Conceptual Background and Priorities of European Rural ... - RuDI

Conceptual Background and Priorities
of European Rural Development Policy
Assessing the impact of rural development policies (incl. LEADER)
Deliverable D1.2
Nordregio (Nordic Centre for Spatial Planning) Stockholm, and
BABF (Federal Institute for Less Favoured and Mountainous Areas, Vienna.
Andrew Copus and Thomas Dax
FP 7 Project no. 213034
Funded by the 7 th Framework Programme for Research and Technology Development
of the European Commission

CONTENTS
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 4
2. The Changing Scope and Priorities of Rural Development: The Academic Perspective. 5
2.1. Policy Antecedents: Challenges and Opportunities................................................. 5
2.2. Buzz words and Schools of Thought...................................................................... 15
2.3. Styles of rural development policy delivery............................................................ 20
3. The Policy Response: EU Rural Development Policy .................................................... 23
3.1. Scope, Policy Principles, Approaches and Implementation Framework................ 23
3.2. Coherence of Agricultural and Rural Development Policies .................................. 41
4. Current approaches to rural development policy in member states; some impressions
from the Country Profiles......................................................................................................... 48
4.1. Path Dependency and the role of Policy Traditions............................................... 48
4.2. Relationships between RDPs and Regional Policy................................................ 50
4.3. Relationships with Nationally Funded Rural Development .................................... 51
4.4. Overall balance and strategic focus of the RDPs .................................................. 54
4.5. Governance: Programme Development and Implementation Processes.............. 55
5. Discussion: The Relationship between the Theoretical Debate and Conceptual
Frameworks, and EU Policy Principles and Implementation................................................... 58
5.1. The High Level Policy-Making Environment .......................................................... 58
5.2. Implementation within the MS and the Regions..................................................... 60
6. Conclusions; Key findings............................................................................................... 62
6.1. Research –Policy links ........................................................................................... 62
6.2. Some Common Constraints ................................................................................... 62
6.3. Some “Green Shoots” of Change........................................................................... 64
The Country Profile Reports .................................................................................................... 66
References .............................................................................................................................. 67

TABLES
Table 1: RD Community and public support 2007-2013 by Member State (Mio. Euro).......... 33
Table 2: : EAGGF (Guidance and Guarantee) planned expenditure by main measures 2000-
2006 (EU-15) ........................................................................................................................... 34
Table 3: The new rural paradigm............................................................................................. 43
FIGURES
Figure 1: Rural Assets and Exogenous Change – the components of Rural
Opportunity/Potential ............................................................................................................... 13
Figure 2: Styles of Rural Development Delivery...................................................................... 21
Figure 3: Community funding for rural development out of CAP............................................. 27
Figure 4: Framework for rural development funding, period 2000-2006................................. 28
Figure 5: The framework of the new rural development regulation......................................... 30
Figure 6: EU rural development policy 2007-2013.................................................................. 32
Figure 7: Planned allocation of RDP expenditure, EU-15 (2000-2006) ................................. 35
Figure 8: The structure of different rural development activities at farm level ........................ 39
Figure 9: Matrix for rural and regional policy approaches ....................................................... 44
iii

1. INTRODUCTION
With the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) the European
Commission and Council are supporting a more strategic and objective-led approach to rural
development policy for the period 2007-13. However, detailed policy instruments remain
largely unchanged since the early 1990s and detailed understanding of their impacts remain
partial. A number of studies have raised concerns about the potential mismatch between
measures and rural development goals and priorities. The RuDI project aims to improve our
understanding of the processes and structures underlying the formulation, implementation
and impacts of European rural development policies. It examines priority setting, design,
targeting and delivery processes of the 2007-13 programming period. The project will address
the question of how best to assess the impact of rural development policies at all relevant
levels and across the diversity of rural Europe.
The specific objectives of RuDI are:
o To better comprehend the importance and role of rural development (RD) in Europe
o To provide a comparative analysis of the economic, social and environmental context
for rural development
o To better understand policy design and delivery and their influence on performance
o To assess expenditure patterns and compare them with priorities
o To verify the intervention and impact logic of RD policies
o To identify emerging and potential effects of RD policy beyond the Common
Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF) of indicators
o To elaborate an enhanced integrated methodology for evaluation
o To validate the methodology and findings through in-depth case studies
o To provide recommendations for better targeting and better monitoring and
evaluation, in policy making
This document seeks to address the first and third of these objectives. It begins with a brief
overview of the theoretical literature, emphasizing the “antecedents” for rural policy, in terms
of various threats and weaknesses, strengths and opportunities, and in terms of a range of
popular conceptual frameworks or “schools of thought”. It then presents a review of the
evolution of the current EU rural development policy structures and principles. This is followed
by a discussion of the key features of policy responses in the individual Member States (MS).
The fifth section considers the relationship between theory and rural policy practice, both at
an EU level and within individual MS. Finally some key findings and broad conclusions are
presented.
4

2. THE CHANGING SCOPE AND PRIORITIES OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT: THE ACADEMIC
PERSPECTIVE
The following review of the theoretical and conceptual backdrop to European rural
development policy assumes a relatively broad “territorial” view of what constitutes a “rural
issue”. The association, formerly common, especially in the policy literature, of “rural”
exclusively with primary sector activity has become less common in the recent academic
literature (except perhaps in Agricultural Economics). Rurality is now recognised as a salient
dimension in a much wider range of disciplines and subject areas. These could be classified
and structured in various ways, but here the approach is cross-disciplinary, with the following
structure;
o challenges (structural, locational, social, and environmental);
o opportunities (environment, social capital, networks);
o holistic conceptual frameworks, or “schools of thought” (often signified by “buzz
words”) and finally;
o a brief discussion of “styles of policy delivery”.
2.1. Policy Antecedents: Challenges and Opportunities
In this section we seek to convey the range and scope of issues which have been addressed
by rural development academics in recent years, focusing first on “challenges” and then upon
“opportunities”.
2.1.1 Challenges
(a) Structural
This section considers the implications of the relative importance of the primary sector in the
rural economy. Issues include farm restructuring, together with those relating to human capital
(both on and off the farm), and the marketing of farm produce.
It is now widely acknowledged (in the academic literature) that the primary sector in general,
and agriculture in particular, play a relatively small, and declining role in the economy of many
rural areas. They may in some regions continue to form a key component in “clusters”, along
with upstream or downstream activities such as food processing, farm input manufacture, or
tourism/recreation. However such “dependence” is not always considered a sound basis for
long-term prosperity, and diversity is generally viewed more favourably.
5

There is a particular difficulty in providing an account of the academic literature relating to
farm structures. This is a consequence of the high degree of “conceptual path dependence”
of European rural development policy. Elena Saraceno (2004 p46) has described the “second
pillar” as a “historical accumulation” of interventions, reflecting “different rationales…in
successive programming periods rather than a coherent overall design”. Most of the
measures dealing with farm structures date back to a period of “modernisation”, (Saraceno
terms this the “first wave”) which stretched from the 1960s until the 1990s. A number of other
writers (such as van der Ploeg et al 2000) also refer to “modernisation” (ie physical
restructuring of holdings, and associated technological change) as a policy rationale of the
past, though they acknowledge that the associated measures are still very much part of
current policy. However it is striking to observe that the academic literature has rather lost
interest in mainstream “modernisation” in a Western European context. Lobley and Potter’s
(2004) review of farm restructuring in England is unusual, but very much reflects the changed
times, by pointing to evidence of “disengagement from mainstream agriculture” among
surveyed farm households. Indeed from the early ‘nineties onwards the Western European
literature shifts focus from “modernisation” to economic diversification and pluriactivity
(Marsden 1990, Fuller 1990, MacKinnon et al 1991, Edmond et al 1993).
It could be argued that analysis of structural change became subsumed in a broader “rural
restructuring” debate during the 1990s (see below). Insofar as the agricultural economics
literature continues to deal with farm “modernisation” specifically, it has, for at least a decade,
focused largely on the problems facing the former communist New Member States (NMS).
Here the issues are more complex than those of old Europe in the mid-twentieth century and
include land restitution, the commercialisation of collective farms (Lerman, Csaki and Feder
2002, Burger 2001), the increasing incidence of subsistence activity (Kostov and Lingard
2002), and so on.
Human capital (levels of education and training in the workforce) is widely acknowledged to
be a factor in employment trends (see below), and (indirectly) a determinant of migration
(Taylor and Martin 2001). The empirical evidence for this in relation to rural areas is perhaps
not as strong as might be expected (Bollman 1999), although it has been shown that across
Europe rural areas have significantly lower levels of education than urban areas (Copus et al
2006). In the context of farming in particular, levels of human capital seem to be relatively low
(Gasson 1998).
A range of issues relating to the marketing of agricultural produce have become active
areas for rural development research in recent years. These can be seen as a response to
the surplus production and relatively low prices which characterised the period prior to the
2003 CAP reform. As such the recent rise in prices (driven by various global market forces
rather than EU policy) may undermine the relevance of this research, at least temporarily.
6

Various strategies to ameliorate the effects of low prices have been explored. Most of them
depend upon the assumption that the problem of low prices is exacerbated by the fact that
primary producers receive a relatively small proportion of the retail price of the commodities
they produce. They include increasing the producer value-added through on-farm processing,
direct marketing and “short supply chains”, (Marsden et al 2000, Ilbery et al 2004) specialising
in “niche” or high quality/organic products, and exploiting the benefits of quality assurance or
“traceability”, “place based marketing”, and imagery (Goodman 2004, Leat and Revoredo-
Giha 2008).
(b) Locational.
A range of challenges for rural areas derive from their locational characteristics, principally
remoteness and sparsity. Clearly these do not affect all rural areas equally, they are most
evident in peripheral areas and those with a low population density, and are relatively less
important in peri-urban rural areas. It could perhaps be argued that they are regional, rather
than rural issues, and indeed there is no clear distinction between regional and rural
development literature here. These locational disadvantages affect both the competitiveness
of rural businesses and the quality of life of individual rural residents.
Remoteness 1 from markets is clearly an important issue both for farmers and other primary
producers, and for the rest of the rural economy. It manifests itself most obviously in terms of
increased transport costs, and therefore reduced competitiveness, but also, more subtly, in
terms of difficulties accessing business services, market intelligence and technological
information. An awareness of this has resulted in a longstanding emphasis (in regional and
Structural Fund policy) upon investment in transport and other physical infrastructure. More
recently there has been increasing concern about disparities in the utilisation of information
technology, particularly broadband internet access (Grimes 2003) and the human capital
necessary to exploit it, (Labrianidis and Kalogeressis 2006).
Sparsity of population is a similar (though distinct and independent) issue for rural business.
Sparsity results in attenuated business linkages (both transactional and in terms of
information and other “non-market” contacts), and inevitably impacts upon the business
networks of rural firms, reducing the potential for agglomerative economies, and creating
barriers to the diffusion of innovation.
Rural transport and accessibility are key quality of life issues, increasingly highlighted by a
combination of rising energy costs and the decline of public transport services. Car
1 The word remoteness is used in preference to “peripherality”, due to the latter’s acquisition of multiple meanings –
see for instance Ferrão and Lopes 2004
7

dependence and the affordability of running costs have become an important ingredient of
rural poverty and social exclusion (see below). Farrington and Farrington (2004) have
concluded that “the new narrative of accessibility, … is a sine qua non for the social justice
project”.
Availability and access to public and private services in rural areas is another common
theme in the literature. The issue has gained heightened significance in recent years due to
the coincidence of the gradual withdrawal of public transport, the quest for economies of scale
in service delivery, and changing conceptions of “the welfare state” (Persson and Westholm
1994). However, the increasing availability of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and
geo-referenced data sets has resulted in substantial analytical advances in methodology and
indicators (Higgs and White 1997). On the conceptual side the notion of “Territorial
Equivalence” has recently been put forward as an overarching rationale (Bryden et al 2008).
(c) Social
A very important issue, and one which drives, or at least affects, many aspects of rural social
development, is demographic change. As Amcoff and Westholm (2007) point out,
demographic change has the important distinctive feature of being relatively predictable, and
this explains its importance in rural foresight analysis.
Most Western European countries are moving into the later phases of the “Demographic
Transition”, in which “top heavy” age structure is a prominent feature (Champion and
Shepherd 2006), leading to a number of secondary issues relating to service provision, public
sector finance, and changing community structures (Lowe and Speakman 2007). On a ruralregional
level migration is rather more important than natural change. Being selective, it
tends to exacerbate age and gender imbalances, both in remote and rural regions where
“urbanisation” processes continue, and in more accessible rural areas, where “counterurbanisation”
predominates (Copus et al 2006), creating challenges in terms of community
integration (Laoire 2007). In-migration is not necessarily a means of economic regeneration
(Stockdale 2006), although incomer entrepreneurs do seem to have more robust and
outward-looking business networks (Kalantaridis and Bika, 2006).
In the former-communist New Member States rapid restructuring has resulted in substantial
urbanisation and international migration patterns (Kupiszewski 2005) which in a sense
represent a temporary “catch up” process, as a consequence of the release of former
constraints.
Analysis of the issues associated with ageing and gender balance is often linked to
consideration of other minority, socially excluded or deprived groups in the countryside.
8

Social exclusion is “multi-dimensional” and dynamic. It “signifies the combined impact of
factors such as lack of adequate education, deteriorating health conditions, homelessness,
loss of family support, non-participation in the regular life of society and lack of job
opportunities. Each type of deprivation has an impact on the others…” (Geddes 2000 p783).
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas are more difficult to study than in towns and
cities, because they tend to be dispersed rather than spatially concentrated, and also
because they are “culturally invisible” (Commins 2004). Reimer (2004), and Phillip and
Shucksmith (2003) have argued that rural social exclusion is a consequence of the failure of
one or more “systems of integration” (market, bureaucratic, associative and communal)
against a background of a complex set of social and economic changes. Young people are
especially vulnerable to exclusion in rural communities (Shucksmith 2004). UK research has
shown that there are also important links to migration, housing and labour market issues
(Shucksmith 2000). However, rural social exclusion is not well understood in a European
context, as far back as the mid-‘nineties there were calls for improved data collection and
more carefully tailored policies (Shucksmith et. al. 1994).
Employment is a key rural development issue. Much of the earlier rural development
literature focuses upon the decline of agricultural employment, rural “underemployment” and
“disguised unemployment”. More recently there has been some recognition that the rural
employment issue is more “multi-sectoral” and broad-based. The European Commission has
coined the term “Rural Jobs Gap” to describe the lower rates of employment, economic
activity, higher rates of unemployment, and lower levels of qualitative human capital (training
and skills) characterising some rural areas of Europe (CEC 2006). The Commission links the
rural jobs gap to demographic trends (ageing, selective migration and gender issues), and
structural differences (slower development of tertiary activities in rural areas).
The “rural jobs gap” seems to have two distinct, but inter-related elements:
• A need for accelerated structural change, this includes both a need for distinctively
rural activities, - such as environmental services, and countryside recreation and tourism -
and (especially in more accessible rural regions) “employment counter-urbanisation”,
involving activities which are not distinctively rural and not based upon rural resources –
including the “knowledge-based economy”.
• Barriers and constraints facing rural residents as they seek to participate in, and
benefit from, these changes. Unless these can be overcome there is a risk that rural workers,
especially those formerly employed in traditional land-based activities, will be trapped in a
disadvantaged secondary segment.
The rural (and regional) development literature is rather richer in relation to the former, whilst
the latter is relatively neglected. Within the literature which adopts the second (bottom-up)
9

perspective, there are two competing theories to explain variation in wages, job security, and
other aspects of “job quality” within, and between, labour markets. These are:
(i) Human Capital Theory and,
(ii) Segmented (or Dual) Labour Market Theory.
The first of these is a neo-classical economics perspective, in which differences in job quality
simply reflect differences in productivity based on the individual’s investment decisions in
education and training. Unemployment is equated with a job search which allows an individual
to discover the market value of his/her human capital. This is part of a rational, maximising
process of matching people to “appropriate” employment.
However, the above description of the “rural jobs gap” seems to be more compatible with the
second (segmented labour market) perspective. This literature shares a common view that
labour markets are not homogeneous, but are divided into “segments”, between which the
“quality” of the jobs are differentiated in a variety of ways; wage levels, contractual conditions,
job security, turnover, the relative valuation placed on human capital, and different kinds of
job search behaviour. These aspects often seem to be associated with differences in the mix
of sectors/occupations, and perhaps also with different labour market areas.
There is a wealth of literature, both empirical and theoretical, on labour market segmentation,
relating to a wide variety of contexts. However, perhaps the most relevant to the rural jobs
gap issue is that which considers the spatial or geographical dimension. There is for example,
some analysis of the implications for UK migration patterns (Gordon 1994), and a number of
analyses of rural-urban migration as part of the recent economic development in China
(Knight and Yueh 2004).
(d) Environment and Landscape
The literature on environmental change is to some extent separate from that dealing with the
first three groups of rural development “challenges” described above, perhaps because it
reflects a different skill set, based in the biological sciences rather than social science. The
following review is necessarily rather superficial, and will concentrate upon literature which is
closely linked to the rural economy and rural development policy. It will be structured
according to the following five issues; (i) loss of biodiversity and landscape change. (iii)
handling of farm chemicals and waste, (iii) Water abstraction (iv) Forest fires and soil erosion
(v) Climate Change and Air Quality.
(i) Loss of Biodiversity and Landscape Change – Biodiversity is important both for its
intrinsic value and because of the “services” which it provides, these have been defined as
follows: (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, cited by EEA 2007);
10

o
o
o
o
“provisioning services, e.g. food;
regulating services, e.g. water purification;
cultural services, e.g. recreation;
supporting services, e.g. nutrient cycling and soil formation.”
In a continent in which only one fifth of the land use is “natural” (EEA 2007) the close link
between biodiversity and agricultural land use in Europe is obvious. There is a substantial
literature on the impact of farming change upon all kinds of animal and plant species 2 .
Landscape change is also generating increasing research interest. There is a complete
research strand studying changes in natural and cultural landscapes and relationships with
rural development issues. Within mountain regions in particular (e.g. Switzerland, Austria,
Norway etc.) - but also in other areas - research programmes have been carried out focusing
explicitly on the development and change of cultural landscapes (Pfefferkorn et al 2005). In
many respects the issues treated are in close relationship to the concepts of multifunctionality
and a place-based bottom-up approach of regions.
Outside the mountain and sub-arctic areas of Europe agriculture is the dominant land cover,
and landscape change is largely synonymous with changes in farming systems. The EEA
(2005), for example, has pointed to a gradual increase in intensity and specialisation in recent
decades, which has implications for both landscape and biodiversity. There is increasing
interest in defining and monitoring “High Nature Value” (HNV) farming (Hoogeveen et al 2004)
which is going to serve as one of 8 key impact indicators for evaluation (particularly of axis 2
measures) of the Rural Development programmes in the current period..
(ii) Handling of farm chemicals and waste. – Whilst the problems caused by pesticide and
other chemical residues have diminished to some extent in recent years, partly due to stricter
controls, but also (until the past year or so) reduced intensity due to lower prices, excess
nitrogen continues to be a serious issue (Dwyer 2008, EEA 2005). To some extent the
problem was ameliorated in the New Member States in the period prior to accession, due to
the collapse of intensive systems under the command economy. In intensive livestock areas
there are substantial problems disposing of effluent without polluting local ground water and
run-off.
(iii) Excessive water abstraction is a substantial problem in the southern parts of the EU.
Many areas have experienced drought conditions in recent years, causing competition for
water as a scarce resource. There are indications that the provision of water resources, both
in quantity and quality, will gain in importance as a crucial problem for larger areas than
currently. Threats are increasing particularly in relation to climate change aspects and the
prospect of a higher probability of extreme climate events, leading to exceptional situations in
2 For a good overview see Dwyer 2008.
11

oth directions. These probelms will show a specific regional feature which is however very
difficult to predict and subject to increasing variability.
(iv) Forest fires and soil erosion are further serious challenges associated with
intensification of land use, exacerbated by drought conditions in the Mediterranean Member
States.
(v) Climate Change and Air Quality – are not just exogenous threats to agriculture.
Farming itself is a substantial contributor of greenhouse gasses – especially methane from
livestock.
In addressing the state of the research coverage about the CAP and the environment,
Brouwer and Lowe (2000) discerned the following issues:
1. “There is a northern bias in the research coverage, reflecting the strength of northern
European concerns. This is visible in the geographic coverage of the studies, the
sectors and systems studied and the problems and issues addressed.
2. There is a strong interest in agri-environmental measures compared to the effects of
other elements of the CAP. However, the beneficial effects of the Agri-environmental
Regulation may be swamped by the environmental impact of the rest of the CAP.
3. Little if any work is being done on the environmental effects of certain commodity
regimes (e.g. tobacco and sugar), the other accompanying measures (the early
retirement and afforestation schemes), the horizontal socio-structural measures (e.g.
LFAs), regional and rural policy and other measures (incentives for alternative crops,
quality and label policy, biomass production, farm diversification).
4. There are biases in the style of research with a tendency towards single country
studies, specific policy measures and single disciplinary studies. This leads to a lack
of comprehensive studies (except in the case of agri-environmental policy), integrated
studies and linkages between agricultural economic analysis and farming
system/agro-ecology studies. “ (Aakula et al. 2006, p.6).
2.1.2 Opportunities, Development Potentials
To some extent the opportunities and potentials which are explored in the recent academic
literature are complementary to the “antecedents” discussed above. However it is worth
emphasising the point that the objective of the following section is NOT to present “solutions”
to the problems highlighted in the preceding one, but rather to identify an independent range
of positive aspects or trends which characterise rural Europe (in contrast to urban areas), and
which have the potential to form the basis of a positive/proactive form of policy (as opposed to
a compensatory one). This explains the adoption of a different thematic structure below.
However care is needed here; rural Europe is highly diverse, not least in level of development
and trend. Positive processes of change identified in relatively well-performing rural areas do
not necessarily “transfer”, or form a good basis for prescriptions for lagging areas.
Nevertheless most of the development opportunities discussed below may be identified as
background influences in the design of either EU or Member State rural development policy.
12

Interest in trad.
culture/heritage
Changing Leisure
tastes
Improved
transport/communications
Culture/ Heritage
Images
"Quality turn" and other
demand changes
Environment
Social Capital
Changing residential
preferences
Q.o.L.
Other Assets
Rising environmental
awareness
Absence of
Congestion
Increasing urban
congestion
Changing work
practices
Figure 1: Rural Assets and Exogenous Change – the components of Rural
Opportunity/Potential
It is suggested that rural development opportunities/potentials may be described in terms of a
set of assets (which have existed for some time, and are relatively static) combined with a
variety of exogenous forces for change, which are tending to highlight the comparative
advantages of rural areas in various ways. (Figure 1).
The past decade has seen a steady rise in awareness of environmental issues across the
European population as a whole. Rural environmental assets such as landscapes and biodiversity
have both an intrinsic (non-use) value - leading to protection activities (such as the
administration of “protected areas”, and public funding of the “custodian function”, as in agrienvironment
policies), and a potential to support increases in leisure and tourism activities.
The latter may be achieved both through farm diversification and through the growth of SMEs
outside the primary sector. The role and importance of agricultural “joint production” in both
use and non-use opportunities is a key component of the multifunctionality school of thought
(see below).
There is an increasing interest in traditional/rural culture and heritage among the urban
population, which again presents opportunities for “commodification” (see below) through
preservation (for example in terms of traditional husbandry activities, local building styles, and
settlement patterns), and associated leisure and tourism activities. Closely associated with
this are the marketing opportunities for distinctive regional products, and the exploitation of
13

egional images. These have been strengthened by changing consumption patterns, partly a
response to recent food safety and animal disease scares. The “quality turn”, increased
interest in organic produce and traceability have also presented opportunities for both
farmers and rural processing industries.
Supportive community structures, low crime rates, an attractive residential environment
and less congestion are all quality of life (QoL) assets contributing to residential counterurbanisation.
Increased car ownership and personal mobility is a long-established cause of
urban-rural migration, which has proceeded in many urban-adjacent areas of Western Europe
to the extent that it has transformed the local community, in both positive and negative ways.
More recently changes in information technology, logistics, and working patterns (home
working), and the increasing dominance of the service sector, have allowed businesses,
especially SMEs to take advantage of the same QoL assets, particularly freedom from
congestion. As a result, employment growth is generally stronger in accessible rural areas
than it is in urban areas.
Finally, rural areas may possess two less tangible assets, which are thought to have indirect,
but nonetheless important, roles in rural development. The first of these is strong social
capital. Social capital has been defined as “the product of social interactions with the
potential to contribute to the social, civic or economic well-being of a community-of-commonpurpose.
The interactions draw on knowledge and identity resources and simultaneously use
and build stores of human capital …”(Falk and Kilpatrick 2000 p103). Social capital is
therefore proposed as one of the factors which accounts for differential socio-economic
performance of rural areas (Lee et al 2005).
Secondly, some rural areas are considered to have advantages in terms of the configuration
of their business networks, or clusters, which may be a seedbed for entrepreneurial
activity, or may constitute a local/regional innovation system. Local “embeddedness” and
links between economic activity and social capital may account in part for their success
(Granovetter 1985, Stathopoulou et al 2004). However the literature on local business
networks and emdeddedness is ambivalent. For example the “industrial districts” and cluster
literature stresses the need for a tight local network of transaction and social linkages, and
supportive local institutions (Amin and Thrift 1995, Cooke and Morgan 1998, Cooke and Willis
1999), whilst others have emphasised the benefits of global links as a source of innovation,
“the strength of weak ties” (Granovetter 1985) and “delocalisation” (Kalantaridis 2006). There
are interesting links both to the migration issue, and to the role of social capital in that
although it is often assumed that long established local residents with strong networks have
advantages as entrepreneurs, there is some evidence that in-migrants bring with them
valuable knowledge and links to the wider economic environment (Kalantaridis and Bika
2006, Copus et al 2003).
14

2.2. Buzz words and Schools of Thought
The above review of the antecedents of rural policy demonstrates the range and variety of
issues which confront rural development academics in the early twenty-first century. Faced
with an increasingly fragmented discipline there is a continual search for integrating principles
and these are often reflected in “buzz words”. Many of these have a degree of overlap in their
meaning and content. They are like different perspectives, each attempting to draw together
elements of the policy “antecedents” described above, into a coherent picture. Although in
many ways they often seem to be saying the same things, each has its distinctive “flavour”,
perhaps reflecting a particular academic tradition/discipline. Apart from some notable
“polymaths”, most rural development academics tend to align themselves to one or other of
these “schools of thought”. It is important to remember, however, that the European
countryside is characterised by increasing diversity (Marsden 1999 p506, Potter 2006 p195)
in which no single “model” is universally applicable.
The following account of cannot do full justice to the complexity or nuances of these schools
of thought; it is offered more as an annotated list, or “lexicon”.
(a) Sustainability, sustainable development, and sustainable livelihoods are terms
which focus attention upon the impact of current activities upon the long term future of
countryside resources, both in terms of its physical environment, population,
settlement and culture. Sustainability was very much a “buzzword” of the 1990’s. It
gradually broadened out from an environmental focus, to incorporate social and
economic dimensions (Lélé 1991). However the term always suffered from a lack of
clarity, and it has been largely superseded by the more nuanced terms and concepts
which follow. The sustainable livelihood concept (Scoones 1998) expressed these
concerns in relation to rural household strategies, but was more popular in a
developing country context, and was of limited application in Europe.
(b) Ecological Modernisation is perhaps not a very familiar term in the rural
development literature, although it certainly has been considered (Marsden 2004,
Young 2000 ) and it neatly summarises a common view of current agri-environment
policy. It seeks to highlight potential “win-win” situations, where changes in farming
practices result in both environmental and income benefits. This is in contrast with the
former view that economic sacrifices in the present are necessary to “buy”
sustainability in the future. Ecological modernisation differs from the modernisation of
the post-war period in that it broadens the cost-benefit analysis beyond the neoclassical
economic assessment of structural and technological changes within
agricultural production, and takes account of more indirect effects on the broader
15

ural economy. These include both opportunities for generating income from
environment-based rural activities (on and off the farm) and perhaps also noncommodity
public goods. In this way agri-environment schemes may be viewed not
as compensation to farmers for sub-optimal production decisions, but as investments
in environment-based activities which also benefit the wider rural economy and also
urban “consumers”.
(c) Commodification is a popular term to describe a process by which many elements
of the rural environment and culture can become a tradable commodities, or the basis
of economic activities which can help to supplement the income of rural households.
Sometimes this may be associated with conversion of public goods into private ones,
although, as in the case of tourism or recreation based upon environmental assets,
the features themselves are not necessarily in private ownership. In the case of farm
heritage tourism a new market is found for a rather intangible aspect of rural life
which was hitherto not exploited.
A slightly different, but related concept is that of the “consumption countryside”
(Marsden 1999 p508), which, in contrast to the sectoral orientation of the “production
countryside” it supersedes “increasingly fulfils a role of socially providing a variety of
marketed goods and services to non-rural people, who often wish to distance
themselves from the pathologies of urban life, either temporarily or permanently.”
(d) Multifunctionality is a commonly used term within the context of more sectoral
approaches to rural development, emphasising the fact that agriculture, or rather farm
households, exhibit positive externalities, because they supply a variety of goods and
services beyond the traditional commodity outputs of food and fibre. These are linked
by a variety of forms of joint production relationship. Such additional functions
generally include an environmental stewardship role, and a contribution to sustaining
rural communities. Many of these functions result in “non-commodity outputs”, or
public goods. Knickel and Renting (2000) stress the importance of an appropriate
level, or scale, of analysis, if the complex pattern of relationships between traditional
agricultural production and other rural development benefits is to be revealed.
Multifunctionality analyses are in a sense “cross sectional”, at a particular point in
time, and thus aim to address the “evidence deficit” for which commodification
(above), post-productivism and restructuring (below) have been criticised.
16

Multifunctionality is a concept favoured by apologists for agricultural subsidies and
sectoral rural development policies 3 , as a rationale for a response to neoliberalist
pressures for reform; leading some academics to regard it as “a simple idealogical
pretext” Delgardo et al (2003 p) 4 . Others (McCarthey 2005) have suggested that it is
a European view of a broader concept (known in North America as the “working
landscape” – as distinct from “wilderness”) which stresses the multifunctionality of
rural areas, and associated primary industries. More recently Marsden and Sonnino
(2008) have distinguished three variants of multifunctionality paradigm, these are (in
essence):
o Multifunctionality as a diversification/pluriactivity survival strategy for farm
households which are unable to compete as specialist producers, at an
appropriate scale for the current market environment.
o Multifunctionality of agricultural land, primarily to accommodate “postproductivist”
demands for “commodified” environmental goods.
o Multiunctionality as a truly integrated approach to rural development,
encompassing all the economic, environmental and social contributions of
farm households; “…a proactive development tool to promote more
sustainable economies of scope and synergy…that potentially re-embeds
agriculture in its environment to promote rural sustainability.”(Ibid p2)
(e) Post-productivism is, in one sense, a term which describes the outcome of the
wider processes of socio-political change which have delivered commodification and
multifunctionality 5 . Evans (et al 2002 p314) have described it as:
“a term that neatly captures a sense of fundamental change in postwar agriculture
covering the political culture within which agriculture operates, the policy and market
conditions under which farming takes place and the experiences of farmers
themselves. It has also been successfully deployed within discourses on wider rural
change which recognize the declining significance of agriculture in the social and
economic fabric of rural space. Post-productivism implies that agricultural policies
have moved beyond a principal emphasis upon sustaining and increasing levels of
production and that farmers can no longer expect either to be handsomely paid for all
the food they produce or permitted maximum freedom in the use of rural space for
commodity production irrespective of other demands.”
They go on to argue (after Ilbery, Kneafsey and Bowler) that it has five components:
o the shift from quantity to quality in food production;
o the growth of on-farm diversification and off-farm employment (pluriactivity);
o extensification and the promotion of sustainable farming through agrienvironmental
policy;
3 “A genealogy of ‘multifunctionality’ makes clear that it is a product of neoliberal reforms.” McCarthey
2005 p774 See also Potter and Tilzey 2007.
4 Similarly, Huylenbroeck and Durand (2003 p1) state that “…the EU has adopted the concept of
multifunctional land use as a central principle to legitimate further support to agriculture….”
5
However McCarthey (2005 p774) argues that the multifunctionality approach arose out of
dissatisfaction with the “black box” character of post-productivism.
17

o dispersion of production patterns;
o environmental regulation and restructuring of government support for
agriculture.
However, after reviewing the empirical evidence for these components they conclude
that post-productivism is “a theoretical cul-de-sac”, which by focussing on two (before
and after) “states” has led to a neglect of the processes of change. Despite this
criticism it is true to say that the concept has been in widespread use by researchers,
and has undoubtedly had some impact upon the evolution of rural development policy
in Europe.
The term “post modern” is closely aligned to post-productivism, emphasising the
move away from a focus upon technology-based output maximisation driven by
global market demands, towards a broader range of activities and objectives.
Although they do not actually use this term, Van der Ploeg et al (2000) put forward
the view of “rural development” as simply an alternative farm survival strategy to
“modernisation”. To them it is thus emphatically a sectoral, rather than a territorial
paradigm.
(f) Rural restructuring is another, similar term, from a political economy/sociological
stable. Hoggart and Paniagua (2001 p42) describe it as “a qualitative change from
one form of social organisation' to another…”, involving “fundamental readjustments
in a variety of spheres of life, where processes of change are causally linked”.
However Hoggart and Paniagua level similar criticisms against the term to those of
Evans et al towards post-productivism: They feel that it has been too loosely and
unquestioningly applied and has tended to obscure the ambiguity or inconclusiveness
of the empirical evidence. It tends, they argue, to imposes a false image of relatively
recent/rapid qualitative change (from one state to another), whereas the reality is
often a more incremental process. Nevertheless, the concept of restructuring has
certainly been a significant background feature influencing the rural development
policy discourse in Europe.
(g) Globalisation is a “buzz word” and an important research focus across a range of
disciplines. In the rural development context it points to the role of increasing longdistance
communication and trade driving changes in economic and social structures.
It thus has much in common with the restructuring and post-productivism themes
above. Like multi-functionality globalisation stresses a “cross sectional” rather than
historical view, though this time the focus is upon long distance interactions rather
than interdependencies between activities at a local or farm scale. Woods (2007
p487) provides the following definition of globalisation (in the context of rural
geography): “a dynamic and multifaceted process of integration and interaction that
18

enrols localities into networks of interconnectivity organized at the global scale and
facilitating the global circulation of people, commodities, ideas and representations”.
(h) Endogenous growth approaches stress the need to build upon local resources,
assets and potentials (Van der Ploeg and Long 1994, Van der Ploeg et al 1995 ). In
a sense they have been a reaction against “top-down” compensatory policies, but
also (Ward et al 2005) to the assumption that urban centres are the drivers of growth,
while rural areas function only as sources of food, other raw materials, and labour.
“The endogenous model sees local resource endowments – climate, land fertility, and
environmental quality - and the specific characteristics of human and cultural capital,
as providing the fundamental conditions for long-term rural development. The main
purpose of this perspective is to improve local economic and social circumstances
through mobilising internal resources.” (Ward et al 2005 p5)
Often endogenous approaches emphasise the role of innovation and learning (and
hence local research and development capacity - also an established theme in
regional development theory), entrepreneurship, strengthening human capital
(through education and training) and local (institutional/community) capacity 6 .
Endogenous growth may also be furthered by the development of clusters, stronger
local business networks, and adding value locally.
Endogenous approaches often combine an emphasis upon developing local/regional
resources and comparative advantages with devolved, cross-sectoral administration
– sometimes referred to as the “new rural governance”. This is in many ways a
variant of the concept of “multi-level governance, which is commonly used to describe
the structures associated with the “partnership” objective in structural/cohesion policy
(Bache 2005). Boonstra and Frouws (2005) have shown, that the “new rural
governance” is often an ideal, rather than a practical reality.
Slee (1994 p184) has cautioned that “rather than constituting a model of development
with clearly identified theoretical roots, endogenous development is more readily
characterised as an idealised descriptive contrast to frequently observed patterns and
processes of development” (i.e. modernisation and exogenous approaches). And
pointed to the lack of hard evidence of economic benefits from endogenous
development initiatives.
6 Thus Marsden (1999 p509) writes “the international economy appears to favour firms and regions
which are able to learn, change and adapt faster than their competitors, and where the most appropriate
forms of economic, political and social organization are those which facilitate learning and innovation ….
Rural areas will either gain or lose from this general context depending upon their respective capacities
for innovation and adaptation…”
19

More recently the term “neo-endogenous development” has been coined by Ray
(2001, 2006) to reflect the realisation that some exogenous inputs (especially
national/EU policy advice/coordination, as exemplified by LEADER) can enhance
approaches which otherwise focus on developing local resources. The neoendogenous
concept has been widely taken up and extended, for example by Ward
et al (2005) to include the role of universities as disseminators of knowledge, and by
Bosworth (2008) to include entrepreneurial in-migrants. Thus “Any locality will include
a mix of exogenous and endogenous forces, and the local level must interact with the
extra-local. The critical point is how to enhance the capacity of local areas to steer
these wider processes, resources and actions to their benefit.” (Ward et al 2005 p5)
(i) Networks of various kinds have been put forward as a new paradigm for rural
development. Murdoch (2000) suggests that with the emergence of new kinds of
“socio-technological networks” the rural-urban distinction which was very much a
product of the era of industrialisation, has been blurred. Rural people, enterprises and
institutions are now facing new development challenges because they are part of
global networks in which the “organising centres” are predominantly urban. Thus
“rural space has simply been encompassed within the architecture of the global
network and … it is likely to sit rather low in the hierarchy of network nodes” (ibid
p408) 7 . Murdoch illustrates this perspective with reference to literature on two
manifestations of the network paradigm, vertical supply chain networks in the agrofood
industry and “…horizontal networks of innovation and learning.” (p416) 8 . In
terms of policy implications Murdoch stresses variety and distinctiveness of rural
areas in Europe, and that no single network-based prescription will be appropriate for
all 9 . One of the key advantages of a network approach is that it allows the author to
explore the potential integration of actors/activities from both public sector and private
enterprise, it combines both exogenous and endogenous approaches to rural
development (see also Lowe, Murdoch and Ward 1995).
2.3. Styles of rural development policy delivery
In terms of rural development policy delivery the key differences in style may be organised
along two axes (Figure 2). The first of these differentiates policies in terms of sectoral or
territorial/integrated approaches. The second distinguishes between “top down” or
7 The increasing complexity of networks is a key feature of what Woods (2007 p491) calls “the new
geography of the global countryside: a rural realm constituted by multiple, shifting, tangled and dynamic
networks, connecting rural to rural and rural to urban, but with greater intensities of globalization
processes and of global interconnections in some rural localities than in others, and thus with a
differential distribution of power, opportunity and wealth across rural space.”
8 There is an obvious link/overlap with endogenous approaches, described above.
9 Three kinds of rural areas are distinguished. For each of these Murdoch explores the implications of
network approaches. In the more marginal areas he advocates a combination of more “traditional”
approaches with support for networks.
20

“exogenous” and “bottom up” or “endogenous” development. The latter has been introduced
above, and therefore the following discussion will focus mainly on the sectoral/territorial axis.
Endogenous
C
D
Delivery Governance
Exogenous A B
Sectoral
Territorial/
Integrated
Figure 2: Styles of Rural Development Delivery
Explanation:
A = Fully sectoral policy – only farmers/forestry benefits, administered top-down by Ministry of
Agriculture.
B = (Unlikely) Fully territorial policy (open to all parts of rural economy but administered top-down by
Ministry of Agriculture.
C = (Unlikely) Bottom-up sectoral.
D = Bottom-up territorial.
Put simply sectoral rural development policy has its roots in agricultural policy, stresses the
centrality of farming to the rural economy, and therefore targets assistance on farm
households. It has strong links to the post-productivist and, multifunctionality schools of
thought. Common types of measure aim to enhance rural competitiveness and sustainability
through support for farm investments and restructuring, early retirement, farm diversification,
investments in processing and marketing of farm produce, and agri-environment schemes.
Prior to about 1995, sectoral approaches tended to be justified in terms of the direct and
indirect economic impact of farming in rural areas, and the need to reduce rural out-migration.
More recently, a recognition of the declining relative importance of farm households in the
economy and workforce of many European regions has necessitated a new emphasis upon
the fact that farmers are custodians of the majority of rural land, and responsible for the
associated “public goods” or “collective services” (i.e. a post-productivist/multifunctional
perspective).
By contrast “Territorial” rural development policy is more akin to regional policy than
agricultural policy. It acknowledges the minority role of farming in the rural economy of 21st
century Western Europe, and seeks to address the needs of all businesses and inhabitants in
the countryside. Whilst competitiveness and sustainability are still valid objectives, equity (see
below), cohesion, poverty alleviation and quality of life are also considered important.
Territorial approaches often focus upon constraints to rural entrepreneurship, diversification of
the rural economy, community development, heritage and culture, and so on.
21

There is little unanimity in the research community over whether the continued dominance of
sectoral approaches is desirable. Neither is it immediately apparent what the “ideal” balance
would be. Both Saraceno (2004) and Sotte (2004) stress the fact that the early sectoral
measures of EU Rural Development policy reflect the dominant rural realities of the 1960s
and 70s, when agriculture was relatively more important both in terms of employment and
income, there was a need to restructure peasant farming, there were fewer examples of
successful diversification of the rural economy, the future impact of information technology
was not yet appreciated, and so on. The later territorial measures are mainly a response to
more recent rural trends.
Saraceno argues, however, that not all regions have experienced change to the same
degree, and therefore that “The sectorial and territorial functions should be conceived as
complementary dimensions” (op cit p42). The balance between sectoral and territorial
approaches is therefore a matter to be decided on a regional basis.
22

3. THE POLICY RESPONSE: EU RURAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY
Rural development has emerged as a significant policy field and has attracted increasingly
public attention over the last two decades. Due to the on-going changes in the scope and
contents of the respective policy measures a brief summary on the evolution and the key
aspects of rural development policy can only point to the objectives, main instruments and
general trends in policy changes over time. The following description will thus provide an
overview on the policy evolution and the current status of the policy framework, reflecting the
challenges and the rural development “schools of thought” mentioned above. It aims to
present as well the great diversity of policy application between countries and regions which
might serve as background information for further interpretation of policy implementation in
this project.
The second part of the chapter addresses the issue of coherence between agricultural and
rural development policies. As an increasing number of studies is dealing with the analysis of
various performance aspects and the impacts of these policies these sources are an excellent
input to the discussion of coherence aspects. References to the major strands in literature on
rural development policy is to provide the main issues of EU discussion and the reform
challenges on the subject.
3.1. Scope, Policy Principles, Approaches and Implementation Framework
3.1.1 Rural policy evolution
The origins of the structural policy for Europe’s countryside within the Common Agricultural
Policy can be seen as the antecedent to rural policies. Modernisation of agricultural structures
was conceived as a necessary accompaniment to the market policy at that time and vital for
its proper functioning. Already in the foundation text of the CAP it was stated that
“In working out the common agricultural policy … account shall be taken of the
particular nature of agricultural activity, which results from the social structure of
agriculture and from structural and natural disparities between the various agricultural
regions” (Treaty of Rome, Article 39, para 2).
However, the original EC member states were hardly concerned with territorial aspects of the
CAP and didn’t pay particular attention to the diverse needs of rural areas. Only the British
Government saw regional assistance as a counterweight to CAP spending, and in 1975 the
European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Less Favoured Areas (LFA) scheme
were set up. The LFA programme (Dir. 268/75/EEC) authorised member states to pay
financial compensation to farmers operating in mountains and other “less favoured areas” in
order to ensure the continuation of farming, thereby maintaining a minimum population level,
23

or conserving the countryside. The programme operated very early through direct income
payments to farmers and directly indicated through its aims the tight inter-relationship of
agriculture and environment, particularly in such areas. However, from the introduction of LFA
support to the appreciation of its impact on environmental performance under Agenda 2000
decisions was a rather long way (EC 1997). At first, possibilities of support were broadened
through the introduction of “integrated development programmes” (in 1979), particularly
shaped to the need of Southern European countries through the Integrated Mediterranean
Programmes (in 1985).
The reform of the Structural Funds in 1987 added “economic and social cohesion” to the EU
Treaty and made clear that the EU “shall aim at reducing disparities between the levels of
development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least-favoured regions.”
This Article 130a was completed in 1992, with the Maastricht Treaty, by the words “including
rural areas”, so underlining the need for rural development policies and indicating the aspect
of “territorial cohesion”, a term which has gained only recently particular relevance in EU
Regional Policy debate (EC 2008).
Rural policy gained momentum as a specific European issue in 1988 with the presentation of
the EC communication “The future of rural society” (CEC 1988). Together with the
simultaneous reform of the Structural Funds this document is referred to as starting point of a
genuine rural development policy in the EU. The rural discourse that has been developed
since the 1980s addresses the need to define a new social role for agriculture, reflecting the
crisis of legitimacy of the CAP (Delgado and Ramos 2002). The emergence of the rural issue
has to be seen together with this new approach to the role of agriculture that include
questions of multifunctionality, environmental performance and social aspects of agricultural
activities.
The wide scope for rural areas activities reported in those documents has been transferred in
Structural Funds and regional policy development over the 1990s. One of the regional
priorities, the Objective 5b programmes (1989-1999) aimed at “facilitating the development
and structural adjustment of rural areas”. But also great parts of the Objective 1 areas,
oriented at “promoting the development and structural adjustment of regions whose
development is lagging behind”, were situated in rural areas. In addition to these newly
designed programmes of the reformed EC-regional policy a series of Community Initiatives
were established to support transnational, cross-border and inter-regional actions. Particularly
the Leader (and less explicitly the Interreg) programme which focused on innovative actions
in rural areas and building a European network of rural actors turned out to achieve a major
influence on rural development in Europe and beyond.
24

During the 1990s there was much concern for defining broad principles for a useful framework
and establishing a more integrated rural policy. The search for the definition of rural areas and
rural policy stretched well beyond the EU member states, including in particular international
collaboration within the OECD to agree on a definition for a general framework of regional
types (OECD 1994). An Export Group established by the EC Commission examined some of
the practical issues of implementing and financing such a policy approach, and considered
how it could apply to the EU enlargement (Buckwell et al. 1997). The report “stressed
throughout that rural development and rural policy involve more than agriculture and
agricultural policy alone”. It concluded on the requirement for a reformulated Common
Agricultural and Rural Policy for Europe (CARPE), a concept that has been referred to widely
but that has hardly been realized by now. Nevertheless following that report the EC-
Commission summarized the official understanding for the need of a common rural
development policy (EC 1997) soon afterwards.
In contrast to this assessment Agenda 2000 failed to define objectives to match the problems
of specific areas. On the contrary, rural development was attached again more closely to
agricultural administration and regulations. On the other hand the integration of rural
development instruments into CAP should secure some continuation of the concept of rural
development going beyond agriculture. It established rural development as a main policy
strand within agricultural policy by calling the set of measures subsumed under this term the
“Second Pillar” of CAP. From that time on it was clearly expressed and visible that it is
understood as a main component of agricultural policy. Yet, the scope of measures and the
limited budget available gave rise to continuous critical voices on the opportunities and
coherence with other rural policies under these circumstances. These doubts relate both to
the scope of activities being eligible or implemented as well as to the contents, e.g. with
relation to its integrative capacity (Lowe and Brouwer 2000) and the financial capacity for
measures including non-agricultural activities.
For some years environmental integration under the Common Agricultural Policy is well
established as a principle (Baldock et al. 2002) and it features in both pillars of the reformed
CAP. However, the reality of its impact is still some way behind the rhethoric, and there
remain important threats from agricultural change and development. Even if the rather
complex instrument of cross-compliance may represent an important principle of integrating
the environmental concerns into agricultural policy, other trends from decoupling may work
against the maintenance of environmental benign farm management systems and accelerate
concentration trends with potentially environmental hazardous systems (Dwyer 2008, p.30). It
is also argued that the resources for environmentally beneficial actions under Pillar 2
(particularly agri-environmental schemes) are limited and might be less effective than
opposing trends to support environmentally damaging activities, e.g. through farm
modernisation and the provision of agricultural infrastructure in some of the RDPs.
25

Future integration activities will have to draw lessons from the multiple eyamples of genuine
‘win-win’ economic and environmental projects in rural Europe, to try and understand how
best to turn rhethoric on sustainability into a practical reality.
The structure and scope of Community funding (out of CAP) for rural development in the last
period can be seen from the two following figures (Figure 3.1 and 3.2). It combined a series of
already existing measures into a comprehensive rural development programming approach.
The main focus was on the four accompanying measures to which measures of a more
general nature of rural development support were attached (particularly adaptation, training,
forestry and art.33 measures, i.e. measures of adaptation and development of rural areas).
With EU-enlargement, the approach was extended to the new Member States. However, a
series of preparation programmes (SAPARD) and a specific support regime since EU
accession, the Temporary Rural Development Instrument (TRDI) for the period 2004-2006
added to the complexity of RD programmes. In general, the TRDIs included in addition to the
measures like those in the RDP in the EU-15, also an activity on semi-subsistence agriculture
and the opportunity for a Leader-like measure. More than 95% of TRDI funds applied to
objective 1 areas. Due to the difference in programming types a comprehensive survey on the
application of measures is hardly available, but the two schematic presentations try to
address the specificities of the new MS programmes and relate Community funding to the
different funding sources (EAGGF Guarantee or Guidance).
26

Figure 3: Community funding for rural development out of CAP
Source: EC 2007b, p.5
27

Figure 4: Framework for rural development funding, period 2000-2006
Source: EC 2007b, p.5
The Agenda 2000 reform provided a new framework for rural development policy. As an
essential part of the ‘European agricultural model’, it aimed to put in place a consistent
regulatory scheme for guaranteeing the future of rural areas and promoting the maintenance
and creation of employment. In striving for greater commitment of national and regional
authorities for rural development, it mainly provided guidelines and had the intention to
incorporate the rural measures in the agricultural policy. Thus it referred to the following
principles:
o the multifunctionality of agriculture,
o a multisectoral and integrated approach to the rural economy,
o flexible aids for rural development, based on subsidiarity and promoting
decentralisation,
o and transparency in drawing up and managing programmes.
28

The main innovation in the policy was that measures had to be included in a Rural
Development Plan which followed programming methods, previously known from the
Structural Funds programmes. It was the national authorities task how to apply the regulation
and which priorities and geographical determinations they selected.
The current framework
Following the reform of the first pillar of the CAP in 2003 and 2004, the Agricultural Council
adopted in September 2005 a fundamental reform of rural development (RD) policy for the
period 2007 to 2013 on the basis of the Commissions proposal of 14 July 2004 (EC 2006, p.
3). Its core objectives are:
• Improving the competitiveness of agriculture and forestry
• Supporting land management and improving the environment and
• Improving the quality of life and encouraging diversification of economic activities
It accentuated the complementarity of the two pillars of the CAP, introducing decoupling,
cross-compliance and modulation (i.e. the transfer of funds from the 1 st to the 2 nd pillar), to be
implemented as obligatory elements of CAP from 2005 onwards. A thematic axis corresponds
to each core objective in the rural development programmes. The three thematic axes are
complemented by a “methodological” axis dedicated to the LEADER approach (Leader axis).
A minimum funding for each axis is required to ensure some overall balance in the
programme (10% for Axis 1; 25% for Axis 2; 10% for Axis 3 and 5% for the Leader Axis,
respectively 2.5% in the new Member States). As building blocks for each thematic axis a
range of pre-defined rural development measures is available (see Figure 3.4) from which the
Member States can choose those which they believe to reflect best challenges of their rural
areas and the EU’s objectives laid down in the rural development strategy. Member States
establish, at national or regional level, their rural development programmes choosing those
measures that suit the needs of their rural areas best and taking into account the priorities
and strategy chosen in the National Strategy Plans on rural development (EC 2006).
29

Figure 5: The framework of the new rural development regulation
Source: EC 2006, p.7
The three axes reflect the main priorities of the Common Strategic considerations and
activities focus on the following three main policy objectives (EC 2004, p.8):
Competitiveness of the agricultural and forests sector (axis 1): increasing the
competitiveness of the agricultural sector through support for restructuring following
CAP reform, further opening of markets and taking into account the restructuring
needs in the new Member States (rural areas have a significantly lower income than
the average, an ageing working population, and a greater dependency on the primary
sector);
Environment / land management, agriculture and forestry – the main land users
(axis 2): enhancing the environment and countryside through support for land
management (including rural development actions related to ‘Natura 2000’ sites) to
ensure that agriculture and forestry make a positive contribution to the countryside
and the wider environment;
Wider rural development – placing agriculture and forestry in their rural context
(axis 3): improving the quality of life in rural areas and promoting diversification of
economic activities through measures targeting the farm sector and other rural actors
(to address such problems as poor access to basic services, social exclusion, and a
narrower range of employment options), to help maintain the attractiveness of the
30

EU’s diverse rural areas (remote, intermediate and peri-urban) and their cultural
heritage, and to foster the links between agriculture and forestry and other sectors of
the local economy.
Leader mainstreaming (Leader axis): The Leader model is continued and
consolidated at the EU level. Each programme contains a Leader axis to finance the
implementation of the local development strategies of LAGs built on the three
thematic axes.
National rural development networks and an EU rural development observatory will
assist in the implementation of the policy, and the exchange of experiences between
regions.
31

Figure 6: EU rural development policy 2007-2013
Source: EC 2006, p.16
32

Table 1: RD Community and public support 2007-2013 by Member State (Mio. Euro)
Country
Community support of
which Public support
2007-2013
Convergence (total)
Bulgaria 2 609.1 2 609.1 3241.9
Belgium 418.6 40.7 1 144.6
Czech Republic 2 815.5 1 635.4 3 615.0
Denmark 444.7 0.0 830.3
Germany * 8 564.6 3 174.0 13 949.2
Estonia 714.7 387.2 924.9
Greece 3 707.3 1 905.7 5 078.0
Spain 7 213.9 3 178.1 13 997.3
France 6 442.0 568.3 11 943.6
Ireland 2 339.9 0.0 4 298.8
Italy 8 292.0 3 341.1 16 687.3
Cyprus 162.5 0.0 325.0
Latvia 1 041.1 327.7 1 361.6
Lithuania 1 743.4 679.2 2 260.4
Luxembourg 90 0 0.0 368.5
Hungary 3 805.8 2 496.1 5 159.1
Malta 76.6 18.1 100.3
Netherlands 486.5 0.0 973.0
Austria 3 911.5 31.9 7 822.3
Poland 13 230.0 6 998.0 17 217.8
Portugal * 3 917.6 2 180.7 4 972.8
Romania * 8 022.5 8 022.5 9 970.8
Slovenia 900.3 287.8 1 159.0
Slovakia 1 969.4 1 106.0 2 563.0
Finland 2 079.9 0.0 6 682.9
Sweden 1 825.6 0.0 3 917.0
United Kingdom * 4 441.5 188 3 8 634.9
EU-27 91 264.4 39 176.5** 149 199.3
* Community support and Convergence share figures include modulation or changes to
RDP (compared to planned expenditure according to EC 2006)
** including Community support for Bulgaria and Romania.
Source: RDP adopted, http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rurdev/countries/index_en.htm and EC
2006,18
3.1.2 Diversity in programming approaches
The last programming period (2000-2006) provides for the first time information on rural
development “programmes”. In general, the funding has been integrated to EAGGF -
Guarantee section, with the exception for those rural development measures carried out
under Objective 1 regulations. Overall Member States have carried out rural development
schemes under the following programmes:
• 88 Rural Development Plans (at national or regional level), including 20 programmes
under Objective 2 in France (the only Member State to take up this possibility)
• 69 Objective 1 programmes which include rural development measures co financed by
the EAGGF-Guidance Section
33

• 73 programmes under Leader+ which is also co-financed by the Guidance Section.
• Temporary Rural Development Instruments (TRDI) for the new MS covering the period
2004-2006
• SAPARD Programmes within the pre-accession support up to 2004, respectively ongoing
for Romania and Bulgaria
Within the 230 programmes of EU-15 almost 50 bio. Euro was allocated for the “mainstream”
rural development programmes (by EAGGF expenditure), and approximately another 2 bio.
Euro was allocated to Leader+. To this budget for the EU-15 the amount of the expenditure
for the TRDI and Sapard programmes of more than 10 bio. Euro have to be added to account
for the full amount of rural development funding in the period 2000-2006.The share of EAGGF
funding in the CAP budget gradually has increased over the period, starting at a portion of
about 10% (2000) and achieving more than 15 % (2006) at the end of the period. However,
this relationship also marks clearly the restricted shift in the priorities of CAP between the two
pillars.
The overview on the distribution of the funds over the rural development measures reveals
that the main features of the distribution of measures having been taken over from previous
activities were still predominant (see Figure 3.6).
Table 2: : EAGGF (Guidance and Guarantee) planned expenditure by main measures
2000-2006 (EU-15)
Rural development measures Mio. Euro share
Investments in farms 4 682.0 9.5 %
Young farmers 1 824.0 3.7 %
Vocational training 344.0 0.7 %
Early retirement 1423.0 2.9 %
Less favoured areas and areas with environmental restrictions 6 128.0 12.5 %
Agri-environment 13 480.0 27.5 %
Investments in processing/marketing 3 760.0 7.7 %
Afforestation of agricultural land, other forestry 4 807.0 9.8 %
Adaptation and development of rural areas 12 649.0 25.8 %
Total rural development measures * 49 097.0 100.0 %
* Not all programmed expenditure is included, for example evaluation, technical assistance (in the
case of Guidance) and certain commitments relating tot he previous programming period.
Source: EC 2003, p.9
Planned expenditure was particularly focused towards agri-environment schemes, LFA
payments and investments, but also showed the objective to include measures for adaptation
and development of rural areas (art. 33 – measures) in the programme. Part of those last
activities had been financed in the precedent period within objective 5b-areas to a more
significant extent. However, it seems that a number of countries even fall short of reaching
34

their moderate targets for art. 33 measures and shifted funds to other measure groups. A
comprehensive calculation of the implementation over the whole period is hardly available
and particularly for EAGGF-Guidance section not yet published by the EC-Commission (EC
2007b).
The variance in the application of the RD regulation and the funds available were highlighted
in the assessment of programme implementation by countries/regions. Dwyer et al. (2002)
showed that there are striking national differences in the patterns of expenditure for RDP
which broadly reflect historical allocations to similar measures in the past. These national
(and in some cases regional) priorities have not been fundamentally altered by the
programmes of that period. For the assessment of the effectiveness of the programmes it is
particularly important to take account of the relative weight of pillar 2 funds as compared to
other CAP expenditure and Structural Funds available for those regions. Moreover within the
RDP there was a very large scope of differentiation towards the menu of measures available
under the rural development regulation (Figure 3.7).
Figure 7: Planned allocation of RDP expenditure, EU-15 (2000-2006)
Distribution of measures of Rural Development Programmes in Member States (2000-2006)
EU-15
UK
Sweden
Finland
Portugal
Netherlands
Early Retirement Scheme
Less-Favoured Areas Scheme
Agri-environment
Forestry
Other measures
Luxembourg
Italy
Ireland
France
Spain
Greece
Austria
Germany
Denmark
Belgium*
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
* without 1.7 Mio Euro for accompanying measures in Flandre
Source: DG Agri, NORD II (2003)
Source : Dwyer et al. 2002, p.19
Of course, the patterns of use of the main measure with a territorial dimension, the Less-
Favoured Areas (LFA) measure reflect differences in geography and policy history. It has
traditionally been used to cope with marginalization processes in peripheral areas and was
35

oriented at farming in areas of rough grazing. Countries with highest amount of spending are
Ireland, UK and Finland, and mountain areas in France, Austria and Greece.
As already mentioned the agri-environmental measures received the greatest portion of pillar
2 funding. These measures were particularly used in Northern and Central Europe (Sweden,
Ireland and Austria) where a majority of funds were allocated to this scheme.
Figure 3.8: National priorities of rural development programmes 2007-2013 by axis (%)
rural development schemes for countries / regions, by Axis allocation
Country (MS) Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 3 LEADER
Technical EAFRD
Assistance funding
Total*
Bulgaria (BG) 37.17 23.98 27.07 2.38 3.80 80.48 100
Belgium (B) 58.62 26.24 8.47 4.99 1.66 36.57 100
Czech Republic (CZ) 23.24 53.80 17.57 4.84 0.50 77.87 100
Denmark (DK) 21.22 61.68 5.61 9.36 2.14 53.56 100
Germany (D) 28.40 40.91 23.16 5.98 1.51 61.40 100
Estonia (EST) 37.58 36.17 12.86 9.28 4.12 77.27 100
Greece (GR) 44.41 33.77 13.98 5.81 2.03 73.00 100
Spain (SP) 47.32 36.62 3.76 10.02 0.49 51.54 100
France (F) 38.69 48.70 6.69 4.89 1.02 53.94 100
Ireland (Irl) 11.21 78.75 0.00 9.90 0.14 54.43 100
Italy (I) 38.62 41.83 8.40 8.06 2.57 49.69 100
Cyprus (CYP) 43.23 43.42 8.89 2.65 1.78 50.00 100
Latvia (LAT) 47.66 26.81 19.07 2.39 4.08 76.46 100
Lithuania (LIT) 41.15 36.48 12.19 6.06 4.11 77.13 100
Luxembourg (LUX) 34.65 57.53 4.21 3.58 0.00 24.42 100
Hungary (H) 45.87 31.53 13.39 5.28 3.93 73.77 100
Malta (MAL) 34.20 24.93 32.90 3.89 4.09 76.37 100
Netherlands (NL) 29.91 29.70 29.80 9.97 0.62 49.95 100
Österreich (A) 13.79 72.38 6.47 5.41 1.96 50.00 100
Poland (PL) 41.74 32.21 19.92 4.57 1.55 76.84 100
Portugal (P) 47.25 39.70 0.37 9.99 2.70 78.78 100
Romania (ROM) 39.79 23.00 24.81 2.36 3.77 80.46 100
Slovenia (SLO) 34.43 50.73 11.39 2.93 0.52 77.65 100
Slovakia (SK) 32.59 48.46 13.97 2.91 2.05 76.82 100
Finland (FIN) 7.67 81.57 6.50 3.65 0.62 31.12 100
Sweden (SW) 14.17 68.98 8.32 6.74 1.79 46.62 100
United Kingdom (UK) 10.54 75.98 7.83 5.48 0.16 51.44 100
EU-27 33.49 45.65 12.33 6.00 1.77 61.17 100
Source: RDP approved, EC country profiles
(http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rurdev/countries/index_en.htm ), own calculations
The negotiation for the current period explicitly referred to the evaluation findings and
highlighted that some balance between the different groups of measures should be sought.
Moreover, it was recognized that the Leader approach has addressed a series of crucial
aspects of rural development and it was time for “mainstreaming” the concept of Leader-like
measures and processes into the RD programmes (Lukesch et al. 2004). Due to the existing
structure of the distribution of funds between the three measure groups (and Leader) the
demand for reallocation was strongly limited and most countries/regions could fulfill the basic
requirements without greater shifts in allocation of funds. Despite the fact that no
36

comprehensive calculation on the use of funds for the past period has been provided by now,
the above table (Figure 3.8) shows the aspiration for more balanced programmes.
Nevertheless the former differences continue to exist and represent an indication of the nation
(and region) specific application.
For reason of visibility the above overview on the planned expenditure structure only provides
figures at the national level. In the big countries with regional programmes (Germany, Italy,
Spain, UK) and some others with specific programmes for islands or outermost regions
(Portugal and France) RD is carried out under a number of different programmes which reveal
also the regional specificities and strategic priorities. Up to September 2008 94 RD
programmes have been approved by the EC-Commission (against 250 relevant programmes
in the previous period).
The most expressed divergence can be seen for the countries with regional programmes,
e.g.in Germany there are regional programmes with an allocation of the majority of funds for
all three axis: Brandenburg allocates almost two thirds of the planned expenditure to axis 1
measures, Baden-Württemberg a similar high share to axis 2, and Mecklenburg-Western
Pommerania more than 40 % to axis 3 which is the highest share of all EU rural development
programmes for axis 3. Moreover, Saarland shows one of the strongest involvement in the
Leader axis (with almost 15 % of the programme’s expenditure).
3.1.3. Main implementation aspects
The recent policy debate has centered on questions how to integrate agricultural practices
better into other policy objectives, like environment, nature protection and regional policies,
which are similarly relevant for land use development. The stronger focus on the rural
development approach includes different policy tasks and aims at supporting a viable rural
economy, which would reflect more appropriately the new societal demands.
With the integration of rural development policies, the CAP has extended its objectives
beyond a sectoral policy and is explicitly concerned with the spatial development. However,
this territorial dimension has not yet been taken sufficiently into account. National strategies
and RD programming have only partly reflected this concern.
Implementation is nowadays confronted with a number of challenges and strives to fulfil a
wide range of demands of society. Some of them are directly based in the EC-regulations,
some derive from socio-economic trends in Europe and the changes rural areas are exposed
to. The following listing of main aspects highlights those issues at the top of the rural debate
that are to a great extent also supported by rural research:
37

• Meeting real needs
The evolution of RD programmes and priority selection underpins the high degree of
continuity of measures and programme structure. A more objective assessment of relative
needs for rural development and environmental and social management and support in each
country (and region) is requested (Dwyer et al. 2002, p. 111). The EC-Commission reacted to
this assessment by emphasizing the relevance of guidance at the EU level. Strategic
guidelines at the European and national level were introduced as an additional programming
requirement. The respective documents are expected to improve the strategic discussion and
provide more clarity on the objectives of the RD programmes. Prescriptions on the balance
between shares of funds for the three measure groups should enhance a comprehensive
view on the selection of appropriate measures within the countries and incite to new
application considerations.
• Territorial dimension
So far, the design and implementation of the CAP has been little touched by the territorial
concepts of balanced competitiveness, economic and social cohesion, and polycentricity set
out in the European Spatial Development Perspective (EC 1999) and the Territorial Agenda of
the EU (EC 2007). Neither have the Agenda 2000 or the recent CAP reform been based on
cohesion or territorial criteria. The analysis of spatial effects of CAP and rural development
policy reveals that almost all measures have been horizontal across whole nations or regions,
except for less-favoured areas and areas designated for agri-environmental programmes.
The analysis of the territorial impact of CAP and rural development policy so far suggests that
agricultural policy does not favour the EU cohesion policy objectives (Shucksmith et al. 2005).
The on-going shift in the CAP reforms towards rural development measures is still only a first
sign of the intention to take the territorial dimension more into account. Nevertheless a great
number of best practice examples can be referenced to show how to nurture local initiatives
and enhance the widespread potential in a creative way. The new framework enlarges the
scope and even encourages countries to make greater use of the potential for innovation,
capitalising on a wide variety of untapped amenities in rural areas (Dax 2006).
• Decentralisation
A direct outcome of the debate on the inclusion of territorial aspects is the request to take
note of geographical differences and address the divergences of needs for the regions. As the
regulation has remained very vague on this aspect, actual implementation tends to reflect the
administrative structures and political systems of countries. The objective of an increased
decentralization has hardly had any effect so far. But RD programmes are considered as
relevant schemes to enable greater subsidiarity and thus promote innovation in delivery.
Mainstreaming of the Leader-concept should provide some scope to integrate this aspect in
38

programme implementation and achieve more bottom-up delivery processes, at least for a
part of RD measures.
• Scope of RD measures
The issue of multiple income sources for farmers has long been on the agenda of farm
surveys. Since the 1980s the conceptual discussion has realised the decisive role of the nonagricultural
and off-farm activities, conceiving pluriactivity as a central strategy of farmers. A
pan-European survey suggested the widespread feature of pluriactivity, with at least half of
farm households no longer primarily dependent upon agricultural production for their incomes,
but on off-farm income sources (Arkleton 1993). The implication is that to diversify farm
household incomes, appropriate strategies to stimulate diversification potential and economic
growth in wider local rural economies were sought and almost in all regions collaboration
activities between farming and other sectors were enhanced and increased since then.
Figure 8: The structure of different rural development activities at farm level
Source: O’Connor et al. 2006, p.15
Nowadays information on diversification is collected through agricultural statistics,
underpinning the achieved consensus to support these strategies. In a comparative EUproject
(IMPACT) the structure and extent of rural development activities was analysed (see
Figure 3.9). This analysis showed a significant level of involvement in “deepening” and
“broadening” activities of rural development. Although the income portions derived from these
activities remain rather limited it is shown that a majority of farms are involved in some activity
from such a strategy to achieve additional income through rural development activities
(Kinsella et al. 2006). The findings from that project confirmed that practice is frequently
39

ahead of policy, research and theory. Many positive examples of practice provide a new basis
for constructing a rural economy in which farming is less an element in a series of vertical
production chains and more a key horizontal component of local territorial valuation,
cooperation and identity.
• The Leader legacy
The Leader approach is considered to be the best testimony for the high potential of rural
areas and the scope for innovation among local actors. Leader has provided a valuable
legacy of local knowledge and experience that can represent the key to building the future of
rural areas in Europe. By mainstreaming the Leader concept it can be applied to all rural
areas and assist in incorporating the lessons learned by new actors in the region. The legacy
is understood to consist of the following elements: Building the territory; building the
partnerships; network building and cooperation; and human competence and capacity
building (EC 2008b).
• Focus on rural amenities
Moving beyond a narrow focus on the mulitfunctionality of agriculture, policy makers
emphasize the need to identify and valorize the wide range of resources of rural areas and to
take account of the positive and negative externalities associated with different activities in
rural areas. It has been recognized that rural areas are home to a rich variety of amenities.
They range from pristine wilderness to carefully managed landscapes, and from ancient
historical monuments to living cultural traditions. As the demand for these amenities is
increasing the relevance and influence of policy instruments is more and more investigated. It
is particularly important to analyse amenity-related policy instruments as a means to promote
rural development. OECD focused on this aspect as early as in the mid 1990s and conceived
rural amenities provision as an economic development perspective for many rural areas
(OECD 1999). The current policy programmes are widely reflecting this approach and
address some of the potential through its development strategy.
• Drivers of rural change
Rural areas are affected by a multitude of driving forces that have an impact on the regional
performance, life quality and development potential. Every spatial oriented programme has to
take account of these factors. Most of them are not to be influenced exclusively by local and
regional decisions, but occur due to more general developments in socio-economic trends.
Nevertheless it seems appropriate to address the main drivers as there is in most cases a
regional component to them. We can recognize as major relevant themes (Bryden and Hart
2004; Dax et al. 2008):
‐ Economic structure and organization
‐ Natural resources and environmental assets
‐ Infrastructures and accessibility;
40

‐ cultural values
‐ Social trends and human capital
‐ Institutional development and policy context.
• Evaluation discourse and monitoring
Pressures to reform the agricultural policy have largely enhanced the past reforms and the
shift in the debate towards rural development measures. The recent reform discussion
referred expressively to the evolution findings and the EC backed some of its proposals on
findings from evaluation and research studies. It seems important that the debate at all
programming levels is increasingly addressing the impact of policy measures and assesses
the influence on the performance of rural areas. There is an increased expectation to reveal
cross-cutting influences and reveal effects on employment, population, marginalization
issues, but also aspects on environmental performance, including biodiversity and social and
cultural development. However, evaluation setting and strategic dissemination of findings
towards future programme users has in general remained limited at national and regional
levels (Dax 2002). This is partly due to considerable time gaps in the provision of evaluations
and persisting difficulties in enhancing coordination issues between sectors. But findings from
qualitative evaluation are needed as an incentive to the governance debate on coherence
issues and the institutional development particularly at the local level. The new structure of
the RD programme allows to link parts of the programme to some of the effects and places
much higher priority on finding appropriate answers to these evaluation issues.
3.2. Coherence of Agricultural and Rural Development Policies
In most countries there is consensus that “the tools and policies focused on agriculture
address only a subset of the wide array of issues relevant to the development of rural regions
and the well-being of their inhabitants” (OECD 2006, p.56). In general, nowadays conepts for
rural development are oriented at an intregrated approach defining a cross-sectoral approach
to rural policy that encompasses a wider range of objectives and a different set of tools.
Wheras research and analytical understanding for the needs and justification for public
intervention in rural areas are widely shared across European countries, actual policy
development is very often not as advanced or has to cope with a host of obstacles to
implement reforms in rural policy making as consequently as requested by theoretical
considerations.
Nevertheless “rural policy has become a policy in its own right, with countries (regions)
seeking to address the specific needs and opportunities of rural places and rural people”
(OECD 2006, p.57). Though this position would hardly be challenged, positive examples of
coherent policies, including a high degree of integration and reflexivity, an orientation towards
41

“rural proofing” and policy impact assessment as well as a substantive influence on the socioeconomic
development of rural areas, are limited up to now. This paper will therefore highlight
some aspects of emerging governance strategies and the main issues for coherence of
policies affecting rural development.
3.2.1 Trends in rural policy making
From the discussion of the need for innovative rural development concepts and the increasing
priorities on respective instruments a greater visibility of rural development policy emerged.
Some more advanced examples of application suggested that the principles of this new
approach have brought about a systems change in how rural areas and their development
potentials are viewed nowadays. The main factors influencing this recent rural policy making
are considered to be based on the following key orientations:
‐ It has been understood that a nation’s natural resources are of concern to all the
population. Many rural places are custodians for elements of recreational amenities,
environmental resources and important for rural economic development. They serve
not just local consumers, but may have particular value for society as a whole. This
increased focus on amenities has provided an impetus for rural initiatives and
enlarged the scope of rural policy for many regions.
‐ On the other hand, farm subsidies are increasingly questioned because of their
impact on public finances thus nourishing debates on alternative uses of public
resources targeting rural areas. As it became obvious that agricultural policies didn’t
include spatial effects as requested for (less-favoured) rural areas, pressures to
reform agricultural policy were formulated and appropriate measures were (are)
looked for.
‐ It was also recognized that regional policies in the past were too much based on
redistributive subsidies and other financial incentives which had a limited impact on
regional competitiveness. “Since the 1980s, regional distribution policy is becoming
less prominent on the political agenda, while policies aimed at identifying and
targeting local economic opportunities are growing in importance” (OECD 2006,
p.58). These new approaches include a focus on decentralisation and targeting in
regional policy.
Several factors are particularly relevant for this new approach:
‐ A development strategy that covers a wide range of direct and indirect factors;
‐ A greater focus on endogenous (local) assets and knowledge;
‐ Enhanced cooperation and a governance approach, involving all levels of
governemnt and other stakeholders.
42

These major shifts in policy making have been developed in several countries towards a
multi-sectoral, place-based approach so that a “new rural paradigm” seems to emerge (OECD
2006).
Table 3: The new rural paradigm
Old approach
Objectives Equalisation, farm
income,
farm
competitiveness
New approach
Competitiveness of rural areas,
valorisation of local assets, exploitation of
unused resources
Key target sector Agriculture Various sectors of rural economies (ex.
rural tourism, manufacturing, ICT industry,
etc.)
Main tools Subsidies Investments
Key actors National governments,
farmers
Source: OECD 2006, p.60
All levels of government (supra-national,
national, regional and local), various local
stakeholders (public, private, NGOs)
The principles described above are the main elements of this new approach (Figure 3.10).
There are examples of a number of countries where at least parts of the policy changes can
be observed. In partiuclar, they relate to the following topics and include priority action for
rural development:
- Transport and ICT infrastructure development in rural areas
- Public service delivery in rural areas
- Valuing rural amenities
- Rural business development
Interestingly all these activities seek to address local potentials and link them more closely to
general economic developments.
3.2.2 Governance strategies
There are a number of policy initiatives that seek to apply strategies to integrate rural policies
and programmes. Most of them don’t see the greatest challenges in the selection of thematic
priorities, but in institutional development and (slow) progress in cooperation processes and
coordination. An overview of different national approaches shows that countries tend to adopt
two opposite and rather extreme solutions (Figure 3.11). On the one hand, some try to extend
rural policy to general policies and include a large territory. This approach, defined as a
“grand plan” aims to have all policies somehow integrated and assumes that policies directed
to rural areas would hence be working coherently and according to a comprehensive strategy.
However, there are numerous risks for failure entailed with such a broad framework. For
instance, the information to achieve this inclusive policy is incomplete and asymmetrical, as
43

well as the actors to be involved hardly represent all the policies and aspects that would be
relevant.
In contrast to this big idea, many countries conceive rural policy in terms of a “niche policy”,
focusing only on specific rural regions. As these policies are often disconnected from other
regional policies and from sector policies, they are in general poorly funded and only have
modest economic and social impact. Of course, a number of countries would argue for a
compromise. Such an approach would include a well funded regional policy, where a large
portion of resources of sectoral policies would be shifted to regional policy.
Figure 9: Matrix for rural and regional policy approaches
Source: OECD 2006, p.79
Issues of horizontal and vertical coordination are therefore central to new rural policy
approaches. In all of them a clear place-based concept is the crucial element. International
known examples where these principles are applied to a high degree include:
Canada’s Rural Lens activity to assess policy impacts on rural areas
Finland’s Rural Policy Committee to deal with “broad” and “narrow” rural policies
The UK’s initiatives Rural Pathfinders and Local Strategic Partnerships, as a follow-up to the
earlier initiative on “rural proofing”
The integrated approach through micro-regions in Mexico
and the Leader programme which highlights the potential of bottom-up approaches across EU
countries.
3.2.3 Coherence of policies
Progress in rural policy analysis
The conceptual framework on coherent strategies for rural development has evolved
significantly over the last decades. As mentioned above the changes involved have induced a
shift in the policy debate so that a “new rural paradigm” seems to occur. To justify this term
important changes in how policies are conceived and implemented to include a cross-cutting
44

and multi-level governance approach are still required. Key elements include the following
aspects:
‐ Traditional hierarchical administrative structures are likely to be inadequate to
administer these policies effectively. Governance adaptations have to address three
key dimensions: horizontal coordination at the central and the local levles, and
vertically across levels of governement.
‐ It is central to overcome the sectoral tendencies of central governments and clarify
roles and responsibilities of different ministries, including the use of appropriate
horizontal coordination options (like special units, inter-ministerial coordination or
“rural proofing” actions).
‐ Coordination at the local level has to integrate sectoral approaches, to involve private
partners and to address the appropriate regional scale. The development of a rural
strategy based on a shared vision of the territory is central to success of local
activities.
‐ Monitoring and evaluation are key to the effectiveness of integrated rural policy. They
have to be understood as opportunity for actors at different levels to jointly assess
how well they are doing and how to improve their actions.
‐ A comprehensive analytical framework for rural development policy should address
the qualitative and quantitative aspects of policy assessment across countries and
regions. Research has supported some of the past changes , but is called for
continued investigation of the main facotros for rural development failure and
success.
A series of European research projects have looked into specific details of influences on rural
development and effectiveness of different policy approaches. Increasingly studies address a
wider scope of rural development potentials and include inter- and trans-disciplinary views.
The following list points to the core research issues and highlights examples of studies that
analysed the European dimension of the issues:
Application of rural devlelopment regulations by member states and regions;
The Nature of Rural Development -NORD I and II (Baldock et al. 2001 and Dwyer et al. 2002)
The territorial impact of CAP and rural development policy, European Spatial Planning
Observatory Network (ESPON), project 2.1.3 (Shucksmith et al. 2005)
Quantitative and qualitative driving forces for rural development and scope of activities: The
Dynamics of Rural Areas in Europe – DORA (Bryden and Hart 2004); The Socio-Economic
Impact of Rural development Policies: Realities and Potentials – IMPACT (O’Connor et al.
2006)
45

Employment effects in rural areas; Study on Employment in Rural Areas – SERA (Copus et
al. 2006)
Participation in rural development and integration of new actors groups:
Lowe et al. 1999; role of farm women in diversification (Overbeek 1998); Policies and young
people in rural development - PAYPIRD (Jentsch and Shucksmith 2004, Dax and Machold
2002)
EU enlargement process – a new dimension for rural development problems:
(Network of Independent Experts 2003)
Rural development evaluation beyond indicators; The Impacts of CAP Reform on the
Employment Levels in Rural Areas – CARERA (Midmore et al. 2008)
An innovative perspective on assessing rural development integration into the regional
economy and society, including the need for institutional development:
Institutions and Innovations – A prerequisite for Sustainable Mountain Development –
ISDEMA (Koutsouris 2003); Types of Interaction between Environment, Rural economy,
Society and Agriculture in European Regions – TERESA (2007-2009) (Bjørnsen et al. 2007)
and Enlarging the theoretical understanding of rural development – ETUDE (2007-2009)
(Brunori et al. 2007).
Innovation at the local level – cultivating bottom-up approaches
Innovation has become a key concept for rural sustainable development. It has been mainly
refered to as innovatory economic development influenced by Leader programmes.
Innovation is understood as a key driver of economic growth within these programmes and
thus becomes a specific element ot success of the intitiatives of local activities. The Leader
method was considered to be the main example for success in transforming the contents and
processes of rural development. The analysis of projects underpin that a new terminology and
rhetoric of rural development has been introduced (EU project CORASON: Dargan and
Shucksmith 2006, p.51). In many respects it was crucial that the transformative effects
became visible through an enhanced institutional capacity and the building of partnerships.
Their crucial role is not just appreciated intuitively, but seconded by a large number of case
studies and theoretical development (e.g. EU project PRIDE, Esparcia et al. 2001).
It is important that all these activities are based on the rising enthusiasm in many rural areas
and provide a new vision for a wider scope of opportunities for the local level. The designation
of bottom-up approaches has spread across EU regions and became the symbol for a
changed perspective on rural areas. Much of the intial success of these activities should be
transfered to the general rural development programmes by mainstreaming the Leader
46

approach (Lukesch et al. 2004). However, there is concern that institutional requirements for
the extension of the approach is not readily available everywhere and innovation aspects
might receive a lower priority within mainstream programmes than before.
Conclusions
The implementation and the discussion of research findings highlight some important
experiences on the coordiantion of agricultural and rural development policies. It is pointed,
again and again, to “the limits of agricultural policy to reflect the diversity of rural areas and
the need for a paradigm shift in public policy and governance for rural development.
Coherence is needed among all policies directed to rural areas, including those that are
labelled as ‘rural development policy’ and ‘agricultural policy’ but also other sectoral and
territorial policies that impact on rural regions” (Sallard 2006, p.22f.).
Considerations for coherence between policies for rural areas hence have to take into
account some core conclusions:
‐ Agriculture policy has a modest impact on the future viability of rural areas
‐ The heterogenity of rural areas is seen in diverse challenges and potentials that call
for region-specific policies.
‐ Governance issues are key for an integrated policy approach.
‐ Rural-urban interdependencies and the flows and exchanges between regions (Ward
2006) are crucial to economic success and social development processes.
‐ Institutional development and changes are a starting requirement for development
considerations and inevitable for lasting achievements.
‐ A thorough impact assessment on the main success factors in rural development and
comprehensive evaluation approaches are the base to effective regional strategies.
‐ Coherence aspects of policies cannot be treated by simple adaptations of existing
policies. In our discussion it is necessary to respond to the question what place can
agriculture occupy within rural development Effective programmes hence should
deliver an understanding of being part of wider spatial development processes and
seek to increase linkages to different sectorial policies aiming at a coherent crosssectoral
framework.
47

4. CURRENT APPROACHES TO RURAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY IN MEMBER STATES;
SOME IMPRESSIONS FROM THE COUNTRY PROFILES
The following section is not intended to be a fully objective comparative analysis of the RDPs
of the 27 EU member states. This would clearly be too ambitious at such an early stage in the
project. Furthermore, the 27 “Profile” documents on which it is based, although following a
standard structure and guidelines, are inevitably quite variable in depth and perspective;
reflecting both “objective” differences between the member states, and the background,
experiences and perceptions of the authors. Nevertheless, the aim of providing an
impressionistic overview of the range of variation in rural development policy within different
national contexts, is still a very worthwhile one, serving to raise important issues and themes
which may be considered in greater depth in subsequent working packages of the RuDI
project.
The discussion which follows is structured according to the following topics:
o Path dependency and the role of policy traditions.
o The relationship between RDPs and Regional Policy.
o The relationship with national rural development policy.
o The overall balance and strategic focus of the RDPs.
o The governance of programme design and implementation.
4.1. Path Dependency and the role of Policy Traditions
In very few, if any, of the MS, was the Pillar 2 rural development framework introduced into a
vacuum, - a total absence of rural policy tradition. Even in the most recent accession states,
Bulgaria and Romania, the SAPARD transition programme built upon previous interventions
of the Communist era. Thus Redman and Mikk (2008a p20) write of Bulgaria:
“According to OECD (2000), the roots of Bulgarian rural development policy can
be traced back to the 1980s when the Bulgarian government initiated several
programmes to prevent the depopulation of some rural areas, as well as to
mitigate emerging disparities in regional income.”
They are more negative, however, in their assessment of the pre-1990 period in Romania:
“the previous regime never gave any specific attention to the development needs of the rural
areas” (2008b p18).
In several NMS, the years immediately following the fall of communism – or, in the Baltic
States, following independence, - were characterised by national economic decline (in which
context rural development could not take a high priority) and by rapid change in rural land
ownership structures through restitution to private owners, and so on (see for example
Estonia p21, Redman and Mikk 2008b p18). This period can be seen as a discontinuity,
clearly separating the old socialist policies from the transition to the EU Pillar 2 regime.
48

Full implementation of the CAP Pillar 2 policy framework from 2007 was (to varying degrees)
a challenge to the NMS, although SAPARD had, to some extent, strengthened institutional
capacity. In Hungary, for example, the evaluation found that the most valuable impact of
SAPARD was to give local people and institutions some experience of taking part in a bottomup
planning process (Wiesinger and Dax 2008 p22).
In the EU15 Member States pre-Pillar 2 rural development traditions seem to have been
rather variable. For example, Wiesinger and Dax (2008a p21) write:
“Rural development is considered as a major concern of Austrian policy and
society… This perspective is as strong inherent to great parts of the Austrian
population that a distinction between regional policy and rural policy is hardly
drawn and rural development policy has been largely understood as the main
(unique) relevant policy for peripheral and other regions outside the urban areas
of Austria.”
In France the nature and strength of the agrarian rural development tradition is perhaps
explained by the relatively late urbanisation and rise of manufacturing and service
employment (Pereira, et al 2008 p25). By contrast the earlier-industrialised UK had a pre-EU
tradition of rural development which “was not seen as having much to do with agriculture” –
but instead “concentrated mainly on stimulating exogenous development by attracting nonfarm
business to locate in rural areas….” (Dwyer et al 2008 p25). In the Netherlands extreme
competition for space meant that rural development was more concerned with land
use/spatial planning (Derkzen and Wiskerke 2008 p22).
In Sweden (Copus and Knobblock 2007) the style of implementation of Pillar 2 was influenced
by both the “aborted” liberalisation of agricultural policy of the early 1990’s, which was
reversed on accession, (which rendered a strong Axis 1 less palatable to the predominantly
urban electorate) and the strong regional policy and welfare state traditions, (which meant
that rural disparities in standard of living were very small, and apparently left little scope for
Axis 3 interventions).
In Spain and Italy the issue of (national policy) path-dependence seems to have been
eclipsed by the fact that regional implementation represented a “fresh start” in each region,
perhaps allowing greater scope to respond to current and local needs and potentials. In
Germany a similar emphasis upon “specific regional requirements and…self responsibility of
regions for growth and employment as well as for a high quality of life” (Schiller 2008 p25
quoting BMELV), has been made more complex by the substantial regional disparities
revealed by unification.
49

4.2. Relationships between RDPs and Regional Policy.
The Austrian view that rural development is more relevant than regional policy has already
been noted. In many other member states, both EU15 and NMS, rural development is
perceived as having a distinct function, and care is taken to define their separate fields of
action. Thus Bednarikova and Maur (2008a p22) state “The Czech Republic endeavours to
implement such measures within Pillar II of the Common Agricultural Policy, which are not
duplex with the regional policy….” 10 . Similarly in Slovenia (Juvančič 2008 p25) “In order to
achieve synergies and prevent duplication among the respective measures (i.e between Pillar
II, other Structural Funds, and National policy) criteria have been drawn up to divide those
entitled to various grants”.
This careful distinction between interventions which are defined as rural development and
those which are under the auspices of the ERDF, ESF or Cohesion Fund is also remarked
upon by Mikk in their profile of Lithuania (2008c p26). However the profile also quotes an
evaluation by Ribašaunskiene et al which concludes that the Lithuania RDP “has made a
positive impact on the country’s rural development, but it could benefit from a better alignment
with the regional development agenda.” (Ibid p28).
In the EU15 Member States the relationship between Pillar II rural development policy and
other policies affecting rural areas has developed through a more incremental process, and is
rather more subtle and variable. It is rather dangerous to generalise or classify, every member
state has a unique policy development path which helps to explain the character and balance
of their RDP(s) and the relationship between the RDP and other policies.
However it is possible to imagine a continuum; at one end of which would be RDP’s which are
clearly separated from regional development policy, and are predominantly sectoral, -
focussed on Axes 1 and 2, whilst at the other end would be more “integrated” and “territorial”
RDPs which support a broader range of rural activities, and interact or “overlap” with regional
policy.
Sweden and the UK seem to be closer to the sectoral end of the spectrum: In the former the
RDP is very much dominated by Axis 2, for the reasons explained above, and integration with
other policies (EU and national) which support the wider rural economy and society is rather
weak (Copus 2007). In the UK (Dwyer et al 2008 p27) the available Pillar II budget is
relatively small, (as a consequence of low levels of CAP spending during the 1990s), and has
10 See also the Slovak Republic profile (Bednarikova and Maur 2008b p21) “The Slovak Republic seeks
to implement such measures within the Pillar II of the Common Agricultural Policy, which will not be of
duplicity character with the regional policy…”
50

een supplemented by voluntary modulation of Pillar I funds which are therefore perceived as
“farmer’s money”. This perhaps explains why pre-existing rural policy activities relating to a
tradition of support for entrepreneurship and inward investment have largely shifted out of
Axis 3 and into a variety of regional development contexts, both EU and National funded.
It is striking that the federal/multi-RDP member states (Germany, Italy, Spain) seem to be
closer to the integrated/territorial end of the continuum. Thus in Germany a rigorous and wideranging
drive to integrate the rural/regional development activities of different national
ministries is combined with a degree of freedom, in the regional RDPs, to respond to
specificities within the individual Lander (Schiller 2008) 11 . In Italy one of the key benefits of the
National Strategy Plan which serves as the coordinating context of the regional RDP’s is
“strategic integration with other instruments of economic policy” (Fagiani et al 2008 p27).
4.3. Relationships with Nationally Funded Rural Development
The relationship between Pillar II RDP’s and other policy measures/programmes which are
nationally funded and which (unlike those which were discussed in section 4.2) are clearly
labelled “rural development”, is also complex and variable. Dwyer et al (2008b p32) point out
that “dividing funding priorities at European and national scales is not a straightforward or
clear-cut task, as development priorities may be supported using a combination of sources
and funding pathways from different scales…” Nevertheless, despite this difficulty the RuDI
country profiles highlight the existence of two main approaches, which may perhaps be
denominated as “absorption” and “coordination”. In the former an attempt is made to bring
all rural development policy into the EU co-funded RDP. In the latter the member state
perceives advantages to the coexistence of nationally funded activities, and seeks to
coordinate them in a hybrid model, often presented through a national strategic policy
document.
The absorption approach characterises a number of countries in which the RDP is the only
form of rural development policy currently in place, all pre-existing national-funded policies
having been absorbed and co-funded. Thus, of Italy (Bolli et al 2008 p30) it is said that “there
is no national rural development policy as such that does not derive from an EU source”. In
Bulgaria and Lithuania, (Redman and Mikk 2008 p27, Mikk (2008c p26)) all schemes have
been incorporated into the RDP.
In Luxembourg, the absorption of national policies is as yet incomplete: Two national agrienvironmental
policies which were excluded from the RDP due to a shortage of time when
11 It is interesting to note that despite this Schiller concludes (p35) that even in Germany “ “a higher
emphasis on axis 3 would better reflect the actual regional needs”.
51

writing the 2007-13 programme, but are likely to be incorporated as part of the anticipated
Health Check revision.
Another example of partial absorption is Austria - where Wiesinger and Dax (2008 p27) inform
us that “there are hardly any relevant nationally funded activities…”. Most pre-existing rural
development schemes have been incorporated into the Austrian RDP. However, there remain
“a host of tiny measures in different sector schemes…” Many of these, as the examples
provided illustrate, are provincial, rather than national schemes.
The “coordination” approach generally results in a more complex rural policy landscape,
which is rather more difficult to describe and interpret. Thus in France (Periera et al 2008 p30-
31) there is a significant element of nationally funded rural development policy, especially in
the community development (LEADER-like) sphere. However it is very closely “entangled”
with EU-funded measures, and not easy to conceive as an independent entity. The Polish and
Portuguese reports (Chmielewska, 2008 p20, Pereira et al 2008 p28) describe a similar
relationship between EU and national policy.
Retention of national measures seems to take place for two slightly different reasons. In some
Member States nationally funded policy measures have been introduced, or retained, as a
means of extending the range of the kinds of interventions beyond what can be delivered
through the Pillar II menu. For example in Romania, the Ministry of Agriculture have
introduced a nationally funded programme to provide access to affordable credit for farmers.
Similarly, in Estonia, Latvia and Slovenia (Mikk 2008a p26, Mikk 2008b p25, Juvancic 2008
p23) a number of pre-existing nationally-funded measures survive, With no apparent
necessity to modify them in order to force them into a RDP mould. The Irish profile (Dwyer et
al 2008b p32) states that “historically EU funding support has dominated, although nationallevel
programmes are increasing in importance. In fact, there are a number of funding
programmes in Ireland that aim to develop rural areas and complement EU funding support.”
At another point in the profile (p29) the selection of measures to include in the RDP is said to
have been “to complement rural and structural deficits prioritised in the NSP” (National
Strategy Plan), and to ”maximise value added impact on existing complementary [national]
programmes…”.
More commonly nationally-funded interventions which seem to closely parallel RDR
measures (in terms of the kind of support offered) are retained in order to extend the
coverage beyond what RDP resources or rules would permit. Thus in Germany (Schiller 2008
p33-4), some better resourced Lander (such as Baden-Wűrttemburg) fund small programmes
for rural development outside the RDP, whilst in others (where regional funding resources are
more limited) the RDP and rural development are effectively synonymous. In both the Czech
Republic and the Slovak Republic National Rural Area Regeneration Programmes provide
52

support which is rather similar to the Village Renewal measure (Bednarikova and Maur
(2008a) p21, Bednarikova and Maur (2008b) p20). Similarly, in Finland (Kahila 2008 p21)
nationally funded “LEADER-like” schemes have been an important element of the rural
development policy scene.
Periera et al (2008 p31) find evidence of both of the above forms of coordination in France,
(which they dub “complimentarity” and “synergy”).
Whether nationally funded rural development activities coexist with Pillar II in order to offer
“novel” kinds of support, or whether they simply extend the coverage of RDR measures, it is
often the case that Member States seek to project an image of coordinated policy by
“wrapping up” both EU co-funded and purely national measures in a single strategy
document.
Thus, for example, the Spanish Government has recently passed a national “Law for
Sustainable Development in the Rural Environment (Fagiani 2008 et al p24) which is
designed to coordinate action for economic diversification, provision of essential services and
to preserve or recover natural and cultural heritage. In Hungary, (Wiesinger and Dax 2008
p28) a number of policy strategy documents have been issued (National Development Policy
Concept, National Regional Development Concept, National Action Programme, etc.) which
incorporate measures funded from a variety of sources, both EU and national. In the profile of
the Netherlands Derkzen and Wiskerke (2008 p26) write: “Parallel to the DN-RDP there is a
More-year-strategy and a More-year-programme for rural development financed by the Dutch
government … This programme is seen as a territorial implementation of Dutch rural
development.”
Finally, in the UK there are a wide range of non-EU funding sources for policies which impact
upon rural areas. Each of the four constituent devolved administrations have produced
strategy documents to demonstrate the degree of coordination. What is particularly interesting
about the UK situation is interaction between national funded rural development activities and
the character of the 4 RDPs:
“In the UK, the evidence to support a rural development programme heavily concentrated
upon Axis 2 is not explicitly linked to other funding sources. However, in England, it is clear
that the programming authority (DEFRA) takes the view that economic and social needs in
rural areas are more the proper focus of other policy activity, while environmental
management of farmed and forested land is not; hence the decision to focus the RDP mainly
on this Axis. It is also argued that, by comparison with environmental needs, social and
economic needs in what is, by EU standards, a relatively prosperous rural territory are
relatively less financially significant, being more localised or particular to certain sectors or
groups; this provides another rationale for the highly concentrated spending on Axis 2.”
(Dwyer et al 2008c p32).
53

4.4. Overall balance and strategic focus of the RDPs
RuDI workpackages 4 and 5 consider RDP priorities on the basis of patterns of planned
expenditure. The following discussion, based upon the Country Profiles, is intended as a
more impressionistic introduction.
The Country Profiles highlighted broad contrasts between NMS and EU15, which have been
noted by previous comparative analyses (Dwyer et al 2008, etc). These are briefly noted
below. What is perhaps more interesting are the insights provided regarding variations
between regional RDPs within the same member state, and the relationship with wider
national policy contexts.
The RDPs of the NMS are to varying degrees characterised by relatively greater emphasis
upon competitiveness (Axis 1) due to the need for a rapid structural “catch up” process. Thus
Redman and Mikk (2008a p24) state of Bulgaria “the main focus of the RDP is upon
improving the competitiveness of the agriculture, forestry and food processing sectors…” Of
Romania the same authors (2008b P21) state; “Not surprisingly the primary focus of the
NRDP is addressing the first challenge and mitigating the on-going structural disadvantages
suffered by the agriculture and forestry sectors…”
Comments on the overall balance of RDPs in the EU15 were often framed in terms of the
sectoral-territorial dichotomy. Thus Fagiani et al (2008 p20) describe the Spanish
programmes as “highly biased in favour of agriculture… Even in the case of the measures
falling under [axes 3 and 4], a significant sectoral character has been introduced with several
actions limited to on-farm implementations “.
Perhaps surprisingly there seems to be very little correlation between the distribution of
funding between the three axes and the views expressed. RDPs were frequently described as
“sectoral” or it was inferred that they were more sectoral than could be justified by the
economic structure of the rural areas of the Member State. This was true even of the Member
States in which Axis 3 expenditure was relatively high (Schiller 2008 p36).
The profile of Belgium (Derkzen and Wiskerke 2008a p22) highlights a very interesting
contrast between the two regional RDPs (for Flanders and Wallonia). “Flanders seems to
continue its policies towards agricultural modernisation in order for their agriculture to keep up
with world market competition…Soil erosion, water quality and nature quality are still
decreasing and pollution is among the highest levels in Europe but the urgency of this
problem does not shimmer through the FL-RDP…Whereas Wallonia has pollution to a far
54

lesser extent, there is more reference to sustainable farming practices in harmony with the
environment. Also, compared to Flanders, more funding goes to Axis 2 measures…”
The descriptions of the regional implementation of Pillar 2 provided in the Profiles of Italy,
Germany and Spain all demonstrate the flexibility which such arrangements allow, in terms of
considerable variation in the balance of funding (across the 4 axes) in response to differences
in regional conditions and needs, different perceptions of those needs, and different strategies
to address them. In Germany, for example Schiller contrasts the Baden Wűrttenburg RDP,
which is a non-convergence area, and has a strong emphasis on Axis 2, but a relatively low
overall “support intensity” (expenditure per capita), with Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania,
which is a convergence region, with a high aid intensity, and a strikingly high proportion of
funding (42%) in Axis 3.
4.5. Governance: Programme Development and Implementation Processes
Again, detailed analyses of RDP design and implementation are the subject of RuDI
workpackages 2 and 3, and so the following remarks should be considered as an initial
overview only.
The basic contrast between top-down/exogenous and bottom-up/endogenous planning and
implementation is clearly evident in the Country Profiles. In the NMS the rural development
policy processes are generally judged to be predominantly “top-down”. Thus Bednarikova and
Maur describe both the Czech and Slovak systems as “centralised”, whilst rural communities
are said to have a “relatively weak lobbying ability” (2008a p17, 2008b p18). The following
description of the Hungarian policy process provides a graphic illustration of the difficulty of
introducing endogenous governance models:
“Public participation mechanisms in Hungary do not have a long tradition. This was very clear
in the way how the two (former) rural development programs were drawn up. The process
was hardly accessible to anyone, except the experts selected by the ministry for consultation.
Very early versions of the plans were open to the public, without a real intention by the
ministry to consider the comments. For the objectives and the design of some measures
some stakeholders were asked. However, there was no overall strategy for involving them, it
was very much dependant on the attitude of the official responsible for drawing up the
measure. Recently the Ministry was heavily criticised by environmental NGOs and farmers’
organisations for cutting the rural development budget without having proper public
consultation beforehand. The European Commission’s attention was drawn to the case, so
the Ministry initiated a consultation process and at the same time built up the group of
stakeholders to be involved in different issues….” (Wiesinger and Dax 2008b p24).
However, as has already been noted, the EU’s SAPARD pre-accession programme “had one
remarkable effect in some of the small regions of the country, as a bottom-up approach was
taken by the authorities that encouraged local stakeholders to take part in the planning
process and think it over for their region.” (Ibid p22).
55

In Flanders Derkzen and Wiskerke (2008 p19) note a significant shift towards a more
decentralised model: “Since the last constitutional reform of 2001, policy implementation is
less dominated by the Agricultural Administration (landbouwadministratie) and the
Environment/ Spatial Planning Administration but more focussed to cooperation of provinces,
municipalities and other stakeholders. Like in the Netherlands this is seen as a move from
sectoral to territorial policy in ‘area-based’ cooperation. For the first FL-RDP (2000-2006) the
five Flemish provinces contributed with vision texts. A good example is the ‘Navigation plan
for a Vital West-Flemish countryside 2003-2030’.”
In Germany the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection has argued
that “support of rural development has to concentrate more than before on specific regional
requirements and strengthen the self responsibility of regions for growth and employment as
well as for a high quality of life’.”(Schiller 2008 p26). There are some interesting contrasts
between the two RuDI case study regions: In the convergence region of Mecklenburg-
Western Pomerania 42% of EAFRD funds go to Axis 3. The region is also in receipt of
significant levels of ERDF funding to tackle the substantial economic problems it faces. In the
relatively more prosperous Baden Wűrttenburg Schiller (Ibid p35) argues that “The rural
development strategy assigns the most important role to the support of endogenous
potentials and the use of regional and local opportunities and strengths”.
Periera et al (2008 p25) find evidence of increasing “vertical cooperation between national,
regional and departmental bodies” in France. They point to the influential role of the LEADER
programme in strengthening local/regional capacity, based upon farmers associations and
environmental NGOs (Ibid p26). Similarly in Ireland “the RDP…emphasises the strengthening
if the bottom-up policy approach, with local action groups and regional interest groups set to
have more say in attuning programmes to local needs.” (Dwyer et al 2008a p27).
Fagiani et al state that “The Spanish rural development policy is considerably decentralised,
to the point that most of the policy making, including the management of the CAP-related
measures, is administered at regional level (NUTS 2)….Rural development policy in Spain is
rapidly shifting from a position of extreme centralisation (existing under the dictatorial
government) towards a bottom-up approach. Many voices, especially from regional
administrations, argue that the pendulum has now swung too far towards an endogenous
focus.” (2008 p19). They further argue (p25) that the decentralisation of rural policy is a
natural response to the extreme diversity of rural conditions in Spain and that “A uniform rural
policy in such a scenario is bound to be ineffective.”
The move towards truly “bottom-up” planning and implementation is strong in Italy. Thus Bolli
et al (2008 p24) write “…the wider diffusion of participatory methods and particularly the
bottom-up approach have encouraged an ever increasingly more mature involvement of the
56

ural communities in rural development policies on several levels – national, regional and
local – and has touched on one or all phases in the life of the programmes, from their
definition to their implementation and management. In the implementation of the rural
development policies, the involvement of the local communities has essentially occurred
through the Leader’s LAGs, called on to manage Local Development Plans, gaining credibility
in the territory and with the institutions. In the definition of the strategic lines of 2007-2013
programming period, the representatives of the LAGs have participated in the process of
elaborating the National Strategy Plan for Rural Development in Italy.”
Progress is perceived to have been more difficult in Portugal “Although the decentralization
has an important role in the development of rural areas, in Portugal the practice has shown
that many difficulties arise from an authoritarian, “clientele oriented” culture with a little
participation heritage. The decentralization in this MS would be more efficient if those
structural and organizational mechanisms, which are clearly hindering its actual deployment,
are reviewed and ultimately eliminated.” (Periera et al 2008b p26).
57

5. DISCUSSION: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE THEORETICAL DEBATE AND
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS, AND EU POLICY PRINCIPLES AND IMPLEMENTATION.
In this penultimate section it is our intention to return to the policy antecedents and conceptual
frameworks described in sections 2.1 and 2.2, and to consider the extent to which the
academic discourse is reflected in the practical arena of policy implementation. In discussing
both the antecedents and the conceptual frameworks, it will be convenient to make a
distinction between the “high level” policy–making environment (i.e. the level of interaction
between the Commission and the MS), and the level of implementation within the MS and
regions.
5.1. The High Level Policy-Making Environment
The high level policy making discourse has already been described at some length in Section
3 above, and the intention here is to provide a brief summary of the key conclusions with
regard to the role of the antecedents and conceptual frameworks.
5.1.1 Antecedents
The inherent inertia of EU rural development policy has already been alluded to, and thus
longstanding issues, notably the need for farm restructuring and investment to maintain
competiveness live on in the latest regulation. In addition, the following “antecedents”; human
capital, marketing, age structure (of farmers), environment, biodiversity and landscape, forest
fires and soil erosion, access to services, and basic infrastructure are also present in the
menu of measures. On the positive side the opportunities provided by environmental assets,
regional images, the “quality turn”, organic production, and quality of life are all at least
mentioned in the documentation of the 2007-13 Rural Development Programmes. However
implementation and delivery in relation to all these issues is (for obvious reasons)
predominantly focused upon the farming community, rather than the wider rural economy or
community. This approach makes it difficult to address (other than rather indirectly) some
other rural challenges mentioned in Section 2.1, such as poverty and social exclusion, and
sparsity.
Two further qualifications are necessary:
(a) The effectiveness of rural development policy channelled mainly through the farming
community as the immediate recipients clearly depends a lot on the relative size of the
agricultural sector, and the strength of its connections to other local activities. This raises
questions (especially within the Central and Northern EU15 MS) about the extent to which the
2007-13 Pillar II measures can effectively address some of the issues described in Section
58

2.1. Clear quantitative research results to support assertions of indirect and induced benefits
across the broad rural economy have an important role to play here.
(b) The fact that most of the antecedents of Section 2.1 are mentioned in the policy literature,
and represented (in some way) in the menu of measures, is of course not conclusive
evidence that European rural development policy is fully commensurate with the antecedents
identified in the academic literature. The relative weight attached to different issues is of
course extremely important. This aspect is generally assessed in terms of patterns of
expenditure, and this will be addressed in more detail in WP 4 and 5 of the RuDI project.
However the dominance of the agri-environment theme (Axis 2) within several EU15 MS, and
of Axis 1 (structure and competitiveness) in the NMS, has already been noted. In fairness it is
important to state that the inertia at the policy-making level has seemed to originate (at
different times) in both the MS administrations, and in Brussels.
5.1.2 Conceptual Frameworks
Of the 9 conceptual frameworks or “buzz words” described in Section 2.2, 4 are commonly
used in the European rural development policy literature. These are:
o Multifunctionality
o Sustainability
o Globalisation
o Endogenous Growth
Two more, ecological modernisation, and commodification, seem have a clear bearing upon
the policy discourse, but are not so explicitly referred to. The first of these is of course
extremely important, in the light of the relative weight attached to Axis 2.
By way of contrast the following concepts do not seem to play a substantial role in moulding
current rural development policy:
o Post Productivism
o Rural Restructuring
o The Network Paradigm
There are several possible reasons for the relative popularity of the six concepts, and the
neglect of the other three. One might simply be that several of the six originated earlier and
have had longer to establish themselves. At least one of them (multifunctionality) actually
emerged in a policy context rather than through a research route. Finally, all of them have
roots in economics, and many rural policy-makers have a training in a closely allied discipline.
The three “neglected” concepts are relatively new, and two of them originated in the social
sciences.
59

5.2. Implementation within the MS and the Regions
The source of information for the following comments is the Country Reports. As such it must
be emphasised that the discussion is impressionistic, rather than objective, a more in-depth
analysis of variation in MS policy objectives (based upon expenditure profiles) is reserved for
WP4. The intention here is simply to draw together what may be learned from the Country
Reports about the conceptual frameworks which seem to lie behind the programme
documents and implementation in the individual MS.
The word “multifunctional” or multifunctionality” occurs 28 time in the Country Reports. In
Luxembourg, for example, Derkzen and Wiskerke (2008b p19) notes explicit references to the
concept. In the Belgium report the same authors (2008a p22) note a contrast between the
Flemish programme, which they view as a predominantly a modernisation policy, with
Wallonia, where the approach is based upon multifunctionality. In Ireland Dwyer et al (2008a
p29) note that the strong emphasis upon Axis 2 is based upon an appreciation of the public
goods which are provided by farming, suggesting, again, an underpinning multifunctionality
concept. Similarly in France Pereira et al (2008) p26) state “The new key word in agricultural
and rural policy debates is ‘multifunctionality’,”. In the Malta report Papadopoulou et al (2008
p21)write “The overall objective of Malta’s rural development policy is to promote
multifunctional agriculture within a wiser framework of integrated rural development so as to
achieve the sustainable development of rural Malta.” The Austrian programme is said to have
“The objective of multifunctional, sustainable, and competitive agriculture, and the
development of vibrant rural regions” (Dax and Wiesinger 2008a p22). The German National
Strategic Plan uses an almost identical form of words (Schiller 2008 p27). Multifuntionality is
also explicitly referred to in the Czech report (Bednarikova and Petr 2008a P17). Of Hungary
Dax and Wiesinger (2008b p25) write “The HNRDSP aims at creating the development
framework necessary for the development of multifunctional agriculture, increasing
competitiveness, preservation of environmental values, the strengthening of rural economy
and the cohesion of rural society in line with the Lisbon objectives and the principles set out in
the conclusions of the Gothenburg European Council.” According to Bednarikova and Petra
(2008b p19), writing of the Slovak Republic “The global objective is defined as "multifunctional
agriculture, forestry and sustainable rural development“.
It seems fairly clear that insofar as they perceive a need to elucidate the rationale for their
programmes the MS generally prefer to reiterate the forms of words to be found in
Commission policy documents. It would appear (on the surface at least) that the evolution of
rural development design and implementation in EU MS is to a large extent led by the EU
Commission, rather than by academic research. Indeed it is interesting to note that the
apparently dominant rationale is one which originated in the policy arena as a means of
justifying continued support for agriculture. Although (as we saw in Section 2.2) rural
60

development researchers have in recent years put forward a number of alternative paradigms
these seem to have as yet had relatively little impact on policy or implementation.
61

6. CONCLUSIONS; KEY FINDINGS
6.1. Research –Policy links
In the first section of this report a review of recent academic literature identified a number of
rural needs and opportunities as potential “antecedents” of rural policy. Most of these were
found to be reflected in EU rural policy as manifested in the Rural Development Regulation
(Reg 1698/2005), although the relative importance accorded to each of them is open to
question. The literature review also highlighted a number of “big ideas” or conceptual
frameworks which are intended to explain or predict rural patterns and processes of change.
Again, most of these were reflected to some extent in the rural development policy debate at
both the design level and the implementation phase within the member states. However the
two most commonly cited concepts (multifunctionality and sustainable development) both owe
their origins, at least in part, to debates within the policy community, rather than the academic
world. On the other hand three research concepts (rural restructuring, post-productivism and
the network paradigm) seem to have made little impact upon the policy discourse. The latter
seems to be predominantly led by Brussels, few member states seem to consider the
research literature as a source of guiding principles when designing or implementing EU
funded rural development policy.
6.2. Some Common Constraints
6.2.1 Inertia in the Design and Implementation of EU Rural Policy
With certain exceptions (noted below) there seems to be a persistent gap/lag between policy
aspirations (expressed in Commission documents), and what is implemented within national
and regional programmes. This “mismatch” is visible in general policy evaluation at EU-level,
at national/regional levels, and within the RuDI country profiles. Progress in rural development
policy reform is rather slow. There have been “missed opportunities”, due to substantial
“institutional inertia” at several levels of the policy design and implementation process. A
number of MS seem to focus their “strategy” on activities to maintain the status-quo. Policy
traditions involving the preservation of existing measures sometimes seem to drive
programme planning more strongly than the objective assessment of rural needs and
strategic views.
62

6.2.2 A Problematic Political Economy
One of the most fundamental issues which requires to be addressed, because it acts a
constraint to the effectiveness of rural development policy at all levels, from local, through
national, to the “centre” (EC), is the thorny question of the relationship between Rural
Development and Regional Policy. As the Country Profiles have shown there are a wide
range of coping mechanisms, from (on the one hand) national strategic plans, which seek to
integrate both kinds of policy, to (at the other extreme) careful separation, with rural
development as a “niche policy” closely aligned with agriculture. However whatever the
overall national approach, at the regional and local level, and in the realm of practical
implementation, the process of integration is at best “immature”. In many rural regions
separate/parallel institutional frameworks are responsible for rural development and regional
development activities respectively. Coordination between the two spheres is in this case
reduced to a formal task. The difficulty of establishing a truly territorial approach to rural
development is thus (at least in part) a consequence of “political economy” issues, relating to
the contested space between Rural and Regional Development.
One of the consequences of the dominance of sectoral approaches and interests is the fact
that the “core needs” of rural regions are rarely assessed in an objective balanced way as the
starting point of strategies and rural development approaches. All too often the agricultural
development status is still the primary concern in the process of developing rural development
policy. Hardly any MS manifest a deliberate focus on non-agricultural sectors, employment
issues of the regions, or social and cultural criteria, as driving forces in their rural
development programmes.
Furthermore policy analysis relating to rural development is often as segmented as the policy
application. This reflects the considerable difficulties, faced by researchers and evaluators, of
coordinating and cooperating across different sectoral “worlds”, with separate sets of actors
and stakeholders, and different development views.
In the end despite differences in the balance between the four priority axes, the lessons to be
learned turn out to be quite similar across the European MS:
o The first task is to overcome the segmentation of administration and policy action with
regard to rural development activities.
o
The second is to find “territorial” analytical frameworks and tools which are able to
bridge the sectoral divide.
63

6.3. Some “Green Shoots” of Change
6.3.1 Changes in Governance and National Programmes Foster Innovation
Despite the pervading inertia, more innovative approaches are to be found in some countries.
These “green shoots” are often associated with changes in the political system, new
institutional structures, or particular problem regions which highlight the need for more
effective adaptation measures.
In Germany, Spain, UK, Netherlands and Finland new approaches have been introduced
through innovative national programmes. In this regard the recently elaborated OECD rural
policy reviews for Germany (2006), Scotland (2007), Finland (2007) and Spain (2008) reveal
significant change, and potential for rural development strategies going beyond RDR. To a
large extent this reflects also the emerging discussion on the need for a new rural policy
paradigm as set out by OECD in 2006 (OECD 2006).
Where it is evident, as in the examples given above, innovation remains restricted to small
parts of the activities (or the programme). Often the innovative aspects were Leader actions,
or part to the former art.33 measures, or the current Axis 3 measures. Though they often form
a very small portion of the overall RDP expenditure, the activities are often crucial for
local/territorial development, and have a much higher significance for local actors than their
small financial resources would suggest.
6.3.2 Further Potential in the Regulation
The country profiles reveal a degree of diversity between Programmes in terms of
implementation, prioritisation and governance, for example between the NMS and EU-15, and
even within the same MS (e.g. particularly Germany and Spain). This suggests that there is a
considerable (and not yet fully utilised) potential for increasing the scope of application of the
current EC Regulation.
6.3.3 The Didactic Role of some elements of Rural Development Policy
Maybe the most important result of rural development policy processes so far is that
governance processes and networking structures have been developed at all levels. They
now seem to exercise a significant influence on the programme outcome. All MS have to
some degree engaged in the learning process associated with the RDP elaboration. This
includes adopting (to a greater or lesser extent) a bottom-up approach. Although this is not
appropriate for all elements of a programme, it is nevertheless now widely accepted that
64

endogenous approaches add to the effectiveness of certain measures. No administration can
withdraw from this position without jeopardizing the integration of local actors and
stakeholders.
The foregoing review of research and policy literature, and the country profiles, show that,
through an ongoing strategy debate, a stronger regional focus, territorial cooperation and
exchange of experiences, a lot has been learned. Perspectives are starting to shift away from
a sectoral compensation ethos towards an increasing recognition of the wider opportunities
available to rural areas. This is not limited to the European (policy) area, but is addressed in
studies from other areas as well. International organisations (like OECD) argue that we have
to strengthen integrated approaches to rural development if we want to take full account of
rural regions development potential.
6.3.4 Some Key Issues for RuDI WorkPackages
The matters discussed in this report raise many issues and questions which could be
addressed by RuDI Workpackages. The selection which follows is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather illustrative. Neither is it intended that all these issues will be addressed,
some of them may prove difficult to consider within the resources available, but others will
probably emerge as important as the work progresses.
o The relationship between RDPs and Regional Policy, and National Funded Rural
Policy, both in terms of shared/differentiated objectives, and shared or parallel
delivery structures. (WP2-3)
o Building on this, it would be very interesting to investigate the relative “effectiveness”
of RDPs which absorb all rural development policy within the MS, compared with
those which seek to integrate within some kind of “grand territorial strategy”. WP6)
o The relationship between the level of priority accorded to different elements of the
RDPs, and the relative shares of funding. Small measures (in funding terms) may
nevertheless be very influential if they are innovative. (WP4-5)
o The origin of the guiding principles of each RDP – is there any evidence of rationales
from outside the Commission documentation (WP 2)
o The role of changes in governance in stimulating or facilitating innovation in rural
policy. (WP2-3)
o The role of national programmes (outside the RDP) as “test beds” for innovative
forms of intervention. (WP2-3)
o How much evidence is there of a shift within the 2007-13 programme towards the
principles set out in the New Rural Paradigm (WP2-3)
o The political economy surrounding the development of RDPs is extremely important,
and we need a more systematic understanding of it. (WP2-3)
65

THE COUNTRY PROFILE REPORTS
Austria: Wiesinger G and Dax T (2008a) Federal Institute for Less Favoured and
Mountainous areas, Vienna (BABF).
Belgium: Derkzen P and Wiskerke H (2008a) Rural Sociology Group, Wageningen
University (WU-RSG)
Bulgaria: Redman M and Mikk M (2008a) Centre for Ecological Engineering, Tartu (CEET)
Cyprus: Papadopoulou E, and Papalexiou C (2008a) Department of Agricultural Economics,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH)
Czech Republic: Bednarikova Z, and Maur P (2008a) Research Institute of Agricultural
Economics, (VUZE)
Denmark: Kahila P (2008a) Nordregio (Nordic Centre for Spatial Planning).
Estonia: Mikk M (2008a) Centre for Ecological Engineering, Tartu (CEET)
Finland: Kahila P (2008b) Nordregio (Nordic Centre for Spatial Planning).
France: Pereira, S., Thomson, K. and Dwyer J (2008) Countryside and Community Research
Institute; University of Gloucestershire (CCRI).
Germany: Schiller S (2008) Institute for Rural Development Re-search at Johann Wolfgang
Goethe Uni-versity, Frankfurt/Main (IFLS)
Greece: Papadopoulou E, and Papalexiou C (2008b) Department of Agricultural Economics,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH).
Hungary: Wiesinger G and Dax T (2008b) Federal Institute for Less Favoured and
Mountainous areas, Vienna (BABF).
Ireland: Dwyer J, Maye, D., Thomson K., and Pereira S (2008a) Countryside and Community
Research Institute; University of Gloucestershire (CCRI).
Italy: Bolli M., Tarangioli S., and Mantino F. (2008) National Institute of Agricultural
Economics, Roma (INEA).
Latvia: Mikk M (2008b) Centre for Ecological Engineering, Tartu (CEET).
Lithuania: Mikk M (2008c) Centre for Ecological Engineering, Tartu (CEET).
Luxembourg: Derkzen P and Wiskerke H (2008b) Rural Sociology Group, Wageningen
University (WU-RSG).
Malta: Papadopoulou, E., Papalexiou, C., and Ventouri, I., (2008b) Department of Agricultural
Economics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH).
Netherlands: Derkzen, P., and Wiskerke, H., (2008c) Rural Sociology Group, Wageningen
University (WU-RSG).
Poland: Chmielewska, B., (2008) Chair of Agricultural Economics, Policy and Law, Ljubljana
University, Ljubljana (UL)
Portugal: Pereira, S., Mantino, F., Fagiani, P., Tarangioli, S., (2008) National Institute of
Agricultural Economics, Roma (INEA).
Romania: Redman M and Mikk M (2008b) Centre for Ecological Engineering, Tartu (CEET)
Slovakia: Bednarikova Z, and Maur P (2008b) Research Institute of Agricultural Economics,
(VUZE)
Slovenia: Juvančič, L. (2008) Chair of Agricultural Economics, Policy and Law, Ljubljana
University, Ljubljana (UL).
Sweden: Kahila P and Copus A (2008) Nordregio (Nordic Centre for Spatial Planning).
UK: Dwyer J, Maye, D., Thomson K., and Pereira S (2008b) Countryside and Community
Research Institute; University of Gloucestershire (CCRI).
66

REFERENCES
Aaakula, J., Kröger, L., Kuokkanen, K. and Vihinen, H. (2006), Implementation of policies for
sustainable development in the context of CAP, New challenges for research, Background
Note 3, SASSPO project.
Amcoff, J. and Westholm, E., 2007. Understanding rural change—demography as a key to
the future. Futures, 39(4), pp. 363-379.
Amin A and Thrift N (1995) Globalisation, Institutional Thickness and the Local Economy, in
Healey P, Cameron S, Davoudi S, Graham S, and Madani-Pour A eds. Managing Cities, The
New Urban Context, Wiley, Chichester
Arkleton Trust (1993), Farm Household Adjustment in Western Europe 1987-1991, Final
Report on the Research programm on Farm Structures and Pluriactivity for the Commission
of the European Communities, Oxford.
Bache I (2005) Multi-level governance and European Regional Policy, Chapter 10 in Bache I
and Flinders M (eds) Multi-level Governance, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Baldock, D., Dwyer, J., Lowe, P., Petersen, J.-E. and Ward, N. (2001). The Nature of Rural
Development: Towards a Sustainable Integrated Rural Policy in Europe. Scoping Study for
WWF and GB Countryside Agencies, Institute for European Environmental Policy. London.
http://www.lupg.org.uk/pdf/pubs_Nature_of_Rural_Development.pdf
Baldock, D., Dwyer, J., and Sumpsi Vinas, J.M. (2002), Environmental Integration and the
CAP, A report to the European Commission DG Agriculture, Institute for European
Environmental Policy, Brussels.
Bjørnsen, H.-M., Steinar, J.and Dax, T. (2007), European Background of rural development,
EU project TERESA, Wien.
Bollman, R.D., 1999-last update, human capital and rural development: what are the
linkages [Homepage of Statistics Canada], [Online]. Available:
http://www.statcan.ca/bsolc/english/bsolccatno=21-601-MIE1999039 [29/08/2008, 2008].
Boonstra, W. and Frouws, J., 2005. Conflicts about water: A case study of contest and power
in Dutch rural policy. Journal of Rural Studies, 21(3), pp. 297-312.
Bosworth, G., 2008. Entrepreneurial in-migrants and economic development in rural England.
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 6(3), pp. 355-369.
Brunori, G., Ventura, F. And Milone, P. (2007), From theoretical innovation to policies and
practices: building the concept of rural web, EU project ETUDE, Frankfurt/Main.
Bryden J and Hart J K (eds) (2004). Why Local Economies Differ: The Dynamics of Rural
Areas in Europe. The Edwin Mellen Press.
Bryden J et al (2008) The Concept and Practice of ‘Equivalence’ in Public Policies towards
Rural Regions in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Norway and Sweden, Draft Report for
Highlands and Islands Enterprise
Buckwell, A., Blom, J., Commins, P., Hervieu, B., Hofreither, M., von Meyer, H., Rabinowicz,
E., Sotte, F. and Sumpsi Viñas, J.M. (1997), Towards a Common Agricultural and Rural
Policy for Europe, Report of an Expert Group, European Commission, Brussels.
Burger, A., 2001. Agricultural development and land concentration in a central European
country: a case study of Hungary. Land Use Policy, 18, pp. 259-268.
Champion, T. and Shepherd, J., (2006) Demographic Change in Rural England. Rural
Evidence Research Centre.
Cloke, P.J., Marsden, T. and Mooney, P.H., 2006. Handbook of Rural Studies. Sage.
Commins, P., 2004. Poverty and Social Exclusion in Rural Areas: Characteristics, Processes
and Research Issues. Sociologia Ruralis, 44(1), pp. 60-75.
Commission of European Communities - CEC (1988), The Future of Rural Society,
COM(88)601 final/2, Brussels.
67

Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2006) Employment in rural areas: closing
the jobs gap, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament, COM(2006) 857 final, SEC(2006)1772
Cooke, P. and Morgan, M. (1998) The Associational Economy – Firms, Regions, and
Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Cooke, P. and Willis, D., 1999. Small Firms, Social Capital and the Enhancement of Business
Performance through Innovation Programmes. Small Business Economics, 13(3), pp. 219-
234.
Copus, A., Hall, C., Barnes, A., Dalton, G., Cook, P., Weingarten, P, Baum, S., Stange, H.,
Lindner, C., Hill, A., Eiden, G., McQaid, R., Grieg, M. and Johansson, M. (2006), Study on
Employment in Rural areas, Final Deliverable, commissioned by DG Agriculture, SAC
Aberdeen.
Copus A., K., and Knobblock E., (2007) Case Study Report, Sweden, SCARLED (Structural
Change in Agriculture and Rural Livelihoods) SSPE-CT-2006-044201.
Dargan, L. and Shucksmith, M. (2006), Innovatory Economic Development (WP8),
Comparative report, EU project CORASON, Newcastle University.
Dax, T. (2002), Rural development policy from an EU perspective, paper at the XXI Summer
Course – XIV European Courses, “Desarollo rural y gestión territorial”, University of the
Basque Country, 1-2 August, Donostia – San Sebastián.
Dax, T. (2006), The Territorial Dimension of CAP and Spatial Cohesion, in: EuroChoices, Vol.
5 (2), Oxford, 12-18.
Dax, T. and Machold, I. (eds.) (2002), Voices of Rural Youth. A Break with Traditional
Patterns Bundesanstalt für Bergbauernfragen, Wien.
Dax, T.., Favry, E., Fidlschuster, L., Oedl-Wieser, T. und Pfefferkorn, W. (2008), Periphere
ländliche Räume. Commissioned by ÖROK. Wien.
Delgado, M. and Ramos, E. (2002), Understanding the institutional evolution of the European
Rural Policy: A methodological approach, paper at the Xth European Association of
Agricultural Economists (EAAE) Congress, 28-31 August 2002, Zaragoza.
Delgardo M, Ramos E, Gallardo R and Ramos F, Multifunctionality and rural development: a
necessary convergeance, Chapter 2 in Van Huylenbroeck G and Durand G (2003)
Multifunctional agriculture: A new paradigm for European Agriculture and Rural Development,
Ashgate , Aldershot.
Dwyer J (2008) The state of the rural environment in Europe: what challenges and
opportunities for future policies, OECD Joint working Party on Agriculture and the
environment, Paris July 2008.
Dwyer, J., Baldock, D., Beaufoy, G., Bennett, H., Lowe, P. and Ward, N. (2002). Europe’s
Rural Futures – the Nature of Rural Development: rural development in an enlarging Europe.
Land Use Policy Group of Great Britain and WWF Europe with the Institute for European
Environmental Policy. London. http://www.lupg.org.uk/pubs/pubs.asppubs_Category_ID=8
Edmond H, Corcoran K and Crabtree R (1994) Modelling Locational Access to Markets for
Pluriactivity: a Study in the Grampian Region of Scotland, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 9.
No. 3. pp. 339-349.
Esparcia, J., Moseley, M. And Noguera, J. (eds.) (2001), Exploring Rural Development
Partnerships in Europe; an Analysis of 330 Local Partnerships in Eight European Countries,
Countryside and Community Press, University of Gloucestershire.
European Commission – EC (1997), Situation and Outlook: Rural Developments, CAP 2000
Working Document, DG Agriculture, Brussels.
European Commission - EC (1999), European Spatial Development Perspective, Potsdam.
European Commission - EC (2003), Rural Development in the European Union, Fact Sheet,
Brussels, 19pp.
68

European Commission - EC (2004), New Perspectives for EU Rural Development, Fact
Sheet, Brussels, 16pp.
European Commission – EC (2006), The EU Rural Development Policy 2007-2013, Fact
Sheet, Brussels, 20pp.
European Commission - EC (2007a), The Territorial Agenda of the European Union,
Brussels.
European Commission – EC (2007b), Rural Development in the European Union, Statistical
and Economic Information, Report 2007, 411pp.
European Commission – EC (2008a), Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion, Brussels,
September.
European Commission – EC (2008b), The legacy of Leader+, Leader+ Magazine, Special
Focus, Brussels.
European Environment Agency (EEA) (2005), Agriculture and environment in EU-15 – the
IRENA indicator report, EEA Report No 6/2005, Copenhagen, 128pp.
http://reports.eea.europa.eu/eea_report_2005_6/en/EEA_report_6_2005.pdf
European Environment Agency (EEA) (2007), Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010:
proposal for a first set of indicators to monitor progress in Europe, EEA Technical report No
11/2007, Copenhagen, 182pp.
http://reports.eea.europa.eu/technical_report_2007_11/en/Tech_report_11_2007_SEBI.pdf
Evans, N., Morris, C. and Winter, M., 2002. Conceptualizing agriculture: a critique of postproductivism
as the new orthodoxy. Progress in Human Geography, 26(3), pp. 313-332.
Falk, I. and Kilpatrick, S., 2000. What is Social Capital A Study of Interaction in a Rural
Community. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(1), pp. 87.
Farrington, J. and Farrington, C., 2005. Rural accessibility, social inclusion and social justice:
towards conceptualisation. Journal of Transport Geography, 13(1), pp. 1-12.
Ferrão A and Lopes J (2004) Understanding peripheral rural areas as contexts for economic
development, Chapter 2 in Labrianidis L (ed) The Future of Europe’s Rural Peripheries.
Fuller A M (1990) From Part-time Farming to Pluriactivity: a Decade of Change in Rural
Europe, Journal of Rural Studies Vol. 6, NO. 4. pp. 361-373.
Gasson, R., 1998. Educational qualifications of UK farmers: A review. Journal of Rural
Studies, 14(4), pp. 487-498.
Geddes, M., 2000. Tackling Social Exclusion in the European Union The Limits to the New
Orthodoxy of Local Partnership. International Journal of Urban & Regional Research, 24(4),
pp. 782.
Goodman, D., 2004. Rural Europe Redux Reflections on Alternative Agro-Food Networks
and Paradigm Change. Sociologia Ruralis, 44(1), pp. 3-16.
Gordon I (1994) Migration in a segmented labour market, Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers, NS 20 pp139-155
Granovetter, M., 1985. Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of
Embeddedness. The American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), pp. 481-510.
Grimes, S., 2003. The digital economy challenge facing peripheral rural areas. Progress in
Human Geography, 27(2), pp. 174-193.
Higgs G. and White, S.D., 1997. Changes in service provision in rural areas. Part 1: The use
of GIS in analysing accessibility to services in rural deprivation research. Journal of Rural
Studies, 13(4), pp. 441-450.
Hoggart, K. and Paniagua, A., 2001. What rural restructuring Journal of Rural Studies, 17(1),
pp. 41-62.
69

Hoogeven, Y., Petterson, J.E., Balazs, K., and Higuero, I, (2004) High nature value farmland -
Characteristics, trends and policy challenges, EEA Report No 1/2004, Copenhagen,
http://reports.eea.europa.eu/report_2004_1/en
Ilbery, B., Maye, D., Kneafsey, M., Jenkins, T. and Walkley, C., 2004. Forecasting food supply
chain developments in lagging rural regions: evidence from the UK. Journal of Rural Studies,
20(3), pp. 331-344.
Jentsch, B. and Shucksmith, M. (eds.) (2004), Young People in rural Areas of Europe,
Perspectives on Rural Policy and Planning, Ashgate, Aldershot.
Kalantaridis, C. and Bika, Z., 2006. In-migrant entrepreneurship in rural England: beyond local
embeddedness. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 18(2), pp. 109-131.
Kalantaridis, C., 2006. A study into the localization of rural businesses in five European
Countries. European Planning Studies, 14(1), pp. 61-78.
Kinsella, J., Renting, H., Gorman, M., Knickel, K. and Roep, D. (2006): The Driving Forces of
Rural Development: a Comparative Analysis, in: O'Connor, D., Renting, H., Gorman, M. and
Kinsella, J. (eds.), Driving Rural Development: Policy and Practice in Seven EU Countries,
Van Gorcum, Assen, The Netherlands, 233-261.
Knickel, K. and Renting, H., 2000. Methodological and Conceptual Issues in the Study of
Multifunctionality and Rural Development. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(4),.
Knight J and Yueh L (2004) Urban Insiders versus Rural Outsiders: Complimentarity or
Competition in China’s urban labour market University of Oxford Department of Economics,
Discussion paper 217
Kostov, P. and Lingard, J., 2002. Subsistence farming in transitional economies: lessons from
Bulgaria. Journal of Rural Studies, 18, pp. 83-94.
Koutsouris, A. (ed.) (2003), Innovative Structures for the Sustainable Development of
Mountainous Areas, Proceedings of the ISDEMA Conference in Thessaloniki, Greece,
Volume II, 8-9 November 2002, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens.
Kupiszewski, M., (2005) Migration in Poland in the Period of Transition – the Adjustment to
the Labour Market Change. Warsaw: Central European Forum for Migration Research - PIE
Discussion Paper Series.
Labrianidis, L. and Kalogeressis, T., 2006. The digital divide in Europe's rural enterprises.
European Planning Studies, 14(1), pp. 23-39.
Leat, P. and Revoredo-Giha, C., 2008. Building collaborative agri-food supply chains: The
challenge of relationship development in the Scottish red meat chain. British Food Journal,
110(4-5), pp. 395-411.
Lee, J., Árnason, A., Nightingale, A. and Shucksmith, M., 2005. Networking: Social Capital
and Identities in European Rural Development. Sociologia Ruralis, 45(4), pp. 269-283.
Lélé, S.M., 1991. Sustainable development: A critical review. World Development, 19(6), pp.
607-621.
Lerman Z, Csaki C and Feder G, (2002) Land Policies and Evolving Farm Structures in
Transition Countries. World Bank.
Lobley M and Potter C (2004) Agricultural change and restructuring: recent evidence from a
survey of agricultural households in England, Journal of Rural Studies, vol 20 p490-510
Long, A. and Van Der Ploeg, J. D., 1994. Endogenous Development: Practices and
Perspectives. In: VAN DER PLOEG,JAN DOUWE and A. LONG, eds, Born from within.
Assen: Uitgeverij Van Gorcum, pp. 1-6.
Lowe, P. and Brouwer, F. (2000), Agenda 2000: A Wasted Opportunity In Brouwer, F. and
Lowe, P. (eds.), CAP Regimes and the European Countryside, Prospects for Integration
between Agricultural, Regional and Environmental Policies, CABI Publishing, Wallingford,
321-334.
70

Lowe, P. and Speakman, L., 2006. The Ageing Countryside: the Growing Older Population of
Rural England. London: Age Concern Books.
Lowe, P., Murdoch, J. and Ward, N., 1995. Networks in Rural Development, Beyond
Exogenous and Endogenous Models. In: Van Der Ploeg, J., D.,. and Van Dijk G., eds,
Beyond Modernization: The Impact of Endogenous Rural Development. Assen: Uitgeverij Van
Gorcum, pp. 87-106.
Lowe, P., Ray, C., Ward, N., Wood, D. and Woodward, R. (1999), Participation in Rural
Development, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions,
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 100pp.
Lukesch, R., Bontron, J,-C., Ricci, C. and Tödtling-Schönhofer, H. (2004), Methods for and
Success of Mainstreaming Leader Innovations and approach into Rural Development
Programmes, Final Report, ÖIR-Managementdienste GmbH, commissioned by EC DG
Agriculture, Unit G4, Wien.
Mackinnon N, Bryden JM, Bell C, Fuller A M, and Spearman M (1991) Sociologia Ruralis, Vol
XXXI 1 pp58-71
Marsden T (1990) Towards the Political Economy of Pluriactivity, Journal of Rural Studies
Vol. 6. No. 4. pp. 375-387.
Marsden, T., 1999. Rural Futures: The Consumption Countryside and its Regulation.
Sociologia Ruralis, 39(4), pp. 501.
Marsden, T., (2004) The Quest for Ecological Modernisation: Re-Spacing Rural Development
and Agri-Food Studies, Sociologia Ruralis Vol 44, (2) pp129-146
Marsden, T., Banks, J. and Bristow, G., 2000. Food Supply Chain Approaches: Exploring their
Role in Rural Development. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(4),.
Marsden, T. and Sonnino, R., Rural development and the regional state: Denying
multifunctional agriculture in the UK. Journal of Rural Studies, In Press, Corrected Proof.
McCarthy, J., 2005. Rural geography: multifunctional rural geographies - reactionary or
radical Progress in Human Geography, 29(6), pp. 773-782.
Midmore, P., Langstaff, L., Lowman, S. and Vaughan, A. (2008), Qualitative evaluation of
European Rural Development Policy: Evidence from Comparative Case Studies, paper at the
12 th Congress of teh European Association of Agricultural Economists (EAAE), Gent.
Murdoch, J., 2000. Networks — a new paradigm of rural development Journal of Rural
Studies, 16(4), pp. 407-419.
Network of Independent Experts in the CEE Candidate Countries (2003). The Future of Rural
Areas in the Candidate Countries. Rural Economies. Assessment Report. EU project no.
29686; DG Agri.
Ní Laoire, C., 2007. The ‘green green grass of home’ Return migration to rural Ireland.
Journal of Rural Studies, 23(3), pp. 332-344.
O’Connor, D., Renting, H., Gorman, M. and Kinsella, J. (eds.) (2006), Driving Rural
Development: Policy and Practices in seven EU Countries, Van Gorcum, Assen (NL).
OECD (1994), Creating rural indicators for shaping territorial policy, Paris, 93pp.
OECD (1999), Cultivating rural amenities, An Economic Development Perspective, Paris.
OECD (2006), The New Rural Paradigm, Policies and Governance, OECD Rural Policy
Reviews, Paris.
Overbeek G., S. Efstratoglou, M.S. Haugen, E. Saranceno (1998), Labour situation and
strategies of farm women in diversified rural areas, Brussel: EU/DG VI.
Persson, L.O. and Westholm, E., 1994. Towards the new mosaic of rural regions. European
Review of Agricultural Economics, 21(3-4), pp. 409-427.
Pfefferkorn, W. Egli, H.-Massaruto, A. (2005), Regional Development and Cultural Landscape
Change in the Alps. Geographica Bernensia, Bern. (findings from EU project REG-ALP)
71

Philip, L.J. and Shucksmith, M., 2003. Conceptualizing Social Exclusion in Rural Britain.
European Planning Studies, 11(4), pp. 461-480.
Potter, C. and Tilzey, M., 2005. Agricultural policy discourses in the European post-Fordist
transition: neoliberalism, neomercantilism and multifunctionality. Progress in Human
Geography, 29(5), pp. 581-600.
Potter, C., 2006. Competing narratives for the future of European agriculture: the agrienvironmental
consequences of neoliberalization in the context of the Doha Round.
Geographical Journal, 172(3), pp. 190-196.
Ray, C., 2001. Transnational Co-operation Between Rural Areas: Elements of a Political
Economy of EU Rural Development. Sociologia Ruralis, 41(3),.
Ray, C., 2006. Neo-Endogenous Rural Development in the EU. In: Cloke, P., J., Marsten, T.,
Mooney, T., H., ed, Handbook of Rural Studies. Sage, pp. 278-291.
Reimer, B., 2004. Social Exclusion in a Comparative Context. Sociologia Ruralis, 44(1), pp.
76-94.
Sallard, O. (2006), Comments by the director of the Directorate for Public Governance and
Territorial Development, in: OECD, The New Rural Paradigm, Policies and Governance,
OECD Rural Policy Reviews, Paris.
Saraceno E (2004) Rural Development policies and the Second Pillar of the Common
Agricultural Policy: the way ahead, in Ortner K M (Ed), Assessing rural development policies
of the Common Agricultural Policy, Selection of papers from the 87th Seminar of the
European Association of Agricultural Economists (EAAE) April 21-23, 2004, Wien, Austria,
pp25-47
Scoones, I., (1998) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis. IDS Working
Paper 72 edn. World Bank, Institute for Development Studies.
Shucksmith, M., (2000) Exclusive Countryside: Social inclusion and regeneration in rural
areas. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Shucksmith, M., 2004. Young People and Social Exclusion in Rural Areas. Sociologia Ruralis,
44(1), pp. 43-59.
Shucksmith, M., Chapman, P., Clark, G. and Black, S., 1994. Social welfare in rural Europe.
Journal of Rural Studies, 10(4), pp. 343-356.
Shucksmith, M., Thomson, K.J., and Roberts, D. (2005), CAP and the Regions: The Territorial
Impact of Common Agricultural Policy, CABI Publishing, Wallingford (UK).
Slee, W., 1994. Theoretical Aspects of the Study of Endogenous Development. In: Van Der
Ploeg, J. D., and Long, A., eds, Born from within. Assen: Uitgeverij Van Gorcum, pp. 184-194.
Sotte F (2004) From CAP to CARPE: the state of the question, in Ortner K M (Ed), Assessing
rural development policies of the Common Agricultural Policy, Selection of papers from the
87th Seminar of the European Association of Agricultural Economists (EAAE) April 21-23,
2004, Wien, Austria, pp2-24
Stathopoulou, S., Psaltopoulos, D. and Skuras, D., 2004. Rural entrepreneurship in Europe: A
research framework and agenda. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &
Research, 10(6), pp. 404-425.
Stockdale, A., 2006. Migration: Pre-requisite for rural economic regeneration Journal of
Rural Studies, 22(3), pp. 354-366.
Taylor, J.E. and Martin, P.L., 2001. Human Capital: Migration and Rural Population Change.
In: L.G. BRUCE and G.C. RAUSSER, eds, Handbook of Agricultural Economics, New York.
New York: Elsevier Science, pp. 2-61.
Van der Ploeg J, Renting H, Brunori G, Knickel K, Mannion J, Marsden T, de Roest K, Sevilla-
Guzman E and Ventura F (2000) Rural Development: From Practices and Policies Towards
Theories, Sociologia Ruralis, vol 40 no 4 p391-408.
72

Van Der Ploeg, J., D.,. and Long, A., 1994. Born from Within: Practice and Perspectives of
Endogenous Rural Development. Assen: Uitgeverij Van Gorcum.
Van Der Ploeg, J., D., and Renting, H., 2000. Impact and Potential: A Comparative Review of
European Rural Development Practices. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(4),.
Van Der Ploeg, J., D., and Van Dijk, G., eds, 1995. Beyond Modernization: The Impact of
Endogenous Rural Development. Assen: Uitgeverij Van Gorcum.
Van Der Ploeg, J., D., 2000. Revitalizing Agriculture: Farming Economically as Starting
Ground for Rural Development. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(4),.
Van Der Ploeg, J., D., Renting, H., Brunori, G., Knickel, K., Mannion., Marsden, T., De Roest,
K., Sevilla-Guzman, E. and Ventura, F., 2000. Rural Development: From Practices and
Policies towards Theory. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(4),.
Van Huylenbroeck G and Durand G (2003) Multifunctional agriculture: A new paradigm for
European Agriculture and Rural Development, Ashgate , Aldershot.
Ward, N. (2006), Rural Development and the Economies of Rural Areas, in: Midgley, J. (ed.),
A new Rural Agenda, Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr), London.
Ward, N., Atterton, J., Kim, T., Lowe, P., Phillipson, J. and Thompson, N., (2005) Universities,
the Knowledge Economy and 'Neo-Endogenous Rural Development'. Newcastle: University of
Newcastle, Centre for Rural Economy.
White, S.D., Guy, C.M. and Higgs, G., 1997. Changes in service provision in rural areas. Part
2: Changes in post office provision in mid Wales: A GIS-based evaluation. Journal of Rural
Studies, 13(4), pp. 451-465.
Woods, M., 2007. Engaging the global countryside: globalization, hybridity and the
reconstitution of rural place. Progress in Human Geography, 31(4), pp. 485-507.
Young, S., C., (2000) The Emergence of Ecological Modernisation, Integrating the
Environment and the Economy Routledge.
73