Continuing International Policy Fellowship

Knowledge Transfer of Endogenous Rural Development Policies

Impacts, institutions and evaluation

Background of the research, current state-of-the-art

The Copenhagen Agreement foreshadows a difficult and challenging future for Central and Eastern European (CEE) rural areas. The rural economy of CEE will have to face an increasing western competition, while its agricultural sector initially will only receive some 25% of current CAP direct payments. Concerning Structural and Cohesion Policies, New Member States (NMS) cannot receive more than 4% of their GDP; they have to provide national contribution and accredit complicated institutional systems, therefore aid from these sources is also likely to remain at a low level. During the first years, NMS together will only receive some net EUR 3,5 billion/year from mainstream EU policies[1], which appears to be highly insufficient to compensate for increased competition and help to catch up with western socio-economic development. This situation can accumulate in economic crisis and consequent environmental, social degradation in CEE countries, working against the fundamental principles of the philosophy of Europeanisation, such as social and economic cohesion, equal rights and democracy.

Nevertheless, other EU policies - having no limitations on spending in NMS - can ease these harsh effects, and reinforce a new rural development policy paradigm for the benefit of the whole EU. One group of these policies is in connection with environmental protection and the support of agricultural production in less favoured areas[2]. These EU policies carry potentially high level, normative type support especially for those areas, the least competitive in traditional intensive agriculture. The other important group includes endogenous development policies[3]. They aim to achieve structural socio-economic improvements in rural areas, such as: the increase of locally added value and rural economic diversification. They subscribe to bottom-up processes: the empowerment of local actors; self governance and building social capital. These schemes are well suited to unlock local resources and development potential, and can bring both, considerable financial resources and a new, integrated approach to CEE rural development. However, to make the most of these possibilities, a conscious strategy, comprehensive preparation, learning, well working local development institutions and adequate control mechanisms are needed.

My proposed research intends to concentrate on integrated rural development policies, and their application in CEE.

By now, the LEADER[4] programme has become an important aspect of EU rural policies. It is the champion of integrated rural development and claims to be able to mobilise local resources and attain long term, structural improvements. Nevertheless, significant problems have also been encountered. The LEADER method typically results in diverse, ‘anarchic-type’ and locally specific projects, which are difficult to manage and evaluate through traditional central instruments. Usual indicators cannot sufficiently measure synergic effects of a bottom-up approach; and developments achieved in a certain location are difficult to adapt to a different socio-economic environment. To apply this policy under CEE circumstances is expected to be particularly challenging. There is no comprehensive knowledge about how local resources can be unlocked and local actors empowered; how social exclusion should be avoided; what sorts of local institutions, and services should be built to successfully apply this policy in the CEECs.

To overcome these difficulties, two sources of information could be employed:

·         A qualitative, multi level, new evaluation strategy (NES) for LEADER+ (with the contribution of practitioners and academic experts) has been developed, and is being currently tested. It is expected to become a common evaluation strategy for all EU endogenous development policies in the near future.

·         The experience of pilot integrated rural development programmes, based on the LEADER approach, run in CEE countries. In Hungary, for example, 15 LEADER-type development groups have been supported under a pilot domestic programme.

My IPF fellowship research focused on the theories and political dimension of EU rural policies and their effects on CEE rural areas. As a continuing fellow, making a step further and deeper, I would like to concentrate on the implementation of bottom-up, endogenous rural development policies, and the possibilities for the efficient transfer of western experiences to Central and Eastern Europe.

Main objectives to be achieved by the project

·         to acquire theoretical and practical knowledge on qualitative methodology used to evaluate long-term socio-economic impacts of endogenous development policies;

·         to gain personal experience about the implementation (failures and successes) of endogenous development programmes in a less-developed EU Member State, Spain, in comparison with a New Member State, Hungary;

·         to search for possibilities of knowledge transfer and the CEE adaptation of western experiences in the field of endogenous development.

Main research questions:

1.      How can endogenous development be helped (or hindered) by the centre; and how Leader corresponds with mainstream policies;

2.      What sort of institutions (local, regional, central) and development methods are best suited to this approach? What special (political, economic, social) circumstances hinder endogenous rural development in CEE; how local co-operation and social capital can be improved; etc.

3.      What long term social, economic and political effects should be expected from endogenous development? Are they really as significant and positive as the LEADER Network presents?

4.      How can these impacts be accurately evaluated (beyond traditional, quantitative, ‘official’ indicators) to include the measurement of synergy and qualitative effects? How the new evaluation strategy (NES) works in practice?

5.      How western experiences could be adapted in CEE rural development?

Description of the research

I plan to undertake a 15 months, comparative research project in Hungary, and in the Valencia region in Spain[5].

In Spain

The Spanish part of the research is based on my connection with the Research Unit for Rural Development and Evaluation of Public Policies (UDERVAL) at the University of Valencia[6]. They are currently testing New Evaluation Strategy on Leader + in Valencia.

To answer research questions 1-4 (with special regard to question 4) I would need to spend approximately 6 months in Valencia. I intend to actively participate in the midterm evaluation of Leader + that is carried out by the institution. Through this I would gain a special insight into the NES. I also intend to do an in-depth case study (applying rural sociology instruments), with a Leader Action Group (LAG) in the region, which would allow for a comparison and testing the effectiveness of NES. I intend to use qualitative methodology, including interviews (with experts, local and regional level politicians, practitioners, etc.), participant observation and document analysis.

In Hungary

The Hungarian part of the research will be based on a pilot LEADER programme, involving 15 micro-regions (LAGs), run by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD). The programme was launched some 15 months ago, and I got involved in it through the Hungarian Rural Parliament. I intend to do approximately 3-4 months field research, in two phases:

Phase 1.

To answer research questions 1, 2 and 5 (with special regard to question 1 and 5) I intend to analyse the pilot programme in general, considering policy design and implementation, compared to the EU Leader+. Main issues to explore are: effectiveness of public private partnerships and social dialog; local participation; legitimacy; etc. I also intend to analyse the generated effects, according to the usual quantitative indicators (money spent, funds generated, employment, etc.). For these aims, I intend to use interviews; a simple questioner; and the analysis of annual reviews of MARD.

Phase 2.

To answer research questions 2, 4 and 5, I intend to make case studies with one or two particular Hungarian Action Groups.  Besides the traditional, in-depth rural sociology-type investigation, I will also apply NES. This would allow for several comparisons, both between Spain and Hungary, and between traditional qualitative research methods and the new NES. A main objective is to check NES’s efficiency under CEE circumstances and to start working out a strategy for adaptation. I want to use interviews, participant observation and NES, as a methodology.

Data processing (interviews, field notes, etc.) will be started in parallel with the fieldwork, and will be mostly done in Hungary.

Timetable

Months

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Preparation, reading, making contacts

*

Field research in Hungary

*

First visit to Spain

*

*

*

Data processing, writing

*

*

Field research in Hungary

*

*

Data processing, i

*

Second visit to Spain

*

*

*

Interim research report

*

Field research in Hungary

*

*

*

Data processing, writing up

*

*

*

Final paper

*

Application of the results

Agri-environmental and endogenous rural development policies are likely to become the main channel for EU aid, aiming to alleviate social crisis in CEE rural areas. These funds will become available straight after EU accession, however, without appropriate local institutions, partnerships, social and political control, New Member States cannot access them. My research could significantly contribute to the knowledge base on the institutional background and implementation procedures of endogenous development policies, with special regard to qualitative evaluation methodology. The finish of the research around Summer 2004 would coincide with the launch of the concerned EU programmes. Having made the analysis at that time, through my contacts in Hungary (Hungarian Rural Parliament, MARD, etc.) and on the European level (European Parliament, European Agricultural Convention, Virgil Network) I could possibly make a significant contribution to the process. Policy makers and local actors in CEE will have little experience of this field, which is likely to create a strong demand for expert knowledge on building and evaluating endogenous development policies. I would be in a position to take an active part in building the Hungarian rural development system as an academic and a practitioner. Through the adaptation of EU experiences, I could give practical advice to policy makers and local development actors on: creating networks and partnerships; establishing institutions and procedures; estimating and evaluating long-term socio-economic effects.

Besides research and policy papers, I intend to write a practical guide on: endogenous development institutions; and qualitative evaluation techniques for CEE local development groups.

I consulted the Centre for Policy Studies and the Local Government Initiative in OSI, and was ensured that several of their expected projects could also benefit from my research.