Search

This study elaborates on a typology of demographic change and tests this definition at the lowest granular level (LAU2, municipality) with official data. This typology distinguishes between fragile and resilient municipalities based on population dynamics (in terms of duration and intensity) over 1991–2021. This study's second aim is to elaborate a spatial autoregressive econometric model to evaluate to what extent and in which direction the rate of participation of potential beneficiaries of the Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) of 2014–2020 is affected by demographic change and other explanatory variables. Regression models compare the results of the OLS (aspatial) and spatial autoregressive models (SAR) of four types of participation rates (all RDP schemes; all LEADER schemes; sectoral schemes of RDP and LEADER; non-sectoral schemes of RDPs and LEADER). This comparison makes it possible to understand the differences between centralised and decentralised management and between sectoral and broader rural-targeted schemes. The results of the models appear attractive in interpreting the role of RDP instruments in different regions and local areas. First, the rate of participation is strongly dependent on macro-regional differences. Regarding the demographic factors at the local level, this study highlights that demographic fragility does not necessarily hamper the use of RDP measures. Conversely, the participation rate in RDP policy schemes seems particularly significant in very fragile areas, whereas significance has yet to be proved in other demographic typologies. This result holds particularly true for the policy uptake of non-sectoral schemes. Furthermore, LEADER decentralised interventions fit the fragile areas more than resilient and vital ones due to the territorially targeted approach followed by the Local Action Groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]