Purpose and perspective: using soft systems methods in stakeholder analysis

Sustainable development has brought with it a broader consideration of the role of different stakeholders. Considerable scholarship has gone into demonstrating that purpose and perspective matter, and that stakeholder groupings based on these can be much more complex than basic social or economic variables might suggest. Yet an examination of the stakeholder analysis tools in the management literature reveals simplistic assumptions and boundary judgements, and a reification of purpose that conceals stakeholder assumptions, values and goals. In this paper, we explore an alternative form of stakeholder analysis, based on Checkland's Soft Systems Methodology. At its core is a suggestion that a central difficulty with standard stakeholder analysis is that sustainability is not framed in the same way by different stakeholders and it is unreasonable to analyse their stake in it as though their framing was identical. The paper describes how some of the methods developed within SSM can be applied to make stakeholder analysis more powerful and more flexible, and discusses some of the implications for CSR and sustainability

Urban food strategies in Central and Eastern Europe: what's specific and what's at stake?

Integrating a larger set of instruments into Rural Development Programmes implied an increasing focus on monitoring and evaluation. Against the highly diversified experience with regard to implementation of policy instruments the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework has been set up by the EU Commission as a strategic and streamlined method of evaluating programmes’ impacts. Its indicator-based approach mainly reflects the concept of a linear, measure-based intervention logic that falls short of the true nature of RDP operation and impact capacity on rural changes. Besides the different phases of the policy process, i.e. policy design, delivery and evaluation, the regional context with its specific set of challenges and opportunities seems critical to the understanding and improvement of programme performance. In particular the role of local actors can hardly be grasped by quantitative indicators alone, but has to be addressed by assessing processes of social innovation. This shift in the evaluation focus underpins the need to take account of regional implementation specificities and processes of social innovation as decisive elements for programme performance.

HELYI FEJLESZTÉSPOLITIKA EGY EURÓPAI PROJEKTÁLLAMBAN - AZ INTÉZMÉNYI BRIKOLÁZS RENDSZERSZEMLÉLETŰ ELEMZÉSE = LOCAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES IN A EUROPEAN PROJECT STATE - A SYSTEMIC ANALYSIS OF INSTITUTIONAL BRICOLAGE

Magyarországon sem a többszintű kormányzás, sem a projektekre alapozott államigazgatás - az EU-s fejlesztéspolitikák előfeltételei – nem működik megfelelő szinten. Mindez problémákat okoz a fejlesztéspolitikák implementációja során. Az ellenőrzés központosított és normatív, az alacsonyabb szinteken elégtelen a fejlesztési kapacitás. A decentralizáltnak szánt szakpolitikák ellentétben állnak az őket alkalmazni hivatott rendszerrel, így gyakran zátonyra futnak és nem érik el kitűzött céljaikat. A kutatás során négyfajta ""hiányt"" azonosítottunk a többszintű kormányzás területén: • decentralizáció hiánya, • bizalom és kommunikáció hiánya • együttműködés hiánya • társadalmi tanulásra való képesség hiánya Ezek a hiányok a szakpolitikai rendszer torzulásaihoz, a fejlesztési intézmények közti átfedésekhez és résekhez, a résztvevő érdekcsoportok közti hatalmi vetélkedésekhez vezetnek. Ugyanakkor azt tapasztaltuk, hogy kistérségi szinten mégis sok helyütt jelentős fejlesztési kapacitás épült ki, mely reflexív, pro-aktív hozzáállás révén sokszor képes betömni az intézményrendszer réseit és működőképessé tenni a szakpolitikát. Képesség az együttműködésre, a társadalmi és intézményi tanulásra, és a praktikus mindennapi megoldások keresésének ötvözése a stratégiai gondolkodással meghatározók a sikerben. Egy másik fontos tényező az EU LEADER program filozófiai üzenete, amely mindmáig jelentősen befolyásolja a vidéki közösségek fejlődését. | In Hungary neither multi-level governance nor the project state - pre-requisites for EU development policies - are functioning sufficiently, resulting in serious problems in policy implementation. Fundamental control remains centralised, there is a lack of capacity at lower levels of governance and decentralised policies are in contradiction with the nature of the system that is expected to deliver them. Consequently, development policies suffer distortion and tend to fail to achieve their objectives. We identified four different kinds of ‘lacks’ in the context of multi-level governance: • lack of decentralisation, • lack of trust and communication, • lack of co-operation, • lack of capability for social learning. These have caused distortions of the system, resulting in overlaps amongst and gaps between different institutions, and a continuous power struggle between the different stakeholders. Nevertheless, despite all difficulties, at micro-regional level, in some areas at least strong capacities have been built. They demonstrate that many of the difficulties can be overcome by filling the gaps in the institutional environment through reflexive agency and institutional bricolage. Capacity for co-operation, social learning and a conscious quest for practical solutions coupled with strategic thinking seem to be decisive factors for success. Another important factor is the philosophical message of the LEADER Programme, strongly effecting rural communities

Catching up with the West?

This paper presents a comparative perspective on Europeanisation of rural policies in Poland and Hungary. We focus on developments in these two countries in the last decade and situate them in a broader European Union (EU) narrative. This exercise shows that Europeanisation in rural development has been mostly a one-way process of transferring the EU-15 policy models into the post-socialist realm. The policy system has lacked contextual sensitivity and recognition of the significant differences in political and institutional cultures both within the Central and Eastern European countries and between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ EU Member States. The results are low effectiveness of development aid, coupled with the lack of policy learning and the possibility for gradual improvements of the system. We look here especially at the delivery of LEADER and how its transformation from being an experimental bottom-up innovation into a mainstream delivery mechanism of rural policy has affected its transfer to Hungary and Poland. We conclude with some recommendations for improvements in rural policy delivery and with some research questions to encourage further research

A magyar mezőgazdasági tudásrendszer intézményei és változásai

This paper explores and analyses the Hungarian institutional system for the creation and the transfer of knowledge in the field of agriculture and rural development. We consider the constitution and operation of the Agricultural Knowledge System (AKS) in Hungary, focussing on formal institutions and suggest that both the structure and content of the knowledge needed in the sector have significantly changed during the past decades. These changes, especially in relation to the sustainability of agriculture, pose significant challenges to traditional AKS institutions, which often have failed to change in line with the new requirements. We offer an analysis of Hungarian AKS institutions, their co-ordination, co-operation and communication with each other and with Hungarian rurality, and of the rising issues and problems concerning the creation and the flow of knowledge needed for sustainable agriculture. We also briefly explore characteristics of emerging bottom-up structures, called LINSAS (learning and innovation networks for sustainable agriculture), that, if properly considered and supported, could bring significant improvement for Hungarian rural development

Defining participatory video from practice

In this chapter we explore the common threads within different strands of participatory video by considering some examples of practice. Taken together these reveal a rich diversity of purpose and application. Participatory video has been used as a term to describe some quite distinct practices, and conversely, there are instances of the use of video in social settings that seem to be closely related to participatory video without being described as such. This makes it difficult to immediately pin down what the term means, and indeed it is said that there is no common understanding of participatory video. To scholars the diversity of participatory video practice presents two separate issues. The first is that it is necessary to bear in mind that participatory video has been applied in many more ways outside of academic research and education than inside. Even if one is only interested in participatory video solely as a component of research, an understanding of non-academic practice is likely to enrich and enhance methodological choices. The second is that participatory video is a rich site for a pragmatic and phronetic scholarship that questions social experiences to explore what works and to what end. The question here is what lessons can be learned from diverse practices, and how to apply this learning elsewhere. Thus with participatory video, as with any practice, scholarship has a role to play in terms of providing a platform for considered and critical reflection, a space to consider the significance of what is and of what could be. Effective reflection rests on some basic taxonomic work in order to gain an overview of the field. We therefore have selected three vignettes to show some key features of participatory video in practice, with an eye to establishing a broad baseline. These examples are drawn from our personal research in two cases and some background research in the third. For the purpose of this chapter, breadth is more appropriate if we are interested in to explore the range of extant practice, and the vignettes are simple outlines to provide illustration for an exploratory discussion rather than fully developed case studies with all of the detailed evidence presented

Régi intézmények, új kihívások – a Mezőgazdasági Tudásrendszer (MTR) Magyarországon

Jelen tanulmány célja, hogy a hazai mezőgazdasági tudásrendszert (MTR), vagyi s a tudásteremtés, tudásátadás és innováció magyarországi intézményeit, azok működését, diszfunkcióit, lehetséges fejlődési irányait feltárja. A vidéki területek társadalmi - gazdasági alrendszereinek működtetéséhez szükséges tudás szerkezete és tartalma is megváltozott , mára jóval túlmutat a mezőgazdaságon. Ezek a változások, különösen az agrár - és vidékfejlesztés fenntarthatóságával összefüggésben, jelentős kihívást jelentenek a hagyományos MTR intézmények számára, amelyek fejlődése gyakran elmaradt az új igényektől. Cikk ünket, a vonatkozó irodalom áttekintésére, személyes interjúkra és egy, a témában érdekelt fonto s hazai szereplők részvételével tartott tudományos műhely eredményeire alapozzuk. Elemzésün k kiterjed a magyar MTR intézményhálózatára, a szereplők egymáshoz és a magyar vidék egészéhez kapcsolódó viszonyrendszerére és kommunikációjára, és a mezőgaz daság fenntartható fejlődéséhez szükséges tudás létrehozásával és továbbításával kapcsolatos problémákra. Végül felvázoljuk a tudásteremtés és az innováció alulról épülő hálózatokon alapuló, Európa szerte elterjedőben lévő új konstruckióját, a LINSA - t (tanuló és innovációs hálózatok a fenntartható mezőgazdaságért). Cikkünk az EU 7. keretprogramja által támogatott SOLINSA kutatási program és az OTKA 70 által támogatott ’Megvalósult és elmaradt szinergiák a fejlesztéspolitikában’ című kutatási projekt eredményein alapul