Human and Social Capital in Rural Development – EU and US PerspectivesHuman- und Sozialkapital in der Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums – Perspektiven aus der EU und den USALe capital social et humain dans le développement rural: Perspectives aux États-Unis et dans l'Union européenne

Human and Social Capital in Rural Development – EU and US Perspectives
Human and social capital play critical roles in rural development, in both the US and Europe. The development of these resources at the individual and community levels is both an ultimate goal of sustainable rural development (RD), and a key means to pursue it. Rural areas face a range of specific issues and challenges for human and social capital. In this article we examine some of these, finding similarity in many issues faced by EU and US rural areas, including the trend toward counter-urbanization in some locations. We also give examples of some apparently useful policy and grass-root approaches in the EU and US used to support farmers and in some cases rural people more generally. We assert that the US lags behind the EU in recognising the value of social capital development, but that it could learn from EU experience in terms of alternative approaches and their successes or failures. Traditionally, policies which promote the enhancement of rural human capital and strengthen social capital in rural areas have failed to attract large-scale RD funding or prominence. They have, however, gained in credibility, and influence within the policy rhetoric, in recent years. We suggest that they deserve a higher profile in RD policies given likely future trends and challenges.     

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.