Triggering social innovation through the European Union LEADER program: evidence from a quantitative, comparative study

Georgios Chatzichristos1, Nikolaos Nagopoulos1
1Aegean School of Social Sciences, University, Mytilini, Greece

Tóm tắt

The Liaisons Entre Actions de Developpement de l’Economie Rurale (LEADER) program is considered a really significant endeavor within the context of (neo)endogenous rural development and social innovation, not only for its numerous success stories, but also for its recent devaluation. The LEADER attenuation is partly attributed to a loss of its socially innovative drift. In order to examine this argument, the present article explores the questions: to what extent does the LEADER program foster social innovation in rural regions? What are those dynamics that curb the innovative potentialities? To address these questions a comparative, cross-regional case study was conducted between three highly heterogeneous regions: Mühlviertel in Austria, Baixo Alentejo in Portugal and Pthiotis in Greece. By drawing from sociological institutionalist studies in the field of planning and policy analysis, a quantitative research tool was developed. The quantitative research compared the socially innovative capacities of the Local Actions Groups (LAGs), i.e., the locally based executing agencies of the LEADER approach. Research results indicated that whereas the focus of LEADER is local and regional, the national governance frameworks appear quite pivotal for its application. In this respect, even in the case of enhanced institutional resources and fairly empowered agents, governance deficiencies might be proved quite restrictive for the socially innovative capacities of the LAGs.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Blyth M (2001) The transformation of the Swedish model: economic ideas, distributional conflict, and institutional change. World Politics 54(1):1–26 Bock B (2016) Rural marginalisation and the role of social innovation: a turn towards nexogenous development and rural reconnection. Sociol Rural 56(4):552–573 Bock B (2012) Social innovation and sustainability; how to disentangle the buzzword and its application in the field of agriculture and rural development. Stud Agric Econ 114:57–63 Cambridge Economic Consultants (2002) Ex-post evaluation of LEADER2 in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, report to Scottish Executive. Cars G, Healey P, Madanipour A, De MC (2002) Urban governance, institutional capacity and social milieu. Ashgate, Aldershot Chatzichristos G, Nagopoulos N (2020) Regional institutional arenas for social innovation: a mixed methods research. J Soc Entrepreneurship. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2019.1705378 Chatzichristos G, Nagopoulos N (2020) Social Entrepreneurship and Institutional Sustainability: Insights from an embedded social enterprise. VOLUNTAS 31:484–493 Chatzichristos G, Nagopoulos N (2020) Socially innovative spatial planning: insights from within and beyond a LEADER framework. Eur Plan Stud. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2020.1867510 Christmann GB, Ibert O, Jessen J, Walther UJ (2020) Innovations in spatial planning as a social process—phases, actors, conflicts. Eur Plan Stud 28(3):496–520 Cohen MJ, March G, Olsen JP (1972) A garbage can model of organizational choice. Adm Sci Q 17:1–25 Cornwall A (2004) Introduction: New democratic spaces? The politics and dynamics of institutionalised participation. IDS Bull 35(2):1–10 Dargan L, Shucksmith M (2008) LEADER and innovation. Sociol Rural 48(3):274–291 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. Stud Agric Econ 118:30–37 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. Eur Urban Region Stud 23(1):56–68 Dimaggio P, Powell W (1983) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am Sociol Rev 48:147–160 Eisenstadt SN (1965) Essays on comparative institutions. Wiley, New York Esparcia and Abbasi (2020) Territorial Governance and Rural Development: Challenge or Reality? In: Cejudo E, Navarro F (eds) Neoendogenous development in European rural areas: results and lessons. Springer, New York, pp 33–60 EU (2013) Rural Development in the EU. Report 2013 Fischler R (2000) Communicative planning theory: a Foucauldian assessment. J Plan Educ Res 19:358–368 Gkartzios M, Lowe P (2019) Revisiting neo-endogenous rural development. In Scott M, Gallent N and Gkartzios M (eds) The Routledge companion to rural planning. Routledge, New York González S, Healey P (2005) A sociological institutionalist approach to the study of innovation in governance capacity. Urban Stud 42(11):2055–2069 Goodwin M (2003) Partnership working and rural governance: issues of community involvement and participation. Paper presented to social exclusion and rural governance seminar, DEFRA, ESRC and Countryside Agency. 28 February. Gualini E (2001) Planning and the Intelligence of Institutions. Ashgate, Aldershot Hajer M (1995) The politics of environmental discourse. Oxford University Press, Oxford Hajer M, Wagenaar H (2003) Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Healey P (2004) The treatment of space and place in the new strategic spatial planning of Europe. Int J Urban Reg Res 28(1):45–67 Healey P (2007) The New Institutionalism and the transformative goals of planning. In: Verman N (ed) Institutions and planning. Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, pp 61–87 Horlings L (2015) The worldview and symbolic dimensions in territorialisation: how human values play a role in a Dutch neighbourhood. In: Dessein J, Battaglini E, Horlings L (eds) Cultural sustainability and regional development. Routledge, London, pp 43–58 https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/leader-clld/leader-lag-implementation-survey-2017_en https://mapchart.net/europe-nuts3.html Jensen O, Richardson T (2000) Discourses of mobility and polycentric development: a contested view of European spatial planning. Eur Plan Stud 8:503–520 Kinsella J, Goetz SJ, Partridge MD, Deller SC, Fleming D (2010) Evaluating ED policies for social and human capital development. EuroChoices 9(1):42–47 Levinthal DA, March JG (1994) The myopia of learning. Strategy Manag J 14:95–112 Lindenberg S (1992) An extended theory of institutions and contractual discipline. J Inst Theor Econ 148:123–154 Lowe P, Ray C, Ward N, Woodward R (1998) Participation in rural development: a review of European experience. Centre for Rule Economy, University of Newcastle, New Castle Lukesch R, Bontron JC, Ricci C, Tödtling-Schönhofer H (2004) Methods for and success of mainstreaming leader innovations and approach into rural development programmes. Final report, ÖIR-Managementdienste GmbH, commissioned by EC DG Agriculture, Unit G4, Austria Montpetit E (2005) Westminster parliamentarism, policy networks, and the behaviour of political actors. In: Lecours A (ed) New institutionalism. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp 225–244 Moulaert F, Mehmood A (2011) Spaces of social innovation. In: Pike A, Rodriguez-Pose A, Tomaney J (eds) Handbook of local and regional development. Routledge, London, pp 221–225 Moulaert F, Martinelli F, Swyngedouw E, González S (2005) Towards Alternative Model(s) of Local Innovation. Urban Studies 42(11):1969–1990 Moulaert F, Nussbaumer J (2005) Defining the Social Economy and its Governance at the Neighbourhood Level: A Methodological Reflection. Urban Studies 42(11):2071–2088 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. Sociol Rural 52(1):48–69 Nordberg K, Mariussen A, Virkkala S (2020) Community-driven social innovation and quadruple helix coordination in rural development. Case study on LEADER group Aktion ¨Osterbotten. J Rural Stud 79:157–168 OECD (2016) OECD REGIONAL OUTLOOK 2016: PRODUCTIVE REGIONS FOR INCLUSIVE SOCIETIES. http://www.oecd.org/cfe/regional-policy/regional-outlook-2016-austria.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov 2018 Offe C (1999) How can we trust our fellow citizens? In: Warren Mark E (ed) Democracy and trust. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 42–87 Papadopoulou E, Hasangas N, Harvey D (2011) Analysis of rural development policy networks in Greece: is LEADER really different? Land Use Policy 28(4):663–673 Peters BG (2012) Institutional theory in political science. Continuum, London Pierson P, Skocpol T (2002) Historical institutionalism in contemporary political science. In: Katznelson I and Milner HV (eds) Political science: state of the discipline, pp 693–721 Pol E, Ville S (2009) Social innovation: buzz word or enduring term? J Socio-Econ 38:878–885 Powell WW, DiMaggio PJ (1991) The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. The University Chicago Press, Chicago Ray C (2000) The EU LEADER programme: rural development laboratory. Sociol Rural 40(2):163–171 Ray C (2006) Neo-endogenous rural development in the EU. In: Cloke P, Marsden T and Mooney PH (eds) Handbook of rural studies. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 278–291 Shucksmith M (2010) Disintegrated rural development? Neo-endogenous rural development, planning and place-shaping in diffused power contexts. Sociol Rural 50:1–14 Strahl W and Dax T (2010) Leader mainstreaming—new challenges to innovative local activities. Case study Austria, RuDI report, Work package 8. Vienna, March 2010. Wien, Austria: Bundesanstalt fuer Bergbauernfragen. Swyngedouw E (2005) Governance innovation and the citizen: the Janus Face of Governance-beyond-the-state. Urban Studies 42(11):1991–2006 Ward N, Atterton, J, Kim T Y, Lowe P, Phillipson J and Thompson N (2005) Universities, the knowledge economy and ‘neo-endogenous’ rural development (Newcastle: Centre for Rural Economy, Newcastle University). https://www.ncl.ac.uk/media/wwwnclacuk/centreforruraleconomy/files/discussion-paper-01.pdf Weber M (1994) Weber: political writings (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought). Cambridge UP, Cambridge www.leader2020.minhaterra.pt www.weinviertelost.at/ /