Smart Villages and Investments to Public Services and ICT Infrastructure: Case of the Czech Rural Development Program 2007–2013

Open access


The basis for SMART VILLAGE development is a high-quality infrastructure for civilian equipment and services, including the coverage of rural villages by high-speed Internet. The aim of the article is to evaluate the support and impacts of these activities through the Czech Rural Development Program in the period 2007–2013 and, according to the ex-post evaluation, to further identify policy-implications. The results of the analysis show a clear positive impact of the support of the service infrastructure on the development of supported municipalities, on the contrary, the results of supporting the connection of the rural population to the Internet are patchy.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • [1] Amcoff J. (2012). Do rural districts die when their schools close? Evidence from Sweden around 2000. Educational Planning 20(3) 47–60.

  • [2] Bailey N. & Pill M. (2015). Can the state empower communities through localism? An evaluation of recent approaches to neighbourhood governance in England. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 33(2) 289–304. DOI: 10.1068/c12331r.

  • [3] Barakat B. (2015). A ‘recipe for depopulation’? School closures and local population decline in Saxony. Population Space and Place 21(8) 735–753. DOI: 10.1002/psp.1853.

  • [4] Barca F. McCann P. & Rodríguez-Pose A. (2012). The case for regional development intervention: place-based versus place-neutral approaches. Journal of Regional Science. 52(1) 134–152. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9787.2011.00756.x.

  • [5] Bosworth G. & Venhorst V. (2018). Economic linkages between urban and rural regions – what´s in it for the rural? Regional Studies 52(8) 1075–1085. DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2017.1339868.

  • [6] Combes P. P. & Overman H. G. (2004). The spatial distribution of economic activities in the European Union. In Henderson J. V. & Thisse J. F. eds. Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics Cities and Geography (pp. 2845–2909) Vol. 4. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  • [7] Copus A. K. & de Lima P. (2015). Territorial cohesion in rural Europe: the relational turn in rural development. London: Routledge.

  • [8] Corey E. K. & Wilson M. (2006). Urban and Regional Technology Planning: Planning practice in the global knowledge economy. London: Routledge.

  • [9] Dustmann C. & Okatenko A. (2014). Out-migration wealth constraints and the quality of local amenities. Journal of Development Economics 110 52–63. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2014.05.008.

  • [10] Eger J. M. (2009). Smart Growth Smart Cities and the Crisis at the Pump A Worldwide Phenomenon. I-WAYS - The Journal of E-Government Policy and Regulation 32(1) 47–53. DOI: 10.3233/IWA-2009-0164.

  • [11] Elshof H. Haartsen T. Wissen L. J. G. & Mulder C. H. (2017). The influence of village attractiveness on flows of movers in a declining rural region. Journal of Rural Studies 56 39–52. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.07.004.

  • [12] Etezadzadeh Ch. (2016). Smart City – Future City? Smart City 2.0 as a Livable City and Future Market. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.

  • [13] Friedland W. H. (1982). The end of rural society and the future of rural sociology. Rural Sociology 47 589–608.

  • [14] Graham M. (2011). Time machines and virtual portals: the spatialities of the digital divide. Progress in Development Studies 11(3) 211–227. DOI: 10.1177/146499341001100303.

  • [15] Halfacree K. (2006). Rural space: constructing a three-fold architecture In Cloke P. Marsden T. & Mooney P. Handbook of Rural Studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

  • [16] Haupt M. (2018). The Evolutionary Journey to Society 4.0. Society 4. On-line article. Available at:

  • [17] Haan E. Meier S. Haartsen T. & Strijker D. (2017). Defining „Success” of local citizens´ initiatives in maintaining public services in rural areas: A professional´s Perspective. Sociologia Ruralis 58(2) 312–330. DOI: 10.1111/soru.12173.

  • [18] Hite J. (1997). The Thünen model and the new economic geography as a paradigm for rural development policy. Review of Agricultural Economics 19(2) 230–240. DOI: 10.2307/1349738.

  • [19] Hoggart K. (1990). Let’s do away with rural. Journal of Rural Studies 6(3) 245–257. DOI: 10.1016/0743-0167(90)90079-N.

  • [20] Kouřilová J. (2018). Is a Basic School Important for a Local Development in Small Rural Villages? Case Study of the Stredocesky Region in the Czech Republic. In: Miczorek W. ed. A World of Flows: Labour Mobility Capital and Knowledge in an Age of Global Reversal and Regional Revival (pp. 104–105). Falmer Brighton: Regional Studies Association.

  • [21] Malecki E. J. (2003). Digital development in rural areas: potentials and pitfalls. Journal of Rural Studies 19(2) 201–214. DOI: 10.1016/S0743-0167(02)00068-2.

  • [22] Mitchell W. (2007). Intelligent cities. UOC Papers 5. 4–9.

  • [23] Naldi L. Nilsson P. Westlund H. & Wixe S. (2015). What is smart rural development? Journal of Rural Studies 40 90–101. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.06.006.

  • [24] Pant L. P. & Odame H. H. (2017). Broadband for a sustainable digital future of rural communities: A reflexive interactive assessment. Journal of Rural Studies 54 435–450. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.09.003.

  • [25] Pělucha M. (2012). Venkov na prahu 21. století. Praha: Alfa nakladatelství.

  • [26] Pelucha M. & Kveton V. (2017). The role of EU rural development policy in the neoproductivist agricultural paradigm. Regional Studies 51(12) 1860–1870 DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2017.1282608.

  • [27] Pělucha M. (2018). Reforma Společné zemědělské politiky EU [Background Document]. Praha: University of Economics.

  • [28] Philip L. J. Cottrill C. & Farrington J. (2015). “Two-speed” Scotland: patterns and implications of the digital divide in contemporary Scotland. Scottish Geographical Journal 131(3–4) 148–170. DOI: 10.1080/14702541.2015.1067327.

  • [29] Riddlesden D. & Singleton A. D. (2014). Broadband speed equity: a new digital divide? Applied Geography 52 25–33. DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.04.008.

  • [30] Salemink K. Strijker D. & Bosworth G. (2017). Rural development in the digital age: A systematic literature review on unequal ICT availability adoption and use in rural areas. Journal of Rural Studies 54 360–371. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.09.001.

  • [31] Scott M. (2013). Resilience: A conceptual lens for rural studies? Geography Compass 7(9) 597–610. DOI: 10.1111/gec3.12066.

  • [32] Townsend L. Sathiaseelan A. Fairhurst G. & Wallace C. (2013). Enhanced broadband access as a solution to the social and economic problems of the rural digital divide. Local Economy: The Journal of the Local Economy Policy Unit 28(6) 580–595. DOI: 10.1177/0269094213496974.

  • [33] Van Steen P. J. M. & Pellenbarg P. H. (2010). Population change and spatial transformation in the Netherlands. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie. 101(5) 612–618. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9663.2010.00636.x.

  • [34] Vaznoniené G. & Pakeltiené R. (2017). Methods for the assessment of rural social infrastructure needs. European Countryside 9(3) 526–540. DOI: 10.1515/euco-2017-0031.

  • [35] Woods M. (2006). Redefining the „rural question”: the new „politics of the rural” and social policy. Social Policy & Administration 40(6) 579–595. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9515.2006.00521.x.

  • [36] Woods M. 2011. Rural. London: Routledge.

  • [37] Caballero M. J. Taminich I. Hoberg Y. de Dinechin F. & Mc.Mahon M. (2005). Agriculture Rural Development and Land Policies [cit. 2019-02-20]. Available at:

  • [38] CERS (2016). The Central Register of Subsidies. Official database of subsidies provided to Czech municipalities.

  • [39] CSO (2016). Selected socioeconomic indicators of municipalities in the Czech Republic. Czech Statistical Office.

  • [40] Czech Telecommunication Office (2016). Data on Internet access in selected municipalities. Data were used in the ex-post evaluation of the RDP CR 2007-2013 in 2016.

  • [41] ESPON (2017a). Shrinking rural regions in Europe – Towards smart and innovative approaches to regional development challenges in depopulating rural regions. ESPON October 2017.

  • [42] ESPON (2017b). Territorial Cooperation for the future of Europe. ESPON Luxembourg May 2018.

  • [43] ESPON (2017c). The territorial and urban dimensions of the digital transition of public services. ESPON Luxembourg October 2017.

  • [44] European Commission (2016). EU Action for SMART VILLAGES. Available on-line:

  • [45] European Commission (2017a). EU a Jednotný digitální trh. Directorate-General for Communication (European Commission) 2017. [online]. Available at:

  • [46] European Commission (2017b). Industry 4.0 in agriculture: Focus on IoT aspects. Digital Transformation Monitor on-line available at [cit. 2018-12-05].

  • [47] Eurostat (2018). Eurostat regional yearbook – 2018 edition. European Union Luxembourg August 2018.

  • [48] Lund S. & Manyika J. (2016). Digital globalization: the new era of global flows. McKinsey Global Institute March 2016. Available at:

  • [49] Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic (2012). Program rozvoje venkova České republiky na období 2007–2013 (Czech Rural Development Programme 2007–2013) Praha September 2012 Ministerstvo zemědělství ČR.

  • [50] Ministry of Agriculture (2016). Data for the measure III.2.1.2 of the Czech Rural Development Programme 2007–2013. Data were used in the ex-post evaluation of the RDP CR 2007-2013 in 2016.

  • [51] Nieto E. (2019). Smart Villages: A new concept for rural development. The Scitech Europa 17th May 2019. On-line article available at:

  • [52] OECD (2006). The New Rural Paradigm – Policies and Governance. OECD Rural Policy Reviews Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development ISBN 92-64-02390-9.

  • [53] OECD (2010). Strategies to Improve Rural Service Delivery. OECD Publishing Paris.

  • [54] OECD (2014). Innovation and Modernising the Rural Economy. OECD Rural Policy Reviews. Paris: OECD Publishing.

  • [55] OECD (2016). OECD Regions at a Glance 2016. OECD Publishing Paris. ISBN 978-92-64-25679-8.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.85

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.288
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.651

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 65 65 65
PDF Downloads 72 72 72