ChapterPDF Available

Abstract

This chapter deals with the questions of regional or territorial development, introduced in researches undertaken from the end of World War II onwards, and in policies of regional and territorial development and management. The literature can be split between two main competing visions. The first one seeks, above all, to balance the interests and gains from the development process enjoyed by different local actors and to draw up principles that will enable the various stakeholders to obtain maximum satisfaction. The second group consists of approaches whereby the compromises reached among local actors are purely temporary and development processes generate interregional inequalities that are difficult to reduce. These approaches consider that development can increase disparities between regions or territories. They also highlight the existence of local systems with significant specificities at the institutional, economic and technical levels, and whose successes or failures lead to fundamentally uneven development processes, like clusters, districts or milieus. A third category of approaches is based on the idea that regional or territorial development is profoundly linked to the occurrence of dynamic shifts stemming from processes of innovation or creation, which result in varying paces and levels of development from one region or territory to the next.
Torre A., Wallet F., 2016, Regional Development in Rural Areas. Analytical tools and Public
policies, Springer Briefs in Regional Science, Springer, 110 p
1
Regional development in rural areas
Analytical tools and public policies
André TORRE
Frédéric WALLET
UMR SAD-APT
University of Paris-Saclay
INRA Agro Paristech
16, rue Claude Bernard
F-75231 Paris Cedex 05
torre@agroparistech.fr
wallet@agroparistech.fr
Torre A., Wallet F., 2016, Regional Development in Rural Areas. Analytical tools and Public
policies, Springer Briefs in Regional Science, Springer, 110 p
2
Chapter II. From the early literature to contemporary approaches to regional and
territorial development
Abstract
Chapter 2 deals with the questions of regional or territorial development, introduced in
researches undertaken from the end of World War II onwards, and in policies of regional and
territorial development and management. The literature can be split between two main
competing visions. The first one seeks, above all, to balance the interests and gains from the
development process enjoyed by different local actors and to draw up principles that will enable
the various stakeholders to obtain maximum satisfaction. The second group consists of
approaches whereby the compromises reached among local actors are purely temporary and
development processes generate interregional inequalities that are difficult to reduce. These
approaches consider that development can increase disparities between regions or territories.
They also highlight the existence of local systems with significant specificities at the
institutional, economic and technical levels, and whose successes or failures lead to
fundamentally uneven development processes, like clusters, districts or milieus. A third
category of approaches is based on the idea that regional or territorial development is
profoundly linked to the occurrence of dynamic shifts stemming from processes of innovation
or creation, which result in varying paces and levels of development from one region or territory
to the next.
Keywords
Regional development, territorial development, balanced approaches, unbalanced approaches,
local systems, districts, clusters, innovation processes
The questions of regional or territorial development were first introduced in research
undertaken from the end of World War II onwards on issues related to local and regional
development, and in policies of regional and territorial development and management
implemented since the beginning of the 1960s (Isard, 1960). As a result of taking account of
local issues, and the decentralization process, a large theoretical apparatus whose purpose has
been to identify the rules of development as well as interventions and blueprints have
emerged.
Torre A., Wallet F., 2016, Regional Development in Rural Areas. Analytical tools and Public
policies, Springer Briefs in Regional Science, Springer, 110 p
3
The abundant literature on regional or territorial development can be split between two main
competing visions (balanced and unbalanced development), which correspond to strong and
distinct analytical presuppositions, and are useful for dividing the analysis of development into
four main categories.
II.1. Balanced development approaches: homothetic growth and economic base theory
The first category of approaches seeks, above all, to balance the interests and gains from the
development process enjoyed by different local actors and to draw up principles that will enable
the various stakeholders to obtain maximum satisfaction. Accordingly, the standard economic
approach, founded on the theory of equilibrium, seeks to maximize stakeholders’ utility on the
basis of their more or less perfect rationality, and to meet their needs without compromising
their neighbours’ needs (Solow, 1956; Romer 1990). Obtaining an optimum approach – in our
case, of growth makes it possible to define a pathway that the different stakeholders can follow
together. We can draw a parallel here with the various approaches that integrate environmental
dimensions or are conceived in terms of sustainable development (Hardy & Lloyd, 1994;
Bourgeron et al., 2009). These approaches, which are also based on a paradigm of negotiation,
are supposed to lead, following a deliberation process, to a balanced distribution of rights and
duties between different local stakeholders, and seek to take account of both economic and
environmental objectives and constraints, from a perspective of weak sustainability:
development must not deplete resources, including through the substitution of natural capital
by man-made resources (Pearce et al., 1996).
Included in this group are the approaches underlying neoclassical theory, approaches which
envisage a form of homothetic growth based on capital and labour inputs, subsequently
extended to a third input of a more technological nature, in most cases knowledge or R&D
investments (Solow, 2000). This involves assessing the volume and growth rate of production,
and placing these elements in parallel with the optimum combination of factors and efforts
made in terms of productivity or capital accumulation, for example (See Johansson et al., 2001).
This approach, which considers the possible elimination, in the long term, of interregional
disparities, has met with relative success relative because of its limitations in terms of
homothetic growth and its inability to account for the imbalances signalled early on by the
authors of the polarization theory or of the bottom-up growth approach, for example. It has been
Torre A., Wallet F., 2016, Regional Development in Rural Areas. Analytical tools and Public
policies, Springer Briefs in Regional Science, Springer, 110 p
4
quite adequately replaced since the 1990s by the New Economic Geography, which is useful
for taking account of dimensions related to unbalanced growth and the polarization of activities,
in the analysis of development processes.
Economic base analysis (Alexander, 1954; Sombart, 1916) also advocates seeking balanced
development. It rests on the idea that regional economies can be divided into two main
components: abasic sector”, which produces goods and services for export and fosters regional
development by capturing revenue from external trade; a domestic sector, whose production is
for local consumption.
Development then requires expansion of the basic sector, which, among other things, gives rise
to a Keynesian multiplier effect on the local economy as a whole. The increasing income of
those working in this sector then generates a rise in their consumption levels and, as a result, a
development of the domestic production sector. This fosters a virtuous development cycle
based, in most cases, on the central role of urban agglomerations in the production of basic
commodities.
II.2. Unbalanced approaches
The second and most important group consists of approaches whereby the compromises
reached among local actors are purely temporary and development processes generate
interregional inequalities that are difficult to reduce. Unlike those of the first group, these
approaches consider that development plays an often lasting role in increasing disparities
between regions or territories. They also highlight the existence of local systems with
significant specificities at the institutional, economic and technical levels, and whose successes
or failures lead to fundamentally uneven development processes.
These works are based on the analysis of growth poles initiated by Perroux, Myrdal and, later,
Hirschmann and Higgins. Perroux’s initial idea is that development cannot occur everywhere
at the same time and with the same intensity. Proof of this is the existence of less developed
countries or areas, which the growth pole theory was the first to acknowledge. Development is
built on a polarization of activities, itself based on the existence of large dynamic firms situated
at the heart of the most developed regions. These firms and industrial complexes generate
market linkages with suppliers and subcontractors, end clients and industrial actors which,
Torre A., Wallet F., 2016, Regional Development in Rural Areas. Analytical tools and Public
policies, Springer Briefs in Regional Science, Springer, 110 p
5
in turn, results in a polarization of activities and wealth benefiting certain regions at the expense
of less developed ones. These changes have often been revealed by inputoutput methods,
which have greatly contributed to testing hypotheses on regional development approaches and
tools for regional economic policy (Richardson, 1985).
Reversing, or even invalidating, the idea of a convergence of regional growth rates and
economic strength levels, the New Economic Geography (NEG) introduced by Krugman
(1991) and popularized by authors such as Fujita, Thisse or Ottaviano, for example (Fujita and
Thisse, 1997; Ottaviano and Thisse, 2004) acknowledges the high probability that a spatial
polarization and concentration of activity might occur phenomena that can benefit one region
at the expense of its competitors. From the possibility of increasing returns in some industries
and the supposed preference of consumers for variety and differentiated products, NEG deduces
the probability of divergence phenomena that testify to the industrial specialization and
therefore enrichment of some regions or nations, at the expense of competing regions regions
which are less developed as a result of getting a late start in the race for production of non-
agricultural and non-traditional commodities. NEG views the world as one in which
polarization increases, particularly to the advantage of cities, in which businesses and
employees/consumers co-exist; indeed, the model of development put forward implies the
development of productive activities, often at large-scale levels (regions, or even nations),
through reciprocal spillover between production and consumption activities
(workers/consumers). This raises questions concerning the ability of activities to generate
spillover at regional level (for example, that produced by the construction industry), the
reciprocal impact of firms’ and workers’/consumers’ locations, and decreasing transport costs,
which reinforce polarization processes at the expense of peripheral areas.
Analyses in terms of residential or “presential” economics, according to which territorial
development is based on external sources of revenue, provide another illustration of
interregional disparities. Adapted from economic base theory, but excluding its approach in
terms of balanced relations between local actors, these analyses describe the development of
regions or territories that benefit from inflows of revenue from other regions without possessing
the necessary industrial or agricultural production capacity to use this revenue as a basis for
producing goods for export (Davezies, 2008). Coastal or Southern tourist regions belong to this
category: they benefit from the temporary influx of tourists who stay for varying periods of
time, and who infuse money into the local economy by consuming local goods and services
Torre A., Wallet F., 2016, Regional Development in Rural Areas. Analytical tools and Public
policies, Springer Briefs in Regional Science, Springer, 110 p
6
(residential economy; see Terrier 2006), or from the money spent by retired people, who are no
longer productive but inject money into their new places of residence (residential economy).
The basic sector does not contribute to the development of the region through production, but
by tapping into these two sources of external revenue. This leads to a shift in the usual
development criteria; development then rests on a service economy based on consumption by
these temporary migrants, often at the expense of those regions that gain very little from their
production activities.
II.3. The systemic approach: pioneers of territorial development
The analysis of local production systems, initiated in the 1970s, is also predicated on the
observation of geographically differentiated development processes. Following on from
analyses of Italian districts (Becattini, 1990), and subsequently of different forms of groupings
ranging from clusters, agrifood systems or local production systems, the systemic approach is
linked to the systemic nature of the relationships between actors who, together, belong to one
territory and shape it through their cooperation and common projects. Whether these groupings
imply vertical or horizontal relations, belonging to a homogeneous social group, or relations
based on repeated interactions, what matters is the creation of a local community founded at
once on alliance and cooperation networks and on more or less formal governance structures
through which rules accepted by all participants can be complied with. Development depends
on the efficiency of the system and on its ability to renew and transform itself in response to
exogenous shocks such as variations in consumers’ preferences or the arrival of new
competitors. Generally small in size (subregional), the zones in question have a strong
connection with the territory and are characterized by different levels of development,
depending, more specifically, on the characteristics of these systems and their ability to
mobilize and make the most of local resources. We refer here to the concept of bottom-up
development dear to authors such as Stohr (1986) as well as to a desire to typologize forms
of development (Italian-style districts, state-based systems, systems with a core of large firms
or based on innovation, etc.) (Markusen, 1996), but little attention has been paid to the actual
processes of development and their dynamics.
Of particular importance are two approaches that have played a key role in systemic analysis.
The first is Porter’s analysis (Porter, 1985, 1990), because of its broad impact. Porter considers
Torre A., Wallet F., 2016, Regional Development in Rural Areas. Analytical tools and Public
policies, Springer Briefs in Regional Science, Springer, 110 p
7
that the competitive advantage of a region or a territory depends on four main factors that must
be exploited in order for the region in question to gain a lead over its competitors: the strategies,
structures and the rivalry between firms; the state of demand; the geographical relations
between similar firms; and the state of production resources or factors (traditional or skill-
related). More particularly, the presence of local clusters groupings of closely linked
businesses and laboratories helps create and reveal factors of production. Clusters represent a
new way of characterizing of the ways in which innovation activities are organized locally.
According to Porter (1998), “a cluster is a geographically proximate group of interconnected
companies and associated institutions in a particular field, linked by commonalities and
complementarities (…). Clusters have positive influence on the innovation and
competitiveness, skill formation and information flow and long-term business dynamics of the
concentrated area.”
The success of this concept is built on four key theoretical foundations, each relating to
advantages in terms of the performance or competitiveness of local systems or networks of
actors:
This approach directly addresses the issue of knowledge transfer at local level,
emphasizing the critical nature of interactions between members of a network.
Knowledge flows between actors or groups located in the same geographic area,
through the relationships they have established with one another.
It is based on the existence of network externalities created locally and between
companies. The utility derived from those externalities by any member of the
network is directly related to the large and growing presence of other members.
It refers to the concept of quasi-integration, which generates supernormal profits
through the pooling together of certain facilities, and the reduction of transaction
costs between participants in the same production processes, resulting in particular
from the important part played by non-commercial relations (Karlsson et al., 2004).
Finally, clusters are not closed systems and are neither totally nor even significantly
isolated; on the contrary, they are forms of organization that focus particular
attention on relations with the outside, whether those relations involve other actors
or policies initiated at national or supranational level. Clusters thus immediately
Torre A., Wallet F., 2016, Regional Development in Rural Areas. Analytical tools and Public
policies, Springer Briefs in Regional Science, Springer, 110 p
8
appear as actors of globalization actors that make the most of their comparative
advantages in terms of location or proximity externalities.
The second, equally important, concept is that of industrial districts. Present in the works of
Alfred Marshall as early as 1920, districts were rediscovered in the seventies by the Italian
economists (Brusco, 1982). At a time when Italy was marked by a contrast between the
industrialized north, with its large companies such as Fiat in Turin, and the underdeveloped and
rural south, there emerged in the north-eastern and central regions of the country several local
systems characterized by the diffuse presence of small, often family-run businesses, but which
engaged competitively in the global market through specialized industries. Regional economists
and sociologists have highlighted the endogenous dynamics and sociological characteristics of
these areas: take the Prato district in Tuscany, for instance, specialized in textile-related
activities, which became famous and emblematic of bottom-up development.
Becattini (1990) defines an industrial district as “a socio-territorial entity which is characterized
by the active presence of a community of people and a population of firms in one naturally and
historically bounded area.” It results from the articulation of a local community and a
population of co-located firms. A local community is reflected in the existence of a system of
representations and values that are conducive to economic initiative and development values
embodied in institutions (market, family, school, church, etc.) and rules that serve to
disseminate these values throughout the area concerned ensure their transmission between
generations and provide a framework for economic action. In the Third Italy, this role is
primarily played by family networks. Firms in that area consist mostly of small businesses in
the same industry that divide labour among themselves and exchange products as well as labour.
Workers circulate between the various companies in the district and, in so doing, disseminate
know-how. The local labour market is a constituent part of the district. The specific skills
acquired at local level often cannot be utilized outside the district, and thus the local human
resources tend to be captive to the area.
Relations within the firms of the district are characterized by a combination of cooperation and
competition on the labour and product markets. Individuals and companies are selected based
on their skills and their ability to perform the specialized tasks required to develop a competitive
product for the world market; but any individuals or companies that are not selected for a
Torre A., Wallet F., 2016, Regional Development in Rural Areas. Analytical tools and Public
policies, Springer Briefs in Regional Science, Springer, 110 p
9
particular project are ensured the opportunity to be considered for subsequent projects. An
additional characteristic is an internal credit system. Lastly, districts are not closed systems:
gatekeepers, who are able to serve as links between the global market and the industrial
resources of the district, as they have extensive knowledge of both, play an important role.
A similar form of organization has been trialled in developing countries, particularly in parts of
South America such as Brazil, with its arranjos produtivos locais, or APLs (“local productive
arrangements”). This concept is a reinterpretation of analyses on localized systems and an
extension of research conducted by authors such as Schmitz (1995), at the Institute of
Development Studies (IDS) of the University of Sussex, who have focused on the social-
competence dimension of the district approach. The term “arrangement”, less formal than
“system”, refers to a logic of relations at work in many developing regions that cannot quite
be described as systemic, and to interactions which in some cases are only starting to emerge.
Accordingly, APLs are mostly defined, very broadly speaking, as local aggregations of
economic, political and social actors, specializing in a specific set of interconnected economic
activities, the links between which are still weak or need reinforcing. We see here that the
agglomeration and clustering components, especially of small companies, are central
sometimes more so than interactions. Indeed, these forms of groupings are often incomplete
compared to traditional clusters or districts: there is little interaction and little engagement from
support institutions. Nevertheless, the groupings thus identified may gain from forms of
collective action or benefit from the effectiveness of group organization, and thus generate local
externalities or foster development processes.
Because these systems are fragile and evolving, different approaches must be adopted,
depending on their stage of development. According to Schmitz, state institutions alone cannot
(on the sole basis of collective efficiency) build an industrial organization that can be
competitive rapidly. However, once private initiative has led to a minimum concentration of
industrial activity and know-how, these institutions can play an important role in helping the
organization expand and innovate. It should also be noted that this analysis is an approach that
focuses on technological change. Indeed, an APL is considered a local innovation system within
which an aggregate of interacting institutions contributes to the development and dissemination
of technologies (Cassiolato et al., 2003). Every effort is thus made to establish an environment
Torre A., Wallet F., 2016, Regional Development in Rural Areas. Analytical tools and Public
policies, Springer Briefs in Regional Science, Springer, 110 p
10
that is conducive to innovation, considered the key factor for competitiveness. To this end, this
environment must first of all promote education, learning and knowledge.
Finally, let us not forget the socio-ecological systems approaches (Anderies et al., 2004),
derived from analyses of institutional arrangements (Ostrom, 1990) that integrate questions
concerning the sustainable management of local resources into the systemic analysis. The
originality of these approaches is that they examine the interactions between individuals and
the biosphere/environment; this leads to considerations not just of inter-individual relationships
but also of the uses of resources and the resulting exclusions.
II.4. Development as a dynamic process linked to innovative behaviours
The third and final category of approaches is based on the idea that regional or territorial
development is profoundly linked to the occurrence of dynamic shifts stemming from processes
of innovation or creation, which result in varying paces and levels of development from one
region or territory to the next. Analyses of regional development focusing on the processes of
innovation and regulation, as well as some systemic approaches, consider that local systems go
through successive phases of growth and stagnation, or even recession, which reinforces or
reduces inequalities between social categories, in that the fruit of economic growth may be
reaped by certain groups or offshore firms controlled by foreign capital. It is, first and foremost,
internal shocks that generate change in the system, along with processes of population and
wealth concentration and the emergence of zones of social and spatial exclusion.
The innovation- or technology-based approach to development takes into account the
importance of R&D or innovation activities in local development. Partly inspired by
Schumpeter’s analysis, it is based on the idea that innovation is key to development processes
and that efforts geared towards R&D or which offer innovation incentives can play an important
role in the development and success of growth dynamics. This often implies a systemic
approach, which highlights the role of transferring and disseminating innovation at local level
(Feldman, 1994; Autant-Bernard et al., 2007), as well as the importance of face-to-face
relations and of fostering spin-offs or supporting their creation (e.g. through business or project
incubators).The driving force of development then lies in the occurrence of localized innovation
or knowledge spillovers within the local system, which can lead to the emergence of highly
Torre A., Wallet F., 2016, Regional Development in Rural Areas. Analytical tools and Public
policies, Springer Briefs in Regional Science, Springer, 110 p
11
competitive local innovation systems such as technology parks or competitiveness clusters. It
is innovation that drives development and sets dynamic systems apart from others. Often
focused exclusively on high-tech activities, these systems mostly find expression in terms of
territorial innovation in more rural or less developed territories, by relying on organizational
innovations and utilizing the local population. Certain authors, who see the rules of collective
action and institutional mechanisms as explanatory factors for innovative territorial dynamics,
consider innovation to be a social construction shaped by the geographical context in which it
lies; rooted in practices, it is therefore necessarily situated in space (see, for example, the works
conducted by GREMI (Groupe de Recherche Européen sur les Milieux Innovateurs) on the
notion of innovative milieus, or the work of Florida (2002) on local creative class).
Analysis of spatial dynamics has, in the last decade, been enriched by works that have expanded
on the evolutionist theory (Frenken and Boschma, 2007), which considers the unequal
distribution of activities in space as the result of largely contingent historical processes.
Evolutionary economic geography attaches great significance to the entrepreneurial dimension,
and more specifically the history and processes of emergence, growth, decline and interruption
of business activities (Boschma and Frenken, 2011). Particular emphasis is placed on the role
of spin-offs and workforce mobility in processes of territorial development (Maskell, 2001), as
well as on routine reproduction mechanisms within the local industrial network. Taking
advantage of geographical, industrial and technological proximity between different sectors of
activity (Torre, 2008), as well as institutional mechanisms and network structures, these
technologies are disseminated via a snowball effect between technologically related enterprises
and industries, and end up locking local systems into path dependencies. This process which
offers a much better explanation than co-location economies of clusters’ ability to transform
themselves and therefore to survive over time functions particularly well when it involves
emerging industries or industries based on closely related technologies, as cognitive proximity
facilitates the diffusion of knowledge externalities (Nooteboom, 2000).
In this connection, we have observed a gradual shift in the themes and methods adopted for
studying development processes on the scale of regions and territories, from macroanalyses to
a tendency to focus more closely on local actors. Today, overall, it is unbalanced approaches to
regional development that dominate, whether in theoretical terms or on a more prescriptive
basis. Accordingly, the polarization processes of large cities and industrial clusters are reflected
in observations of persistent disparities in wealth between regions and nations. Furthermore,
Torre A., Wallet F., 2016, Regional Development in Rural Areas. Analytical tools and Public
policies, Springer Briefs in Regional Science, Springer, 110 p
12
the territorial dimension is also tending to play an increasingly important role, with a growing
interest in local populations and their needs and behaviours. Innovation-related issues are also
very much present, with greater consideration given to social variables following the
exacerbation of the economic crisis and of inequalities in developed countries, and the gradual
rise in the income levels of inhabitants of emerging countries. Lastly, greater attention is being
paid to the desires and, above all, the well-being of populations, to the extent that it this now
one of the specificities of approaches based on regional science.
Torre A., Wallet F., 2016, Regional Development in Rural Areas. Analytical tools and Public
policies, Springer Briefs in Regional Science, Springer, 110 p
13
References
Alexander, J. W. (1954) The basicnon basic concept of urban economic function, Economic
Geography, 30, pp.246261.
Altieri M. (1987) Agro-Ecology: The Scientific Basis of Alternative Agriculture. (Boulder:
Westview Press).
Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M. A. & Ostrom, E. (2004) A framework to analyse the robustness
of socialecological systems from an institutional perspective, Ecology and Society, 9(1), p.
18. [online]. Available at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art18
Atkinson, G., Dietz, S. & Neumayer, E. (Eds) (2007) Handbook of Sustainable Development
(Cheltenham:Edward Elgar).
Autant-Bernard, C., Mairesse, J. & Massard, N. (2007) Spatial knowledge diffusion through
collaborative networks, Papers in Regional Science, 86(3), pp. 341350.
Barca, F. (2009) An agenda for reformed cohesion policy. A place-based approach to meeting
European Union challenges and expectations,
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/future/pdf/report_barca_v0306.pdf
Barles, S. (2009) Urban Metabolism of Paris and its Region, Journal of Industrial Ecology
13(6), pp. 898-913.
Bache, I. & Flinders, M. (Eds) (2004) Multi-level Governance, p. 237 (New York: Oxford
University Press).
Batabyal, A. & Nijkamp, P. (2008) Sustainable development and regional growth. Working
paper, 42 p.
Bateman D., Ray C. (1994) Farm pluriactivity and rural policy: some evidence from Wales.
Journal of Rural Studies 10 (1), 113.
Becattini, G. (1990) The Marshallian industrial districts as a socio-economic notion, in: F.
Pyke, G. Becattini & W. Sengenberger (Eds) Industrial Districts and Inter-Firm Cooperation
in Italy (Geneva: International Institute of Labour Studies).
Behrens, K., Gaigné, C., Ottaviano, G. & Thisse, J. (2007) Countries, regions and trade. On
the welfare impacts of economic integration, European Economic Review, 51(5), pp. 1277
1301.
Bérard, I., Bigot, R., Hatchuel, G. (2001) Les Français et l’espace rural, (Paris : CREDOC), p.
140
Berger, G. (2003) Reflections on governance: Power relations and policy making in regional
sustainable development, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 5(3), pp. 219234.
Torre A., Wallet F., 2016, Regional Development in Rural Areas. Analytical tools and Public
policies, Springer Briefs in Regional Science, Springer, 110 p
14
Berriet-Solliec, M., Schmitt, B., Trouvé, A. & Aubert, F. (2009) Deuxième pilier de la PAC et
développement rural: le RDR est-il vraiment rural?, in: F. Aubert, V. Piveteau & B. Schmitt
(Eds) Politiques agricoles et territoires (Paris: Quae).
Berriet-Solliec, M., Trouvé, A. (2013) Développement des territoires de projet. Quels enjeux
pour les politiques rurales ?, Economie Rurale, N° 335
Boiffin J., Benoit M., Le Bail M., Papy F., Stengel P. (2014) Agronomie, espace, territoire :
travailler « pour et sur » le développement territorial, un enjeu pour l’agronomie, Cahiers
Agricultures, vol.23, n°2, mars-avril, pp.72-83
Borts, G. & Stein, J. (1964) Economic Growth in a Free Market (New York: Columbia
University Press).
Boschma, R. (2009) Evolutionary Economic Geography and Its Implications for Regional
Innovation. Policy, Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography, 09.12, URRC, Utrecht:
Utrecht University.
Boschma, R. & Frenken, K. (2011) The Emerging Empirics of Evolutionary Economic
Geography. Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography, 11.01, URRC, Utrecht: Utrecht
University.
Bourgeron, P. S., Humphries, H. C. & Riboli-Sasco, L. (2009) Regional analysis of social
ecological systems, Natures Sciences Sociétés, 17, pp. 185193.
Brusco, S. (1982) The Emilian model, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 6(2), pp. 167184.
Bryant, K. (2001) Promoting innovation. An overview of the application of evolutionary
economics and systems approaches to policy issues, in: J. Foster & S. Metcalfe (Eds)
Frontiers of Evolutionary Economics. Competition, Self-organization and Innovation Policy,
pp. 361383 (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).
Camagni, R. (1995) The concept of innovative milieu and its relevance for public policies in
European lagging regions, Papers in Regional Science, 74(4), pp. 317340.
Camagni, R. (2009), Territorial capital and regional development, in Roberta Capello and
Peter Nijkamp (eds.), Handbook of regional growth and development theories, (Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar).
Capello, R. (2007) Regional Economics (New York: Routledge).
Cassiolato, J.E., Lastres, H.M.M., Maciel, M. L. (2003) Systems of innovation and
development: evidence from Brazil. (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).
Chambers, R. (1994) The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal, World
Development, 22(7), pp.953969.
Christaller, W. (1933) Die zentralen Orte in Süddeutschland, (Iena : University of Iena)
Torre A., Wallet F., 2016, Regional Development in Rural Areas. Analytical tools and Public
policies, Springer Briefs in Regional Science, Springer, 110 p
15
Cloke, P. (2006) Conceptualizing rurality, in: P. Cloke, T. Marsden & P. Mooney (Eds) The
Handbook of Rural Studies, p. 510 (Londres: Sage).
Cloke, P., Marsden, T. & Mooney, P. (2006) The Handbook of Rural Studies (Londres: Sage),
p. 510.
Coudel, E. (2009) Formation et apprentissages pour le développement territorial: regards
croisés entre économie de la connaissance et sciences de gestion, thèse de doctorat en
agroéconomie, Montpellier: Supagro.
Coudel E., Devautour H., Soulard C.T., Faure G., Hubert H. (eds) (2013) Renewing
innovation systems in agriculture and food. How to go towards more sustainability?,
(Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publisher)
Dargan L., Shucksmith M. (2008) LEADER and Innovation, Sociologia Ruralis, Vol 48,
Number 3, July, 274 291
Darly S., Torre, A. (2013) Conflicts over farmland uses and the dynamics of “agri-urban”
localities in the greater Paris region, Land Use Policy, 33, July, 90 99.
Davezies, L. (2008) La République et ses Territoires (Paris: Editions du Seuil).
Davezies, L. (2012) La crise qui vient. La nouvelle fracture territoriale (Paris: Editions du
Seuil).
Dawkins, C.J. (2003) Regional Development Theory: Conceptual Foundations, Classic
Works, and Recent Developments Journal of Planning Literature November 2003 18: 131-
172.
Delgado, M. & Ramos, E. (2002) Understanding the institutional evolution of the European
rural policy: A methodological approach. Xth EAAE congress, Zaragoza, August 2831.
Despommier, D. (2010) The vertical farm, Thomas Dunne Books, N. Yok, 305p.
Donald, B., Gertler, M., Gray, M. & Lobao, L. (2010) Re-regionalizing the food system?,
Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3(2), pp. 171175.
Dowding K. John P. Mergoupis T. et Van Vugt M., (2000) Exit, voice and loyalty : Analytic
and empirical developments, European Journal of Political Research, 37, 469-495.
Drabenstott, M., Novack, N. & Weiler, S. (2004) New governance for a new rural economy:
Reinventing public and private institutions: A conference summary, Economic Review, Q IV,
pp. 5570.
Ellis F., Biggs S. (2001) Evolving Themes in Rural Development 1950s-2000s, Development
Policy Review, 2001, 19 (4): 437448.
Epstein R. (2008) Gouverner à distance : la rénovation urbaine, démolition-reconstruction de
l’appareil d’Etat, Thèse de doctorat en Sciences sociales, soutenue le 27 novembre 2008, ENS
Cachan, Paris, 472 p.
Torre A., Wallet F., 2016, Regional Development in Rural Areas. Analytical tools and Public
policies, Springer Briefs in Regional Science, Springer, 110 p
16
European Commission. (2004) Rural Development: The Impact of EU Research (19982004),
Workshop Report, (Luxembourg: European Commission).
European Commission. (2010) Agriculture and Rural Development. Available at
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/index_en.htm
European Commission (2012) Synthesis of mid-term evaluations of rural development
programmes 2007-2013, (Vienna; ÖIR GmbH).
European Commission (2013) Overview of the CAP reform 2014-2020, Agricultural Policy
Perspectives Brief, n°5
Falk, I. & Harrison, L. (1998) Community learning and social capital: “Just having a little
chat”, Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 50(4), pp. 609627.
Feldman, M. (1994) The Geography of Innovation, Economics of Science, Technology and
Innovation (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers), p. 155.
Florida, R. (2002) The Rise of the Creative Class. And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure
and Everyday Life (New York: Basic Books).
Foray D., P. A. David, B. Hall, (2009) Smart Specialisation The Concept, Knowledge
Economists Policy Brief n° 9, June
Frenken, K. & Boschma, R. (2007) A theoretical framework for evolutionary economic
geography: Industrial dynamics and urban growth as a branching process, Journal of
Economic Geography, 7(5), pp. 635649.
Frenken, K., Van Oort, F., Verburg, T. (2007) Related variety, unrelated variety and regional
economic growth, Regional Studies, 41 (5), pp. 685-697.
Fujita, M. & Thisse, J. F. (1997) Economie ge´ographique, proble`mes anciens et nouvelles
perspectives, Annales d’Economie et de Statistique, 45, pp. 37–87.
Garmise, S. (1994) Economic development strategies in Emilia Romagna, in: M. Burch (Ed)
The Regions and the New Europe, pp. 136164 (Manchester: Manchester University Press).
Gaudin, J-P. (1999) Gouverner par contrat. L’action publique en question, (Paris : Les Presses
de Science Po)
Geels, F.W. (2002) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a
multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy 31 (8/9), 12571274.
Gilly J-P., Wallet F. (2005) Enchevêtrement des espaces de régulation et gouvernance locale.
Les processus d’innovation institutionnelle dans la politique des Pays en France, RERU, n°5
Glazer A., Konrad K.A., (eds), (2005) Conflict and Governance, Springer Verlag, 201p.
Torre A., Wallet F., 2016, Regional Development in Rural Areas. Analytical tools and Public
policies, Springer Briefs in Regional Science, Springer, 110 p
17
Gliessman, S. R. (1990) Agroecology: Researching the Ecological Basis of Sustainable
Agriculture (New York: Springer).
Goetz, E. & Clarke, S. (1993) The New Localism: Comparative Politics in a Global Era
(Newbury Park, CA: Sage).
Goldstein, H. (2009) Theory and practice of technology-based economic development, in: J.
E. Rowe (Ed) Theories of Local Economic Development, p. 375 (Burlington: Ashgate).
Gosnell, H., Abrams, J. (2011) Amenity migration: diverse conceptualizations of drivers,
socioeconomic dimensions, and emerging challenges. Geo J., 76 (4), pp.303-322
Guérin, M. (2008) Evaluation des politiques de développement rural. Quelques éléments
d’analyse, Economie Rurale, 307(November–December), pp. 3952.
Halfacree, K. (1993) Locality and social representation: space, discourse and alternative
definitions of the rural, Journal of Rural Studies, 9, 23-37.
Halfacree, K. (2003) Landscapes of rurality: rural others / other rurals, in I. Roberston & P.
Richards (eds.) Studying Cultural Landscapes, London: Arnold, 141-69.
Halkier, H., Danson, M. & Damborg, C. (1998) Regional Development Agencies in Europe
(London: Jessica Kingsley).
Hall, P. (1994) Innovation, Economics and Evolution (New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf).
Hardy, S. & Lloyd, G. (1994) An impossible dream? Sustainable regional economic and
environmental development, Regional Studies, 28(8), pp. 773780.
Harvey, D. (1989) From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation in urban
governance in late capitalism, Geografiska Annaler, 71B(1), pp. 317.
High, C. & Nemes, G. (2007) Social learning in LEADER: Exogeneous, endogeneous and
hybrid evaluation in rural development, Sociologia Ruralis, 47(2), pp. 103119.
Hirschmann, A. (1970). Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms,
Organizations, and States, (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press).
Hooghe, L. & Marks, G. (2001) Multi-level Governance and European Integration (Lanhamn,
MD: Rowman & Littlefield).
IAASTD Collective Author. (2008) International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge,
Science and Technology for Development. Available at www.agassessment.org/
Isard, W. (1956) Location and Space Economy (Boston, MA: MIT Press).
Isard, W. (1960) Methods of Regional Analysis; an Introduction to Regional Science.
(Cambridge: Published jointly by the Technology Press of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology and Wiley, New York).
Torre A., Wallet F., 2016, Regional Development in Rural Areas. Analytical tools and Public
policies, Springer Briefs in Regional Science, Springer, 110 p
18
Jany-Catrice, F., Méda D., (2013) Well-Being & the Wealth of Nations, Review of Political
Economy, July, vol. 25 n°3. p. 444-460.
Johansson, B., Karlsson, C. & Stough, R. R. (2001) Theories of Endogenous Regional
Growth (Heidelberg: Springer).
Johansson, B., Quigley, J.M. (2004) Agglomeration and networks in spatial economies. In:
Florax, R.J.G.M., Plane, D.A. (Eds.), Fifty Years of Regional Science. Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg, New York, pp. 165-176.
Jordan, A., Wurzel, A. K. W. & Zito, A. (2005) The rise of ‘new’ policy instruments in
comparative perspective: Has governance eclipsed government?, Political Studies, 53(3), pp.
47796.
Karlsson, C. Flensburg, P. & Horte, S-A. (2004) Knowledge Spillovers and Knowledge
Management (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).
Keating, M., Loughlin, J. & Deschouwer, K. (2003) Culture, Institutions and Economic
Development: A Study of Eight European Regions (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).
Knickel K., Renting H. (2000) Methodological and conceptual issues in the study of
multifunctionality and rural development. Sociologia Ruralis 40 (4), 512528.
Kooiman J. (2000) Societal governance: levels, modes, and orders of social-political
interaction, in Pierre J. (ed), Debating Governance. Authority, steering and democracy,
(Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Krugman, P. (1991) Geography and Trade (Cambridge: MIT Press).
Lacour, C., Delamarre, A. & Thoin, M. (2003) 40 ans d’aménagement du territoire (Paris:
DATAR, La Documentation Française).
Lascoumes, P., Le Galès, P. (2004) Gouverner par les instruments (Paris : Les Presses de
Science Po)
Leeuwis, C. (2000) Reconceptualizing participation for sustainable rural development:
Towards a negotiation approach, Development and Change, 31, pp. 931959.
Leydersdorff, L. (2006) «While a storm is ragging on the open sea»: Regional development in
a knowledge-based economy, Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), pp. 189203.
Lincoln, N. D., Travers, C., Ackers, P. & Wilkinson, A. (2002) The meaning of
empowerment: The interdisciplinary etymology of a new management concept, International
Journal of Management Reviews, 4(3), pp. 271290.
Lipietz, A. (2001) Aménagement du territoire et développement endogène, Rapport au
Conseil d’Analyse Economique, 18 janvier 2001, Conseil d’Analyse Economique n°31,
(Paris : La documentation française).
Lösch, A. (1940) Die räumliche Ordnung der Wirtschaft, (Iena: University of Iena).
Torre A., Wallet F., 2016, Regional Development in Rural Areas. Analytical tools and Public
policies, Springer Briefs in Regional Science, Springer, 110 p
19
Losch, B. (2004) Debating the multifunctionality of agriculture: from trade negotiations to
development policies by the south, Journal of agrarian change, 4 (3), pp.336-360.
McGranahan, D.A., Wojan, T.R., Lambert, D.M. (2011) The rural growth trifecta: outdoor
amenities, creative class and entrepreneurial context. Journal of Economic Geography, 11 (3),
pp.529-557.
McCann, P., Ortega-Argilès, R. (2013) Smart specialization, regional growth and applications
to European Union cohesion policy, Regional Studies, published online 14 Jun 2013
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00343404.2013.799769 accessed 2015-01-02.
Maresca, B., Dujin, A., Poquet, G., Mordret, X., Picard, R., Fournel, E. (2008) Les retombées
économiques et les aménités des espaces naturels protégés, p.132 (Paris : CREDOC).
Marini, M. B. & Mooney, P. H. (2006) Rural economies, in: P. Cloke, T. Marsden & P.
Mooney (Eds) The Handbook of Rural Studies, p. 510 (Londres: Sage).
Marks, G., Hooghe, L. & Blank, K. (1996) European integration since the 1980s: State-centric
versus multi-level governance, Journal of Common Market Studies, 34(3), pp. 341378.
Markusen, A. (1996) Sticky places in slippery space: A typology of industrial districts,
Economic Geography, 72(2), pp. 294314.
Marsden, T. (2003) The Condition of Rural Sustainability. (Assen: Royal Van Gorcum).
Marsden, T. (2006) Pathways in the sociology of rural knowledge, in: P. Cloke, T. Marsden &
P. Mooney (Eds) The Handbook of Rural Studies, p. 510 (London: Sage).
Martin, R. & Sunley, P. (1998) Slow convergence? Post neo-classical endogenous growth
theory and regional development, Economic Geography, 74(3), pp. 201227.
Martinez-Alier, J. (2002) The Environmentalism of the Poor. A Study of Ecological Conflicts
and Valuation (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).
Maskell, P. (2001) The firm in economic geography, Economic Geography, 77(4), pp. 329
344.
Midmore, P., Langstaff, L., Lowman, S. & Vaughan, A. (2008) Evaluating pillar 2
employment impacts: Case study methodology and results for East Wales. 12th congress of
the European Association of Agricultural Economics, Ghent.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being : Synthesis
(Island Press: Washington DC).
Mollard, A., Sauboua, E. & Hirczak, M. (Eds) (2007) Territoires et enjeux du développement
régional (Paris: Quae).
Mormont, M. (1990) Who is rural? Or, how to be rural: Towards a sociology of the rural, in:
T. Marsden, S. Whatmore & P. Lowe (Eds) Rural Restructuring, pp. 2144 (London: Fulton).
Torre A., Wallet F., 2016, Regional Development in Rural Areas. Analytical tools and Public
policies, Springer Briefs in Regional Science, Springer, 110 p
20
Moseley, M. J. (2003) Rural Development. Principles and Practices (London: Sage).
Muller, P. (2013) Les politiques publiques (Paris: PUF, Collection “Que sais-je ?”, 10th
edition)
Murray, P. (2000) Evaluating participatory extension programs: Challenges and problems,
Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 40(4), pp. 519526.
Musgrave, R. (1959) The Theory of Public Finance: A Study in Political Economy (New
York: McGraw-Hill).
Neuchâtel Group. (1999) Common Framework on Agricultural Extension. Available at
http://www.neuchatelinitiative.net/english/index.htm
Nijkamp, P., Lasschuit, P. & Soeteman, F. (1992) Sustainable development in a regional
system, in: M. J. Breheny (Ed) Sustainable Development and Urban Form (London: Pion).
Nooteboom, B. (2000) Learning and Innovation in Organizations and Economies (Oxford:
Oxford University Press).
de Noronha Vaz, T., Morgan, E. & Nijkamp, P. (Eds) (2006) The New European Rurality.
Strategies for Small Firms (Ashgate Economic Geography Series).
de Noronha Vaz, T., Nijkamp, P. & Rastoin, J. L. (Eds) (2009) Traditional Food Production
and Rural. Sustainable Development. A European Challenge (Ashgate Economic Geography
Series).
North, D. (1955) Location theory and regional economic growth, Journal of Political
Economy, 63, pp. 243258.
Nussbaum, M. (2000) Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
OECD. (2006a) The New Rural Paradigm (Paris: Policies and Governance, OECD), p. 164.
OECD. (2006b) Coherence of Agricultural and Rural Development Policies (Paris: OECD
Publishing), p. 415.
OECD. (2006c) DAC Guidelines and Reference Series Applying Strategic Environmental
Assessment: Good Practice Guidance for Development Co-operation (Paris: OECD).
OECD. (2009a) Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentRegion at the
Glance (Paris: OECD), p. 255.
OECD. (2009b) Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentThe Role of
Agriculture and Farm Household Diversification in the Rural Economy: Evidence and Initial
Policy Implications (Paris: OECD), p. 144.
Torre A., Wallet F., 2016, Regional Development in Rural Areas. Analytical tools and Public
policies, Springer Briefs in Regional Science, Springer, 110 p
21
OECD. (2009c) Methods to monitor and evaluate the impacts of agricultural policies on rural
development (Paris: OECD), p.116.
Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective
Action (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Ottaviano, G. & Thisse, J. F. (2004) Agglomeration and economic geography, in: J. V.
Henderson & J. F. Thisse (Eds) Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, vol
4, pp. 25632608 (Elsevier) (Chapter 58).
Partridge, M.D., Rickman. D.S. (2008) Distance from Urban Agglomeration Economies and
Rural Poverty. Journal of Regional Science 48:285-310.
Payne, A. (2000) Globalization and modes of regionalist governance, in: J. Pierre (Ed)
Debating Governance. Authority, Steering and Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University
Press).
Pearce, D. W., Hamilton, K. & Atkinson, G. (1996) Measuring sustainable development:
Progress on indicators, Environment and Development Economics, 1, pp. 85101.
Pecqueur, B. (sous la dir. de) (1996). Dynamiques territoriales et mutations économiques,
(Paris : L’Harmattan).
Perrier-Cornet, P. (2002) Repenser les campagnes (Editions de l’Aube).
Perrier-Cornet, P. (2011) Rural territories, governance and rural policies: What perspectives?,
in: A. Torre & J. B. Traversac (Eds) Territorial Governance (Heidelberg: Springer Verlag).
Perroux, F. (1964) L’économie du XXème siècle, 2nd ed. (Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France).
Pierre J. (ed.), 2000, Debating Governance. Authority, Steering and Democracy, Oxford
University Press, 251 p.
van der Ploeg, J. D., Renting, H., Brunori, G., Knicken, K., Mannion, J., Marsden, T., de
Roest, K., Sevilla Guzman, E. & Ventura, F. (2000) Rural development: From practices and
policies towards theory, Sociologia Ruralis, 40(4), pp. 391408.
Porter, M. E. (1985) Competitive Advantage (New York: The Free press).
Porter, M. E. (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations (New York: The Free Press).
Porter, M. (1998) Clusters and competition: New agendas for companies, governments, and
institutions. In M. Porter, On competition (pp. 197-287). (Boston: Harvard Business School
Press).
Powell W. (1991) Neither Market nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organisation. In
Thompson G., Frances J., Levavcic R. and Mitchell J. (eds), Markets and Hierarchies and
Networks: The Co-ordination of Social Life, (London: Sage).
Torre A., Wallet F., 2016, Regional Development in Rural Areas. Analytical tools and Public
policies, Springer Briefs in Regional Science, Springer, 110 p
22
Prager, J.-C. & Thisse, J.-F. (2009) Les enjeux géographiques du développement économique
(Agence Française de Développement, Département de la Recherche).
Pretty, J., Lang, T., Ball, A. & Morison, J. (2005) Farm costs and food miles: An assessment
of the full cost of the weekly food basket, Food Policy, 30(1), pp. 120.
Rappaport, J. (2009) The increasing importance of quality of life, Journal of Economic
Geography, 9 (6), pp.779-804.
Reid, N., Gatrell, J.D., Ross, P. (eds) (2012) Local food systems in old industrial regions,
Ashgate, Farnham, 264p.
Renski, H.C. (2014) The influence of industry mix on regional new firm entry, Regional
Studies, 48 (8), pp.1353-1370.
Renting, H., Marsden, T. K. & Banks, J. (2003) Understanding alternative food networks:
Exploring the role of short supply chains in rural development, Environment and Planning A,
35, pp. 393411.
Richardson, H. (1985) Input-Output and economic base multipliers: looking backward and
forward, Journal of Regional Science, 25(4), pp.607-661
Robinson, G. (2008) Sustainable Rural Systems: Sustainable Agriculture and Rural
Communities (Aldershot: Ashgate).
Rodrigez-Pose, A. (2002) The European Union: Economy, Society, and Polity (Oxford:
Oxford University Press).
Rodden, J. (2000) The Dilemma of Fiscal Federalism: Hard and Soft Budget Constraints
around the World (Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
Röling, N. & de Jong, F. (1998) Learning: Shifting paradigms in education and extension
studies, The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 5(3), pp. 143161.
Romer, P. M. (1990) Endogenous technological change, Journal of Political Economy, 98(5),
pp. 71102.
da Rosa Pires A., M. Pertoldi, J. Edwards and F.B. Hegyi (2014) Smart Specialisation and
Innovation in Rural Areas, S3 Policy Brief Series No. 09/2014, JRC Technical Support, 21
pages
Rowe, J. E. (Ed.) (2009) Theories of Local Economic Development (Burlington: Ashgate), p.
375.
Sack, R. (1986) Human Territoriality. Its Theory and History (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press).
Scharpf, F. W. (1991) Crisis and Choice in European Social Democracy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press).
Torre A., Wallet F., 2016, Regional Development in Rural Areas. Analytical tools and Public
policies, Springer Briefs in Regional Science, Springer, 110 p
23
Schmitz, H. (1995). Collective efficiency: growth path for small-scale industry. Journal of
development studies 31 (4), 529-66.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934) The Theory of Economic Development, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press).
Scott, M. (2004) Building institutional capacity in rural Northern Ireland: The role of
partnership governance in the Leader II programme, Journal of Rural Studies, 20, pp. 4959.
Scott, A. & Storper, M. (2007) Regions, globalization, development, Regional Studies, 41, pp.
191205.
Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom (New York: Alfred A Knopf).
Singh, K. (2009) Rural Development, 3rd ed. (New Delhi: Sage).
Solow, R. M. (1956) A contribution to the theory of economic growth, Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 70(1), pp. 6594.
Solow, R. M. (2000) Growth Theory: An Exposition (New York: Oxford University Press)
Sombart, W. (1916) Der Moderne Kapitalismus (Munich: Duker & Humbolt).
Stiglitz J., Sen A., Fitoussi J-P. (2009) « Commission sur la mesure des performances
économiques et du progrès social », Rapport au président de la République. France.
http://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/fr/
Stimson, R.J., Stough, R. & Roberts, B.H. (2006) Regional Economic Development. Analysis
and Planning Strategy (Heidelberg: Springer), p. 452.
Stöhr, W. B. (1986) Regional innovation complexes, Papers in Regional Science, 59, pp. 29
44.
Terrier, C. (2006) L’économie présentielle, un outil de gestion du territoire, Cahier Espaces
n°90, numéro spécial Observation et Tourisme, 6 pp. (Paris: Editions Espaces tourisme &
loisirs).
Tiebout, C. M. (1956) A pure theory of local expenditures, Journal of Political Economy,
n°64, pp. 416424.
Torre, A. (2008) On the role played by temporary geographical proximity in knowledge
transfer, Regional Studies, 42(6), pp. 869889.
Torre, A., Melot, R., Magsi, H., Bossuet, L., Cadoret, A., Caron, A., Darly, S., Jeanneaux, P.,
Kirat, T., Pham, H.V, Kolokouris, O. (2014) Identifying and measuring land-use and
proximity conflicts: methods and identification, SpringerPlus, 3, 1, 85.
Torre, A. & Traversac, J. B. (2011) Territorial Governance (Heidelberg: Springer Verlag).
Torre A., Wallet F. (eds) (2014) Regional development and proximity relations (London:
Edward Elgard Publishing)
Torre A., Wallet F., 2016, Regional Development in Rural Areas. Analytical tools and Public
policies, Springer Briefs in Regional Science, Springer, 110 p
24
Trouvé, A, Berriet-Solliec, M., Lépicier, D. (2013) Le développement rural en Europe. Quel
avenir pour le deuxième pilier de la Politique Agricole Commune ? (Berne : Peter Lang),
336p.
Vatn, A. (2001) Environmental resources, property regimes and efficiency, Environment and
Planning C: Government and Policy, 19(5), pp. 681693.
Vazquez Barquero, A. (2002) Endogenous Development (London: Routledge).
Vereijken, P.H., Hermans, C.M.L., Naeff, H.S.D. (2005) Impact of liberalisation of food and
land markets on agrarian land use in the EU. In: Bradley, R.S., Wiseman, J. (Eds.), Yields of
Farmed Species: Constraints and Opportunities in the 21st Century. (Nottingham :
Nottingham University Press).
Vollet, D. (2002) Multifonctionnalité et territoires, in D. Vollet (ed.) Multifonctionnalité et
territoires : justification et modalités de la territorialisation des politiques publiques, (Paris :
Cemagref)
Warner K.D. (2007) Agroecology in action, (MIT Press)
Westlund, H., Larsson, J.P., Rader Olsson, A. (2014) Start-ups and local entrepreneurial
social capital in the municipalities of Sweden, Regional Studies, 48 (6), pp.974-994.
Wettenhall R. (2003) The rhetoric and reality of public-private partnerships, Public
Organization Review, 3, 1, 77-107.
Wildasin, D. E. (2004). The institutions of federalism: Toward an analytical framework,
National Tax Journal LVII, n°2, part 1, June.
Wilson G.A. (2007) Multi-Functional Agriculture: A Transitional Perspective. (CABI
International).
Wixe, S., Andersson, M. (2013) Which Types of Relatedness Matter in Regional Growth?
Industry, Occupation and Education. CESIS Electronic Working Paper Series No. 332. Royal
Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
Wojtowski A. (2006) Introduction to Agroecology, (N. York: FPP).
World Bank (2007) Agriculture for Development, World Development Report 2008
(Washington, DC: The World Bank).
... Given the history of Horsham and its hinterland and the social isolation experienced by some of the participants in this study, there are some problems with cohesion between groups with different purposes. If bridging capital does not improve, it creates areas of social and economic advantage and disadvantage (Torre & Wallet, 2016). ...
Thesis
Full-text available
This doctoral thesis explores a socioeconomic model for understanding and analysing leadership in the regional area of Horsham and its hinterland communities. This thesis critiques accepted models of regional development policy and leadership theory and in doing so argues for a new approach emphasising the roles that leaders adopt to achieve goals. These roles comprise the entrepreneur, manager and community leader that this thesis terms the regional trifecta model of leadership. This is a model that explores the ways that leaders attain mutuality within social and economic eco-systems in order to achieve long-term regional economic sustainability and liveability for residents. This doctoral study uses a critical qualitative ethnographic exploration of Horsham and its surrounding region drawing on researcher, the informant participant’s observations from a wide range of industries and social backgrounds. This thesis discusses themes of policy barriers to environmentally sustainable entrepreneurship, social ostracism of female leaders, a sense of futility in bureaucratic compliance, passive and unsupportive communities, tempered with the critical hope of social enterprise and potential partnerships. In examining these themes the thesis argues that entrepreneurs are overwhelmingly values driven. It also asserts that they experience barriers of unreliable labour and unsupportive external partnerships. Managers are also strongly values driven and can experience many barriers from internal partnerships within their own organisations. Community leaders are values driven and struggle against the barriers of bureaucracy with the organisations they partner with. The thesis provides a new contribution to the literature. This includes a critique of psychosocial approaches to leadership through role-based explorations that emphasise a collective responsibility for success within an eco-system. It also examines the types of people that become leaders and their motivations in regional Victoria. From this emerges a discussion about the tension between formal governance and power structures and the informal agency of leaders. The recommendations that emerge from this research are that policymakers, local, state and federal governments acknowledge and support the role of existing informal leaders and the significant social and economic benefit they bring to regional Victoria.
Book
Dans un contexte marqué, d’une part, par l’élargissement et l’intégration de nouveaux Etats-membres et, d’autre part, par la poursuite des débats sur les modalités de l’intervention publique au sein de l’Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC), l’Union Européenne redéfinit actuellement les contours de ses politiques économiques. Alors que la politique des marchés agricoles, c’est-à-dire le premier pilier de la Politique agricole commune (PAC), demeure la pierre angulaire en termes financiers, le volet concernant le développement rural (« second pilier ») apparaît comme un nouvel enjeu important des dispositifs en cours de constitution. Pour la période 2007-2013, la Commission européenne a ainsi été amenée à redessiner, pour une Europe à bientôt 27 membres, les contours de ce « second pilier » (et, plus largement, de sa politique de développement rural) ainsi que sa traduction dans le Règlement de Développement Rural (RDR). Dans un tel contexte, il semble important de proposer un éclairage historique de l’évolution de la politique européenne de développement rural, en nous appuyant sur les apports de l’analyse économique pour évaluer la portée du dispositif.
Book
À la veille d’une réforme importante de la Politique agricole commune (PAC), les débats se multiplient sur sa légitimité. Comment justifier les 40 milliards d’aides européennes agricoles versés par an ? Un « deuxième pilier » de la PAC, consacré formellement au développement rural, a été créé en 1999 pour répondre aux besoins du monde rural et aux impératifs environnementaux. Depuis, il n’a cessé de prendre de l’importance sur le plan politique et budgétaire : aides à l’installation et à la modernisation des exploitations, aides agro-environnementales, aides aux zones défavorisées et à la diversification des activités rurales, etc. Quel bilan tirer de cette politique européenne de développement rural ? Mis en oeuvre selon des principes très différents du premier pilier de la PAC consacré au soutien des marchés agricoles, le deuxième pilier propose-t-il réellement une alternative ? Pour la première fois, un ouvrage réunit une vingtaine de spécialistes, chercheurs, responsables administratifs et de bureaux d’études, pour présenter de façon didactique, l’histoire, les enjeux et la mise en oeuvre de ce deuxième pilier de la PAC, mais également les débats et les contradictions qui le traversent.
Book
During the last two decades a new growth theory has emerged - often labelled "endogenous economic growth". The contributions in the book develop these advances into a theoretical framework for endogenous regional economic growth and explain the implications for regional economic policies in the perspective of the new century. Endogenous growth models can reflect increasing returns and hence refer more adequately to empirical observations than earlier models, and the models become policy relevant, because in endogenous growth models policy matters. Such policies comprise efforts to stimulate the growth of knowledge intensity of the labour supply and knowledge production in the form of R&D.
Book
The Handbook of Rural Studies represents the vitality and theoretical innovation at work in rural studies. It shows how political economy and the "cultural turn" have led to very significant new thinking in the cultural representations of: rurality; nature; sustainability; new economies; power and rurality; new consumerism; and exclusion and rurality.It is organized in three sections: approaches to rural studies; rural research: key theoretical co-ordinates and new rural relations.In a rich and textured discussion, the Handbook of Rural Studies explains the key moments in which the theorization of culture, nature, politics, agency, and space in rural contexts have transmitted ideas back into wider social science.