Tag: rural development

This paper explores and analyses the Hungarian institutional system for the creation and the transfer of knowledge in the field of agriculture and rural development. We consider the constitution and operation of the Agricultural Knowledge System (AKS) in Hungary, focussing on the formally organised aspects, and suggest that both the structure and content of the knowledge needed in the sector have significantly changed during the past decades. These changes, especially in relation to the sustainability of agriculture, pose significant challenges to traditional AKS institutions, which often have failed to change in line with the new requirements. Based on a literature review, interviews and a national stakeholder workshop, we offer an analysis of Hungarian AKS institutions, their co-ordination, co-operation and communication with each other and with Hungarian rurality, and of the arising issues and problems concerning the creation and the flow of knowledge needed for sustainable agriculture. We also briefly explore characteristics of emerging bottom-up structures, called LINSAS (learning and innovation networks for sustainable agriculture), and explore the significance of the findings in this article for the study of AKS in Europe. This article is based on preliminary results of the SOLINSA research project, supported by the European Union’s Seventh Framework ...

To discuss the impact of LEADER on improving ‘smart places’, the findings of the evaluation of Rural Development Programmes in Germany are presented. A survey of Local Action Group (LAG) members shows positive results about the quality of cooperation and communication within the LAG. Although there are obstacles for innovation, LEADER shows what is already possible in very different fields such as youth projects for qualifications, concepts for sustainable use of energy or innovative ways to organise social infrastructure. Relevant obstacles are bureaucratic restrictions. To use the opportunities, it is advisable not to set narrow limits for the size of the regions; the regions should decide on this themselves. Also, for the selection of projects no narrow administrative restrictions should apply to the kinds of projects that are eligible. To benefit from the original strengths of the LEADER approach, greater freedom for locally managed actions would be required.

Social innovation is often appointed as an essential part of agricultural and rural innovation. Everybody seems to agree that social innovation is important but what exactly is meant by the term remains often unclear. This paper aims at clarifying the meaning and significance of the concept by going back to its root in innovation science and policy. It appoints three main interpretations of social innovation, referring to the social mechanism of innovation, the social responsibility of innovation and the need for innovating society. Studying its application in the field of agriculture and rural development reveals that social innovation is rarely referred to when agriculture as a singular economic activity is concerned, but prominently present in discussions about rural development. Here social innovation may be referred to when identifying society’s need for more sustainable production methods, the necessity for collaboration and social learning, and the scope of change needed for revitalising (rural) society. Often, however, social innovation is presented as a tangle of interdependent processes and beneficial outcomes. Its fuzziness contributes to its discursive power in discussions about agricultural politics and the significance of sustainability, but also hides the valued-loadedness of social innovation. As a result its critical potential becomes neutralised. ...