Writing successful EU rural stories through governance networks:

      A significant number of European rural societies suffer from sharp ageing and out-migration, entailing a decrease in the relative amount of well-educated workers and their productivity. An increasingly depopulated milieu hampers the provision of quality public services to citizens and enterprises, encumbering economic dynamism and jobs creation. Thereby, population is pushed out again from rural territories, creating the vicious circle of rural decline. According to the Fifth Cohesion Report, the degree of regional disparities has not significantly decreased over the last few decades (European Commission 2010). This persistence evidences that European societies have not been capable of addressing rural decline, neither through the state, the market nor the civil society settings and (inter)actions.

Sos del Rey Católico, Aragón, Spanish Pre-Pyrenees

      From a state perspective, the EU, together with its member states and regions, undertook some actions aiming at fostering rural development since the late 80s through the Common Agricultural Policy, characterised by a sectoral approach on agriculture, subsidies to farmers, top-down policy-making and economic redistribution logics (OECD, 2006). The emerging new governance in Europe pushed this out of fashion approach towards deep changes in the role of government, from direct developer of strategies to new forms of building partnerships with civil society and enterprises, enabling and leading joint decision-making processes. During the 90s, EU rural development policy adopted a more integrated multi-sector approach together with a more comprehensive, participatory and territorially rooted development strategy. Some examples reflecting this new approach are the LEADER initiative and, to a lesser extent the INTERREG programme. However, despite the calls for stronger coordination across sectors, emerging levels of government, and between public and private actors (OECD, 2006), the progress in rural development policy reform has been rather slow and path dependent on regional and national policy traditions (Dax, 2011).

      In turn, hegemonic neo-liberal capitalist market trends point at urban areas –especially in the forthcoming recovery scenario- as the dynamic and creative scenarios necessary for innovation and economic growth (Normann, 2012), where economies of scale and clustering are possible, and highly skilled, competitive workers are settled. This institutional setting easily drives to serious territorial unbalances to the detriment of rural areas, but if smartly redirected, current market trends and tools can play a crucial role in fostering rural development.

      On the other hand, post-modern societies have seen the rise of a strengthening civil society assuming some of the traditional functions of political parties and calling for a deeper involvement in public affairs. At the same time, civil organisations have capitalised on local knowledge, becoming important actors to consider in transitional territories towards smart economies. Although presenting extensive opportunities for deepening democratic anchorage and driving economic development to rural areas, the role of this myriad of emerging organisations has not been strongly institutionalised yet.

Gesäuse, Austrian Alps

         Beyond the taken-for-granted coordination among policy domains, the vastness of the problem makes the involvement of these three spheres of European post-modern capitalist societies necessary in order to build an effective and democratic attempt of solution. Local market information can produce spillover benefits in a more effective public management. Moreover, in light of the post-modern rise of civil society, the public space needs a wider arena to solve conflicts between actors, which can be used in turn for cooperation, coordination and collaboration for a more democratic public management, increasing the responsiveness and accountability of the decision-making actors (Murray et al., 2009). What is more, the traditional legitimacy of representative institutions to embody democracy and to interpret the public interest is hollowing out. Everything being considered, efficient and legitimate solutions can be developed beyond representative democracy, through a new polity based on democratic governance networks. This polity is based on the horizontal presence of a plurality of private business, civil society and state actors in negotiated processes for decision-making and public interest interpretation, being steered and monitored by elected politicians along the process. The network accepts democratic rules, transparency and accountability among all its members (Sørensen et al. 2009).

Cosmetics plant; Frixia, Greece

      The main feature of European rural regions and localities is their economic, political, social, geographic and cultural diversity, expressed in a wide range of institutional settings (state, market and civil society) among regions. Due to this fact, governance networks should be tailor-made from the diverse local contexts. An evidence of this diversity is the many network steering styles developed. All of them have strengths and weaknesses that should be evaluated case by case, balancing their democratic anchorage and their efficient performance. Nowadays, true to post-modern patterns and the democratically ratified neo-liberal discourse, some studies show a broad trend towards more stakeholders’ democracy, to the detriment of representative decision-making, and a more enhanced market steering style (Normann et al., 2012). In this specific governance network scheme, the role of the region or municipality shifts to that of facilitator for a rural development oriented towards firm growth, entrepreneurship and commercial ends. Wide inclusion of diverse social groups within these governance networks is often set aside to favour key stakeholders’ efficiency in boosting innovation, entrepreneurship, business interests and increased risk taking (Normann et al., 2012). However, this spreading model of governance network is not necessarily the most suitable for every territory, either because it does not meet the local public interest, or because it does not efficiently valorise the existing local assets.

Recreation area; Sauwald, Austria

      Regardless of the governance network model, some good practices fostered by this polity have reported successful solutions to unleash rural development. State, market and civil society actors networking and interdependence enhance the cohesion of public policies, while bringing together resources to design a territorial strategy capable of delivering results. Connecting local financial, built, natural, social, cultural, political and human capitals (Dax, 2011) has produced a clearer and better-informed understanding of the complex policy problems and policy opportunities” (Sørensen et al. 2009), allowing governance networks to design effective, innovative and territorially differentiated policy solutions by mobilising investment towards endogenous factors. Furthermore, the new ITC has allowed the connection between indigenous knowledge and scientific knowledge, unleashing local innovation (Gülümser, et al. 2010). Attracting scientific knowledge has usually been a key challenge, generally based on quality of life issues, but which has shown difficult to achieve without the provision of the physical, technical and social settings needed for a multi-functional development and enterprise-formation milieu. Beyond this, governance networks often found creative and extremely context-dependent ways of boosting endogenous business development, by the strengthening of training and education, and by promoting young entrepreneurship. Those rural areas that have been capable of embedding new job opportunities, and thus retaining or even gaining population, have managed to break the vicious circle of rural decline (eg. EU LEADER best practices).

Hamneskär lighthouse,
Sweden

      Nonetheless, governance networks can find important obstacles to become an effective and democratic tool. The policy-making process can be still strongly anchored in old top-down forms, draining the meaning of stakeholders’ connection. Moreover, generating common frameworks of understanding, as well as correctly managing tensions and deadlocks is not always an easy task. Often the existing power distribution among local stakeholders, combined with a weak empowerment of other actors, allow some elites to overtake the legitimacy to interpret public interest. Democratic anchorage can be also threatened by the overrepresentation of network stakeholders to the detriment of partially legitimate representative institutions. Some of the wider challenges facing governance networks are the weakness of local governments, difficult coordination across tiers of government, a limited empowerment and connectivity of civil society actors and the privilege of urban spaces over rural areas by current market doctrines and European policy.

      Rural decline is a wicked problem in European societies grounded on ineffective and even adverse structural state, market and civil society settings. Governance networks are a smart organisational solution to foster connection among a wider range of stakeholders, enabling a more legitimate and effective policy delivery. Another successful story of rural development can begin with information, knowledge and resources sharing, together with the acknowledgement of both the good experiences and the obstacles for an effective and democratic governance networks deployment.

REFERENCES:

Alexander ER. (2002) “The Public Interest in Planning: from Legitimation to Substantive Plan Evaluation”. Planning Theory 1(3) 226-249.

Dax, T.; Kahila, P.; Hörnström, L. (2011) “The evolution of EU Rural Policy: linkages of Cohestion Policy and Rural Development policy”. Regional Studies Association. Annual International Conference. Newcastle upon Tyne (UK).

Gülümser, AA., Baycan-Levent, T., Nijkamp, P. (2010) Measuring Regional Creative Capacity: A Literature Review for Rural-Specific Approaches. European Planning Studies Vol. 18, No. 4 pp. 545-563.

Murray, M. Greer, J., Houston, D., Mckay, S., Murtagh, B. (2009)  “Bridging Top Down and Bottom Up: Modelling Community Preferences for a Dispersed Rural Settlement Pattern”. European Planning Studies Vol. 17, No. 3 pp.442-462.

Norman, RH. & Vasström, M. (2012) “Municipalities as Governance Network Actors in Rural Communities” European Planning Studies 20:6, 941-960.

OECD (2006) “The New Rural Paradigm. Policies and Governance”. OECD Rural Policy Reviews. OECD Publishing.

Sørensen, E. & Torfing, J. (2009) Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance. Public Administration Vol.87 No.2 pp 234-255.