Variety in local development strategies and employment: LEADER programme in Andalusia

https://doi.org/10.17221/106/2018-AGRICECONCitation:Rodriguez M., Miguel Sanchez L., Cejudo E., Antonio Camacho J. (2019): Variety in local development strategies and employment: LEADER programme in Andalusia. Agric. Econ. – Czech, 65: 43-50.
supplementary materialdownload PDF

For the period 2007–2013 LEADER became the fourth axis of rural development policy. One of the main characteristics of LEADER is that it adopts a bottom-up approach. Local Action Groups (LAGs) have to define and implement area-based local development strategies (LDSs). In this paper, we examine the relationship between variety in the LDSs implemented by LAGs and employment safeguarding over the programming period 2007–2013 in Andalusia, the most populated region of Spain. Firstly, we construct several indicators to capture differences in the number of projects carried out, the grants awarded, the investments made and the safeguarded employment. Secondly, we carry out an exploratory factor analysis. We use cluster analysis to classify LAGs applying similar LDSs. The results obtained show that there is no ideal strategy for employment safeguarding and that spending high amounts of money in a few numbers of projects does not guarantee success. Thus, most LAGs do not show any clear specialisation pattern but obtain moderate results in terms of employment safeguarding. This supports the idea that LAGs need to have sufficient flexibility to find a balance among the different objectives of the rural development policy and to translate this balance into the funding of projects.

References:
Bosworth Gary, Annibal Ivan, Carroll Terry, Price Liz, Sellick Jessica, Shepherd John (2016): Empowering Local Action through Neo-Endogenous Development; The Case of LEADER in England. Sociologia Ruralis, 56, 427-449 https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12089
 
Boukalova K., Kolarova A., Lostak M. (2016): Tracing shift in Czech rural development paradigm (Reflections of Local Action Groups in the media). Agricultural Economics (Zemědělská ekonomika), 62, 149-159 https://doi.org/10.17221/102/2015-AGRICECON
 
Cañete José Antonio, Navarro Francisco, Cejudo Eugenio (2018): Territorially unequal rural development: the cases of the LEADER Initiative and the PRODER Programme in Andalusia (Spain). European Planning Studies, 26, 726-744 https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1424118
 
Convery Ian, Soane Ian, Dutson Tom, Shaw Helen (2010): Mainstreaming LEADER Delivery of the RDR in Cumbria: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Sociologia Ruralis, 50, 370-391 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2010.00519.x
 
Dax Thomas, Oedl-Wieser Theresia (2016): Rural innovation activities as a means for changing development perspectives An assessment of more than two decades of promoting LEADER initiatives across the European Union. Studies in Agricultural Economics, 118, 30-37 https://doi.org/10.7896/j.1535
 
Dax Thomas, Strahl Wibke, Kirwan James, Maye Damian (2013): The Leader programme 2007–2013: Enabling or disabling social innovation and neo-endogenous development? Insights from Austria and Ireland. European Urban and Regional Studies, 23, 56-68 https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776413490425
 
Delin M. (2012):   The role of farmers in Local Action Groups: The case of the national network of the Local Action Groups in the Czech Republic. Agricultural Economics (Zemědělská ekonomika), 58, 433-442 https://doi.org/10.17221/148/2011-AGRICECON
 
Esparcia Javier, Escribano Jaime, Serrano J. Javier (2015): From development to power relations and territorial governance: Increasing the leadership role of LEADER Local Action Groups in Spain. Journal of Rural Studies, 42, 29-42 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.09.005
 
European Commission (2017): Ex post evaluation of rural development programmes 2007–2013. Information Report. European Economic and Social Committee.
 
European Court of Auditors (2010): Implementation of the leader approach for rural development. Special Report No. 5/2010, Brussels. Available at http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/7912812.PDF (accessed March 5, 2018).
 
General Secretary of Agriculture and Food of Andalusia (2018): SEGGES.DOS information system. Junta de Andalucía, Seville.
 
Lošťák M., Hudečková H. (2010): Preliminary impacts of LEADER+ approach in the Czech Republic. Agricultural Economics (Zemědělská ekonomika), 56, 249-265 https://doi.org/10.17221/27/2010-AGRICECON
 
Navarro Francisco Antonio, Woods Michael, Cejudo Eugenio (2016): The LEADER Initiative has been a Victim of Its Own Success. The Decline of the Bottom-Up Approach in Rural Development Programmes. The Cases of Wales and Andalusia. Sociologia Ruralis, 56, 270-288 https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12079
 
OECD (2006): The New Rural Paradigm: Policies and Governance. OECD, Paris.
 
Papadopoulou E., Hasanagas N., Harvey D. (2011): Analysis of rural development policy networks in Greece: Is LEADER really different? Land Use Policy, 28: 663–673.
 
Pollermann Kim, Raue Petra, Schnaut Gitta (2013): Rural Development experiences in Germany: opportunities and obstacles in fostering smart places through LEADER. Studies in Agricultural Economics, 115, 111-117 https://doi.org/10.7896/j.1228
 
Thuesen Annette Aagaard (2010): Is LEADER Elitist or Inclusive? Composition of Danish LAG Boards in the 2007–2013 Rural Development and Fisheries Programmes. Sociologia Ruralis, 50, 31-45 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2009.00500.x
 
Volk A., Bojnec Š. (2014): Local action groups and the LEADER co-financing of rural development projects in Slovenia. Agricultural Economics (Zemědělská ekonomika), 60, 364-375 https://doi.org/10.17221/180/2013-AGRICECON
 
supplementary materialdownload PDF

© 2019 Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences