Infrastructure and Rural Development: US and EU PerspectivesInfrastruktur und Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums: Perspektiven aus den USA und der EUInfrastructures et développement rural : Perspectives aux États-Unis et dans l'Union européenne

Infrastructure and Rural Development: US and EU Perspectives
Infrastructural development remains a cornerstone of rural development policy in both the United States and Europe. It is evident that rural development objectives differ, but similar policy measures are used. The economic rationale for infrastructure development centres on efficiency and creation of competitive advantage. Policy intervention is justified because of the added costs of infrastructure provision in remote, sparsely populated areas. Although this policy focus does not guarantee success, regions leading in economic development typically have better physical infrastructure. In the United States, policy must adapt to challenges posed by an ageing rural infrastructure and demographic change that will increase demands on social infrastructure such as housing and health facilities. There will be greater local responsibility for funding, and expanded use of public/private partnerships. In the European Union, the major challenge is in redirecting resources to new member states, where there is urgent need for both large new investments in transport networks and small investments to improve local access. Although two current options for funding these diverse needs focus on European policies only, investments in non-farm physical capital and public infrastructure cannot be sustained without active national policies to complement the European efforts, perhaps through co-financing requirements.     

Directions in Rural Development Policy – Lessons from Both Sides of the AtlanticRichtlinien für die ländliche Entwicklungspolitik – Beispiele von diesseits und jenseits des AtlantiksLes orientations de la politique de développement rural – Enseignements en provenance des deux côtés de l’Atlantique

Directions in Rural Development Policy – Lessons from Both Sides of the Atlantic A workshop comparing rural development policies in Europe and the US found differences in the social values that shape them. These include different attachments to place, concerns with lagging regions, and interests in the assessment of public interventions. There is also a difference in coverage. In the EU environmental and landscape issues form part of the CAP’s Rural Development Pillar, using agriculture as an instrument, whereas in the US these are handled by other policies, some of which can claim deeper historical roots. In the context of rural development policy, the EU attaches intrinsic value to the environment, while in the US the focus is more on economic spin-offs from environmental quality. There are also differences in governance; a complete US view requires taking in Federal, State and local initiatives whereas in the EU a more organised framework is apparent. Nevertheless, when policy is viewed from a bottom-up perspective many common features are found. Improving human and social capital and infrastructure are key factors to stimulating economic development on both sides of the Atlantic, though only some of these drivers form part of the CAP’s Pillar II. While in the EU the role of rural development is set to expand, this is far less certain in the US where the emphasis on agricultural support is likely to continue to dominate the political agenda.     

Transatlantic Similarities and Contrasts in Rural Development PoliciesTransatlantische Ähnlichkeiten und Gegensätze bei den Politiken zur Entwicklung des ländlichen RaumsPoints communs et divergences transatlantiques sur le développement rural

Transatlantic Similarities and Contrasts in Rural Development Policies
The United States (US) and European Union (EU) share many general policy aims for rural areas, but they differ in the ways in which they try to achieve these aims. The principal difference lies in the role envisioned by agriculture in overall rural development. EU policies treat agriculture as a provider of public goods, and many of its 'rural' programmes target agriculture. In the US, very few Federal rural development programs are focused solely on agriculture. Differences of approach may be linked to different farm distributions, population densities, historical settlement patterns, and the historical policy process per se . In particular, in the US rural development policy does not cover the environment or income support to farmers; these are addressed through other programmes. In contrast, the EU classifies its agri-environmental programmes as rural development, claiming that more environmentally-friendly farm practices bring benefits to the broader rural economy. US State and local initiatives emphasize many themes found in the EU's Pillar II programmes, such as value-added or sustainable agriculture. Overall, although there are marked differences in the ways in which policies are implemented, the coverage of these policies in the EU and US is rather similar.     

Environment, Land Use and Amenities – the New Dimension of Rural DevelopmentEnvironnement, utilisation des terres et aménités – la nouvelle dimension du développement ruralUmwelt, Landnutzung und landschaftliche Schönheit – die neue Dimension bei der Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums

Environment, Land Use and Amenities – the New Dimension of Rural Development
While agriculture, environmental conditions, and rural development are concerns common to both sides of the Atlantic, their interrelationships are viewed quite differently. For the EU, agriculture is seen as a means of sustaining the countryside; keeping it attractive to tourists and prospective residents. Farmers are stewards of the land and as such a key to rural development. For the US, agriculture and the environment are seen in potential conflict. Most of the expenditure on conservation goes to keeping environmentally sensitive cropland out of production. At the national level at least, the appeal of the countryside is not seen as a means to rural development, so that conservation programs tend to be seen as a threat to rural development by reducing the use of local off-farm services. Part of the difference in viewpoint may stem from the greater socio-cultural significance of agricultural landscapes in the EU. However, recent research in the US suggests that landscape is important in attracting new rural residents and visitors and there is growing recognition on both sides of the Atlantic that the natural environment helps shape rural growth. More research is needed on the relationship between the environment and rural development as unsupported assumptions seem to underlie policies in both regions.     

Working to Make Interdisciplinarity Work: Investing in Communication and Interpersonal Relationships

In this paper, we apply qualitative methodologies to explore the practice of interdisciplinary research. The UK's Rural Economy and Land Use (RELU) Programme aims to advance understanding of the challenges faced by rural areas through funding interdisciplinary research to inform future policy and practice on management choices for the countryside and rural economies. Addressing the challenges faced by rural areas often requires a combination of different perspectives, involving research to address subjects that may lie beyond the skills of individual researchers. An interdisciplinary approach requires the integration of both data/information and the experiences and perspectives of different people (natural/social scientists, local people and policy‐makers). We focus here on the processes involved in making interdisciplinarity work, documenting the experiences, perceptions, ideas and concerns of researchers working in interdisciplinary projects (specifically two EU‐funded projects but also the first wave of RELU projects). A key finding from this research is that interdisciplinarity requires conscious effort, time and resources for the development of interpersonal relationships to enhance effective communication and thus successful collaboration.     

Rural Development Programmes and Transaction Effects: Reflections on Maltese and English Experience

New institutional economics, and transaction effects in particular, are highly relevant to public policy performance. The evolution of EU rural development policy has generated both increasing complexity and increased transaction costs. However, this policy evolution also creates opportunities for improvement of policy process management. The paper considers these opportunities in the case of Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) under Pillar 2 of the CAP. We examine the influence of transaction effects on RDP performance, based on direct experience of RDP review and planning in England and Malta, where qualitative evidence of ‘transaction benefits’ is identified. Benefits occur when exchange processes are designed in ways that generate positive returns beyond the immediate transaction, which can outweigh short‐term costs. We conclude that more attention to these aspects of policy design is warranted in future rural development programming and evaluation.     

Subsistence and semi‐subsistence farming in selected EU new member states

Factor analysis and cluster analysis are used to analyze the attitudes and perceptions of agricultural households toward farming, commercialization, and barriers to and drivers for increased integration in agricultural markets. Data come from farms in five EU New Member States. The contribution of unsold output to total household income is valued. Stepwise linear regression is employed to detect variables useful in explaining the degree of agricultural market integration of farm households. The analysis indicates that subsistence farming is of utmost importance for the rural poor, particularly in Bulgaria and Romania. The proportion of consumption from own production, manual cultivation techniques, and distance to an urban center are negatively correlated with output sales. Rural development policies targeted at rural physical and market infrastructure might relieve some of these constraints.     

Agri‐environmental Instruments for an Integrated Rural Policy: An Economic Analysis

The new Rural Development Regulation of the EU reflects the shift of attention within rural areas from agricultural production towards rural development and embraces both farmers and non‐farm residents. While agricultural production is required to comply with environmental standards, rural areas also have to fulfil the growing demand for landscape, outdoor recreation and wildlife conservation. This paper develops a model of a rural area where farmers and non‐farm residents live together. A central government uses a combination of two‐policy instruments ‐ direct compensation payments and public services ‐ aimed at encouraging farmers to adopt environmentally beneficial practices and at the same time to increase the provision of countryside amenities and the sustained vitality of the rural area. The optimal mix of the policy instruments is evaluated under various governmental objectives. The analysis suggests that a combination of direct payments to farmers with the supply of local public services is a promising tool for rural policy development initiatives in the EU.     

Rethinking Organic Farming in the Post‐Socialist Context: Lessons from Bulgaria

On the basis of an in‐depth qualitative study, this article discusses the case of Bulgaria as an example of a new EU Member State that implemented EU organic farming policies in a top‐down process during EU accession. We explore the difficulties in transposing a concept originating in Western Europe to post‐Socialist countries, and particularly ask what this transposing of an alien concept means for long‐term development of the organic sector. We found that the top‐down agenda‐setting for organic farming in Bulgaria resulted in inefficient policies that inhibited an orientation of producers towards the market's needs. Tacit assumptions underlying the concept of organic farming in Western Europe, such as the relevance of social capital could not be sustained in Bulgaria, which added to the challenges of policy implementation. To increase policy efficiency, we recommend a policy process that involves the expertise of all organic sector actors, including organic operators, but also policymakers, organic organisations, consumers and academic experts. Expertise and knowledge requirements are diverse, touching policy, market, collective action and practice‐oriented skills. Integrating these skills could maximise success in finding the best solution for implementing – and adjusting – a foreign concept meaningfully in a particular local context.     

Land use policy in China: Introduction

This themed issue of Land Use Policy builds mainly on papers presented at an international conference on ‘Land Use Issues and Policy in China under Rapid Rural and Urban Transformation’, convened by the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, China, in October 2012. The conference set out to share and promote new scientific findings from a range of disciplines that advance research on land use policy in China. The contributions to this themed issue provide conceptual–theoretical and empirical takes on the topic, around four main areas of interest to both researchers and policymakers: nation-wide land use issues, the Sloping Land Conversion Program, land engineering and land use, and land use transitions. Various land use issues have been associated with rapid urban–rural transformations in China, giving rise to formulation of new policies directly affecting land use. However, these have contributed to new land use problems due to the nature of the policies and the difficulties in policy implementation constrained by the special ‘dual-track’ structure of urban–rural development in China. In view of this, this themed edition makes a compelling call for more systematic research into the making and implementation of China's land use policy. It also emphasizes the challenges for further research on land use policy in China.     

AGRICULTURAL POLICY AND REMOTE RURAL AREAS

This paper examines the interface between agricultural policy and other planning policies affecting development and change in rural areas with specific reference to one remote rural area of Britain. Differences between conventional agricultural policy approaches and planning approaches to rural problems are examined in the context of the policy instruments that have affected the rural economy of Orkney. It is suggested that the policies are not entirely congruent and that the economic and social costs of pursuing sectional and contradictory policies may be considerable.     

Evaluation of results and adaptation of EU Rural Development Programmes

The EU Commission highlights evaluations as important for improving common policies. But do evaluations actually contribute? This paper examines whether this has been the case for the EU Rural Development Programmes (RDPs). We investigate 1) to what extent evaluations have influenced the design of national programmes and 2) if they have affected the Rural Development Regulation on which national programmes are based. Our main finding is that evaluations do not seem to affect future policy to any discernible degree. This is the case for both national programmes and the Regulation itself, which seems to have evolved in response to external pressures. Partly, this may be because evaluations tend to give vague or too general recommendations. Moreover, evaluations seldom apply counterfactual analysis, often because of a lack of data, implying that results may be methodologically questioned. Lastly, evaluations, and RDPs, are hard to locate and seldom translated from their native languages, impairing the possibilities of learning from the experiences of others.     

Rural decline or restructuring? Implications for sustainability transitions in rural China

With the increase in climate change and increasing social concerns about environmental deterioration, sustainability has become a hot topic in both natural and social research. Nowadays, sustainable cities are one of the focal points, while rural areas have been disregarded. In fact, rural areas have been suffering from environmental degradation for decades. Thus, sustainability transitions in both urban and rural areas should be given commensurate emphasis. In this paper, we provide an overview of rural evolution worldwide and attempt to explore alternative approaches for enhancing rural sustainability. As depicted in the literature, rural evolution is multifaceted. For a long time, depopulation and demographic aging have been like chronic diseases torturing rural areas. Although there were some bright spots of rural repopulation and economic restructuring, they were not mainstream of rural development. Based on the existing research, we established a conceptual framework and analyzed the rural evolution paradigm from a geographic perspective. We found that rural composition determined rural architecture, while rural architecture affected rural functioning. Changes in rural functioning formed the rural evolution trend. Since rural development was also influenced by external factors, both self-organization and governmental intervention were found to be alternative approaches to guiding rural transitions. We took the case study of Tengtou village to exemplify the sustainable pathways of a rural transition. The case study indicated that national policies were the fundamental impetus for rural transformation, while self-organization played a more important role. We hope that our study will shed new light on policy orientations and rural transitions.     

Sweetness and Power – Public Policies and the ‘Biofuels Frenzy’

Sweetness and Power – Public Policies and the ‘Biofuels Frenzy’ In the last decade, there has been a huge policy‐led expansion in biofuels production and consumption. This paper presents some of the findings of a funded research project which has sought to identify the drivers of biofuels policies over this period. It focuses on the EU, US and Brazil which, together, represent about 90 per cent of global biofuels markets. Biofuels policies have three key drivers: as a partial substitute for fossil fuels, to lower greenhouse gas emissions; as a way of improving energy security, by diversifying away from fossil fuels and from the limited number of countries with fossil‐fuel reserves; and as a means of promoting rural development, given the opportunities offered by the production of biofuel feedstocks and their processing into biofuels. One particular challenge for both the EU and US has been to create and sustain a broad coalition of stakeholder interests in support of biofuels and biofuel policies. Both have sought to promote ‘conventional’ biofuels now, whilst trying to aid the development of ‘advanced’ biofuels industries that will address problems with existing technologies. The continued failure to deliver significant quantities of advanced biofuels raises questions for biofuels policymakers going forward, not least dealing with the downsides of conventional biofuels that, so far, have not been mitigated by a successful transition to advanced biofuels.     

Navigating conflicting landscape aspirations: Application of a photo-based Q-method in Transylvania (Central Romania)

In combination, the economic realities brought about by globalization, and the sustainability goals set by the European Union, translate into contradictory challenges for European cultural landscapes. With its high natural and cultural diversity, Transylvania (Central Romania) is facing the choice between development based on a “production for profit” logic, with the risks of a liberalized land market, versus a largely untested development pathway based on sustainability, landscape multifunctionality and conservation. In the context of these largely externally imposed and contradictory development pathways, clarifying the viewpoints and preferences of local people is important, and may help explain the outcomes of past policies, as well as inform future interventions. We undertook a photograph-based Q methodology study – interviewing 129 residents from 30 villages – to understand and explore the diverse range of landscape preferences held by locals in Southern Transylvania. We clarified these preferences by identifying groups of participants who shared similar viewpoints regarding local landscapes and their changing purpose. Our findings revealed five different “preference narratives” about Transylvanian landscapes, namely (1) landscapes for prosperity and economic growth; (2) landscapes for traditions and balanced lifestyles; (3) landscapes for human benefit; (4) landscapes for farming; and (5) landscapes for nature. Our systematic assessment of narratives showed areas of consensus and disagreement among participants. We relate the five preference narratives to current management approaches targeting rural landscapes. We conclude by suggesting policy approaches to tackle the diversity of opinions and interests found in this culturally and ecologically diverse landscape. Important policy priorities include fostering economic diversification and improving social capital.     

Rural Population Growth, 1950–1990: The Roles of Human Capital, Industry Structure, and Government Policy

Human capital raises rural incomes, but this effect is swamped by higher returns to human capital in urban markets. This leads to "brain drain" from rural areas. Populations grow more rapidly in rural counties that have a diversified employment base. Farm population grows faster (or declines more slowly) in counties with relatively high farm income, and nonfarm populations grow faster in counties with relatively high nonfarm income. However, higher farm incomes lead to slower nonfarm population growth and vice versa. Rural county government services financed by local taxes or debt have neutral or negative effects on population growth.     

The Struggle to Sustain Agriculture in EU Southern Neighbourhood Partners: Improving Data and Policies

The agricultural sector in the EU Southern Neighbourhood Partners (SNP) is struggling to respond to sustainability challenges. It needs stronger policies to deliver balanced sustainability outcomes in economic, social and environmental terms. Based on recent information and a structured assessment of the impacts of prevailing public policies on the sustainability of agriculture in Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt and Turkey, carried out within the Sustainmed project ( https://sustainmed.iamm.fr ), we conclude that several factors contribute to the struggles in strengthening sustainability functions of agriculture in these countries. In the main, there is a lack of policy coherence toward sustainability uncovered by the dual, unbalanced consideration given to different sustainability factors in the study countries: pure economic factors largely prevail over factors related to resource conservation and social and cultural values, these latter factors being a precondition for long-term economic growth. Consequently, there is a genuine need for a more consistent vision of sustainability issues in future policy agendas, including better data systems and specific policies to incentivise sustainable agriculture in the SNP; as the challenge over the coming decades in these countries will be to increase agricultural production and productivity while at the same time managing natural resources sustainably. Findings can guide policymakers and other stakeholders in the agricultural sector to identify pathways towards sustaining agriculture in the SNP.     

Geographic Indications and Farmer‐Owned Brands: Why Do the US and EU Disagree?

Geographic Indications (GIs) identify the geographic origin of products whose quality, reputation or other characteristic can be attributed to the geographic origin. We focus on a subcategory of GIs, Farmer Owned Brands. Like GIs in general, FOBs require governmental assistance to protect the property rights of the brand owners. GIs are receiving increased attention because many countries and producer groups realize the importance of property right protection for GIs, and are negotiating such rights in international forums like the World Trade Organization. Here we explore possible reasons for US opposition to EU policies conferring special property right protection to GIs. We conclude that the most plausible explanation for the US position is the lack of a domestic constituency advocating greater GI protection, which means that the US position represents the interests only of those who stand to lose from such protection. It will take a change in US property right regulations and a widespread understanding and adoption of the concept among producer groups before the political pendulum changes within the US. This process will take several years and until then we will have the unusual situation of the US opposing the only market-based solution to the US rural development problem that we are aware of.     

Standing at the Crossroads – the Future of a Strong Common Agricultural Policy is at Stake A la croisée des chemins – l’avenir d’une politique agricole commune forte est en jeu Am Scheideweg – die Zukunft einer starken Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik steht auf dem Spiel

Standing at the Crossroads – the Future of a Strong Common Agricultural Policy is at Stake The issues and targets in the European Union’s agenda are largely in line with Hungarian objectives; job creation for example is one of the main targets of the Europe 2020 strategy and also of the Hungarian Government. Hungary’s development and competitiveness are linked to the internal development and global competitiveness of the European Union; and so our primary objective is to strengthen the integration process and to obtain a strong Common Agricultural Policy. The CAP has reached the highest level of integration among EU policies and its original objectives have been reinforced by the Lisbon Treaty. Europe needs a strong and common agricultural policy beyond 2013; the main task of agriculture will be to ensure the security of food supplies. The future success of the CAP requires appropriate financial support to secure future targets. Rural development has already become an integral part of the CAP structure; but rural areas will not be viable without an evolving agriculture. Without the provision of a proper level of income subsidies many farms would be forced to stop production. CAP adjustments should promote the catching up of new Member States and eliminate the current system of direct subsidies that disadvantage the new members.     

Dynamics in national agri-environmental policy implementation under changing EU policy priorities: Does one size fit all?

Over the past 30 years, Agri-Environmental Policies (AEP) in the EU have developed with relative national autonomy and according to the subsidiarity principle. The environmental directives represent an increase in EU-level environmental ambitions and challenge the current implementation of EU AEP by creating an increasingly demanding set of regulations with which each member state must comply. National AEP implementation may, however, maintain original characteristics and fail to adopt or transform as EU policy implementation proceeds or when EU policies develop. This creates a potential gap between EU policies and national policy implementation resulting in the ensuing national policy dynamics and adaptations becoming issues of interest. This raises a central question regarding the extent to which national AEP implementation can help us predict whether AEP will be suitable to achieve environmental directive objectives nationally in the future. In this paper, we first investigate the dynamics in the implementation of national Agri-Environmental Schemes (AES) through changes in (i) AES policy objectives over time, (ii) administrative implementation structures, and (iii) administrative policy decision structures in the Netherlands, Denmark, Greece, Austria and Romania. Second, we examine the extent to which various factors have influenced the development of national policies over time. The study identifies development based on the theory of ‘process of institutional change’, i.e. we qualitatively estimate the costs of change based on proposed factors including economic conditions in relation to AES implementation, political institutional capacity, policy legacy, policy preferences, and current discourse. On this background, we identify differences in implementation strategies or outcomes in terms of inertia, absorption and transformation, which are characteristic of the national responses to changing AEP at the EU level. We discuss AES dynamics; whether policy content or structures should be in focus for future policy design and the implications of these findings for the future role of AEP in fulfilling environmental directives and argue why a one size fits all rule does not adequately cover current AES development.