foreword

Whither Rural Development?

Wohin führt die Entwicklungdes ländlichen Raums ?

Quel développement rural ?

The reforms of agriculturalpolicies and the creation of theSecond Pillar of the CommonAgricultural Policy promptquestions about the scope andpurpose of rural development. Ithas in the past been seen as the‘poor relation’ to agriculturalpolicy, filling in the gaps thathave been left over. But withthe dismantling of commodityprice support and doubts as tothe rationale behind direct

payments, we must ask whetherrural development policy canstand alone in its own right.

It is widely accepted that boththe theory and practice of ruraldevelopment are changing. Vander Ploeg et al. (2000) assert a‘new model of ruraldevelopment’ and a paradigmshift in associated theory. TheOECD (2006) sees a ‘new ruralparadigm’ as a basis for‘reinventing rural policy’. Infact what we are witnessingseems more like evolution thanrevolution; a shift of balancewhere agriculture loses its pre-eminence and we accept awider interpretation of thesorts of agricultural structuresthat are seen, in contemporarylanguage, as being sustainable.But the broader mix ofeconomic activities within ruralareas may well be more of areturn to the past than a novelinnovation. Perhaps it is thedominance of agriculture inrural economies and policies inthe period since the SecondWorld War that is theexception. Of course, this isnot to say that the future will

be the same as the past,clearly it will not.

However, the need to rethinkrural development is clear. Whatshould be its objectives? By whatmeasures and at what scaleshould it be implemented? Howshould it be evaluated? It seemsunlikely that the underlyingobjectives for rural developmenthave significantly altered. Somewhile ago I suggested (Hodge,1986) that it should be definedin terms of ‘an overallimprovement in welfare of ruralresidents and in thecontribution that the ruralresource base makes moregenerally to the population as awhole’ and this general concernstill seems appropriate.However, the measures to beadopted in order to promoterural development will change.Investment in agriculture maystill offer a suitable method ofpromoting development, butonly in restricted localities andprobably only in supporting highquality products and value-added activities. It will be ameans towards an end, not anend in itself.

The fundamental differencefrom agricultural policy is in the

Ian Hodge,President of the AES,2007–2008

ƒ‘‘Il est clair qu’il faut

repenser le developpe-

ment rural … serait-il

preferable d’abandon-

ner le ‘‘rural’’ pour se

concentrer simplement

sur le ‘‘local’’ ?,,ƒ‘‘Die Notwendigkeit,

die Entwicklung des

landlichen Raums noch

einmal zu uberdenken,

liegt auf der Hand ...

ware es besser, die

‘landlichen’ Aspekte

fallen zu lassen und

sich nur auf die ‘loka-

len’ zu konzentrier-

en?,,04ƒEuroChoices 7(1) ª 2008 The Author

Journal compilation ª The Agricultural Economics Society and the European Association of Agricultural Economists 2008

need for targeting particularlocalities, even specificallyidentified businesses andindividuals. This presents aremarkably complex decision-making problem. While themarket conveyed the incentivesand benefits of commodity pricesupport, disregarding thedesirability or otherwise of theconsequences, there is nomarket for rural development.And rural development needs totake account of the enormousdiversity that exists acrossdifferent rural areas in terms oftheir economic andenvironmental circumstancesand the types of interventionsthat might be effective in raisingwelfare. A sophisticatedadministrative process isrequired in order to identifyspecific problems, to allocateresources and to evaluateoutcomes suited to localconditions. This will not beachieved by centralisedbureaucracies sitting in nationalcapital cities. Decentralisation ofdecision-making is inevitable,and so by implication is someelement of re-nationalisation ofthe CAP. The process of ruraldevelopment dependssubstantially on qualitative aswell as quantitative information,making the transfer ofinformation across differentlevels of government difficult.The problem directs ourattention to the development ofinstitutions, networks,relationships and norms, i.e. thesocial capital that can facilitatethe process of ruraldevelopment, both horizontallywithin rural areas and vertically

across government andother hierarchies. This leadsus towards somechallenging interdisciplinaryterritory.

Perhaps a last question iswhether such a locally basedand differentiated policyapproach remains ‘rural’ atall. Would it be better to drop

the ‘rural’ and concentratesimply on the ‘local’? Giventhe political challenges ofshifting from ‘agricultural’ to‘rural’ this will yet be a steptoo far politically. But it is avalid question to which we willneed an answer. There arevaluable lessons to be learntfrom the experience withurban development andregeneration policies and therewill be merit in locating ruraldevelopment within this widerarea. However, there are alsocommon issues across evendifferentiated rural areas,associated with the challenges oflow settlement densities andstructural change, that will keeprural development as alegitimate area of discourse andpolicy.

Further Reading

n Hodge, I. (1986). The scope and context of rural development.European Review of Agricultural Economics, 13(3): 271–282.

n OECD (2006). Reinventing Rural Policy. Policy Brief. Organisation forEconomic Co-operation and Development, Paris.

n van der Ploeg, J., Renting, H., Brunori, G., Knickel, K., Mannion, J.,Marsden, T., de Roest, K., Sevilla-Guzmán, E. and Ventura, F. (2000). Ruraldevelopment: From practices and policies towards theories. Sociologia

Ruralis, 40(4): 391–408.

Ian Hodge, President of the AES, 2007–2008

Email: idh3@cam.ac.uk

Editor’s note

I would especially like to thank Guest Editors, ProfessorDavid Blandford, Pennsylvania State University andProfessor Berkeley Hill, Imperial College London for theirtireless work along with the editorial team in bringingtogether this special issue on rural development. I hopethat it will promote further debate on this important topicwithin EuroChoices. Further contributions and commentson the issues raised in this special will be welcome.John Davis

ƒ‘‘The need to

rethink rural develop-

ment is clear ... would it

be better to drop the

‘rural’ and concentrate

simply on the

‘local’?,,

ª 2008 The Author EuroChoices 7(1)ƒ 05

Journal compilation ª The Agricultural Economics Society and the European Association of Agricultural Economists 2008