Land Use Policy 26 (2009) 683–694 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol Implementing Pillar II of the Common Agricultural Policy in England: Geographies of the Rural Enterprise Scheme and Processing and Marketing Grant David Watts a,∗ , Brian Ilbery b , Damian Maye b , Lewis Holloway c a Institute for Rural Research, University of Aberdeen, St. Mary’s, Elphinstone Road, Aberdeen AB24 3UF, UK b Countryside and Community Research Institute, University of Gloucestershire, UK c Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK article info Article history: Received 30 October 2007 Received in revised form 17 September 2008 Accepted 17 September 2008 Keywords: Common Agricultural Policy England Rural Enterprise Scheme Processing and Marketing Grant Public policy mechanisms Geography of farm diversification Location quotient Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistic abstract This paper examines the geography of two policy instruments – the Rural Enterprise Scheme (RES) and the Processing and Marketing Grant (PMG) – that formed part of the second ‘pillar’ of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in England between 2000 and 2006. It starts by outlining the ongoing debate over the role of geography in policy research, an outcome of which has been a call for more empirical work that explores the ‘difference that place makes’ in the implementation of public funding mechanisms. The paper argues that the CAP is ripe for geographical analysis, as the Agenda 2000 reforms can be interpreted as moving it away from a ‘sectoral’ (agricultural) approach to a more ‘territorial’ (rural development) one. After outlining the place of the RES and PMG in the reformed CAP in England, the paper discusses three factors – farm size, proportion of land rented and location – that may have influenced their geographies. The distribution of grant approvals under these schemes is then mapped using location quotients. Following this, the potential influence of the factors outlined above is tested using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistic. The conclusion revisits the opening discussion by reflecting on the difference that place has made to the implementation of the PMG and RES. © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction: new geographies of public policy Over the last decade or so there has been a resurgence of debate in the UK about how academic researchers are, or are not, engag- ing with what Ward (2006) has termed ‘public policy’. This debate has been particularly prevalent in, although not confined to, human geography. 1 A key concern has been that UK geographers are not doing enough research that is relevant to policy-makers (Dorling and Shaw, 2002, p. 634; Martin, 2001, p. 197; Peck, 1999, p. 131) and that consequently the discipline is in danger of losing out to others in contributing to ‘policy research and discourse’ (James et al., 2004, p. 1902). Two main reasons for this have been adduced. The first is that academic practice, influenced by career develop- ment and Research Assessment Exercise concerns, has tended ‘to ∗ Corresponding author. Tel: +44 1224 272352; fax: +44 1224 272331. E-mail address: d.watts@abdn.ac.uk (D. Watts). 1 See, e.g. Banks and MacKian (2000), Burgess (2005), Dorling and Shaw (2002), Eden (2005), Hoggart (1996), James et al. (2004), Martin (2001, 2002), Massey (2000, 2002), Owens (2005), Pain (2006), Peck (1999, 2000), Pollard et al. (2000) and Ward (2005). See also Bell’s (2007) discussion of cultural studies and Ward’s (2006) use of recent work in sociology. privilege abstract and “scientific” knowledge over practical and policy-oriented knowledge’ (Peck, 1999, p. 131). In calling for more research that augments the latter, Peck (1999) suggests that such work will be ‘grey’ insofar as it sits between ‘abstract’ knowledge and evaluation of the stated goals and outcomes of policy. As he puts it: ‘the point is not simply to have more policy analysis...but better and deeper policy analysis’ (Peck, 1999, p. 132; original emphasis). Such work, moreover, ‘is a legitimate, non-trivial and potentially creative aspect of the work of academic geographers’ (Peck, 1999, p. 131). A heartening response to this has been the extent to which subsequent contributors (e.g. Burgess, 2005; Eden, 2005; Morris, 2006; Pain, 2006) have demonstrated the breadth and depth of engagement with such ‘grey’ geographies. The second main reason behind the danger identified by James et al. (2004) has been the ‘public policy irrelevance of much human geography’ (Martin, 2001, p. 197), caused by its lack of empirical and explanatory rigour (Martin, 2001). This was echoed by Dorling and Shaw (2002, p. 634), who argued that policy makers do not see what most human geographers do as being relevant to their concerns. Such tendentiousness has drawbacks. It has provoked rebuttal: Pain (2006, p. 256), for example, declines to exhort geog- raphers undertaking ‘grey’ research to do ‘particular things’ and 0264-8377/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.09.004