Integrated rural development - The concept and its operation

Our paper explores, on a theoretical level, the reason for frequent failures of rural development policies and identifies some potential improvements in rural policy making in Europe. Our approach to des/integration concerns actors, resources, institutions, knowledge, the fundamental logic of development, and the interplay between two distinct levels of rural development: the level of policies, or central intervention; and the level of local aspirations aimed at improving everyday rural life. Along these lines, two characteristic systems of rural development – the central bureaucratic and the local heuristic – can be clearly identified. Ideally, these should work in co-operation, complementing each other, forming an integrated development system, where rural policy serves to (i) channel resources, establish strategic aims and development models in a top-down mode, and (ii) convey information and mediate social, economic, political interests in a bottom-up mode. However, lack of integration and divergence of interest can lead to dysfunction, conflict and dissipation within the system. We argue that rural development policies tend to fail because the central bureaucratic system imposes top-down control and objectives throughout the development process, thus failing to sufficiently promote the reconfiguration of local resources, which is better achieved through bottom-up processes and the local heuristic system. In other words, the tendency to disjunction between the two basic socio-political systems of rural development is the main reason for the failure of rural development policy. The paper offers analytical models of integrated and non-integrated rural development systems and illustrates the argument through some examples taken from the community initiatives and the pre-accession policies of the European Union. The study is in two halves. The first half elaborates the concept of ‘integrated rural development’. based on international literature. The second part offers a few new conceptions, as a contribution to the ‘new rural development theory’ and simple models of integrated and non-integrated development.Rural development, local development, rural policy, European Union, LEADER Programme, centre-periphery, local governance

The politics of rural development in Europe

This paper explores the evolution of rural policies in EU, making some comparisons with CEE rurality. In the first chapter I explore some theoretical concepts on how policies are transferred from one country to another, what a policy paradigm means and how it might change over time with special reference to the changing conceptualisation of rural development. The rest of the paper is based on literature review; document analysis; and interviews and experiences gathered at the European level. In the second chapter an account is given of how the modernisation paradigm prevalent in EU and CEE rural policies has been eroded during recent decades, and what the expression ‘rural development’ might mean for various actors and stakeholders of this story. Then I analyse some early documents of the SAPARD programme, to show the original intentions of EU policy makers at the beginning of the pre-accession preparation. In the last chapter I make some conclusions on the EU’s strategy for eastern enlargement and its possible implications for the evolution of European rural policies.Development Planning and Policy, Agriculture, Rural Economics, Comparative Economic Systems, Agriculture and Natural Resources System

Evaluating LEADER: canonical, endogenous and systemic learning

In this paper, we touch on a key theme in rural overnance 'the reconciliation of centralised procedures and the embedded institutions of rural society – through the lens of the evaluation procedures embedded in the European LEADER programme. LEADER is in many ways a highly devolved European initiative, true to its origins as a progressive rural laboratory in terms of innovation, stakeholder engagement, social learning and systemic methodology for addressing rural needs. The design and operationalisation of national and local LEADER programmes and projects is tailored to local circumstances, and aims to direct LEADER funding to local needs while building the institutional and social capital that underpins successful rural development. Yet while the delivery of LEADER embraces heterogeneity, programmatic evaluation is centralised and learning at the national and local level is subservient to the need to defend the LEADER approach in Brussels. This requires evaluation to be held at arms length from delivery organisations, even though there is evidence that where local evaluative capacity is robust, centralised evaluation is enhanced. This paper reviews progress to date on improving the canonical forms of evaluation employed in LEADER, based on cumulative feedback from previous iterations of the programme. We then consider alternative evaluation traditions that engage with endogenous capacity for sense making,and the extent to which they might be taken up within LEADER. We conclude by proposing that more attention needs to be paid to institutionalisation of systemic evaluation within LEADER,which could engage with a much wider range of perspectives in rural development, across different scales of governance and national and regional contexts. This would require the reconciliation canonical and endogenous forms of evaluation, but would align LEADER evaluation with the values and methods embodied in the rest of the programme

Environmental Governance in Hungary - Rural Development Policies and Social Learning during the Implementation of EU Agri-Environmental Policies - A Case Study

The Rural Development Regulation (RDR) within the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), as an exemplary manifestation of the New Rural Development Paradigm, has achieved significant results. Nevertheless, it has increasingly become liable to institutional complexity and central control in an emerging system - discussed as 'the project state' or 'projectified world' in recent literature. The intersection of different institutional realities (European, domestic, regional, local, sectoral, spatial, etc.) and the resulting institutional bricolage is inevitably contested. The dispute is even more apparent in CEE countries, where multi-level governance is problematic and the New Paradigm has good possibilities, but little tradition. This case study of the implementation of the Hungarian Agri-Environmental Programme (HAEP) intends to illustrate how a disfunctioning project state (clientalism, insufficient bureaucracy, direct political influence) can distort the implementation of rural development policies. We found that the design and the implementation of the programme (HAEP) was subjected to ongoing political influence and the power struggle of three main mindsets, representing different lobbies: the agriculturalists, the green-minded and the accountability-minded actors. As a consequence, the main emphasis remains on the distribution of financial resources, thus original objectives (environmental protection and effective social learning) are not fulfilled. The case study is part of my ongoing research "Local Development Policies in a European Project State - A Systemic Analysis of Institutional Bricolage" supported by an NFM-OTKA grant.social learning, environmental governance, agri-environmental policies, CAP, EU policies, environmental protection, project state, evaluation

Understanding informal institutions: Networks and communities in rural development

A major theme within the literature on rural development is that the particular mix of formal and informal institutions present in any situation is a key determinant of development outcomes. However, there is some evidence that in policy and practice there are considerable difficulties in articulating formal organizational realities with the rules and norms embedded in informally constructed social structures. The same difficulty is in evidence in the New Institutional Economics, where the mainstream literature concedes the critical importance of informal and cultural institutions, but has thus far failed to develop an adequate theory of the informal. This recognized weakness is all the more urgent because of the growing emphasis on governance, participation and social learning evident in European rural development policy and practice. A clear understanding of the opportunities and pitfalls that arise in working with informal institutions is required, and therefore theories that provide analytical and operational traction in the 'parallel' realities of the formal and the informal. This paper starts from the point of view that at the heart of the institutional dilemma lies a difficulty in conceptualising the informal social structures in which informal institutions are reproduced. A review of relevant bodies of theory is presented; drawing on sociological network theory, perspectives on governance and social capital, and new developments in the organisational and management literature. These suggest some starting points for a theory of informal social realities and the institutions that structure them. The paper concludes with a presentation of a theoretical framework for understanding informal structures in rural development in terms of networks and communities

Rural development and pre-accession preparation in Hungary: is there an alternative way?

This paper intends to explore current trends of rural development and rural policies in the light of the approaching EU accession; and tries to give some concrete recommendations to Hungarian policy makers. We state that, the EU policies communicate rather contradictory messages, urging for centralisation (institutional, legislative) and continued subsidies for industrial agriculture on the one hand; and supporting decentralisation and an integrated rural development approach on the other. As a result of EU influence and domestic forces, in Hungary local and central sub-systems for rural development are emerging in parallel. We believe that the main cause for the failure of current and future rural policies is that the local system is not supported sufficiently and there is no adequate co-operation between the local and the central level of rural development in general. As a result, central resources cannot be efficiently delivered and local development potential cannot be unlocked. We suggest that, policy makers should take a much more integrated, diversified and multi-sectoral approach to rural development, using available domestic and EU resources in order to change the course of current rural policy practice. The diversification of the rural economy, improvement of locally added value; the development of short food chains; together with possibilities for the support of environmentally sensitive agricultural production would allow for the unlocking of our full rural development potential. In this way Hungarian rurality, from being a lagging follower of the EU rural regions, could become a champion of the integrated rural development approach

Constructing rural development : models, institutions, policies and the eastern enlargement

No AbstractEThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo

Importance of Animation Actions in the Operation of Hungarian Local Action Groups

The EU LEADER initiative has been running for 20 years and plays an important role in the development of European rural areas, however, in countries joining to the EU after 2004 it is still a relatively new phenomenon. In Hungary, for example, the LEADER+ programme was launched in 2005 with an experimental phase (called a "LEADER type initiative") and has developed to be a fully applied EU programme only in the current programming period. This paper explores the implementation of the LEADER programme in eastern Hungary. The examined Local Action Groups face diverse challenges concerning human, social, physical and financial capital, networks and social learning. The study investigates the opportunities and threats faced by the LAGs, with special regard to institutions, governance and applied initiatives. The roles of the LAGs within the social, economic and cultural context of given areas are examined through Lukesch's (2007) model FOG - forms of governance. The model is a tool to explore the interrelationships local partnership, local needs and local socio-cultural environment. The results of the FOG test show that the prevailing mode of governance in the examined LAGs emphasises animation actions as important elements of operation. Although the importance of animation actions is underlined by the result of the test, their presence between the initiatives is less than it should be. Good examples of animation actions are given: participatory video and a case study of its Hungarian application are introduced. Finally the role of Universities in animation actions is emphasised and closer relation of them with RD networks is called for.LEADER, Hungary, rural development, social learning, animation actions, policy analysis

Is there added value in transdisciplinary research?

In this paper we present some findings of the SOLINSA, an EU 7th framework research project that aims to identify barriers to the development of Learning and Innovation Networks for sustainable agriculture. Applying a comparative approach in different countries and cultural contexts we address some of the challenges connected to transdisciplinary methodology. Our project takes an action research perspective where researchers diverge from the traditional role of observer and act as change agents facilitating the work of innovation networks. Our aim is to explore how members of the academic community can engage with these networks and through which processes they can have any positive impact. We will present two case studies (out of 17 in total in SOLINSA) to illustrate difficulties, key issues, good and bad practices. Through this, apart from academia, we intend to contribute to innovation and the advancement of complex systems within the European rural development arena

Benefits, challenges, social learning and controversies around Local Food Systems

Objectives: Our WG touches upon three main elements among the themes of the conference: (1) innovation, (2) social justice and (3) knowledge production. Innovative local food systems and alternative food networks, approached from a collaborative and participatory angle, bring about a cultural shift by associating prosumers through a renewed form of trust, reciprocity and community, thus reinforcing social and ecological justice. At the same time, such heterodox actors in the transition to more sustainable food systems create new forms of knowledge, that are contested, co-constructed and potentially conflictual – along with enabling or disabling policymaking and, often, in dialogue with research. Our main objective is in this topic to start the process of creating an edited special issue of a peer reviewed journal (Sociologia Ruralis, Studies of Agricultural Economics or similar) should raise from this WG. We invite researchers working in the area of (local) food systems, alternative food networks, short food supply chains and related topics (rural tourism, community supported agriculture, etc.). We consider both the benefits and possible conflicts/problems in the connected socio-economic, cultural and environmental processes and welcome theoretical papers and case studies, too. Topic: By welcoming case studies from all geographical areas, in a comparative manner, this Working Group’s aim is to address different understandings and dynamics happening within and around different types of Local Food Systems (LFS). Alternative food networks, local food systems and short food supply chains have long been viewed as a sustainable, green way of raising the value added and creating opportunities for sur/re-vival of rural economy and society. They induce many benefits in terms of environmental impact, cultural exemplification, ethical entrepreneurship, social justice or rural development. Conceptually, LFS can be understood as ‘local food for local people’, as for example in the Slow Food or the community supported agriculture (CSA) movements. They are then associated with low food miles, environmental protection (Jones 2002), enhanced social networks and revitalised local communities (Fenstra 1997). From a local economic development perspective, in particular when LFS produce high quality products, they can equally be considered as ‘local food for non-local people’, either transported to urban centres, or attracting flows of tourists into rural areas. Here LFS can still enhance local businesses, economic and rural development, yet social and environmental benefits (Guthman 2004) of such foodstuffs, marketed with the added value of environmental and social responsibility, are more difficult to trace. Therefore, besides benefits, we would also like to analyse potential dissonances, that the distinction between local or extra-local target groups help to identify – for instance: • established, certified organic producers might criticize non-certified yet organically producing CSAs as fragmenting an already minority market or showing a lack of solidarity by not contributing to organic labels; • when LFS end up producing high quality, expensive products, a dynamic of social exclusion might occur, favoring the wealthy; • enhanced local production, tourism, and visitor pressure can cause social, economic, and environmental degradation, multiplier effects do not always occur to build more businesses and sustain social and economic capital; • innovative alternative food networks tend to struggle with territorial competition over land and resources, but if they rely on external investments, they might additionally be confronted – more insidiously – with the risk of co-option by neoliberal corporate agendas. We welcome analyses focusing on negotiations and struggles among actors in a multifaceted foodscape, where some block and some enhance transitions. Viewing the relationships, interconnectedness and agency of niche innovations, local and non-local appropriations as well regime hegemonies opens up the theoretical perspective of contested knowledge claims. We look for questions and answers including: • How are dynamics of “knowing and growing food in a contested arena” (Goodman, DuPuis, Goodman, 2014) negotiated – sometimes in a mutually enhancing and locally beneficial way, sometimes in more conflictual ways? • What are the local and extra-local stakeholders’ (producers, intermediaries, customers, tourists) different and often conflicting interests and responsibilities in LFS? • What can we learn from the tensions and local problems of LFS in order to support relevant policies to solve current controversies within the sector? • How can rural sociologists use their knowledge and influence to support local rural stakeholders of LFS