Agric. Econ. - Czech, 2018, 64(9):412-422 | DOI: 10.17221/160/2016-AGRICECON

Social inclusion in the context of Czech rural development policyOriginal Paper

Eva KUCEROVA*
Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Czech Republic

The paper addresses social inclusion. It aims to investigate how social inclusion was conceptualized in the main Czech policy documents related to the EU. The text argues that one of the tools of social inclusion - social economy represented by social entrepreneurship and social farming - is a sort of innovative practice. The findings suggest that the understanding of social inclusion evolves within policy documents towards highlighting social economy through matching its theoretical concept with political measures. However, social economy is still not considered by the documents as an innovative approach. If analysing projects funded under Czech Rural Development Programs, social inclusion in rural areas is not the main theme, especially in regions exposed to the risk of social exclusion. In addition, the main actors (NGOs or social entrepreneurs) who are said to support social economy or social farming are not active in submitting projects in rural areas under the Rural Development Program 2007-2013. These actors have not yet used their potential towards developing social economy.

Keywords: rural development, social economy, social enterprise, social farming, social inclusion

Published: September 30, 2018  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
KUCEROVA E. Social inclusion in the context of Czech rural development policy. Agric. Econ. - Czech. 2018;64(9):412-422. doi: 10.17221/160/2016-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. Amin A., Cameron A., Hudson R. (2003): Placing the Social Economy. Routledge, London. Go to original source...
    2. Bock B. (2016): Rural marginalisation and the role of social innovation; a turn towards nexogenous development and rural reconnection. Sociologia Ruralis, 56: 552-573. Go to original source...
    3. Boukalová K., Kolářová A., Loą»ák M. (2016): Tracing shift in Czech rural development paradigm (reflections of Local Action Groups in the media). Agricultural Economics, 62: 149-159. Go to original source...
    4. Commission Recommendation 2008/867/EC (2008): Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/CS/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32008H0867 (accessed Aug 11, 2017).
    5. Commins P. (2004): Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas: characteristics, processes and research issues. Sociologia Ruralis, 44: 60-75. Go to original source...
    6. Čada K., Buchlerová D., Korecká Z., Samec T. (2015): Analysis of socially excluded localities in the Czech Republic. GAC. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Karel_Cada/publication/284181750_Analysis_of_Socially_Excluded_Localities_in_the_Czech_Republic/links/564ed97108aefe619b0ff43e/Analysis-of-Socially-Excluded-Localities-in-the-CzechRepublic.pdf (accessed May 20, 2017).
    7. Dessein J., Bock B.B. (eds) (2010): The Economics of Green Care in Agriculture. Loughborough University, Loughborough.
    8. Di Iacovo F., O'Connor D. (2009): Supporting Policies for Social Farming in Europe. Progressing Multifunctionality in Responsive Rural Areas. Firenze: Arsia, Toscana.
    9. Dohnalová M. (2006): Sociální ekonomika v evropském kontextu. Nadace Universitas, Brno.
    10. Esping-Andersen G. (1990): The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton University Press, New Jersey. Go to original source...
    11. European Commission (2017): Commission Recommendation 2008/867/EC. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/CS/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32008H0867 (accessed Aug 11, 2017).
    12. European Social Fund (2017): Pravidla výběru MAS k podpoře z IP 2.3 OPZ. Available at: https://www.esfcr.cz/file/9207 (accessed Aug 11, 2017).
    13. Eurostat (2017): Statistics on rural areas in EU. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Statistics_on_rural_areas_in_the_EU (accessed Sept 12, 2017).
    14. Giddens A., Sutton P.W. (eds) (2013): Sociologie. Argo, Praha.
    15. Hudečková H., Loą»ák M. (2002): Sociologie a její aplikace v regionálním/rurálním rozvoji. PEF ČZU v Praze - Credit, Praha.
    16. Hunčová M. (2010): Ekonomický rozměr občanské společnosti. Wolters Kluwer, Praha.
    17. Husák J., Hudečková H. (2017): Conditions for development of rural community education in the Czech Republic. Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, 10: 64-70. Go to original source...
    18. Kronick J.C. (1997): Alternativní metodologie pro analýzu kvalitativních dat. Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review 33: 57-68. Go to original source...
    19. Loą»ák M. (1994): From socialist equality to post-socialist diversity (the case of local initiatives and their role in the Czech countryside). Zemedělská ekonomika, 40: 893-906.
    20. Loą»ák M., Karanikolas P., Draganova M., Zagata L. (2015): Local quality and certification schemes as new forms of governance in sustainability transition. In: Sutherland L.A., Darnhofer I., Wilson G.A., Zagata L.: Transition Pathways towards Sustainability in Agriculture. CAB International, 157-170. Go to original source...
    21. Lowe P. (2000): The Challenges for Rural development in Europe. University of Plymouth, Plymouth.
    22. O'Connor D., Lai M., Watson S. (2010): Overview of Social Farming and Rural Development Policy in Selected EU Member States. Europen Network for Rural Development.
    23. Pinto-Correia T., McKee A., Guiamares H. (2015): Transdisciplinarity in deriving sustainability pathways for agriculture. In: Sutherland L.A., Darnhofer I., Wilson G.A., Zagata L.: Transition Pathways towards Sustainability in Agriculture. CAB International, 171-188. Go to original source...
    24. Pospěch P. (2014). Discursive no man's land: Analysing the discourse of the rural in the transitional Czech Republic. Journal of Rural Studies, 34: 96-107. Go to original source...
    25. Rychtář K., Sokolovský T. (2016): Osoby se zdravotním postiľením na trhu práce. Centrum vizualizace a interaktivity vzdělávání, Ostrava.
    26. Shortall S. (2008): Are rural development programmes socially inclusive? Social inclusion, civic engagement, participation, and social capital: Exploring the differences. Journal of Rural Studies, 24: 450-457. Go to original source...
    27. Shucksmith M. (2012): Class, power an inequality in rural areas: beyond social exclusion? Sociologia Ruralis, 52: 377-397. Go to original source...
    28. Social Protection Committee (2015): Social Europe Aiming for Inclusive Growth Annual Report of the Social Protection Committee on the Social Situation in the European Union. Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
    29. Střeleček F., Zdeněk R. (2011): Incomes of rural and nonrural households in the Czech Republic. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 4: 319-326. Go to original source...
    30. Zpráva o stavu zemědělství ČR za rok 2015 (Zelená zpráva) (2016). Ústav zemědělské ekonomiky a informací, Praha. Available at: http://eagri.cz/public/web/file/481729/ZZ15_V4.pdf. (accessed May 26, 2017).

    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