Disintegration, the reason for policy failure – an analytical model of integrated rural development By: Gusztáv Nemes (Hungarian Academy of Sciences – Institute of Economics) Chris High (Open University – Systems Department) Introduction Rural disadvantages - access and resources Two rural development systems – ‘central administrative’ and ‘local heuristic’ Integrated versus non-integrated rural development – two simple models

40 years’ of EU and domestic policies, positive discrimination Everyday aspiration of local people to make rural life better RESULTS: Environmental and social degradation, depopulation, growing geographical disparities, etc. WHY RURAL POLICIES DO NOT WORK WELL? HOW COULD WE DO BETTER?

RURAL DISADVANTAGES ACCESS AND RESOURCES Rural areas have comparative disadvantages access-type disadvantages; Results of underdevelopment of different infrastructures, resulting in limited communication of people, goods, capital and information; from and to backward rural areas physical; economic; and political (or policy) access. resource-type disadvantages Results in the limited ability to produce goods and services, saleable on the global market; financial, human, and institutional resources Core policies usually promote access type disadvantages Access – two-way concept, without improved local resource base can cause damage

TWO RURAL DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS Europeanisation = improving access, diminishing traditional protections, exposing rural areas to global (unequal) competition. Rural development is: external (central) intervention - to protect the loss of rural values during Europeanisation through: rules, financial aid, rural policies in general aspiration of local people - to improve their own lives through: unlocking local resources and attracting external ones, searching for ‘new futures’

TWO RURAL DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS 1. Central-administrative system of rural development Based on top-down intervention of the political centre Comprises of: EU and domestic policies, centrally redistributed resources, strategic development plans, bureaucratic knowledge, central rules, high level interest groups, NGOs, etc. Institutionalised character (with written procedures) External resources for intervention Narrow information Aimed at quantifiable results Can have high level, longer term objectives Central development logic (modernist paradigm) Main aim is to provide access and a ‘peaceful environment’ for economic development for the economic centre Level: EU-domestic-regional (?)

TWO RURAL DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS 2. Local-heuristic system Based on endogenous bottom-up processes Comprises of: local actors and values; local development plans; social networks and kinship relations; local authorities, innovative individuals, development associations and partnerships, etc. Low level of institutionalisation Builds on local resources, but often needs external help Based on responsive local knowledge and wide information flows Main aim is to improve local life, giving flexible responses to external challenges, keeping benefits for the locality Local development logic (new development paradigm) Level: sub-regional and bellow

Human actors Local heuristic system: Local leaders, entrepreneurs, etc. Their work effects their lives – they risk their own money Embeddedness – moral control Insightful knowledge on local matters, but often little understanding of central rules Very committed and less objective Main concern is the betterment of rural life / non-quantifiable results Central-administrative system Politicians, high level public servants, etc. Deal with others’ life, do not risk their own money High up in the system – broad vision, objectivity Under bureaucratic and political control Insightful knowledge of bureaucratic rules but low information on local Main concern is to comply with the political centre, accountability, transparency Risk evasion

Integrated versus non-integrated rural development – two simple models Central Administrative System of Rural Development – characterised by top-down, exogenous interventions, high level of institutionalisation, bureaucratic control, written rules and procedures, the modernist technological regime and quantifiable targets; Central Development Resources – financial resources in the central development budget, available for redistribution through the central system; Local Heuristic System of Rural Development – characterised by bottom-up processes, heuristic aspiration of local people to improve their lives, flexible responses to challenges, social networks, diversity, multifunctionality, and synergistic effects; Local Development Resources – rural values (natural, cultural, social), understood as resources, which often have to be unlocked or reconfigured if they are to be used for local economic development; Access-type Disadvantages – limiting access (physical, economic, policy) and the free movement of goods, people and capital to and from backward areas; Resource-type Disadvantages – (financial, human, institutional) limiting the ability of rural areas to produce goods and services saleable on the global market; Result – the outcome of the development process: to a certain extent upgraded access and enhanced production capacity, resulting in either more balanced or biased environment for local economy and society.

The non-integrated system of rural development

The integrated system of rural development

Information flows in the non-integrated development system

Information flows in the integrated development system

Thank You for your attention!