集落における転作対応の空間論的考察

銘柄米産地の土地開発を手がかりにして

抄録

　　　The purpose of this paper is to clarify the reason why responses to rice production adjustment policy are different between the core and periphery rice fields. Although a considerable number of studies have been made about collective changing crops especially for reorganizing the land use of paddy fields in rice production adjustment policy, theoretical explanations to achieve collective changing crops are explained either by productivism which emphasizes a notion of communal possession, or by incentives which subsidies afford to farmers. However, both debates are mutually incompatible and can’t explain satisfactorily the reason for different responses. The problem is that both of the debates fail to grasp the spatial characteristics of society, that is to say, the rural space has been differentiated unevenly in the global process of modernization. I explain this trend by the land development process in the case of a brand rice producing district, Tunan-machi Niigata prefecture, and also explain how the spatial characteristics are related to opposing responses to adjustment programs. The facts that I found in this case are as follows.
　　　1）Responses to rice production adjustment programs have apparently varied between the core and periphery rice fields, and only one village in the periphery continued to achieve collective changing crops. The relation between the core and periphery rice fields is accelerated by the brand rice production and the tourist industry which reflects the land development process in this region.
　　　2）Opposing responses between the core and periphery depend on the way “community” is perceived by the villagers living in a particular space in a particular context. In the context of adjustment programs, the “community” is negatively imagined in the core, and positively in the periphery. The reason why contrasting images are constructed is that such images emerge with the norm, which gives rise to the collective responsibility among the community members to legitimize the particular uses of the land. Put simply, the land in the core is legitimized as brand rice producing paddy fields, so that the villagers don’t change crops collectively. The land in the periphery is the other side of the coin, so that the villagers have possibility to change crops collectively. All these things make it clear that local responses to adjustment programs are ideologically related to uneven global land development.