p><p>　　Many small farms are

20、a common feature in the Eastern European countryside today. The socialist agricultural system comprised of large-scale agricultural enterprises and small household plots that farm workers cultivated. During the transitio

21、n land has been restituted to former owners and privatised by farm workers. The aim of the restitution of land was in the Baltic countries based on the idea of creating family farms similar to the traditional Western Eur

22、opean model, however, the ‘‘family farm</p><p>　　The rural business</p><p>　　In the post-socialist countryside, the rural business activities other than farming can be divided into privatised en

23、terprises and self employed service businesses. Non-agricultural production like processing plants, distilleries and bakeries were connected to the large farms. Such units have been called the ‘‘resilient units’’ (Andor

24、1997) because while the large farms have closed, they have often continued their operations, although at a much lower level of activity than before (Nikula 2004).</p><p>　　The rural population</p><

25、;p>　　Characteristic for the post-socialist countries is that a larger share of the population lives in rural areas than in Western Europe. ‘‘Underurbanisation’’ is often emphasised as a central feature of socialist ru

26、ral– urban relations (Szelenyi 1996). Underurbanisation means that housing construction in urban areas did not keep pace with industrial development. Workers continued to live in villages where they also could benefit fr

27、om plot farming while commuting to work. This group of people has be</p><p>　　The regional differences</p><p>　　A distinction in CEEC-literature is often made between former ‘‘a(chǎn)gricultural regio

28、ns’’ and ‘‘industrial regions’’ (Raagmaa 1997; Swain 2000). In traditionally heavily industrialised regions industries have often closed and there are few employment opportunities. Agricultural regions were often special

29、ized producing for large markets in the Soviet Union and other Eastern European countries. Since their traditional markets often have disappeared such regions also suffer from unemployment. Raagmaa </p><p>　

30、　Approaching diversification—the local perspective</p><p>　　The Baltic countries are no longer part of the Soviet Union but are reintegrating with the European and global economy. The frame conditions for ru

31、ral areas have changed dramatically. Transition research has largely been written in terms of the marketisation of economic relations and the privatisation of property. The level of research has mainly been macro-scale.

32、The perspective of this research project is from the micro-scale exploring the activities, experiences and capacities of rural inhab</p><p><b>　　Methods</b></p><p>　　The local areas

33、 and their populations are focused on with the help of case studies exploring the situation of the rural inhabitants and the local business activities in two specific regions. The typology of post-socialist rural regions

34、 discussed in the theoretical background; ‘‘a(chǎn)gricultural regions’’ and ‘‘industrial regions’’ formed the basis for the selection of the study regions. The intention was not to select representative cases for the average

35、rural area in the Baltic States, and the inte</p><p>　　In Estonia Viljandi county was selected as an agricultural region. Rezekne county was selected as an industrial region. In connection with both study re

36、gions parallel data collection, including surveys, interviews, and collection statistical data, has been conducted. This has included a survey on household incomes and activities, interviews with households and businesse

37、s, interviews with key informants and collection of secondary data. Data was collected in 2001 and 2002. The data collection is </p><p>　　Empirical findings</p><p>　　In both study areas during t

38、he Soviet period all land and property were nationalised and one large collective farm approximately covered what is the rural municipality territories today. The collective farms were transformed into co-operative farms

39、 in the early 1990s. In the Estonian area the cooperative stopped operation in 1995 because of government pressure to split up the farm. In the Latvian area it still exists, however, on a much smaller scale than before a

40、s both much of the land and mach</p><p>　　The rural business</p><p>　　Small-scale farm diversification</p><p>　　In both areas prior to transition, large-scale agriculture was the ba

41、ckbone of the rural economy. Most of the non-farming activities were enterprises servicing the local farm sector or processing farm products. From this diversified large-scale agricultural production, farm-related activi

42、ties are small scale like home-brewing, agro-services or sausage making for exchange and own subsistence in the local area. </p><p>　　Transforming businesses</p><p>　　The splitting up of the lar

43、ge farms resulted in several privatized businesses that prior were processing or servicing units in the collective farms. There were e.g. some industrial bakeries, breweries, canneries, slaughterhouses, fish processing,

44、dairies, gravel extraction and manufacturing of building materials and farm services like agro-service stations and mechanical workshops. These were in all cases privatized by their former managers or the collective farm

45、 manager. After independence thes</p><p>　　Rural industrialisation</p><p>　　Investments into the production facilities, finding new markets and new products are needed in order to stay in produc

46、tion. This new demand has left most production companies; sawmills as well as privatized processing units, to rely on decreasing local markets or close. But in the Estonian area some wood and food processing industries (

47、approximately 5) have come into the rural area with capital and products from outside. There are two furniture makers, a sawmill, a company producing carbonated s</p><p><b>　　Retail</b></p>

48、<p>　　There are two-three grocery stores in each rural municipality. Many were started by former collective managers. A leader of a collective farm now runs a wholesale market in the county capital and two rural s

49、tores: ‘‘I had through my position as leader of a collective farm good connections to wholesale markets and import businesses in Riga. These were important in order to start in retail’’. Another former collective manager

50、 says: ‘‘It was easy to buy the shop premises cheap. I got them for nothi</p><p>　　Tourism and business services</p><p>　　It has also been sawmill owners that until recently have been investing

51、in tourism. There are some tourists coming to the areas but most tourism providers depend on the local market. The tourism businesses aim at a market of tourists from the capital areas, but until now it has mainly been p

52、eople from the counties that hold parties or on weekends use the saunas or fish in the lakes on the land of the tourism business. They bring their own food and drinks and give little income for the business o</p>

53、<p>　　The rural labour market</p><p>　　In the local areas most jobs people also had before independence. These jobs are in the transforming businesses, the municipal administration, the local schools an

54、d kindergartens. However, this employment often has a temporary character. A man working in the Latvian co-operative farm describes his job like this: ‘‘I have worked here all my life. Before we got paid all year now we

55、just get paid when there is something to do’’. Many people do not see local job opportunities besides keeping such ir</p><p>　　The local labour market in traditional rural industries and unskilled work have

56、diminished markedly while there has been some increase in employment for skilled </p><p>　　people in wood processing, bookkeeping and computers. </p><p>　　Conclusion</p><p>　　The ru

57、ral economy has changed dramatically during transition. Before independence the rural economy in the two study regions was centred around large-scale farming. During privatisation assets from the large farms and state en

58、terprises were distributed among the rural population. Most people got land back in restitution or privatised their household plot while some privatised buildings, workshops or processing plants. After privatisation the

59、rural population was dominated by small farmers with v</p><p>　　Rural diversification was expected to be able to alleviate poverty, but diversification is not always an ‘‘upward’’ adaptation. The population

60、and activities are more diverse but an increasing inequality between people can also be observed. Certain individual skills and assets have been necessary to possess in order to find employment and to start business.<

61、/p><p>　　The local labour market has decreased markedly since independence. Traditional rural industries and farm work have diminished. Salaried employment in urban construction is a key income source for house

62、holds and it is distinctive that the local labour market is of minor importance in household incomes. The few new businesses have created few employment possibilities for local inhabitants as these demand skills in servi

63、ces and wood processing which many locals do not have. The rural business activ</p><p>　　selfemployed engaged in rural business but increasingly incoming businesses with external capital and business network

64、s take over (Herslund & Sørensen 2004).</p><p>　　In order to encourage a stronger non-farm economy traditional funding for farm diversification needs to be complemented by education that help people

65、 obtain new skills and contacts to outside the area.</p><p>　　Source ：Lise Herslund Rural diversification in the Baltic countryside: a local perspective Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008</p>

66、<p><b>　　譯文：</b></p><p>　　波羅的海農(nóng)村多元化：一個(gè)地方的透視</p><p><b>　　摘要</b></p><p>　　“農(nóng)村多元化”是目前農(nóng)村發(fā)展的重要議程。本文分析拉脫維亞和愛沙尼亞的多元化農(nóng)村地區(qū)后社會(huì)主義經(jīng)濟(jì)過渡使用的情況。研究表明，從中央計(jì)劃經(jīng)濟(jì)過渡到市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)對(duì)農(nóng)村地區(qū)

67、產(chǎn)生了巨大的影響。農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)和就業(yè)方面的急劇下降使農(nóng)村失業(yè)率很高。獨(dú)立后的最初幾年的農(nóng)村多樣化條件很大一部分取決于前集體耕作分裂前非農(nóng)業(yè)活動(dòng)的存在，包括生產(chǎn)設(shè)施，技能和人們之間的關(guān)系。自獨(dú)立以來，傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)村的服務(wù)和產(chǎn)品的市場(chǎng)有所下降。通常，城市地區(qū)企業(yè)尋找當(dāng)?shù)刂獾耐獠渴袌?chǎng)的程度以及人們能夠融入新的服務(wù)和勞動(dòng)力市場(chǎng)建設(shè)工作對(duì)農(nóng)村經(jīng)濟(jì)的多樣化至關(guān)重要。大多數(shù)農(nóng)村居民只有大規(guī)模農(nóng)業(yè)技能和局部區(qū)域以外的有限接觸，使得開拓新的機(jī)遇面臨困難。當(dāng)?shù)貙?duì)代

68、扣、發(fā)展和開發(fā)新的活動(dòng)的能力薄弱。農(nóng)村發(fā)展的政策挑戰(zhàn)是要擴(kuò)大農(nóng)村居民利用新的機(jī)遇的可能性。 </p><p><b>　　簡(jiǎn)介</b></p><p>　　減少農(nóng)業(yè)就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)，是一個(gè)全歐洲的問題。西歐的農(nóng)村人口比例在二十世紀(jì)的大部分時(shí)間都處于穩(wěn)步下降中。在東歐，這個(gè)下降趨勢(shì)已經(jīng)更加明顯。10年前波羅的海國(guó)家約有20％的人口是在農(nóng)業(yè)方面就業(yè)，而今天只有5％。這類似于歐盟

69、的平均水平。然而，在農(nóng)村還有30％的居民生活在農(nóng)村（農(nóng)村發(fā)展計(jì)劃2004年a，b）。</p><p>　　在拉脫維亞和愛沙尼亞的許多農(nóng)村地區(qū)都遭受持續(xù)失業(yè)和貧困。農(nóng)村多樣化對(duì)避免日益嚴(yán)重的貧困是必須的，是今后幾年農(nóng)村發(fā)展的重要議程。歐盟共同農(nóng)業(yè)政策的重點(diǎn)放在2007-2013年新農(nóng)村建設(shè)中的三個(gè)主題軸的調(diào)控，“農(nóng)村經(jīng)濟(jì)多樣化”是其中之一（歐洲委員會(huì)2005年）。</p><p>　　本文分

70、析了后社會(huì)主義經(jīng)濟(jì)轉(zhuǎn)型和探討機(jī)會(huì)和條件的制約下的農(nóng)村多元化。該項(xiàng)目是在拉脫維亞和愛沙尼亞的兩個(gè)地區(qū)人們?nèi)绾沃\生，農(nóng)村商業(yè)發(fā)展這兩個(gè)探索性研究。</p><p><b>　　理論背景和方法</b></p><p>　　多樣化的研究關(guān)注的中心是顯性的農(nóng)戶以及尋找新的活動(dòng)和就業(yè)的能力。有兩種類型的活動(dòng);“農(nóng)業(yè)多樣化”是農(nóng)場(chǎng)旅游活動(dòng)或其他活動(dòng)如農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)；“就業(yè)多樣化”是就業(yè)遠(yuǎn)

71、離農(nóng)場(chǎng)（布賴登等農(nóng)場(chǎng)1992年的活動(dòng)；卓別林等人，2004年）。政策制定者認(rèn)為“農(nóng)業(yè)多樣化”為農(nóng)村發(fā)展作出了重要貢獻(xiàn)。農(nóng)場(chǎng)的替代活動(dòng)將幫助吸收一些過剩的農(nóng)業(yè)勞動(dòng)力，減輕貧困，促進(jìn)就業(yè)在農(nóng)村地區(qū)的發(fā)展（例如理事會(huì)條例1999年）。在歐盟的以農(nóng)場(chǎng)為主的多元化范圍內(nèi)，“多元化”的資金刺激了個(gè)體農(nóng)場(chǎng)的旅游活動(dòng)和其他農(nóng)產(chǎn)品的發(fā)展。然而，大多數(shù)的實(shí)證研究還表明，農(nóng)業(yè)多樣化還是與傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè)如機(jī)械服務(wù)相關(guān)的小規(guī)?；顒?dòng)，并只增加少量的收入（例如麥克納利20

72、01年）。</p><p>　　由于我的重點(diǎn)是農(nóng)村發(fā)展，我的文章對(duì)于“農(nóng)村多樣化”和“農(nóng)村非農(nóng)經(jīng)濟(jì)”的定義還包括不局限于農(nóng)業(yè)和農(nóng)戶的更廣泛的農(nóng)村經(jīng)濟(jì)。在西歐一些農(nóng)村地區(qū)，特別是圍繞城市和度假勝地的農(nóng)村，經(jīng)歷了一個(gè)不包括在或不與農(nóng)業(yè)部門相關(guān)的人口和經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)的增加。它經(jīng)常被連接到一個(gè)從城市到農(nóng)村的人口、旅游者和投資的增加。這種趨勢(shì)已被描述為“城鄉(xiāng)轉(zhuǎn)移”或“農(nóng)村左右轉(zhuǎn)”（如2003年默多克等人，1998）。</p

73、><p><b>　　過渡和多樣化</b></p><p>　　進(jìn)入后社會(huì)主義國(guó)家的農(nóng)村問題的研究主要集中在農(nóng)業(yè)結(jié)構(gòu)調(diào)整。以下部分探討在后社會(huì)主義新農(nóng)村的變化研究，試圖為轉(zhuǎn)型期的農(nóng)村特點(diǎn)指明方向，并對(duì)了解農(nóng)村地區(qū)的多樣化非常重要。</p><p>　　小型農(nóng)場(chǎng)是當(dāng)前東歐農(nóng)村的共同特征。社會(huì)主義農(nóng)業(yè)系統(tǒng)由大型農(nóng)業(yè)企業(yè)和小型家庭農(nóng)場(chǎng)職工種植的地塊組成。

74、在過渡時(shí)期土地已經(jīng)歸還給前業(yè)主和私有化的農(nóng)場(chǎng)工人。該土地歸還的目標(biāo)是在波羅的海國(guó)家建立類似傳統(tǒng)的西歐模型的家庭農(nóng)場(chǎng)，然而，“家庭農(nóng)場(chǎng)”的模式在當(dāng)即還未普及。一個(gè)農(nóng)場(chǎng)的二元結(jié)構(gòu)已重新出現(xiàn)；大規(guī)模的私有化往往對(duì)應(yīng)于前社會(huì)主義農(nóng)場(chǎng)，小家庭農(nóng)場(chǎng)主宰自我生存導(dǎo)向。此外，很多城市居民獲得土地歸還后，大多數(shù)往往是任其野生（鮑爾多克等，2001年）。</p><p><b>　　農(nóng)村商業(yè)</b></p

75、><p>　　在后社會(huì)主義新農(nóng)村，農(nóng)村的商業(yè)活動(dòng)（不是其他養(yǎng)殖）可分為私有化企業(yè)和自雇服務(wù)業(yè)務(wù)。非農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)如加工廠，釀酒廠和面包房生產(chǎn)是與大農(nóng)場(chǎng)相聯(lián)系的。這些單位都被稱為“彈性單位”（安道爾1997年），因?yàn)殡m然大農(nóng)場(chǎng)已經(jīng)關(guān)閉，他們常常繼續(xù)運(yùn)作，即使活動(dòng)水平比以前低得多（尼古拉2004年）。</p><p><b>　　農(nóng)村人口</b></p><p&

76、gt;　　后社會(huì)主義國(guó)家的特征是，與西歐相比較大份額的人口生活在農(nóng)村地區(qū)。非城市主義經(jīng)常被強(qiáng)調(diào)為一個(gè)社會(huì)主義的城鄉(xiāng)關(guān)系的主要特點(diǎn)。 非城市主義意味著，城市地區(qū)住房建設(shè)并沒有跟上產(chǎn)業(yè)發(fā)展的步伐。工人繼續(xù)生活在村莊里，他們還可以從農(nóng)業(yè)中獲益，同時(shí)繼續(xù)工作。這一群人被稱為“農(nóng)民工”（安道爾1997年）。然而，農(nóng)村地區(qū)的人口幾乎完全由當(dāng)?shù)剞r(nóng)民和工人組成，沒有一個(gè)前市的“中產(chǎn)階級(jí)”。</p><p><b>　　

77、地區(qū)差異</b></p><p>　　中東歐國(guó)家文學(xué)之間的區(qū)別往往都是前“農(nóng)業(yè)區(qū)”和“工業(yè)區(qū)”（拉格莫1997年斯溫2000）。傳統(tǒng)產(chǎn)業(yè)的高度工業(yè)化的地區(qū)經(jīng)常關(guān)閉，很少有就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)。農(nóng)業(yè)區(qū)域?qū)I(yè)化生產(chǎn)，往往集中在蘇聯(lián)和其他東歐國(guó)家的大市場(chǎng)。由于他們的傳統(tǒng)市場(chǎng)經(jīng)常有這樣的地區(qū)也遭遇了失業(yè)痛苦。拉格莫（1997）認(rèn)為，在波羅的海國(guó)家周邊地區(qū)沒有真正面積小的國(guó)家，在那里人們可以開車上下班，從任何地方到全國(guó)所有

78、農(nóng)村地區(qū)，因此農(nóng)村地區(qū)有可能成為一個(gè)“城市中心休閑”可以讓人們重新生活。</p><p>　　走近多樣化——地方的角度</p><p>　　波羅的海國(guó)家也不再是蘇聯(lián)的一部分，但重新融入歐洲和全球經(jīng)濟(jì)。農(nóng)村地區(qū)的框架條件發(fā)生了巨大變化。轉(zhuǎn)型的研究在很大程度上是寫在市場(chǎng)化的經(jīng)濟(jì)關(guān)系和財(cái)產(chǎn)私有化條款上的。研究水平已主要是宏觀尺度。本研究項(xiàng)目的角度是從微觀探索活動(dòng)、經(jīng)驗(yàn)和不斷變化的農(nóng)村區(qū)域內(nèi)農(nóng)村居

79、民的能力范圍。在過渡背景下，自下而上的方法似乎越來越重要，因?yàn)楫?dāng)?shù)氐倪^渡并不是一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的框架條件的新的表達(dá)，并作為系統(tǒng)崩潰宏觀結(jié)構(gòu)已改變的具體領(lǐng)域甚至更依賴個(gè)人的能力。</p><p><b>　　方法</b></p><p>　　在案例研究的幫助下，當(dāng)?shù)氐牡貐^(qū)和人口都集中在探索農(nóng)村居民的情況和在兩個(gè)特定地區(qū)的商業(yè)活動(dòng)上。后社會(huì)主義農(nóng)村地區(qū)的類型學(xué)討論了理論背景；“農(nóng)

80、業(yè)地區(qū)”和“工業(yè)地區(qū)”形成了對(duì)研究區(qū)域選擇的基礎(chǔ)。我們的目的不是要選擇在波羅的海國(guó)家一般的農(nóng)村地區(qū)有代表性的案例，其意圖不是向整個(gè)國(guó)家或所有農(nóng)村地區(qū)推廣。然而，個(gè)案研究代表不同類型的地區(qū)，其結(jié)果應(yīng)該與類似的農(nóng)村發(fā)展和多樣化的地區(qū)的情況高度相關(guān)。個(gè)案研究涉及不同的國(guó)家，因?yàn)樽畛醯脑O(shè)置涉及所有國(guó)家，包括立陶宛波羅的海的研究項(xiàng)目伙伴。</p><p>　　在愛沙尼亞維嘉迪縣被選定為農(nóng)業(yè)區(qū)。涅日克內(nèi)被選為縣工業(yè)區(qū)域。兩個(gè)

81、研究地區(qū)的并行數(shù)據(jù)采集，包括調(diào)查，訪談和收集統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)方面，已經(jīng)在進(jìn)行中。這個(gè)調(diào)查包括對(duì)家庭收入和活動(dòng)，對(duì)家庭和企業(yè)進(jìn)行訪談，關(guān)鍵知情人及次級(jí)資料的搜集采訪調(diào)查。數(shù)據(jù)在2001年和2002年收集好了。數(shù)據(jù)收集主要是基于一個(gè)家庭研究和業(yè)務(wù)學(xué)習(xí)。家庭研究在一個(gè)特定縣市農(nóng)村進(jìn)行。業(yè)務(wù)范圍包括研究同一直轄市的企業(yè)，然后還包括5個(gè)縣農(nóng)村在各自城市的業(yè)務(wù)，以便得到更廣泛的代表性。家庭研究是由每個(gè)城市95戶的問卷調(diào)查組成的，這大約是每個(gè)城市所有家庭的1

82、 /5。住戶是通過在每一個(gè)第五家的房子或公寓大樓敲門隨機(jī)挑選出。其中約對(duì)20-25戶進(jìn)行了采訪。</p><p><b>　　實(shí)證研究結(jié)果</b></p><p>　　在蘇聯(lián)時(shí)期所有的土地和財(cái)產(chǎn)的兩個(gè)研究領(lǐng)域是一個(gè)大的國(guó)營(yíng)和集體農(nóng)場(chǎng)約覆蓋今天的全市農(nóng)村。集體農(nóng)場(chǎng)改造為合作農(nóng)場(chǎng)時(shí)在90年代初。在愛沙尼亞方面的合作因?yàn)檎僮鞣至艳r(nóng)場(chǎng)的壓力而停止于1995年。在拉脫維亞地

83、區(qū)這種情況仍然存在，但是規(guī)模要小得多，因?yàn)楹芏嗤恋睾蜋C(jī)器被私有化，并歸還給原業(yè)主了。</p><p><b>　　農(nóng)村商業(yè)</b></p><p><b>　　小規(guī)模農(nóng)業(yè)的多樣化</b></p><p>　　在這兩個(gè)之前的過渡地區(qū)，大規(guī)模的農(nóng)業(yè)是農(nóng)村經(jīng)濟(jì)的支柱。大部分非農(nóng)業(yè)活動(dòng)是企業(yè)由提供服務(wù)或加工農(nóng)產(chǎn)品的。從這個(gè)多元化的

84、大型農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)中可以看到，農(nóng)業(yè)有關(guān)的活動(dòng)是小規(guī)模的，如在家釀造、農(nóng)業(yè)交流與服務(wù)或做香腸或在當(dāng)?shù)刂\生。</p><p><b>　　轉(zhuǎn)型商業(yè)</b></p><p>　　大型養(yǎng)殖場(chǎng)分裂形成了一些之前是在集體農(nóng)場(chǎng)加工或維修單位私有化的企業(yè)。例如有一些釀酒廠，罐頭廠，屠宰場(chǎng)，魚類加工，乳制品，礫石提取和建材，像農(nóng)業(yè)服務(wù)站和農(nóng)業(yè)服務(wù)的機(jī)械制造店。這些都是由他們的前經(jīng)理或集體農(nóng)場(chǎng)

85、經(jīng)理私有化帶來的。獨(dú)立后這些轉(zhuǎn)型企業(yè)開始有了的建筑物，一個(gè)基礎(chǔ)產(chǎn)品和與原蘇聯(lián)市場(chǎng)的聯(lián)系。</p><p><b>　　農(nóng)村工業(yè)</b></p><p>　　為了維持生產(chǎn)，對(duì)生產(chǎn)設(shè)施的投資，尋找新市場(chǎng)和新產(chǎn)品的投資是必要的。這種新的需求使大多數(shù)生產(chǎn)企業(yè)倒閉，私有化鋸木廠加工單位依靠減少當(dāng)?shù)厥袌?chǎng)或只能關(guān)閉。但在愛沙尼亞地區(qū)部分木材和食品加工行業(yè)已把資本和外來產(chǎn)品帶入農(nóng)村地

86、區(qū)。家具制造商有兩個(gè)，一個(gè)是鋸木廠，另一個(gè)公司生產(chǎn)碳酸礦泉水和蠟燭。他們是都市產(chǎn)業(yè)或由大型外商投資和生產(chǎn)的用于國(guó)內(nèi)市場(chǎng)或出口國(guó)外的。該公司使用當(dāng)?shù)刭Y源，如模具和當(dāng)?shù)厮娜静牡任镔Y從塔林和國(guó)外的一些地方供應(yīng)。傳入的企業(yè)在該地區(qū)主要是因?yàn)樗麄兛梢酝ㄟ^與當(dāng)?shù)氐氖虚L(zhǎng)接觸，廉價(jià)購買集體建設(shè)的建筑，或者因?yàn)橛辛己玫牡缆非巴帧?lt;/p><p><b>　　零售</b></p>&

87、lt;p>　　每個(gè)農(nóng)村直轄市有兩三個(gè)雜貨店。許多人由前集體管理人員開始做起。一個(gè)集體農(nóng)場(chǎng)的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者現(xiàn)在運(yùn)行縣城和農(nóng)村兩個(gè)存儲(chǔ)批發(fā)市場(chǎng)，他說：“我是通過作為一個(gè)集體農(nóng)莊領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人在里加批發(fā)市場(chǎng)和進(jìn)口業(yè)務(wù)建立良好的關(guān)系的。這些對(duì)開始做零售都是重要的”。另一位前集體經(jīng)理說：“買到便宜的店鋪很容易。我?guī)缀醪挥么鷥r(jià)就擁有店鋪了。我很了解集體經(jīng)理”。這些領(lǐng)導(dǎo)崗位建立了良好的本地網(wǎng)絡(luò)，商家都依賴于個(gè)人接觸獲得廉價(jià)的建筑和生產(chǎn)設(shè)施。獨(dú)立后的最初幾年，也

88、有較小的家族企業(yè)，在零售業(yè)開始時(shí)期往往使用特定的技能、聯(lián)系人或銷售木材。</p><p><b>　　旅游與商業(yè)服務(wù)</b></p><p>　　他們最初也是鋸木廠業(yè)主，直到最近才一直投資旅游。有一些游客自己來到旅游的地區(qū)，但大部分旅行社根據(jù)當(dāng)?shù)厥袌?chǎng)而定。旅游企業(yè)著眼于從首都地區(qū)的客源市場(chǎng)，但是現(xiàn)在游客主要來自各個(gè)縣舉辦的聚會(huì)或在周末通過旅行社在湖泊的周圍的地方桑拿或

89、釣魚。他們帶來了自己的食物和飲料，并給小企業(yè)主的增加了一點(diǎn)收入。目前旅行社的數(shù)量比游客數(shù)量要多。為數(shù)不多的收入來自基于對(duì)特殊的個(gè)人接觸的專門市場(chǎng)如狩獵旅游或國(guó)外宗教團(tuán)隊(duì)。愛沙尼亞酒店老板說：“我是通過教會(huì)到芬蘭的。我和宗教團(tuán)體接觸，現(xiàn)在每年前來舉行宗教營(yíng)地”。</p><p><b>　　農(nóng)村勞動(dòng)力市場(chǎng)</b></p><p>　　獨(dú)立前當(dāng)?shù)卮蟛糠值貐^(qū)的人都有工作。這

90、些工作是在市政、改造企業(yè)、當(dāng)?shù)氐膶W(xué)校和幼兒園。然而，這個(gè)就業(yè)往往是臨時(shí)性的。一個(gè)人在拉脫維亞合作農(nóng)場(chǎng)這樣描述他的工作任務(wù)：“我已經(jīng)在這里工作了一輩子。我們領(lǐng)到錢之前的一年中，現(xiàn)在我們只是有事可做時(shí)才得到報(bào)酬”。很多人沒有看到除了保持這種不規(guī)則的“老”就業(yè)，因?yàn)樗麄冎挥性谵r(nóng)業(yè)方面的技能，這在目前不是很搶手。在公共服務(wù)就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)也在減少。一名前教師說：“農(nóng)村教師沒有工作可以做。農(nóng)業(yè)專家，教師和農(nóng)場(chǎng)工人都爭(zhēng)取在建設(shè)和鋸木廠同一份工作，我們良好的

91、教育沒有用了”。傳統(tǒng)的農(nóng)村工業(yè)和非技術(shù)工作的本地勞工市場(chǎng)有顯著減少，同時(shí)出現(xiàn)了一些就業(yè)如木材加工，簿記和計(jì)算機(jī)技術(shù)人員的增加。</p><p><b>　　結(jié)論</b></p><p>　　農(nóng)村經(jīng)濟(jì)在過渡期間發(fā)生了巨大變化。獨(dú)立前兩個(gè)研究地區(qū)農(nóng)村經(jīng)濟(jì)圍繞規(guī)?；B(yǎng)殖。而大農(nóng)場(chǎng)和國(guó)營(yíng)企業(yè)的資產(chǎn)私有化分布和農(nóng)村的人口事一致的。大多數(shù)人都回到了土地私有化的原狀或家庭私有化陰謀

92、出現(xiàn)一些私營(yíng)樓宇，車間或加工廠。私有化后，農(nóng)村的人口主要是具有不同的資產(chǎn)和收入的機(jī)會(huì)小農(nóng)戶，有些人經(jīng)營(yíng)私有化企業(yè)?，F(xiàn)狀家庭收入是多元化的。對(duì)于一些人來說，在集體農(nóng)場(chǎng)的收入已取代私人商業(yè)活動(dòng)，或工資穩(wěn)定的工作，但很多人只發(fā)現(xiàn)不穩(wěn)定的就業(yè)或自營(yíng)就業(yè)能有一點(diǎn)收入，收入往往要取決于養(yǎng)老金，就像是“向下適應(yīng)”。農(nóng)村多元化預(yù)計(jì)能夠減輕貧困，但多元化并不總是“向上”適應(yīng)的。人口和活動(dòng)更加多樣化，而是人與人之間的不平等加劇也是很明顯的。個(gè)人的技能和資產(chǎn)

93、對(duì)就業(yè)和創(chuàng)業(yè)是必要的。</p><p>　　自獨(dú)立以來本地勞工市場(chǎng)已明顯減少。傳統(tǒng)的農(nóng)村工業(yè)和農(nóng)業(yè)工作已經(jīng)減少。工薪階層在城市建設(shè)中就業(yè)是住戶的主要收入來源，它是獨(dú)特的，而當(dāng)?shù)貏趧?dòng)力市場(chǎng)在家庭收入中的重要性是其次的。一些新的企業(yè)幾乎沒有為當(dāng)?shù)厝藙?chuàng)造就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)，當(dāng)?shù)鼐用窈苌倬邆湓诜?wù)和木材處理中需要的技能。今天農(nóng)村商業(yè)活動(dòng)主要是當(dāng)?shù)氐姆?wù)和一些工業(yè)生產(chǎn)。和西方的資本市場(chǎng)越來越多的接觸、供應(yīng)商和投資者是農(nóng)村企業(yè)發(fā)展的必

94、要條件。今天，有一些私有化的企業(yè)和地方自治受聘于農(nóng)村商業(yè)，但外部資本和業(yè)務(wù)網(wǎng)絡(luò)接管傳入的企業(yè)越來越多（何士蘭和索倫森2004年）。</p><p>　　為了鼓勵(lì)更強(qiáng)的非農(nóng)業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)的傳統(tǒng)的資金用于農(nóng)業(yè)的多樣化需要通過教育，幫助人們獲得新的技能和接觸外界。</p><p>　　出處：莉莎何士蘭 農(nóng)村波羅的海農(nóng)村多樣化：當(dāng)?shù)亟嵌妊芯縖J] 施普林格科學(xué)商業(yè)媒體BV 2008</p>