Suchergebnisse

Support for balanced regional development with participatory approaches has a long tradition in EU funding programmes for rural development. LEADER started 25 years ago and now has 2600 Local Action Groups (LAGs). These LAGs collaborate as a kind of a public-private partnership on the basis of an integrated local development strategy and administer own budgets to support projects. To examine the contributions of LEADER to local governance, we can present results from the ex-post-evaluation of Rural Development Programs (2007-2013) in six federal states in Germany. A mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods has been used. In addition first evaluation results are shown for the 2014-2020 funding period, especially from a survey of 115 LAGs in four German federal states. To examine governance matters on the input-side we look at the type and structure of participa-tion while on the output-side we focus on contributions to rural development. On the input-side the involvement of civil society and economy actors was successful, but inade-quate funding conditions for private actors set limitations for their involvement in project imple-mentation. In addition, the LAG-compositions show a lack of underprivileged groups and note-worthy shortfalls in gender representation. Looking at the output-side and the factors favoring the success of governance arrangements like LEADER, the estimations of LAG-managers show that the most important factors are: commit-ment, financial/material resources, involvement of key-personalities as driving forces, level of acceptance/cooperation and support from local/regional political actors. Remarkably, the quality of the local development strategies was rated less important but still relevant.

In the last funding periods there was steady increase in the number of LEADER-regions in Europe, and, at least in Germany, it is already evident that this gain will continue: for the 2014-2020 funding period there around 300 LAGs expected in comparison to 244 LAGs in the last period. For the new funding period new regulations envisages a Common Strategic Framework (CSF) to provide all EU Funds with a set of basic rules in line with the general principles - partnership, multi-level governance, equality and sustainability. Now there are common options for a so-called "Community-Led Local Development" (CLLD). Although LEADER is commonly called a bottom-up approach, it has to be pointed out that there is a high influence through a superordinated framework of funding regulations. So more precisely LEADER is neither "top-down" nor "bottom-up", but can classified as a "down up"-approach. This clarifies the basic understanding for the terms used in the context of multi-level governance. Second there is a look on the state of the art of LEADER-related research in the view of LEADER as a "down up" approach. Anyhow the experiences with LEADER in the last 25 years can give valuable insights. Altogether, the literature review already supports the need to have a multi-level-view on CLLD.

Die Herausforderungen in den ländlichen Räumen Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns werfen die Frage nach passenden Politikmaßnahmen für die spezifische Situation der Transformationsländer Mittel- und Osteuropas auf. Ein Ansatz der ländlichen Entwicklung ist LEADER. LEADER ist bottom-up orientiert und verfügt über ein eigenes regionales Budget zur Projektförderung. Es gibt eine lange Geschichte von LEADER, wobei Defizite hinsichtlich einer wirklichen bottom-up Beteiligung und Innovation insbesondere in der aktuellen Förderperiode beschrieben werden. Um die Frage nach passenden Politikmaßnahmen zu diskutieren, werden Erfahrungen aus Mecklenburg-Vorpommern und ein Vergleich mit den LEADER-Erfahrungen westlicher Bundesländer einbezogen. Hierfür werden die Ergebnisse der Evaluierung Ländlicher Entwicklungsprogramme genutzt. Insgesamt wird deutlich, dass der LEADER-Ansatz auch in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern funktioniert. Historisch bedingte Prägungen zeigen sich zum Beispiel als Unterschiede in der Partizipation (weniger Arbeitsgruppen, aber ein höherer Frauenanteil als in westdeutschen Ländern). Einschränkungen, innovative Projekte fördern zu können, sind eindeutig nicht nur in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern ein Problem. Um die ursprünglichen und beabsichtigten Stärken des LEADER-Ansatzes zu nutzen, wären insbesondere flexiblere Fördermöglichkeiten von Projekten für die Lokalen Aktionsgruppen erforderlich (mit einer Orientierung an den eigenen Zielen der LEADER-Regionen). ; The challenges in rural areas in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern raise the question of how to find appropriate policy interventions specifically in transition countries. One approach to move rural development forward is LEADER. LEADER is a bottom-up participatory approach that uses regional budgets to fund projects. There is a long history of LEADER-implementation. Especially in the current funding period a limited bottom- up participation and a lack of innovation are prevalent. To discuss the question of appropriate policy interventions, experiences in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and a comparison with LEADER-experiences in western Germany will be examined. Therefore, the findings of the evaluation of Rural Development Programs (RDPs) in seven federal states in Germany are used. Overall, the results show that the LEADER approach is working in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Historical patterns are visible in some areas: for example, in differences in participation structures (fewer working groups, but a higher proportion of female LAG-members than in western Germany). However, the problems for funding innovative projects were common, and the shortcomings are clearly not only a problem in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. To use the original and intended strengths of the LEADER approach, a more flexible funding structure, which is oriented on the region's own goals, is recommended.

The challenges for the quality of life in rural areas in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, connected with structural economic and demographic changes, raise the question of how to find appropriate policy interventions in the specific situation of transitions countries. One approach to bring forward rural development is LEADER, a locally managed, place-based form of policy intervention. LEADER is bottom-up oriented and participatory with own regional budgets to fund projects. There are 13 LEADER-regions in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. To discuss the question of appropriate policy interventions, experiences in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern will be considered and a comparison with the LEADER-experiences in western Germany will be made. Therefore, the findings of the evaluation of Rural Development Programs (RDPs) in six federal states in Germany will be used to examine the performance of the LEADER-approach. In general a survey of LAG-members shows positive results regarding the performance of LEADER with no major discrepancies between Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and western Germany, but there are differences in participation structures (less working groups, but a higher share of female LAG-members in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern than in western Germany) and the role of the state sector. Problems for funding innovative projects were common, especially at the beginning of the funding period. To use the original and intended strengths of the LEADER approach, greater freedom for the Local Actions Groups (LAG) would be required (also in the European policy framework). ; Der Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit LEADER als partizipativem Entwicklungsansatz für Ländliche Räume. Dazu werden die spezifischen Bedingungen in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern im Vergleich mit westdeutschen Bundesländern untersucht und die Eignung dieses Entwicklungsansatzes zur Verbessertung der Lebensqualität betrachtet.

This report is the final deliverable of TRUSTEE task 3.3. It present the research protocol, the methodology used and most of results. LEADER is qualified as down-up approach combining EU policy framework and local strategy. The implementation is quite heterogeneous dependend on institutional factors and political choices at national level, structural characteristics and socio-political local factors. Our findings highlight the diversity of LEADER implementations in the three countries under study (France, Germany, Italy) and the influence of institutional factors. The design of the programs influence, for example, via the setting of funding conditions or demands on institutional settings at the local level, the extent to which local actors from different spheres get involved in local development via LEADER.

New governance structures, meant to empower local decision makers, are supported by some policies introduced by the European Commission. LEADER, from rural development policy, is among these approaches. Nevertheless, these new policies are implemented in very different multi-level governance contexts in the European nation states. We question in how far the institutional differences on the different levels affect the implementation of LEADER on the local level. We thereby hope to contribute to a better understanding of the causes and consequences of differences in the impacts and effectiveness of the LEADER approach as has been documented thus far by research analyses. In our TRUSTEE research project we concentrate on ten cases in France, Germany and Italy. We describe the three different administration systems and the different types of RDP-implementation. Based on analyses of documents and interviews with stakeholders, we then analyze the possible relation of these institutional differences to the LEADER implementation at a local level.

New governance structures, meant to empower local decision makers, are supported by some policies introduced by the European Commission. LEADER, from rural development policy, is among these approaches. Nevertheless, these new policies are implemented in very different multi-level governance contexts in the European nation states. We question in how far the institutional differences on the different levels affect the implementation of LEADER on the local level. We thereby hope to contribute to a better understanding of the causes and consequences of differences in the impacts and effectiveness of the LEADER approach as has been documented thus far by research analyses. In our TRUSTEE research project we concentrate on ten cases in France, Germany and Italy. We describe the three different administration systems and the different types of RDP-implementation. Based on analyses of documents and interviews with stakeholders, we then analyze the possible relation of these institutional differences to the LEADER implementation at a local level.

New governance structures, meant to empower local decision makers, are supported by some policies introduced by the European Commission. LEADER, from rural development policy, is among these approaches. Nevertheless, these new policies are implemented in very different multi-level governance contexts in the European nation states. We question in how far the institutional differences on the different levels affect the implementation of LEADER on the local level. We thereby hope to contribute to a better understanding of the causes and consequences of differences in the impacts and effectiveness of the LEADER approach as has been documented thus far by research analyses. In our TRUSTEE research project we concentrate on ten cases in France, Germany and Italy. We describe the three different administration systems and the different types of RDP-implementation. Based on analyses of documents and interviews with stakeholders, we then analyze the possible relation of these institutional differences to the LEADER implementation at a local level.

New governance structures, meant to empower local decision makers, are supported by some policies introduced by the European Commission. LEADER, from rural development policy, is among these approaches. Nevertheless, these new policies are implemented in very different multi-level governance contexts in the European nation states. We question in how far the institutional differences on the different levels affect the implementation of LEADER on the local level. We thereby hope to contribute to a better understanding of the causes and consequences of differences in the impacts and effectiveness of the LEADER approach as has been documented thus far by research analyses. In our TRUSTEE research project we concentrate on ten cases in France, Germany and Italy. We describe the three different administration systems and the different types of RDP-implementation. Based on analyses of documents and interviews with stakeholders, we then analyze the possible relation of these institutional differences to the LEADER implementation at a local level.

New governance structures, meant to empower local decision makers, are supported by some policies introduced by the European Commission. LEADER, from rural development policy, is among these approaches. Nevertheless, these new policies are implemented in very different multi-level governance contexts in the European nation states. We question in how far the institutional differences on the different levels affect the implementation of LEADER on the local level. We thereby hope to contribute to a better understanding of the causes and consequences of differences in the impacts and effectiveness of the LEADER approach as has been documented thus far by research analyses. In our TRUSTEE research project we concentrate on ten cases in France, Germany and Italy. We describe the three different administration systems and the different types of RDP-implementation. Based on analyses of documents and interviews with stakeholders, we then analyze the possible relation of these institutional differences to the LEADER implementation at a local level.

New governance structures, meant to empower local decision makers, are supported by some policies introduced by the European Commission. LEADER, from rural development policy, is among these approaches. Nevertheless, these new policies are implemented in very different multi-level governance contexts in the European nation states. We question in how far the institutional differences on the different levels affect the implementation of LEADER on the local level. We thereby hope to contribute to a better understanding of the causes and consequences of differences in the impacts and effectiveness of the LEADER approach as has been documented thus far by research analyses. In our TRUSTEE research project we concentrate on ten cases in France, Germany and Italy. We describe the three different administration systems and the different types of RDP-implementation. Based on analyses of documents and interviews with stakeholders, we then analyze the possible relation of these institutional differences to the LEADER implementation at a local level.

New governance structures, meant to empower local decision makers, are supported by some policies introduced by the European Commission. LEADER, from rural development policy, is among these approaches. Nevertheless, these new policies are implemented in very different multi-level governance contexts in the European nation states. We question in how far the institutional differences on the different levels affect the implementation of LEADER on the local level. We thereby hope to contribute to a better understanding of the causes and consequences of differences in the impacts and effectiveness of the LEADER approach as has been documented thus far by research analyses. In our TRUSTEE research project we concentrate on ten cases in France, Germany and Italy. We describe the three different administration systems and the different types of RDP-implementation. Based on analyses of documents and interviews with stakeholders, we then analyze the possible relation of these institutional differences to the LEADER implementation at a local level.

New governance structures, meant to empower local decision makers, are supported by some policies introduced by the European Commission. LEADER, from rural development policy, is among these approaches. Nevertheless, these new policies are implemented in very different multi-level governance contexts in the European nation states. We question in how far the institutional differences on the different levels affect the implementation of LEADER on the local level. We thereby hope to contribute to a better understanding of the causes and consequences of differences in the impacts and effectiveness of the LEADER approach as has been documented thus far by research analyses. In our TRUSTEE research project we concentrate on ten cases in France, Germany and Italy. We describe the three different administration systems and the different types of RDP-implementation. Based on analyses of documents and interviews with stakeholders, we then analyze the possible relation of these institutional differences to the LEADER implementation at a local level.

New governance structures, meant to empower local decision makers, are supported by some policies introduced by the European Commission. LEADER, from rural development policy, is among these approaches. Nevertheless, these new policies are implemented in very different multi-level governance contexts in the European nation states. We question in how far the institutional differences on the different levels affect the implementation of LEADER on the local level. We thereby hope to contribute to a better understanding of the causes and consequences of differences in the impacts and effectiveness of the LEADER approach as has been documented thus far by research analyses. In our TRUSTEE research project we concentrate on ten cases in France, Germany and Italy. We describe the three different administration systems and the different types of RDP-implementation. Based on analyses of documents and interviews with stakeholders, we then analyze the possible relation of these institutional differences to the LEADER implementation at a local level. ; Revised version / erweiterte & überarbeitete Version

European public policies in field of regional and rural development and territorial cohesion have a large role in Europe. Regional and rural development policies are designed taking into account the principles of subsidiarity, partnership and additionality. According to these principles, the European Union defines general guidelines and the member states or their sub-regional levels develop their specific strategy and way of implementation in their RD program within this frame. In this logic, Leader program, established by the European Union in 1991, aims to support the development of strategies at a sub-regional level that meet specific challenges of the territory; therefore, a bottom-up approach is implemented that involves public and private stakeholders. The presentation will show results of the comparative analysis of the implementation modalities of the Leader program at the national, regional and local level in Germany, France and Italy. These three countries show significant national level differences in terms of political and administrative organization and the decentralization of power. The analysis is based on a literature review, the examination of program and guidance documents, and on first results of case studies. Our main approach is based on the theory of multi-level governance (Bache & Flinders 2004; Pollermann et al. 2014) - understood as a mode of coordination - involving different spheres of actors and forms of regulation of various kinds (Jessop 2002). According to the expectations of some of the proponents of a new governance, the state in the multi-level governance setting has given up some of its control functions in favor of a more co-ordination role (Bache and Flinders, 2004 ; Buller, 2000 ; Mantino, 2009) or 'gouvernance à distance' (Epstein, 2005). Our findings highlight the diversity of LEADER implementations in the three countries under study and the central role of the decentralization of the member states structure for the performance of LEADER