European Cohesion Policies take action through national, regional and interregional programming tools to support the sustainable development of territories in a diversified way, depending on contexts and needs, but requiring the adoption of new technical and managerial tools, new approaches and ways operating often outside the traditional decision-making and administrative styles of each Country. In fact, different responses can be found in European territories on a local scale in terms of tools, governance, planning styles and practices. In this direction, a strategic role is played by rural policies, especially in marginal areas characterized by complexity, diversity, and often unexpressed territorial potential. In fact, if on the one hand, the local characteristics play a fundamental role in terms of competitive advantages on a global scale, on the other hand on a local scale, in particular in fragile and marginal contexts, capacity for innovation in terms of governance and style of planning, knowledge and skills are increasingly urgent (Labianca, 2021). Starting from the 90s and gradually over time, due to the LEADER, approach, rural development policy has brought about an important turning point, moving from a purely sectoral activity and productivist approach to an integrated, territorial one (Labianca, 2021; 2016; Cejudo and Labianca, 2017; Dax, 2015). This has allowed a rediscovery of local potential and capacities, representing an important opportunity for marginal territories to solve problems of isolation, emigration and aging of the population (Labianca and Navarro, 2019). Starting from a distinction between traditional and regulatory institutions (D’Amico and De Rubertis, 2014), this contribution will propose a reflection on the characteristics of these institutions, on the positioning of LEADER in a multilevel governance, in order to understand conflicts on a territorial scale, in particular between actors, methods and tools. Through a re-reading of the key features constituting the LEADER approach, the case of the Apulia region will be analyzed. It is a significant case on a European and national level for several aspects. It’s a region of the Convergence objective, mainly rural, characterized by significant experiences in the practice of bottom-up programs, mainly LEADER and a high degree of experimentation and innovation in terms of governance and planning also in the current programming cycle (Labianca, 2021). Through a critical reading of the LEADER in its implementation on a regional scale, problems and limits will be highlighted, especially in terms of governance, planning styles and dynamics. Some intervention proposals and future opportunities in relation to the future of rural policies in Europe will be discussed too.

Multiscalar articulation in territorial development under the LEADER approach: the case of the Apulia region

labianca marilena
2021-01-01

Abstract

European Cohesion Policies take action through national, regional and interregional programming tools to support the sustainable development of territories in a diversified way, depending on contexts and needs, but requiring the adoption of new technical and managerial tools, new approaches and ways operating often outside the traditional decision-making and administrative styles of each Country. In fact, different responses can be found in European territories on a local scale in terms of tools, governance, planning styles and practices. In this direction, a strategic role is played by rural policies, especially in marginal areas characterized by complexity, diversity, and often unexpressed territorial potential. In fact, if on the one hand, the local characteristics play a fundamental role in terms of competitive advantages on a global scale, on the other hand on a local scale, in particular in fragile and marginal contexts, capacity for innovation in terms of governance and style of planning, knowledge and skills are increasingly urgent (Labianca, 2021). Starting from the 90s and gradually over time, due to the LEADER, approach, rural development policy has brought about an important turning point, moving from a purely sectoral activity and productivist approach to an integrated, territorial one (Labianca, 2021; 2016; Cejudo and Labianca, 2017; Dax, 2015). This has allowed a rediscovery of local potential and capacities, representing an important opportunity for marginal territories to solve problems of isolation, emigration and aging of the population (Labianca and Navarro, 2019). Starting from a distinction between traditional and regulatory institutions (D’Amico and De Rubertis, 2014), this contribution will propose a reflection on the characteristics of these institutions, on the positioning of LEADER in a multilevel governance, in order to understand conflicts on a territorial scale, in particular between actors, methods and tools. Through a re-reading of the key features constituting the LEADER approach, the case of the Apulia region will be analyzed. It is a significant case on a European and national level for several aspects. It’s a region of the Convergence objective, mainly rural, characterized by significant experiences in the practice of bottom-up programs, mainly LEADER and a high degree of experimentation and innovation in terms of governance and planning also in the current programming cycle (Labianca, 2021). Through a critical reading of the LEADER in its implementation on a regional scale, problems and limits will be highlighted, especially in terms of governance, planning styles and dynamics. Some intervention proposals and future opportunities in relation to the future of rural policies in Europe will be discussed too.
9788866290216
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11369/422049
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact