Interpretations of Innovation in Rural Development. The Cases of Leader Projects in Lecce (Italy) and Granada (Spain) in 2007–2013 Period

Open access

Abstract

In the Leader approach, innovation plays a key role in European territories, especially in marginal and peripheral ones, being essentially assumed, from a programmatic point of view, as social innovation. This paper aims to understand the interpretation and the declination of innovation in the practice of Leader initiative at local scale and analyze contextual factors related to its implementation in two southern provinces of Spain and Italy (Granada and Lecce). The study aims to analyze the projects reported as innovative by the leaders of the Local Action Groups, starting from the literature and using a key Community document entitled “Extended report on preserving the innovative character of LEADER”. Lastly, the study reveals common significant problems linked to local awareness of the role of social innovation, as well as the absence or limitations of key institutions.

[1] Augustyn, A. & Nemes, G. (2014). Catching up with the West? Europeanisation of rural policies in Hungary and Poland. Studies in Agricultural Economies 116, 114–121. DOI: 10.7896/j.1419.

[2] Belliggiano, A. & De Rubertis, S. (2016). El farm tourism como oportunidad de desarrollo sostenible en las regiones del sur de Italia. Pampa 13, 11–30. DOI: 10.14409/pampa.v0i13.5900.

[3] Böcher, M. (2008). Regional governance and rural development in Germany: the implementation of LEADER+. Sociologia Ruralis 48(4), 372–388. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9523.2008.00468.x.

[4] Bock, B. (2016). Rural marginalisation and the role of social innovation; a turn towards nexogenous development and rural reconnection. Sociologia Ruralis 56 (4), 552–573. DOI: 10.1111/soru.12119.

[5] Bonfiglio, A., Camaioni, B., Coderoni, S., Esposti, R., Pagliacci, F. & Sotte, F. (2017). Are rural regions prioritizing knowledge transfer and innovation? Evidence from Rural Development Policy expenditure across the EU space. Journal of Rural Studies 53, 78–87. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.05.005

[6] Bosworth, G., Annibal, I., Carroll, T., Price, L., Sellick, J. & Shepherd, J. (2016). Empowering local action through neo-endogenous development; the case of LEADER in England. Sociologia Ruralis 56(3), 427–449. DOI: 10.1111/soru.12089.

[7] Bruchmeier, K. (2000). LEADER in Germany and the discourse of autonomous regional development. Sociologia Ruralis 40(2), 219–227. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9523.00144.

[8] Copus, A., Skuras, A. & Tsegenidi, K. (2008). Innovation and peripherality: and empirical comparative study of SMEs in six European Union member countries. Economic Geography 84(1), 51–82. DOI: 10.1111/j.1944-8287.2008.tb00391.x.

[9] Dargan, L. & Shucksmith, M., (2008). LEADER and innovation. Sociologia Ruralis 48(3), 274–291. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9523.2008.00463.x.

[10] Dax, T. & Oedl-Wieser, T. (2016). Rural innovation activities as a means for changing development perspectives – An assessment of more than two decades of promoting LEADER initiatives across the European Union. Studies in Agricultural Economics 118, 30–37. DOI: 10.7896/j.1535.

[11] Dax, T., Strahl, W., Kirwan, J. & Maye, D. (2016). The LEADER programme 2007–2013: Enabling or disabling social innovation and neo-endogenous development?. Insights from Austria and Ireland. European Urban and Regional Studies 23(1), 56–68. DOI: 10.1177/0969776413490425.

[12] De Rubertis, S. (2013). Spazio e sviluppo nelle politiche per il Mezzogiorno. Il caso della programmazione integrata in Puglia. Bologna: Pàtron.

[13] Esparcia, J. (2014). Innovative and networks in rural areas. An analysis from European innovative projects. Journal of Rural Studies 34, 1–14. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.12.004.

[14] Esparcia, J. & Escribano, J. (2012). La dimensión territorial en la programación comunitaria y el nuevo marco de políticas públicas: desarrollo rural territorial, reforma de la PAC y nuevo LEADER. Anales de Geografía 32(2), 227–252. DOI: 10.5209/rev_AGUC.2012.v32.n2.39719.

[15] Esparcia, J., Noguera, J. & Pitarch, M. (2000). LEADER en España: desarrollo rural, poder, legitimación, aprendizaje y nuevas estructuras. Documentos de Análisis Geográfico 37, 95–113.

[16] Farrell, G. & Thirion, S. (2005). Social capital and rural development: from win-lose to winwin with the LEADER Initiative. In Schmied D., ed.,. Winning and losing. The changing geography of Europe’s rural areas (pp. 45–61), London: Ashgate.

[17] Fhlatharta, A. M. N., & Farrell, M. (2017). Unravelling the strands of ‘patriarchy’in rural innovation: A study of female innovators and their contribution to rural Connemara. Journal of Rural Studies, 54, 15–27. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.05.002.

[18] Furmankiewicz, M., Thompson, N. & Zielinska, M. (2010). Area-based partnerships in rural Poland: the post-accession experience. Journal of Rural Studies 26, 52–62. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2009.05.001.

[19] Gardner, G. (2011). Community action in rural Wales. In Milbourne, P., ed., Rural Wales in the twenty-first century: Society, economy and environment (pp. 89–106). Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

[20] Labianca, M. (2014). Inter-municipal cooperation: from cooperation through rules to cooperation through networks – empirical evidence from Puglia. Regional Studies Regional Science 1(1), 184–206. DOI: 10.1080/21681376.2014.952769.

[21] Labianca, M., De Rubertis, S., Belliggiano, A. & Salento, A. (2016). Innovation in rural development in Puglia, Italy: critical issues and potentialities starting from empirical evidence. Studies in Agricultural Economics 118, 38–46. DOI: 10.7896/j.1531.

[22] Lowe, P., Murdoch, J. & Ward, N. (1995). Beyond endogenous and exogenous models: networks in rural development. In van der Ploeg, J. D. and van Dijk, G. eds., Beyond modernization: the impact of endogenous rural development (pp. 87–105). Assen: Van Gorcum.

[23] MacCallum, D., Moulaert, F., Hillier, J. & Vicari, S. (2009). Social innovation and territorial development. Farnham: Ashgate.

[24] Martínez, F., Sacristán, H. & Yagüe, J. L. (2015). Are local action groups, under LEADER approach, a good way to support resilience in rural areas?. Ager 18, 39–63. DOI: 10.4422/ager.2015.06.

[25] Midmore, P. (1998). Rural policy reform and local development programmes: appropriate evaluation procedures. Journal of Agricultural Economics 49(3), 409–426. DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-9552.1998.tb01281.x.

[26] Moulaert, F., Martinelli, F., Swyngedouw, E. & González, S. (2005). Towards alternative models of local innovation. Urban Studies 11, 1969–1990. DOI: 10.1080/00420980500279893.

[27] Moulaert, F. (2008). Social innovation: institutionally embedded, territorially (re)produced. In MacCallum, D., Moulaert, F. Hillier, J. & Vicari Haddock, S., eds., Social innovation and territorial development (pp. 11–23). Farnham: Ashgate.

[28] Nardone, G., Sisto, R. & Lopolito, A. (2010). Social capital in the Leader Initiative: a methodological approach. Journal of Rural Studies 26, 63–72. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2009.09.001.

[29] Navarro, F., Cejudo, E. & Maroto, J. (2014). Reflexiones en torno a la participación en el desarrollo rural. ¿Reparto social o reforzamiento del poder? LEADER y PRODER en el sur de España. Eure 40(121), 203–224. DOI: 10.4067/S0250-71612014000300010.

[30] Navarro, F., Woods, M. & Cejudo, E. (2016). The LEADER Initiative has been a victim of its own success. The decline of the bottom-up approach in rural development programmes. The cases of Wales and Andalusia. Sociologia Ruralis 56(2), 270–288. DOI: 10.1111/soru.12079.

[31] Neumeier, S. (2012). Why do social innovations in rural development matter and should they be considered more seriously in rural development research? – Proposal for a stronger focus on social innovations in rural development research. Sociologia Ruralis 52(1), 48–69. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9523.2011.00553.x.

[32] Osti, G. (2000). Leader and partnerships: the case of Italy. Sociologia Ruralis 40(2), 172–180. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9523.00139.

[33] Ploeg, J. D. van der, Renting, H. & Brunori, G. (2000). Rural development: from practices and policies towards theory. Sociologia Ruralis 40(4), 391–408. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9523.00156.

[34] Pollermann, K., Raue, P. & Schnaut, G. (2013). Rural development experiences in Germany: opportunities and obstacles in fostering Smart places through LEADER. Studies in Agricultural Economics 115, 111–117. DOI: 10.7896/j.1228.

[35] Ray, C. (1998). New places and space for rural development in the European Union: an analysis of the UK LEADER II Programme [Working Paper 34]. Newcastle University.

[36] Ray, C. (2006). Neo-endogenous rural development in the European Union. In Cloke, P., Marsden, T. & Mooney, P., eds., The Handbook of Rural Studies (pp. 278–291). London: Sage.

[37] Schucksmith, M. (2000). Endogenous development, social capital and social inclusion: perspectives from LEADER in the UK. Sociologia Ruralis 40(2), 208–218. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9523.00143.

[38] Shortall, S. (2008). Are rural development programmes socially inclusive? Social inclusion, civic engagement, participation, and social capital: exploring the differences. Journal of Rural Studies 24, 450–457. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.01.001.

[39] ENRD (2010). Extended report on preserving the innovative character of LEADER. Brussel: ENRD.

[40] European Union Rural Observatory (1997). Innovation and rural development, Observatory dossier nº 2. Brussels: AEIDL.

[41] Howald, J. & Schwarz, M. (2010). Social Innovation: Concepts, research field and International trends, www.internationalmonitoring.com.

[42] Ex-post evaluation of Leader+. Wien: Metis GmbH.

[43] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/European Communities (2005). Oslo Manual. Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. Oslo: OECD.

European Countryside

The Journal of Mendel University in Brno

Journal Information


CiteScore 2017: 0.78

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.265
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.607

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 173 173 64
PDF Downloads 73 73 22