Performance Agent Groups in the Promotion of Smart Economic Growth

Open access

Abstract

Any country is interested in economic growth regardless of its development level in any period; yet an increasingly important role in defining growth is played by the term ‘smart growth’. The EU development strategy until 2020 defines smart growth as a strategic objective. Smart growth does not take place automatically. It is affected both by the condition of the economic, social and natural environments and by subjective factors - the competence of performance agents. The present research distinguished three groups of rural space and regional performance agents: national institutions, local governments and communities of residents of the territories examined by the research. The research summarised the opinions of experts (Latvia n=171; Lithuania n=163) from the south-eastern part of Latvia and the north-eastern part of Lithuania with the purpose of assessing the contribution of the performance agent groups to the promotion of smart economic growth. The research aimed to identify the positive indications of the contribution made by each performance agent group as well as the largest problems affecting the promotion of smart economic growth in each country. Despite the fact that the sample groups were not representative (did not reflect the views of the entire population), the obtained survey data and the results of this analysis provided insight into the performance agents’ action ratings from the bottom-up position and allowed comparing the situations in Latvia and Lithuania. The research has become an urgent task in project No. 5.2.3 “Rural and Regional Development Processes and Opportunities in Latvia in the Context of Knowledge Economy” in National Research Programme 5.2. "Economic Transformation, Smart Growth, Governance and Legal Framework for the State and Society for Sustainable Development - a New Approach to the Creation of a Sustainable Learning Community: EKOSOC-LV”.

[1] Ambrosio-Albalá, M. & Bastiaensen, J. (2010). The new territorial paradigm of rural development: Theoretical foundations from systems and institutional theories [discussion paper]. Antwerpen university.

[2] Backstrand, K. (2003). Civic Science for Sustainability: Reframing the Role of Experts, Policy-Makers and Citizens in Environmental Governance. Global Environmental Politics 3(4), pp. 24-41. DOI: 10.1162/152638003322757916.

[3] Bariss, V. (2009). Publiska administracija. Jelgava: Latvia University of Agriculture.

[4] Bovaird, T. & Loffen, E., eds. (2009). Public management and Governance. 2nd ed. Abingdonon-Thames: Routledge.

[5] Draskovic, M. & Streimikiene, D. (2017). Foreword. In Sustainable Development: Crisis or Regulation? (pp. 19-23). Podgorica: ELIT.

[6] Heinrich, C. J. & Lynn, J. R., eds. (2000). Governance and Performance. New Perspectives. Washington: Georgetown University Press.

[7] Graham, J., Amos, B., Plumptre, T. (2003). Principles for Good Governance in the 21th Century. Policy Brief No. 15. Retrieved:

[8] Jasaitis, J. (2014). Alterations of the Role of Non-Urbanized and Low-Urbanized Areas in the Network Society. Review of Research Works. Vilnius: BMK Publishers.

[9] Littoz-Monnet, A. (2015). Ethics Experts as an Instrument of Technocratic Governance: Evidence from EU Medical Biotechnology Policy. Governance 28(3), 357-372. DOI: 10.1111/gove.12102.

[10] North, D. C. (2004). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press (p. 154).

[11] Paula, L. (2015). Capability of Communities as Precondition for Sustainability of Rural Areas. Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference “Economic Science for Rural Development” No 38 (pp. 103-112). Jelgava, Latvia Agricultural University.

[12] Pierre, J., ed. (2002). Debating Governance: Authority, Steering, and Democracy. Oxford University Press (pp. 241-246).

[13] Pukis, M. (2010). Pašu valdība. Latvijas pašvaldību pieredze, idejas un nākotnes redzējums. Rīga: Latvijas Pašvaldību Savienība.

[14] Razafindrakoto, M. & Roubaud, F. (2010). Are International Databases on Corruption Reliable? A Comparison of Expert Opinion Surveys and Household Surveys in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Development 38(8), 1057-1069. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.02.004.

[15] Vaus, D. de (2014). Survey in Social Research. 6th ed. Routledge, London and New York, (p. 382).

[16] Vidickiene, D., Melnikiene, R. & Gedminaite-Raudone, Z. (2014b). Development of Lithuanian Rural Regions Towards Knowledge Society. In Wrzochalska, A., ed., Rural economies in Central Eastern European Countries after EU enlargement (pp. 47-65). Warszawa: Instytut Ekonomiki Rolnictwa i Gospodarki Zywnosciowej.

[17] Zvirgzdina, R. & Pelse, M. (2012). Development Possibilities of Farms in Latvia. Economic Science for Rural Development Conference Proceedings 28, 133-138.

[18] European Commission (2014a). The Role of Government Institutions for Smart Specialisation and Regional Development. IRC Technical reports. IRC. Retrieved: http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC88935.pdf. Access: 9.01.2017.

[19] European Commission (2014b). Community-led Local Development. Cohesion Policy. Retrieved: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/dicgener/informat/2014/community_en.pf. Access: 5.01.2017.

[20] Keller, J. W (s.a.). The Importance of Rural Development in the 21st Century - Persistence, Sustainability, and Futures. The Regional Institute. Online Publishing. Retrieved: http://www.regional.org.au/au/countrytowns/keynote/keller.htm. Access: 10.01.2017.

[21] Policy Performance and Governance Capacities in the OECD and EU. Sustainable Governance Indicators, 2016. Retrieved: http://www.bertelsmannstiftung.de/de/layer/publikationen/publikation/did/policy-performance-and-governanacecapacities-in-the-oecd-and-eu/.

[22] Global Competitiveness Report 2016-2017 (2016). WEF. Retrieved: https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-competitiveness-report-2016-2017-1. Access: 4.01.2017.

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 95 95 20
PDF Downloads 57 57 18