Agric. Econ. - Czech, 2010, 56(6):249-265 | DOI: 10.17221/27/2010-AGRICECON

Preliminary impacts of LEADER+ approach in the Czech Republic

Michal LO©«ÁK, Helena HUDEČKOVÁ
Department of Humanities, Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic

The paper outlines the backgrounds related to the necessity of searching for the new methods of assessing preliminary impacts of the rural development programmes. That is why the content analysis is tested in this paper for its possibilities to observe the preliminary impacts of one of the rural development tools - the Community initiative LEADER+ in the Czech Republic. The research pointed out that content analysis might be an appropriate method to define some impacts (and also the efficiency) of the LEADER+ approach. The results demonstrated that the transparency and public accountability of some local action groups (LAG) activities are not always on a high level. Also the differences among the LAGs are shown as for their ability to learn the principles of the LEADER+. The method also enabled to estimate how the LEADER+ contributes to eliminate the social exclusion in the countryside. It also pointed out a lower representation of farming oriented projects in the LEADER+ approach. The content analysis reflected the transfer of the best practices among the territories and also the possible knowledge of the public about the LEADER+ approach and about the projects implemented in this initiative.

Keywords: rural development impacts, content analysis, LEADER+

Published: June 30, 2010  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
LO©«ÁK M, HUDEČKOVÁ H. Preliminary impacts of LEADER+ approach in the Czech Republic. Agric. Econ. - Czech. 2010;56(6):249-265. doi: 10.17221/27/2010-AGRICECON.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Bailey K.D. (1987): Methods of Social Research. 3 rd ed. The Free Press, a Division of Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York.
    2. Bauman Z. (2002): Tekutá modernita (Liquid modernity). Mladá fronta, Praha.
    3. Bělohradský V. (2007): Společnost nevolnosti. Eseje z pozdějąí doby (Disgusting society or Society of non-freedom: Essays from latter time /the word nevolnost has 2 meanings: disgusting or non-freedom). SLON, Praha.
    4. Blaľek J., Uhlíř D. (2002): Teorie regionálního rozvoje: nástin, kritika, klasifikace (Theories of regional development: outline, criticism, classification). Karolinum, Praha.
    5. Böcher M. (2008): Regional Governance and Rural Development in Germany: the Implemenation of LEADER+. Sociologa Ruralis, 48: 372-388. Go to original source...
    6. Bourdieu P. (1983): Ökonomisches Kapital, kulturelles Kapital, soziales Kapital. In: Kreckel R. (ed.): Soziale Ungleichheiten: Soziale Welt, Sonderheft 2. Goettingen: Otto Schartz & Co., pp. 183-198.
    7. Buller H. (2000): Re-creating rural territories: LEADER in France. Sociologia Ruralis, 40: 190-199. Go to original source...
    8. Dijkstra L., Poelman H. (2008): Remote rural regions. How proximity to a city influences the performance of rural regions. Regional Focus No 1. DG Regio, European Commission, Brussels. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/focus/2008_01_rural.pdf (accessed 25 January, 2009).
    9. Disman M. (1969): Terénní sběr informací (Data gathersociologického výzkumu (Some techniques of sociological research). Svoboda, Praha, pp. 151-345.
    10. European Commission, Directore General for Agriculture. 2001. Guidelines for the Evaluation of Rural Development Programmes Supported by SAPARD. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/external/enlarge/eval/sapard/a_en.pdf#search=%22Guidelines%20for%20the%20Evaluation%20of%20Rural%20Development%20Programmes%20Supported%20by%20SAPARD%20%22 (accessed 30 April, 2009).
    11. Giddens A. (1998): Důsledky modernity (Consequences of modernity). SLON, Praha.
    12. High C., Nemes G. (2007): Social learning in LEADER: Exogenous, endogenous and hybrid evaluation in rural development. Sociologia Ruralis, 47: 103-119. Go to original source...
    13. Hubík S. (2004): Social construction of local/regional capital. Agricultural Economics - Czech, 50: 445-449. Go to original source...
    14. Hubík S. (2007): Operational zones, countryside, network society. Agricultural Economics - Czech, 53: 491-494. Go to original source...
    15. Hudečková H., Loą»ák M. (2008): Network structures in Leader approach in the Czech Republic. In: Agrarian Perspectives XVII (Conference proceedings). Czech University of Life Sciences, Faculty of Economics and Management, Prague, pp. 325-329.
    16. Kovách I., Kučerová E. (2006): The project class in Central Europe: the Czech and Hungarian cases. Sociologia Ruralis, 46: 3-21. Go to original source...
    17. Lee J., Árnason A., Nightingale A., Sucksmith M. (2005): Networking: social capital and identities in European rural development. Sociologia Ruralis, 45: 269-283 Go to original source...
    18. Loą»ák M. (2004): Proměny soudobého zemědělství (The changes of contemporary farming). In: Jihomoravský venkov po socialism (South Moravian countryside after the socialism). Universita Karlova, Fakulta sociálních věd a Matfyzpress). Praha, pp. 177-198.
    19. Loą»ák M., Hudečková H. (2008): Agriculture and farming related activities: their actors and position in the LEADER approach. Agricultural Economics - Czech, 54: 245-262. Go to original source...
    20. Loą»ák M., Peterová J. Zagata L. Kučerová E. (2008): Forms and results of farmers' collective marketing in the Czech Republic. In: Agricultural Market and Trade: Evidence and Perspectives of V4 Region and its Neighbour - Ukraine. Editorial House Wies Jutra, Limited, Warsaw, pp. 43-65.
    21. Lukesch R. (2003): Assessing the equilibrium between autonomy and accountability: the evaluation of LEADER II. Paper presented at the Fifth European Conference on Evaluation of the Structural Funds, Budapest, June 2003. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docconf/budapeval/work/lukesch.doc (accessed 25 May, 2009).
    22. Marsden T. (2009): Mobilities, vulnerabilities and sustainabilities: exploring pathways from denial to sustainable rural development. Sociologia Ruralis, 49: 113-131. Go to original source...
    23. Neuendorf K. (2002): The Content Analysis Guidebook. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
    24. Newby H., Buttel F.H. (1980): Toward a critical rural sociology. In: Buttel F.H., Newby H. (eds.): The Rural Sociology of the Advanced Societies: Critical Perspectives. Allanheld, Osumn Co Publishers, Inc., Montclair, pp. 1-35.
    25. Newby H. (1982): Rural sociology and its relevance to the agricultural economist: a review. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 33: 125-165. Go to original source...
    26. Osti G. (2000): LEADER and partnership: the case of Italy. Sociologia Ruralis, 40: 172-180. Go to original source...
    27. Pahl R. (1968): The Rural Urban Continuum. In: Pahl R.E. (ed.): Readings in Urban Sociology Pergamon Press Ltd., Oxford, pp. 263-297. Go to original source...
    28. Polanyi K. (1957): The economy as instituted process. In: Granovetter M., Swedberg R. (eds.): The Sociology of Economic Life. Reprint 1992 Westview Press, Boulder, San Francisco, Oxford, pp. 29-50.
    29. Ploeg van der J.D. (2000): Revitalising agriculture: farming economically as a starting ground for rural development. Sociologia Ruralis, 40: 497-511. Go to original source...
    30. Putnam R. (1993): Making Democracy Work: Civic Tradition in Modern Italy. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Go to original source...
    31. Putnam R. (2000): Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster, New York. Go to original source...
    32. Ray C. (2000): The EU LEADER programme: rural development laboratory. Sociologia Ruralis, 40: 163-171. Go to original source...
    33. Sucksmith M. (2000): Endogenous development, social capital and social inclusion: perspectives from LEADER in UK. Sociologia Ruralis, 40: 208-218. Go to original source...
    34. Sucksmith M. (2010): Disintegrated rural development? Neo-endogenous rural development, Planning and place-shaping in diffused power contexts. Sociologia Ruralis, 50: 1-14. Go to original source...
    35. ©ulák T. (2006): MAS(ky) v Česku berou Leader útokem (LAGs take Leader by storm). Rural newspaper, June 2006 (5): 1; 3. Available at http://www.nevladky.cz/data/venkovske_noviny2006_5.pdf (accessed 10 August, 2006).
    36. The Council of the European Union (2005). Council regulation (EC) 1698/2005 of September 20, 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. Official Journal of the European Union 2005/L 277/1. Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2005:277:0001:0040:EN:PDF (accessed 25 May, 2009).
    37. The European Commission (2000). Commission notice to member states of 14 April 2000 laying down guidelines for the Community initiative for rural development (Leader+). Official Journal of European Communities Available at http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rur/leaderplus/pdf/library/methodology/139_en.pdf#search=%22COMMISSION%20NOTICE%20TO%20THE%20MEMBER%20STATES%22 (accessed 4 June, 2009).
    38. The ESPON 2013 Programme EDORA Interim report (2009). Available at http://www.espon.eu/export/sites/default/Documents/Projects/AppliedResearch/EDORA/edora_interim_report_version_300409.pdf (accessed 13 November, 2009).
    39. Tichá I. (2005): Učící se organizace (Leasing organizations). Alfa Publishing., Praha.
    40. Woods M. (2008): Social movements and rural politics. Journal of Rural Studies, 24: 129-137. Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content