Search

Parts of European rural development policies are meant to empower local decision makers. These policies are implemented in very different multilevel governance contexts in the member states. We question the extent to which the institutional differences at the different levels affect the implementation of LEADER (an approach for Community-led Local Development). This contributes to a better understanding of the causes and consequences of different types of LEADER implementation. The research is based on ten case studies in France, Germany and Italy. First, there is an examination of the three different administration systems and the variations of Rural Development Programmes. Based on analyses of documents and interviews with stakeholders, we analysed institutional differences in the LEADER implementation at local level.

This article suggests a historical institutional approach using the concepts of paradigm and political action repertoires applied to the field of rural development in France. Seven repertoires have been identified. These are connected to their emergence into the political arena after WW2, and pertain to three successive paradigms: the modernization of sectors and rural society, support to economic and social cohesion and, lastly, the growing importance of environmental issues. In particular, two repertoires are reflected in the modernization paradigm: agricultural development and land-use planning. The paradigm promoting economic and social cohesion underpins two of these repertoires: territorial development and regional development. Lastly, the current strengthening of demands for 'greener' public policy has led to the coexistence of two repertoires: environmental management and agroecology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Against a background of contestation of European agricultural policy, the territorial dimension is one of the prominent factors in proposals for shaping new rules of public action. This situation has been brought about by shifts in the nature of the challenges facing farming and in society's expectations of it, but also by a change in the forms that public policy may take, which is challenging the hegemony of the nation states in matters of economic and social organisation. We attempt to characterise this territorialisation of public policy in agriculture from a regulationist standpoint and on the basis of research conducted in France. This involves three points: the renewal of decision-making procedures, the adaptation of public action to local specificities and the offsetting of market effects. Empirical findings show that these three factors are only marginal aspects of the changes that have come about in public action in farming: the territorial dimension is not at present the vector of any far-reaching change to the underlying principles and ground rules in this domain. However, these three emerging rationales do give a preview of new forms of regulation in the farming sector.

Since the 2000s, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has become one of the key components of rural development policy, which takes the form of a national programme in France; however, few studies have been dedicated to assessing its impact on the attractiveness of rural areas. This article presents the results of an evaluation of the specific impacts, during the period from 2007 to 2013, of the European rural development measures and measures relating to quality of life and diversification of the rural economy applied in France on the economic and residential attractiveness of the municipalities benefiting from the measures. The impacts of the projects are estimated using a difference-in-differences method with propensity score matching. The evaluation reveals little impact on residential attractiveness. However, it also allows for the identification of positive impacts on face-to-face jobs linked to local services, with around 80,000 jobs having been created during this period at a cost of EUR 18,000 per job, which is lower than has been seen with comparable policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract In the European Union (EU), two major recent changes have been framing the development of agricultural regulation. First, a decentralization trend can be observed in most of the member [...]

This article relates a transdisciplinary (participatory and interdisciplinary) research experiment conducted in the Territorial Living Lab for Ecological Transition (Burgundy Franche-Comté Region) that has led to constituting transdisciplinary epistemic communities. This research focuses on nine villages in this French region that have been selected to experiment with new designs for sustainable territorial development. It is part of an experimental scheme called "Villages of the Future" led by the Regional Council. These villages are less-than-2000-inhabitant municipalities, located in rural areas that are not under urban influence. The starting point is that development models based mainly on consumerism and the accumulation of wealth have shown their limits in a context of social and ecological transition. The implementation of these disciplinary epistemic communities leads to three main results: the passage from the villages' storytelling to concrete projects, the enlargement of the local sphere of action and finally the impacts in terms of training this community's stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revue d'Économie Régionale & urbaine is the property of Librairie Armand Colin and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

What exactly do evaluators learn about programs through experience and how? We chose a constructivist framework to investigate the structure of evaluators' program-related knowledge, namely the form, content, and origins of their expressed theories. In this context, we complemented a Piagetian theory of learning with new developments offered by "probabilistic" (or "Bayesian") models of learning. We conducted "explicitation" interviews with nine experienced practitioners, some specializing in the education or agri-environment sectors and some generalists. After examining the form and content of their program-related knowledge, we examine its development through experience but also through contact with researchers and readings. In conclusion, we discuss our study's strengths and limitations, as well as the implications of our results for evaluation training and teaching. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of EuroChoices is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revue d'Économie Régionale & urbaine is the property of Librairie Armand Colin and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

All stakeholders are urged to pay more attention to the quality of evidence used and produced during the evaluation process in order to select appropriate evaluation methods. A ‘theory of evidence for evaluation’ is needed to better address this issue. This article discusses the relationships between the three main goals of evaluation (to learn, measure and understand) and the various types of evidence (evidence of presence, of difference-making, of mechanism) which are produced and/or used in the evaluation process. It argues for the need to clearly distinguish between this approach and that of levels of evidence, which is linked to data collection and processing methods (e.g. single case observations, difference methods, randomized controlled trials…). The analysis is illustrated by examples in the field of agro-environmental policymaking and farm advisory services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revue d'Économie Régionale & urbaine is the property of Librairie Armand Colin and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)