Local Development Initiatives as Promoters of Social Innovation: Evidence from Two European Rural Regions

According to Eurostat, more than half (as for 2012) of the land area in the European Union is within regions classified as being predominantly rural

According to the European Commission (2014), rural is considered to be an area where more than 50% of the population live in rural grid cells. Eurostat gives an explanation in which NUTS III regions are classified as ‘predominantly rural’ if the share of the population living in rural areas is higher than 50%.

The importance of SI in rural development comes from a paradigm shift towards a more ‘qualitative’ development of regions, focusing on dimensions such as the population’s wellbeing, network building, local participation and capacity building. Indeed, the literature (e.g. Dax, Fisher 2018) suggests that future approaches to regional development will have to go beyond the economic growth paradigm and will have to focus more on issues such as local participation and SI.

This article examines LAGs and LDAs role in promoting SI in rural regions and how their work responds to their respective region’s issues by using the cases LAGs and LDAs in the Mühlviertel (Austria) and Baixo Alentejo (Portugal) NUTS III regions. The results of the study show that by addressing the issues of empowerment, capacity building, inclusion and network building, LAGs and LDAs contribute to the overall development of a given region. However, irrespective of this success, such organisations face various challenges comprised of bureaucratic burden, difficulties with finances and the need to work towards changing community perceptions of both their work and the region.

The article is structured as follows. First, theoretical underpinnings regarding SI are presented. Second, the role of SI in regional development, namely in the (neo)endogenous development of rural regions, is discussed. Following that, the methodology alongside the cases under study is presented. Finally, the role of LAGs and LDAs as promoters of SI is analysed along with the challenges and opportunities of such promotion.

Despite the steady growth of academic interest in the field of SI (Moulaert 2016; Phillips et al. 2015), its role in rural development still remains underexplored with most research concerning urban SI (e.g. Moulaert 2010; Angelidou, Psaltoglou 2017). Despite this, what research there has been into the importance of, and drivers behind, SI for rural development (Dargan, Shucksmith 2008; Neumeier 2012, 2017; Bock 2016), the field has been gaining momentum.

In general, ‘innovation appears to be a novelty in a given setting based on the recombination of existing elements, the transfer of ideas or solutions to or from other contexts, or inventions’ (Richter 2019: 179, citing Schumpeter, 1983 [1911]). SI, in turn, relates to ‘changes of attitude, behaviour and/or perception that result in new forms of collaborative action’, which, then, improve the lives of those involved (Neumeier 2012: 55). Thus, SI is not only about meeting unmet needs, it is also concerned with the way in which this is done (e.g. through enhancing the capacity of actors, building networks and empowering disadvantaged groups). It involves new forms of organisation at both an institutional and personal level, which are developed at the local level and result in social changes beneficial to the communities involved (Moulaert et al. 2005). According to Bock (2012), SI as a concept originated from the ‘debate and critique on traditional innovation theory with its focus on material and technological inventions, scientific knowledge and the economic rationale of innovation’ (Bock 2012: 57). Whilst looking into various conceptualisations and definitions of SI, ‘social’ is being placed to be a ‘core element of innovation’ (Bock 2012: 59).

The extant debate on the nature of SI indicates some concern in the literature about the term being conceptually ‘fuzzy’ and consequently lacking a critical edge (e.g. Pol, Ville 2009; Bock 2012; Neumeier 2012). According to Marques et al. (2018), there is ‘a need for a clearer distinction between SI as a research concept that is used to study specific phenomena, as a normative concept that serves as a guide for action, and as a concept in practice, where it is used to describe a wide range of activities from a variety of public, private and third sector actors’ (Marques et al. 2018: 497).

According to Neumeier (2012), the theoretical concept of SI is built on the following key aspects. First, that SI is grounded in the alliances of different actors. This means that SI occurs through the aligned interests of a group of actors if only a certain critical mass of such actors decides to enrol into the actor network (Neumeier 2012: 54). Thus, for the process of developing SI, a network of actors with aligned interests is crucial. Second, he argued that the development of SI (as is the case for other types of innovation) is always triggered by an initial impetus whether that impetus is external or internal to the group of actors involved in the process of SI. Third, SI builds on the aspect of relative novelty. The relative novelty of a SI, therefore, is the novelty in the subjective perception of the individuals involved (Neumeier 2012: 55). In this sense, SI might also not be new per se but new to the context in which it is implemented. Fourth, SI has as main focus changes of attitudes, behaviours or perceptions (of a group of people aligned in the network). Fifth, the practical implementation of SI is connected with the fact that a particular SI is seen by the people involved as a superior solution (for existing challenges or unmet needs) compared to those that currently exist. Finally, according to Neumeier, SI is non-material that implies that the material outcomes of SI are a supplementary result.

Building on the (main) characteristics of SI described above, the next section discusses the role of SI and its potential contribution to the (neo-endogenous) development of rural areas.

The traditional image of a rural region is of an area that is lagging behind due to the limited capacity of actors and groups to participate in economic activities (Bock 2016). Some literature suggests that rural areas are perceived as lacking innovation in comparison to their urban counterparts (e.g. Shucksmith et al. 2009). However, this view is contested by other scholars, who identify rural regions as those that, despite structural disadvantages such as poor resource accessibility and detachment from markets and networks (Bock 2016), develop creative solutions for existing challenges and have the drive needed for the development and implementation of innovative projects. Thus, the development of rural areas requires an approach that goes beyond just a technological and economic focus and places more emphasis on dimensions such as the improvement of the quality of life of the rural population. Technological innovations alone cannot solve the challenges of ageing populations, low population density exacerbated by brain drain of young people and weakened economic activity. Such challenges require solutions that would not just contribute to solving the challenges and future development of the regions but would do so through involving local populations in the design of such solutions. Such an approach could be described as neo-endogenous.

As suggested by Neumeier (2012), a neo-endogenous development framework, while still recognising the need for external participation in the development process (and the usual presence of an external impetus as well), places greater emphasis on utilising local resources and enhancing local participation in order to boost the development of a given rural region. In his article, Ray (2006) stated that the neo-endogenous approach in rural development ‘emphasises the principle and process of “local participation” in the design and implementation of action’ (Ray 2006: 278) through its two primary characteristics. First, the development activities (including economic development) are ‘reoriented to maximise the retention of benefits within the local territory by valorising and exploiting local resources’, both physical and human (Ray 2006: 278). Second, the main focus of the development is placed on needs and capacities of local people (Ray 2006).

The role of SI for the development of rural areas has been discussed in the literature from different perspectives. As previously said, SI can support the sustainable rural development through building on neo-endogenous strategies (Neumeier 2012). Through enhancing more efficient collaboration amongst the (local) actors (Dobele et al. 2015), SI helps to mobilise local resources to satisfy local public needs and, at the same time, creates economic value (García-Llorente et al. 2016) as well as contributes to the creation of networks amongst local actors (Neumeier 2012; Gobattoni et al. 2015). SI, considered an innovation of and for society, includes rethinking social and spatial solidarity within and beyond rural regions (Bock 2016). To this end, SI encourages local linkages and collective learning cultures (Navarro et al. 2018). In addition, and, perhaps most importantly, by bringing change to rural regions, SI challenges existing institutional contexts (Hulgard, Ferreira 2019).

Having identified the existing gap in the research field of (rural) SI, the following section presents the methodology used in order to study the role and the contribution of local action groups (LAGs) and local development associations (LDAs) in promoting SI in rural regions.

This article presents the results of an explorative study based on semi-structured interviews conducted between October 2018 and May 2019 in two NUTS III regions Mühlviertel, Austria, and Baixo Alentejo, Portugal. Expert interviews were conducted to get an initial insight into the challenges that rural regions face, the (novel) solutions that have been provided for those challenges and the impacts of such solutions. To ensure data, several groups of experts were identified during the exploratory stage of the research. The first stage of exploring the field was performed via desk research wherein experts were identified, followed by the initial recruiting of experts. The groups contained representatives of development actors from the local, regional and national levels. The sampling procedure was based on the snowballing technique, where key experts identified through desk research were asked to provide potential references to key actors in the field of regional development, rural development and so on.

As regional and local development happen at different levels and in different organisations, the experts invited for interviews represented local development associations, local action groups (in the framework of LEADER; an acronym in French for Liaison entre actions de développement de l’économie rurale

The LEADER programme is a European Union initiative to support rural development projects initiated at the local level in order to revitalise rural areas. Its aim is to involve local actors in rural areas in the development of their own regions by forming Local Actions Groups (LAGs) and designing and implementing strategies.

Baixo Alentejo (Portugal) and Mühlviertel (Austria) are presented as cases to investigate the role of LAGs and LDAs in promoting SI in rural areas (Fig. 1). First, two regions were chosen as study areas based on their different backgrounds in regional development (where Austria is considered amongst the pioneering countries). Second, both regions, despite falling under the category of predominantly rural, are not experiencing challenges such as low economic activity, rural exodus and ageing of population to the same extent. Third, two regions are quite different in the population and territory. Despite all the differences, the activities promoting SI are undertaken in both cases, which make an interesting ground for finding the commonalities and divergences in the ways of promoting SI.

Fig. 1

Baixo Alentejo, part of the larger Alentejo region (NUTS II), covers an area of 8,544.6 km² (10.8% of the national territory). The region is bordered to the north by the District of Évora, to the east by Spain and to the south by the District of Faro. Baixo Alentejo consists of 13 municipalities (Municípios) and 83 parishes (Freguesias). The total population of Baixo Alentejo in 2018 was reported as 117,868 inhabitants (INE 2019). Compared to the national as well as regional population densities (NUTS II), Baixo Alentejo represents one of the most sparsely populated regions in Portugal with a decrease in population density from 14.5 inhabitants/km² in 2013 to 14.1 inhabitants/km² in 2017 (Eurostat 2019). Over the past decades, the region has undergone an average negative population growth because of rural exodus, which especially concerns younger population and ageing of the population (Margaras 2019). Economic sectors related to production of cork, wine, olive oil and dairy products occupy a prominent space in the economic activities of the region. However, the tertiary sector has, in the recent years, taken a prominent position in the regional economy because of the development of the information and communication technologies (ICT) and tourism (e.g. sustainable and ecotourism). Being a low population density region with relatively low diversification of economic activity, Baixo Alentejo is an area where LAGs and LDAs strive to create a support system for revitalising the region through triggering the positive development of it through the ideas of SI. As derived from the interviews, LAGs and LDAs identify the areas of social care for elderly people, youth integration, economic diversification alongside with the development and promotion of alternative economic models and its strengthening as main objectives of their work in rural development.

Mühlviertel is part of the Upper Austria region (NUTS II), covering an area of 2,660.17 km². The region borders on Bavaria and Bohemia to the north and Lower Austria to the south and east. Mühlviertel consists of 4 political districts (politische Bezirke) and 120 municipalities (Gemeinde). For a 5-year period, the region has experienced an increase in the population density from 77.7 inhabitants/km² in 2013 to 79.2 inhabitants/km² in 2017 (Eurostat 2019). Total population of Mühlviertel in 2018 was 208,483 (Eurostat 2019), which indicates the increase in the total number of inhabitants in the region since 2013. When it comes to the economic sectors of the region, because of the relatively large distances to metropolitan areas and the low population density, agriculture has an important economic and social role in the region. As in Portuguese case, members of LAGs and LDAs operating in Mühlviertel have identified the youth engagement, female entrepreneurship alongside economic development and agriculture (with a strong focus on ecological farming) as their main fields of intervention that require new and creative solutions.

According to Eurostat (2016), both regions under study are predominantly rural and peripheral

In this article, the notion of ‘peripheral’ is applied to the region based on the geographic location, for example, the region bordering other countries. Both regions, therefore, fall under the category of peripheral.

In both cases under study, there is a high awareness of SI amongst the members of LAGs and LDAs. This may be explained by the entrance of SI into the policy discourse some time ago, leading to it being seen by interviewees as a tool that has the ability to help the development of their respective areas. Implicitly, such actors identify their work as SI based on the dimensions of an idea or a project being novel for the specific locality, the attempt to meet needs whilst involving the local community in co-creation as well as practicing a bottom-up approach to project development. As pointed out by an interviewee in the Austrian case,

social innovation means that people allow new ways. Any positive social innovation should provide positive input, positive ground for providing something new. For social innovation you also have to look to other regions, to take the practices from other regions. If other good projects run there it could also run here

This understanding of SI and its importance for regional development was echoed by interviewees in the Portuguese case, where SI is seen as a tool for more sustainable, collaborative and goal-oriented actions:

[Social innovation is] putting people together, working together in a participatory way to solve their own problems, this is the idea I have for that

Despite the promotion of SI having a more implicit character in two case studies, LAGs and LDAs take on various ways to promote novel solutions for the regions they work in.

The promotion of SI in both regions can be described as implicit rather than explicit: by realising projects aiming at regional and local development, such organisations do not necessarily strive to promote SI as an analytical concept but so as to provide new solutions and ideas for dealing with the challenges that territories and communities face. However, by following an integrated approach striving to meet unmet needs while including the local population in the process of co-designing the projects and creating networks among the locals, LAGs and LDAs can be assumed to be promoters of SI by both placing the emphasis on the process and the outcome dimensions of SI.

The importance of cross-border constellations of actors in the process of the development and promotion of SI projects is supported in the academic discourse (e.g. Noack, Federwisch 2019). For the Austrian case, the results show that, during the early 1990s, some municipalities in the Mühlviertel region came together to develop a set of measures to promote regional collaboration. The working group was set up in order to develop a strategy for a collective ‘regional’ acting in order to overcome the challenges that existed in the region at the time such as weakened economic performance and decreasing population, especially the outflow of young skilled workers. In the process of developing new solutions for overcoming the challenges described above, the interviewees pointed out the importance of a collaborative approach in finding a new sustainable approach to regional development. Such development, however, is not seen as a development of separate municipalities but rather as a development of an overall Mühlviertel region:

At this time, there were eight municipalities and they thought it would be much more than a broader part and it was: what is with the social life and everything, so they decided to design a process to make the regional development more than only agricultural development, more than only touristic development. It is still important but it is not the only part. So we designed a process together

In the Portuguese case study, such collaborative approaches are rather contested despite the fact that there is collaboration amongst LAGs and LDAs. In contrast to the Austrian case, members of LAGs and LDAs in Baixo Alentejo pointed out the existing challenges in promoting a collaborative spirit. As one of the reasons for this, an interviewee suggested the overall competitive spirit of enterprises and companies in the region:

[enterprises] see themselves as concurrent, not as partners. Everyone wants to be a leader, this area is mine, so I’m afraid to share it with others. But at the same time they have to do it because we are very small. We cannot grow, we need to share more, work more together

The background in traditional agriculture was also said to hamper the possibilities (and willingness) of the local population to either start their own initiatives or get involved in entrepreneurial projects supported through the work of LAGs and LDAs in Baixo Alentejo. As stated by an interviewee,

for years for the regular person was to work for someone and not to think about creating his own job, starting his own initiative. So this remains the mentality that someone has to give me a job. So when we say that today we still have a lack of qualification, it is not only about the professional qualification, but especially some competences that people don’t have in terms of entrepreneurial attitude

Promoting SI is related to several other challenges faced by LDAs and LGAs. First, the results showed that there is a low degree of institutionalisation of SI in both cases under study. Local development strategies in both cases (Lokale Entwicklungstrategie in Austria and Estratégias de Desenvolvimento Local in Portugal) do not refer to SI explicitly. The discourse regarding the development in local strategies is rather centred around the importance of implementing and supporting innovation in various fields of intervention; however, it does not put SI as a distinct category of action.

Amongst other factors disabling the promotion of SI are (relatively) high levels of bureaucratic burden in organisations, lack of time in order to work in the field (described by interviewees as on the ground), presence of some hostility among locals towards projects, ongoing presence of centralised decision-making on local development, a lack of critical mass among a local population, the presence of parochial thinking, the necessity for the success of projects that leaves no room for mistakes together with the lack of cooperative culture amongst actors. As stated by one of the experts,

On the other hand, the way that the programs have been designed in each cycle constrained a little bit all this freedom and this innovative capacity that LAGs had in the beginning. [...] but they don’t have time now because if they want to not be left behind on levels of engagement and funds and expenses they have spent too much time on dealing with the procedures, bureaucracy and less time to do, which I think is the really added value working together with people, what we call this territorial dimension

In both cases, the work performed by LAGs and LDAs is project-based, which means that (1) the organisations face tight deadlines in releasing and finishing the projects; (2) there is substantial pressure concerning the success rate of the projects, namely, there is a need for a project to be successful; (3) not all the outcomes and impacts of the projects implemented live on after the financial support ends which raises the question of sustainability of actions and sustainability of innovation. According to Dax et al. 2016 (citing Strahl, Dax 2010), LAGs ‘feel constrained by the growing set of regulations while also losing their ability to make use of locally specific rural assets through an innovative approach’ (Strahl, Dax 2010: 38). This has been confirmed throughout the interviews in which, in both cases, the experts pointed out the (still) growing pressure from centralised decision-making procedures combined with the enormous bureaucratic burden put on them.

Most interviewees emphasise that LAGs and LDAs play an important role in promoting the development of rural regions while implementing changes and cooperating in a way that can be considered socially innovative (new, hybrid partnerships in order to tackle challenges; promoting integrated area development rather than the development of specific sectors, e.g. agriculture; supporting bottom-up actions). The awareness regarding SI initiatives is high; however, in both cases, organisations tend not to immediately describe their work as SI. Yet, people involved in LAGs and LDAs both in the Portuguese and Austrian cases confirm that the work they are doing in the regions centres around issues of novel local resource use, (neo)endogenous development, creating and supporting local supply chains and local networks and, therefore, promoting the development of the region alongside local development.

The implicit character of SI promotion may be related to several factors: (1) difficulties in identifying, defining and measuring SI and (2) some hesitation towards labelling the work as SI because of the ‘buzz’ around the term. It should be noted that, as evident from the interviews, there are some issues related to the fact that such organisations have to claim to be promoters of SI in order to access more funding opportunities. The impact assessment of SI projects puts further constraints on LAGs and LDAs because the organisations struggle with assessing, evaluating and/or measuring the impacts produced.

Despite the role of SI in local development having been acknowledged in the literature (Moulaert et al. 2005; Neumeier 2012), future research on the role of LAGs and LDAs in promoting SI could benefit from a more critical perspective on SI as a political term used to fulfil the interests of some stakeholders. In addition, more attention could be paid to the contextual dimensions, political power structures at play, and potential undesired (or even negative) impacts of implementing such projects in rural regions.

Greater elaboration on the present research is needed about the interrelation of SI and social capital in rural regions and how the latter affects SI promotion. The research could also benefit from more insight into potential conflicts amongst various stakeholders in rural areas that lead to the disabling of social innovation.