NATURE OF RURAL–URBAN INTERDEPENDENCIES AND THEIR DIFFUSION PATTERNS IN SOUTHERN GREECE: AN INTERREGIONAL SAM MODEL

A three-area interregional Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) model is used to analyze economic interdependencies and relevant diffusion patterns within and between rural-urban localities in Southern Greece: the rural areas of Archanes and N. Kazantzakis and the urban area of Heraklion. Both rural areas trickle significant economic benefits to the urban area, while the urban area has marginal linkages with them. Policy simulation analysis results have indicated that farm income support measures are important to Archanes, since reduced spending in farm income support creates significant negative impacts on firm and household income, and is not compensated by an equivalent increase in rural development policy spending. These findings do not hold for the diffusion of economic impacts towards N. Kazantzakis and Heraklion; results of this simulation show that positive economic benefits are still diffused to both the wealthier urban area and the adjacent poorer rural area of N. Kazantzakis.     

The Location of Markets,Perceived Entrepreneurial Risk,and Start-up Capital of Micro Rural Firms

It is argued that when founders of SMEs perceive the probability of a successful and lucrative venture to be greater, they are more likely to provide a greater proportion of the start-up capital. This paper provides an empirical examination of two concurrent hypotheses. Firstly, that the size of the debt or equity is affected by factors influencing perceived entrepreneurial risk. Secondly, that the location of the market for the firm’s output is a major factor reducing perceived entrepreneurial risk and increasing equity of the start-up capital. A statistical analysis based on the simultaneous tobit model is used. Results show that significant factors influencing risk perception include the size of the new business and the sector of economic activity, as well as entrepreneurial experience and the location of the markets for the firm’s output. The results highlight implications for the design and implementation of rural development policies and especially for the instruments supporting rural business creation.     

Rural–Urban Impacts of CAP Measures in Greece: An Inter‐regional SAM Approach

This paper evaluates the inter‐regional impacts of CAP measures implemented in the rural town of Archanes (Crete, Greece), an area which received considerable EU Agricultural Guarantee and rural development funds during the 1990s. A hybrid, three‐area Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) with three groups of households defined by income level is constructed to describe inter‐linkages between three rural–urban localities, namely the rural area of Archanes, the less‐developed, agriculturally dependent, neighbouring rural area of N. Kazantzakis, and the adjacent urban centre of Heraklion. Results are reported on the diffusion patterns of economic impacts generated by three types of CAP measure: farm income support; aids to increased agricultural productivity; aids to economic diversification. These show that the diffusion of policy‐induced economic impacts from Archanes is lower than might be expected for a small open local economy, and that benefits leak primarily to Heraklion and marginally to rural N. Kazantzakis. Finally, generated income benefits seem to accrue mostly in favour of high‐income households, especially in the case of Guarantee subsidies.     

‘Integrated’ Rural Development Policy in the EU: a Team Too Faar?

‘Integrate’ Rural Development Policy in the EU: a Term Too Far? Since its introduction in the early 1980s for Mediterranean and some other regions, an ‘integrated’ approach to EU rural development policy has come to-be increasingly advocated. However, the precise meaning of the term is seldom made clear in official and other documents, which appear to have applied it in a variety of contexts and in a number of different ways, This article discusses and analyses some alternative interpretations of ‘integrated’ rural development policy, including considerations of finance (funding from more than one source), administration (policy design, approval, monitoring and evaluation being undertaken by a single agency), institutions (responsibility and coordination being shared between different departments and agencies) and the economics of efficiency (better balancing of costs and benefits, and the encouragement of desired complementarities). These different meanings may explain some of the confusion in the long-running debate over rural policy in the EU, and suggest the need for more careful language. However, the arguments do endorse the apparent direction of thinking at the November 2003 Salzburg conference on rural development, i.e. that improved policy will result from better defined objectives, a single EU fund for rural development, and territorial programming at a local or regional level. Les politiques européennes de développement rural ‘intégré’:un mot de trop? Depuis l'introduction de ce vocable, au début des années 80, à propos, entre autres, des régions méditerranéennes, il est de plus en plus courant d'entendre vanter les mérites d'une approche ‘intégrée’ des politiques de développement rural. Pourtant, la signification précise de ce terme n'est que rarement explicitée, que ce soit dans les documents officiels ou dans d'autres. Le mot semble avoir été appliquéà de nombreuses situations différentes et de toutes sortes de façons. On essaie id d'analyser les différentes interprétations qu'il est possible de donner à la notion d'intégration des politiques de développement rural, que ce soit en termes de financement (utilisation de plus d'une seule source de financement), d'administration (l'élaboration des politiques, la décision, le suivi, et l'évaluation se trouvant sous la responsabilité d'une agence unique), destitutions (partage des responsabilités et des tâches de coordination entre différents départements ministériels ou agences d'exécution), ou d'efficacitééconomique (meilleur équilibre entre les bénéfices et les coûts, souci de créer des complérnentarités). La polysémie du mot semble expliquer la confusion qui entoure depuis longtemps le débat sur la politique rurale dans l'Union européenne et cela implique la nécessité d'employer un langage plus précis. Aussi bien, ce point correspond à la ligne générale de pensée qui s'est manifestéà la conférence de Salzbourg en novembre 2003 sur le développement rural: pour améliorer la politique, il faut que ses objectifs soient mieux définis, qu'il existe un seul fonds européen pour le développement rural, et que la planification territoriale se fasse au niveau local ou régional. ‘Integrierte’ Politik zur Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums in der EU: Ein zu weit gefasster Begriff? Seitdem der integerierte Ansatz für die Politik zur Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums der EU in den frühen 1980er Jahren für den Mittelmeerraum und andere Regionen eingeführt wurde, wird er zunehmend befürwortet. Die Definition dieses Begriffs geht jedoch selten eindeutig aus amtlichen und anderen Dokumenten hervor, welche diesen Begriff scheinbar auf die verschiedensten Arten und in vielfaltigen Kontexten verwenden. In diesem Beitrag werden einige Alternativen hinsichtlich der Auslegung des Begriffs der “integrierten” Politik zur Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums diskutiert und analysiert. Hierbei werden Finanzierung (Finanzierung aus mehreren Quellen), Verwaltung (Politikentwurf, Zustimmung, Überwachung und Evaluierung durch eine einzige Agentur), Institutionen (gemeinschaftliche Verantwortung und Koordination von verschiedenen Abteilungen und Geschäftsstellen) und Effizienz (verbessertes Abwägen von Kosten und Nutzen sowie Förderung erwünschter Komplementaritäten) behandelt. Diese unterschiedlichen Begriffsinhalte sind möglicherweise ein Grund für die Verwirrung in der seit langem geführten Debatte zur ländlichen Politik in der EU und lassen eine umsichtigere Sprachwahl sinnvoll erscheinen. Die Argumente untermauern jedoch die vorherrschende Meinung auf der Salzburger Konferenz zur Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums im November 2003, d.h. dass klarer definierte Ziele, ein einziger EU-Fonds für die Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums sowie territoriale Programmentwicklung auf lokaler oder regionaler Ebene zu einer verbesserten Politik führen.