The role of horticulture and the household economy in the rural poor’s social integration – The Social Land Program is 25 years old

Abstract

Income supplementing household economies have a strong tradition in Hungary, as the rate of self-sufficient family farms was already very high under socialism. Accordingly, at the beginning of the nineties, when, following the system change, poverty dramatically increased, it seemed to be a good idea to renew this self-sufficiency tradition and to strengthen the household economy in small, disadvantaged villages. At its creation, the Social Land Programme aimed to provide basic needs (food, social care, managing social deficits) and to improve the employability and self-sufficiency skills of the marginalized groups in small rural villages. However, during its 25 years of operation, its main objectives significantly changed, as its operational conditions also transformed fundamentally. Productive social policy and an activating welfare state have become one of the dominant issues of the last decades. Social integration, while previously focused on the welfare state’s care and rights providing functions, shifted toward advocating self-sufficiency and public employment. These influenced the Social Land Programme’s practical operations and raised questions about its initial aims, the groups targeted, the implementation methods, the organizational framework, and the relevance of expected results. Direct state engagement and public employment increase paternalism and do not favor bottom-up social integration as the Social Land Program.

The present study is a short guide to the main stages and characteristics of the Social Land Program’s transformations and provides a typical example of the last decades’ changes in Hungarian social integration programs for the marginalized population. It applies the analysis of professional literature and policy documents, and draws on empirical data collected, in 2016, by the Sociology and Social Policy Department of the University of Debrecen. The data collection targeted 8 communities and used questionnaires in 153 families and 48 semi structured interviews with participants of the Social Land program.