ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

Many European countries have implemented development policies for regions and territories in order to contribute to their growth and reduce inequalities. The EU has developed policies for cohesion and smart development which aim to promote the growth of all territories and reduce the gaps between them. The implementation of those policies raises questions about the place of and role of peripheral areas in terms of development. Will they remain under-developed regions, lagging behind? Or are they able to participate in overall development processes? The topic of our paper is an exploration of smart development for peripheral areas, and more especially, rural areas, in Europe. The question arises as to whether these areas are, despite their handicaps, capable of meeting the challenges of development, and most of all of satisfying the conditions for a smart development process. In order to address the question of the development potential of peripheral areas, we start by presenting the European policies of cohesion and smart development, before highlighting the limits of their acceptance by local people. We then show that there are other types of territorial innovations than those identified in the most well-known policies, and finally we propose development strategies for a particular type of peripheral area: rural territories. We found that even while the development policies devoted to these territories have multiplied over the last thirty years, the inhabitants of peripheral areas very often feel dissatisfied with their situation and express their opposition through extreme votes or public demonstration. One of the major reasons for this growing gap between the proliferation of EU policies and the dissatisfaction of the population is that innovations and novelties coming from these areas are rarely considered and encouraged by the current policies. The latter attach too great an importance to technological dimensions and are mainly directed towards industrialized and densely populated areas, whereas innovations stemming from peripheral territories, which are very real, are concentrated primarily in the social, institutional, and organizational fields. In the end, many policies are disconnected from the needs, the will, and the skills of local populations in peripheral areas. In order to avoid these problems and to reduce the obstacles on the development paths of peripheral areas we advocate policies that are better adapted to these territories and which seriously consider their innovative character. The case of rural areas in Europe provides interesting insights because it shows that a mix of ‘traditional’ and more social and institutional policies is possible, and that various mixes can be adapted to the peculiarities of these regions; from peri-urban areas to remote agricultural or forested lands. In any case, it is important to stress that the measures that are applied must be adapted to the respective characteristics of the different categories of territory and not be based on a catalogue adaptable to any type of peripheral areas. It is at this price that we may avoid the disjunction between the different territories of the EU and the appearance of zones of separatism, or even the dislocation of the European community.
Tér és Társadalom 36. évf., 3. szám, 2022 https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.36.3.3423
ARTICLES / TANULMÁNYOK
Smart development for peripheral areas.
A never-ending story?
Okos fejlődés vidéki területeken. Végtelen történet?
ANDRÉ TORRE
André TORRE: professor, University Paris-Saclay; UMR SADAPT, INRAE, Agroparistech,
16 rue Claude Bernard, 75231 Paris Cedex 05; andre.torre.2@inrae.fr; https://orcid.org/
0000-0001-5644-7520
KEYWORDS: smart development; peripheral areas; innovations
ABSTRACT:
Many
European
countries
have
implemented
development
policies
for
regions
and
territories
in
order
to
contribute
to
their
growth
and
reduce
inequalities.
The
EU
has
developed
policies
for
cohesion
and
smart
development
which
aim
to
promote
the
growth
of
all
territories
and
reduce
the
gaps
between
them.
The
implementation
of
those
policies
raises
questions
about
the
place
of
and
role
of
peripheral
areas
in
terms
of
development.
Will
they
remain
under-developed
regions,
lagging
behind?
Or
are
they
able
to
participate
in
overall
development
processes?
The
topic
of
our
paper
is
an
exploration
of
smart
development
for
peripheral
areas,
and
more
especially,
rural
areas,
in
Europe.
The
question
arises
as
to
whether
these
areas
are,
despite
their
handicaps,
capable
of
meeting
the
challenges
of
development,
and
most
of
all
of
satisfying
the
conditions
for
a
smart
development
process.
In
order
to
address
the
question
of
the
development
potential
of
peripheral
areas,
we
start
by
presenting
the
European
policies
of
cohesion
and
smart
development,
before
highlighting
the
limits
of
their
acceptance
by
local
people.
We
then
show
that
there
are
other
types
of
territorial
innovations
than
those
identied
in
the
most
well-known
policies,
and
nally
we
propose
development
strategies
for
a
particular
type
of
peripheral
area:
rural
territories.
We
found
that
even
while
the
development
policies
devoted
to
these
territories
have
multiplied
over
the
last
thirty
years,
the
inhabitants
of
peripheral
areas
very
often
feel
dissatised
with
their
situation
and
express
their
opposition
through
extreme
votes
or
public
demonstration.
One
of
the
major
reasons
for
this
growing
gap
between
the
proliferation
of
EU
policies
and
the
dissatisfaction
of
the
population
is
that
innovations
and
novelties
coming
from
these
areas
are
rarely
considered
and
encouraged
by
the
current
policies.
The
latter
attach
too
great
an
importance
to
technological
dimensions
and
are
mainly
directed
towards
industrialized
and
densely
populated
areas,
whereas
innovations
stemming
from
peripheral
territories,
which
are
very
real,
are
concentrated
primarily
in
the
social,
institutional,
and
organizational
elds.
In
the
end,
many
policies
are
disconnected
from
the
needs,
the
will,
and
the
skills
of
local
populations
in
peripheral areas.
In
order
to
avoid
these
problems
and
to
reduce
the
obstacles
on
the
development
paths
of
peripheral
areas
we
advocate
policies
that
are
better
adapted
to
these
territories
and
which
seriously
consider
their
innovative
character.
The
case
of
rural
areas
in
Europe
provides
interesting
insights
because
it
shows
that
a
mix
of
‘traditional’
Smart development for peripheral areas. A never-ending story? 11
and
more
social
and
institutional
policies
is
possible,
and
that
various
mixes
can
be
adapted
to
the
peculiarities
of
these
regions;
from
peri-urban
areas
to
remote
agricultural
or
forested
lands.
In
any
case,
it
is
important
to
stress
that
the
measures
that
are
applied
must
be
adapted
to
the
respective
characteristics
of
the
dierent
categories
of
territory
and
not
be
based
on
a
catalogue
adaptable
to
any
type
of
peripheral
areas.
It
is
at
this
price
that
we
may
avoid
the
disjunction
between
the
dierent
territories
of
the
EU
and
the
appearance
of
zones
of
separatism,
or
even
the
dislocation of the European community.
TORRE, André: professzor, University Paris-Saclay; UMR SADAPT, INRAE, Agroparistech, 16 rue
Claude Bernard, 75231 Paris Cedex 05; andre.torre.2@inrae.fr; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5644-7520
KULCSSZAVAK : okos fejlődés; periférikus térségek; innovációk
ABSZTRAKT
:
A
növekedés
és
az
egyenlőtlenségek
csökkentése
érdekében
számos
európai
ország
vezetett
be
regionális
és
területi
fejlesztési
politikákat,
s
az
Európai
Unió
is
elindította
a
kohézió
és
az
okos
fejlődés
politikáit,
amelyek
a
területi
növekedést
és
a
területi
különbségek
mérséklését
cé‐
lozzák.
E
politikák
megvalósítása
felveti
azt
a
kérdést,
hogy
a
periférikus
területeknek
hol
a
helye
és
mi
a
szerepe
a
fejlesztésben.
Vajon
fejletlen,
elmaradott
régiók
maradnak?
Vagy
képesek
arra,
hogy
bekapcsolódjanak
az
általános
fejlődési
folyamatokba?
Tanulmányunk
az
okos
fejlődés
lehetőségeit
tárgyalja
Európa
periférikus
vidéki
térségeiben.
Az
a
kérdés,
hogy
ezek
a
térségek,
minden
hátrá‐
nyuk
ellenére,
képesek-e
válaszolni
a
fejlődés
kihívásaira,
s
leginkább,
hogy
képesek-e
megfelelni
az
okos
fejlődés
feltételeinek.
A
periférikus
térségek
fejlődési
potenciáljára
vonatkozó
kérdés
megvála‐
szolását
a
kohéziót
és
az
okos
fejlődést
célzó
európai
politikák
bemutatásával
kezdjük,
majd
rámu‐
tatunk
e
politikák
lokális
elfogadottságának
korlátaira.
Ezt
követően
bemutatjuk,
hogy
a
területi
innovációnak
más
típusai
is
léteznek,
mint
azok,
amelyeket
a
leginkább
ismert
politikák
azonosíta‐
nak,
s
végezetül
javaslatot
teszünk
a
periférikus
térségek
egy
sajátos
típusa,
a
vidéki
területek
fej‐
lesztési stratégiáira.
Azt
tapasztalhattuk,
hogy
miközben
az
e
területek
fejlesztésének
szentelt
politikák
az
elmúlt
harminc
év
alatt
megsokasodtak,
a
periférikus
térségek
lakói
gyakran
elégedetlenek
a
helyzetükkel,
és
szembenállásukat
a
szélsőséges
pártokra
leadott
szavazatokkal
vagy
tüntetésekkel
fejezik
ki.
A
burjánzó
uniós
politikák
és
az
elégedetlenség
közötti
növekvő
távolság
egyik
legfontosabb
oka
az,
hogy
az
ilyen
térségekből
érkező
innovációkat
és
újdonságokat
a
mindenkori
politikák
ritkán
veszik
tekintetbe
és
ösztönzik.
E
politikák
túl
nagy
jelentőséget
tulajdonítanak
a
technológiai
dimenziók‐
nak,
és
leginkább
az
iparosodott
és
alacsony
népsűrűségű
térségekre
irányulnak,
miközben
a
peri‐
férikus
területeken
elinduló,
ténylegesen
létező
innovációk
elsősorban
a
szociális,
intézményi
és
szervezeti
szférákban
jelentkeznek.
A
végeredmény,
hogy
számos
politika
nem
találkozik
a
periféri‐
kus vidékek lakóinak igényeivel, szándékaival, tudásával és képességeivel.
Annak
érdekében,
hogy
ezeket
a
problémákat
elkerüljük
és
mérsékeljük
a
periférikus
vidé‐
kek
fejlődési
útjában
álló
akadályokat,
olyan
politikákra
teszünk
javaslatot,
amelyek
jobban
alkal‐
mazhatók
e
területeken,
és
komolyan
gyelembe
veszik
innovatív
természetüket.
Az
európai
vidéki
térségek
példája
érdekes
belátásokat
kínál,
mert
rámutat
arra,
hogy
lehetséges
a
„hagyományos”,
valamint
a
szociális
és
intézményi
politikák
ötvözése,
és
hogy
ezek
különböző
egyvelege
a
városkör‐
nyékektől
a
távoli
mezőgazdasági
és
erdősült
területekig
könnyen
igazítható
e
régiók
sajátosságai‐
hoz.
Fontos
továbbá
hangsúlyozunk,
hogy
az
alkalmazott
mérési
eszközöknek
alkalmazkodniuk
kell
a
különböző
területek
mindenkori
sajátosságaihoz,
és
nem
alapulhatnak
egy
olyan
katalóguson,
amely
a
periférikus
vidékek
összes
típusára
ráhúzható.
Ezen
az
áron
kerülhetjük
el
az
Európai
Unió
különböző
területei
közötti
megosztottságot
és
a
szeparatizmus
zónáinak
megjelenését,
vagy
akár
az európai közösség működésképtelenségét.
12 André Torre
Introduction
The
issue
of
regional
or
territorial
development
has
become
an
important
topic
of
debate
in
a
context
of
uncertain
growth,
signicant
inequalities,
and
environmental
and
biodiversity
concerns.
It
is
part
of
a
historic
movement
of
decentralization
policies
at
the
global
level
and
might
also
be
considered
a
response
to
a
demand
for
participatory
democracy
and
participation
stemming
from
local
populations.
Many
countries,
especially
at
the
European
level,
have
implemented
development
policies
for
regions
and
territories
in
order
to
contribute
to
their
growth
and
reduce
inequalities.
The
EU
has
been
moving
in
this
direction
and
has
developed
policies
for
cohesion
and
smart
development
which
aim
to
promote
the
growth
of
all
territories
and
reduce
the
gaps
between
them (European Commission 2022; Foray 2018).
The
implementation
of
those
policies
and
the
constant
concern
about
social
and
spatial
inequalities
between
various
types
of
areas
and
territories
raise
questions
about
the
place
and
role
of
peripheral
areas
in
terms
of
development.
Will
they
remain
under-developed
regions,
lagging
behind?
Or
are
they
able
to
participate
in
the
overall
development
processes?
The
topic
of
our
paper
concerns
the
exploration
of
potentially
smart
development
for
peripheral
areas,
and more especially, rural areas in Europe.
To
provide
an
answer
to
this
question,
one
must
rst
provide
a
denition
of
peripheral
territories
and
their
possible
dierence
from
more
central
areas
which
are
suering
less
from
developmental
delays.
A
rapid
survey
of
the
factors
used
to
dene
the
peripheral
regions
reveals
that
there
is
little
research
on
the
relations
of
center
and
periphery,
and
that
the
theorization
of
the
notions
of
central
and
peripheral
regions
is
largely
absent
in
the
literature.
Some
works
mention
geographical
factors;
most
typically
transport
costs
due
to
lower
accessibility.
Other
factors
are
demographic
dimensions
like
low
population
density
and
population
aging
and
decline
(Eder
2019).
A
third
explanation
is
linked
with
economic
factors:
the
lack
of
support
infrastructure,
weakness
of
human
capital
or
R&D
expenditure,
and
the
dominance
of
traditional
industries
or
agriculture
(Pinto,
Esquinas,
Uyarra
2015;
Trippl,
Asheim,
Miorner
2016).
However,
only
few
publications
consider
peripheral
areas
from
the
geographical
point
of
view,
and
researchers
prefer
to
base
their
analyses
on
a
combination
of
economic,
geographic,
and
more
rarely,
demographic
factors
(Soursa
2007;
Melancon, Doloreux 2013; Dubois 2015; Torre, Wallet 2020).
In
this
paper,
we
will
consider
that
peripheral
regions
are
characterized
by
low
technological
innovation
capacity
because
of
the
absence
of
conventional
innovation
drivers
in
these
areas,
and
that
they
are
decient
in
at
least
one
of
the
following
domains,
generally
considered
highly
conducive
to
innovation
activity:
High-level
skills
in
research
and
development
linked
to
the
weakness
of
public
and
private
laboratories
and
R&D
departments
of
large
companies;
Smart development for peripheral areas. A never-ending story? 13
The
concentration
of
talent
and
presence
of
a
creative
class
which
generate
many
inventions
and
innovations,
and
are
sources
of
increased
knowledge – specially compared to in big cities;
Transport
and
communication
networks:
these
areas
seem
isolated
and
dicult to access;
Size
and
characteristics
of
market
demand:
The
small
size
of
local
communities
does
not
allow
for
the
creation
of
adequate
market
demand;
Presence
of
a
network
of
skills
and
potential
partners:
this
other
eect
of
small
population
size
leads
to
the
low
density
of
enterprises
and
related
activities;
Access
to
nance
for
innovative
projects
and
to
land
for
economic
development:
here
again,
this
is
related
to
population
density,
transaction
volumes, and availability of resources.
The
question
then
arises
as
to
whether
these
areas
are,
despite
their
handicaps,
capable
of
meeting
the
challenges
of
development,
and
most
of
all,
of
satisfying
the
conditions
for
a
smart
development
process.
In
order
to
address
the
question
of
the
development
potential
of
peripheral
areas,
we
will
proceed
in
four
steps.
We
begin
by
presenting
the
European
policies
of
cohesion
and
smart
development,
before
highlighting
the
limits
of
their
acceptance
by
local
people.
We
then
show
that
there
are
other
types
of
territorial
innovations
than
those
identied
in
the
most
well-known
policies,
and
nally
we
propose
development
strategies for a particular type of peripheral area: rural territories.
The EU’s Cohesion and Smart Development policies
The
EU’s
Cohesion
Policy
started
in
the
late
1980s
based
on
the
idea
that
the
market
forces
are
not
necessarily
sucient
to
signicantly
reduce
regional
disparities.
The
fund’s
development
programs
are
designed
for
EU
regions
that
are
backward
or
facing
structural
diculties,
to
use
the
ocial
terms
(OECD
2012;
European
Commission
2014,
2022).
The
EU
created
this
instrument
of
nancial
solidarity
between
Member
States
with
the
aim
of
improving
the
competitiveness
of
growth-lagging
regions
and
correcting
regional
imbalance.
The
goal
has
always
been
to
reduce
regional
disparities,
restructure
regional
economies,
create
jobs,
and
stimulate
private
investment
in
these
areas.
Given
the
very
sensible
addressing
of
the
issue
of
the
unequal
distribution
of
wealth,
the
general
objective
is
to
stimulate
the
levelling
up
of
the
least
developed
countries/regions.
The
question
whether
these
cohesion
policies
really
help
to
reduce
(or
rather
accentuate)
disparities
is
a
key
issue
in
the
literature,
with
arguments
in
favor
of
one
or
the
other,
whereas
the
spatial
heterogeneity
of
regional growth questions the design of the territorial development policies.
14 André Torre
A
good
part
of
European
policies,
including
cohesion
policy,
have
taken
a
territorial
turn
since
the
2010s,
starting
in
the
programming
period
2014–20
after
criticisms
addressed
at
the
Lisbon
Strategy
which
aimed
to
make
Europe
the
world’s
leading
technological
power
and
in
particular
following
the
Barca
report
(2009).
The
diagnosis
of
this
policy
revealed
several
limitations
(Giannitsis
2009)
and
led
to
a
movement
towards
the
territorialization
of
EU
cohesion
policy
(Bourdin
2019).
In
particular,
the
new
approach
points
to
the
fact
of
the
smaller
share
of
European
regional
economies
composed
of
high-
tech
and
R&D-intensive
sectors,
and
also
the
fragmentation
of
R&D
eorts
which
have
prevented
the
emergence
of
critical
mass
eects
and
of
localized
learning
processes.
They
also
put
the
stress
on
the
lack
of
attention
to
the
dierences
between
the
various
regions
and
territories
of
the
EU,
and
to
the
failure
of
a
‘one-size-fits-all’
technology
development
policy.
In
addition,
many
of
the
policies
implemented
by
EU
public
authorities
to
promote
convergence
between
the
economies
of
European
states
(such
as
ERDF
programs)
have
been
unable
to
prevent
processes
of
marginalization
and
are
now
sharply
criticized,
and
funding
for
these
programs
has
been
significantly
reduced
(Camagni,
Capello 2013; Berkowitz et al. 2015).
The
modern
approaches
to
territorial
development
have
taken
into
account
the
key
role
of
geography
in
policies
targeting
economic
growth
after
the
failure
of
the
Lisbon
Strategy
(Varga
2017).
European
regional
policy
has
been
reoriented
(Barca,
McCann,
Rodríguez-Pose
2012;
Bachtler
et
al.
2017)
around
the
idea
that
competitive
advantage
is
created
and
sustained
through
a
highly
localized
process.
The
result
has
been
huge
reection
about
the
specic
factors
that
lie
at
the
origin
of
competitive
advantage,
such
as
the
quality
of
human
capital,
the
presence
of
infrastructure
related
to
knowledge,
and
the
existence
of
networks
and
clusters
(Capello,
Nijkamp
2019;
Crescenzi,
Rodríguez-Pose
2012).
All
these
factors
have
reinforced
the
idea
that
territorial
and
local
policies
should
be conceived and applied at the regional level (Lagendijk 2011).
The
principles
for
a
new
development
policy
have
been
dened,
distinguishing
between
‘core’
regions
with
the
capacity
to
create
generic
R&D
activities
thanks
to
the
presence
of
research
laboratories,
and
‘periphery’
regions,
which
are
more
oriented
towards
specialized
knowledge
domains
related
to
external
partners.
Thanks
to
the
research
in
regional
science
and
regional
development
(Capello
2019),
the
core
vs.
periphery
distinction
gradually
gave
way
to
place-based
considerations
and
to
the
adoption
of
an
approach
to
development
that
looks
beyond
activities
related
to
technological
domains
and
R&D
processes
(Carayannis,
Rakhmatullin
2014).
So-called
Smart
Specialization
Strategy
(S3)
or
policy
diers
from
previous
ones
in
that
it
takes
greater
account
of
knowledge
networks
and
spatial
dimensions,
as
well
as
regionally
specific
modes
of
governance.
As
McCann
and
Ortega
Argilés
(2013)
stated,
there
has
been
a
shift
from
a
“narrow
sectoral
and
science-based
R&D
way
of
thinking
about
innovation”
Smart development for peripheral areas. A never-ending story? 15
to
a
policy
“developed
into
a
more
multi-dimensional
policy
approach
involving
matters of institutions, geography and linkage development.”
According
to
the
European
Commission,
S3
thus
leads
to
a
more
comprehensive
set
of
development
objectives
and
encourages
regions
to
build
their
innovation
strategies
both
on
the
basis
of
existing
structure
and
according
to
the
potential
for
diversification.
This
approach,
which
now
tends
to
characterize
European
policies
(McCann,
van
Oort
2016;
Radosevic
et
al.
2017),
emerged
from
the
work
of
a
group
of
researchers
of
the
economics
of
innovation
conducted
for
the
European
Commission
as
part
of
the
‘Knowledge
for
Growth’
expert
group
(Foray,
David,
Hall
2009;
Foray
2014).
The
basic
principles
have
gradually
been
dened
and
rened.
From
an
analytical
point
of
view,
they
are
essentially
linked
to
selection
criteria
based
on
the
following
three
concepts:
embeddedness,
connectedness, and related variety, or relatedness.
The
concepts
of
embeddedness
and
connectedness
underlie
the
idea
that
activities
selected
to
benet
from
specic
development
programs
should
not
be
selected
solely
on
the
basis
of
their
level
of
excellence.
They
must
be
linked
to
other
activities
located
upstream
and
downstream
of
value
chains
with
strong
ties
to
the
local
environment.
This
type
of
linkage
can
generate
network
externalities,
which
promote
growth
by
means
of
external
eects,
and
are
likely
to
boost
the
regional
network
and
stimulate
a
virtuous
growth
cycle
thanks
to
activities
that
have
critical
mass
in
sectors
in
which
the
region
has
competitive
advantages.
It
is
also
important
that
connections
with
the
external
environment
(in
terms
of
product
or
technology
exchanges)
are
maintained,
so
as
to
benet
from external innovation and/or the sale of locally produced goods.
The
funding
decisions
made
by
public
authorities
must
take
into
account
the
characteristics
of
local
productive
systems
and
architectures,
and
not
merely
the
pure
comparative
advantages
of
a
region
in
various
production
sectors.
The
concept
of
related
variety,
which
is
often
used
in
relation
to
embeddedness
and
connectedness,
was
introduced
by
Frenken,
van
Oort
and
Verburg
in
2007
in
an
attempt
to
show
that
a
region
benets
more
from
engaging
in
broad
‘activity
domains’
in
which
related
activities
are
characterized
by
technologies
or
forms
of
production
that
are
closely
and
consistently
interrelated
than
from
specializing
in
a
single
activity.
These
recommendations
have
been
translated
into
practical
growth
and
development
strategies.
The
EU
invited
each
region
to
choose
a
few
key
domains
or
activities
or
technologies,
based
on
three
criteria:
the
overall
context
(the
chosen
activity
should
t
into
a
value
chain
and
not
be
isolated
at
the
local
level),
specialization
in
specic
elds
of
activity,
and
coherent
diversication
through
related
variety
(the
selected
sectors
must
be
closely
related
to
or
belong
to
interconnected
and
complementary
elds
of
activity).
Thus,
to
qualify
for
development
funds,
EU
regions
have
had
to
set
up
programs
and
projects
aimed
at
promoting
entrepreneurship
and
innovation,
16 André Torre
guided
by
a
strategy
explicitly
drawn
up
on
the
basis
of
an
inventory
of
the
strengths
of
the
territory.
In
principle,
the
logic
of
the
policy
prioritization
process
is
neither
exclusive
nor
exhaustive
but
based
on
thematic
choices
and
is
conceived
to
promote
competition
in
resource
allocation
proposals
(McCann
2015).
Finally,
it
should
be
noted
that
governance
issues
have
been
considered
to
a
certain
extent
(Morgan
2017),
since
it
is
recognized
that
each
region
must
interact
with
and
take
into
account
its
own
entrepreneurial
environment
and
make
its
choices
according
to
the
latter’s
characteristics
and
to
its
relationships
with it, and therefore consider the wishes of local actors.
The limits of these policies: protest by vote and in the street
Traditional
electoral
sociology
approaches
put
the
stress
on
the
preponderance
of
the
role
of
social
class
and
economic
and
psychological
approaches
to
explain
electoral
behavior
(Stavrakakis
et
al.
2017).
But
the
rise
of
populism
and
populist
parties
in
many
contemporary
Western
democracies
throughout
Europe
and
beyond
to
the
American
continent
(Müller
2017)
during
the
last
two
decades
have
brought
new
issues
to
the
table
and
forced
researchers
to
nd
new
explanations.
Obviously,
beyond
the
traditional
explanations
mobilized
by
sociology
and
political
science,
other
determinants
have
been
put
forward,
notably
by
geographers
via
what
is
known
as
ecological
analysis
(Forest
2018).
Approaches
in
electoral
geography
have
made
it
possible
to
enlarge
the
initial
vision
and
to
consider
that
an
individual's
vote
may
also
depend
on
their
characteristics
and
factors
at
the
level
of
the
territories
in
which
they
live
(Johnston, Shelley, Taylor 2014; Köppen et al. 2020).
In
dierent
countries
like
the
United
Kingdom,
France,
Italy,
and
the
United
States,
one
can
observe
a
rise
in
extreme
or
protest
voting.
This
is
the
case
of
pro-Trump
voting,
or
of
voting
for
the
extreme
right
in
various
EU
countries
(like
for
the
Front
National
in
France
or
Liga
del
Norte
in
Italy),
or
for
Brexit,
for
example
(the
position
of
UKIP
and
part
of
the
Tories).
The
study
of
recent
events
such
as
Brexit
(Los
et
al.
2017;
Abreu,
Öner
2020),
the
American
elections
(Gusterson
2017;
Rodríguez-Pose,
Lee,
Lipp
2021),
and
the
European
elections
(Di
Matteo,
Mariotti
2020)
highlight
the
fact
that
this
rise
in
extreme
voting
is
not
even,
and
is
particularly
restricted
to
several
areas
with
peculiar
characteristics.
Various
countries
find
themselves
in
the
grip
of
problems
related
to
the
so-called
‘geography
of
discontent’
(Dijkstra,
Poelman,
Rodríguez-Pose
2020),
and
many
scholars
identify
that
the
rise
of
populism
is
particularly
signicant
in
areas
on
the
periphery
or
far
from
major
cities
(Van
Gent,
Jansen,
Smits
2014;
Gordon
2018;
McCann
2020).
They
have
identied
these
areas
as
‘places
that
don’t
matter’
(Rodríguez-Pose
2018;
McCann
2020);
namely,
rural
territories,
peripheral
areas,
urban
districts
in
diculty,
etc.,
and
they
highlight
the
dicult
local
Smart development for peripheral areas. A never-ending story? 17
situations
in
places
that
have
fueled
people's
dissatisfaction
with
the
socioeconomic
environment
in
which
they
live.
For
example,
Rodríguez-Pose,
Lee
and
Lipp
(2021)
and
Beecham,
Williams
and
Comber
(2020)
show
that
in
the
American
context
local
socioeconomic
characteristics
particularly
those
that
characterize areas in decline – may explain part of the vote for Trump.
This
analysis
of
election
results
in
various
countries
has
brought
an
essential
spatial
component
into
the
debate.
It
has
opened
room
for
the
idea
of
the
paradoxical
importance
of
these
places
that
‘don’t
matter,’
where
people’s
behaviors
are
at
the
basis
of
the
vote
of
discontent.
And
it
has
given
birth
to
the
idea
of
an
opposition
between
the
‘globalized
elites
of
the
large
metropolises’
and
the
‘real
people
of
the
forgotten
places’
(Ferrante,
Pontarollo
2020).
According
to
Rodríguez-Pose
(2018),
a
geography
of
electoral
behavior
can
be
drawn
according
to
three
main
types
of
local
areas
and
their
territorial
characteristics:
(i)
productive
and
dynamic
areas
that
concentrate
economic
activity,
(ii)
non-
productive
but
dynamic
territories
that
benet
from
the
wealth
produced
by
the
productive
areas,
(iii)
former
industrial
regions,
now
in
decline,
in
which
one
can
make
a
distinction
between
(a)
areas
where
a
market
sector
subsists,
and
(b)
areas
that
depend
essentially
on
social
income,
which
are
the
most
fragile
in
the
face of reduced public spending.
Some
authors
also
refer
to
the
crisis
in
the
small
towns
of
rural
areas,
regardless
of
the
decline
of
the
shops
in
the
centers
of
these
towns.
More
generally,
a
lot
of
scholars
agree
on
the
idea
that
the
withdrawal
of
public
services
(closure
of
railway
stations,
post
oces,
etc.)
and
the
weakening
of
public
investment
have
also
increased
the
sense
of
abandonment
and
marginalization
felt
by
people
living
in
peripheral
areas,
and
most
of
all
in
rural
territories
(Broz,
Frieden,
Weymouth
2019).
But
it
is
fair
to
note
that
to
this
protest
vote
which
expresses
the
rejection
and
the
voice
of
voters
living
in
these
peripheral
areas
is
associated
with
an
additional
characteristic:
major
protestations
on
the
streets.
Opposition
does
not
only
take
place
through
legal
channels;
it
also
takes
more
frontal
and
violent
forms,
and
in
a
way
can
be
compared
to
the
movement
of
revolutions
and
reforms
that
can
be
seen
all
over
the world.
The
case
of
France
is
particularly
interesting
from
this
point
of
view
(Torre,
Bourdin
2021).
In
2018,
the
country
was
shaken
by
a
large-scale
protest
movement
well
known
as
the
‘yellow
vests’
movement
(related
to
the
name
of
the
garment
the
protestors
were
wearing).
The
movement
started
with
motorists
angry
at
rising
fuel
prices
and
against
the
decision
of
the
government
to
reduce
authorized
speeds
on
secondary
roads.
But
it
rapidly
turned
into
a
general
protest
against
government
policy
in
all
its
dimensions
and
especially
regarding
the
lack
of
consideration
for
peripheral
areas.
Participants
blocked
trac
as
close
as
possible
to
their
homes
and
launched
local
demonstrations
on
roundabouts.
They
also
made
big
protests
in
the
major
French
cities
where
they
were
not
18 André Torre
leaving,
in
order
to
render
visible
to
the
public
authorities
and
to
urban
dwellers
their living conditions and the problems they face in their day to day lives.
Protest
about
the
increase
in
the
tax
on
petroleum
products
was
rapidly
accompanied
by
other
ideas
and
attempts
at
reclamation.
The
demonstrators
complained
of
a
feeling
of
abandonment
by
public
authorities.
In
particular,
they
highlighted
their
abandonment
in
terms
of
public
services.
The
absence
and
disappearance
of
post
oces,
of
tax-collection
oces,
schools
and
lyceums,
hospitals,
maternity
wards,
doctors,
etc.,
but
also
the
gradual
disappearance
and
abolition
of
connecting
railway
lines
and
their
remoteness,
which
obliges
them
to
make
long
and
expensive
journeys,
both
to
get
to
work
and
to
acquire
the
goods
and
services
they
need
to
live.
Step
by
step,
fundamental
questions
were
raised
about
public
policies
related
to
peripheral
areas
in
a
context
of
falling
public
spending
and
growing
inequality,
with
signicant
territorial
repercussions
(Bourdin,
Torre
2020;
Torre,
Bourdin
2021).
This
movement
can
be
seen
as
the
behavior
of
disenchantment;
the
participants
had
no
condence
in
politics
or
were
no
longer
part
of
the
‘political
oer’
(Kostelka
2017).
They
expressed
their
voice
in
a
dierent
way,
using
conictual
behavior
instead
of
expressing
their
agreement or their disagreement by voting.
Some examples of (non-technological) territorial innovations
We
have
just
noted
a
signicant
discrepancy
between
the
policies
supposed
to
address
peripheral
areas
and
take
into
account
their
specicities
and
the
very
mixed
perceptions
of
the
local
populations:
The
latter
have
a
sense
of
abandonment
and
the
impression
that
the
measures
implemented
by
the
policies
are
inadequate.
One
of
the
ways
in
which
this
gap
can
be
analyzed
is
that
these
development
policies
fail
to
take
advantage
of
much
of
the
creativity
and
innovation
at
the
heart
of
many
of
the
activities
carried
out
in
the
territories
because
they
are
primarily
based
on
a
conception
of
technological
or
even
organizational
innovation
and
forget
about
other
forms
of
innovation.
If
we
want
to
help
these
territories
and
encourage
their
development,
it
is
important
to
consider
all
categories
of
innovation
in
order
to
be
able
to
base
future
development
policies
on
their
recognition
and
their
promotion.
This
dimension
is
mostly
crucial
in
peripheral
(or
rural)
areas
which
generally
present,
as
already mentioned, a signicant technology and innovation decit.
Scholars
have
pointed
out
that
innovations
might
occur
in
more
traditional
sectors
than
the
ones
frequently
studied
(Alderman
1998)
or
be
of
a
more
incremental
nature.
It
helps
to
understand
that
there
exist
dierent
types
of
innovations:
organizational,
social,
and
institutional
(Shearmur
2012;
Torre,
Wallet
2016).
Territorial
innovation
models
(Moulaert,
Sekia
2003),
which
have
met
with
some
success
in
the
economic
geography
literature
and
in
policymaking,
Smart development for peripheral areas. A never-ending story? 19
are
based
on
the
idea
that
geographical
proximity
and
urbanization
economies
are
benecial
or
even
mandatory
for
innovation.
But
several
scholars
agree
that
local
systems
of
innovation
are
not
always
based
on
high
technology.
Peripheral
systems
analyzed
in
various
places
like
Canada
(Doloreux,
Dionne
2008),
and
in
EU
countries
(Zitek,
Klimova
2016)
seem
to
full
both
the
criteria
of
institutional
thickness
and
organizational
thinness
identied
in
Trippl,
Asheim
and
Miorner
(2016).
More
and
more
examples
attest
to
the
very
wide
capacity
for
innovation
and
creativity
of
local
actors,
including
in
low-technological-intensity
territories
or
so-called
peripheral
territories.
These
territorial
innovations
refer
to
the
inventiveness
of
local
populations,
without
necessarily
being
linked
to
a
high
level
of
industrialization
or
productive
specialization.
They
reveal
the
vitality
of
the
territories,
demonstrating
their
dynamism
and
their
capacity
for
renewal
by
mobilizing
local
forces.
They
are
based
on
less
formal
models
of
organization
than
the
most
well-known
forms
of
local
systems
(like
clusters,
districts,
or
technopoles).
Examples
include
the
development
of
‘third
places’
(Oldenburg
1989),
in
which
collaborations
can
occur
between
professional
experts
and
knowledgeable
amateurs
around
profane
knowledge,
for
example,
and
which
emerge
and
multiply
in
the
territories,
including
in
peripheral
areas.
Their
massive
development,
even
if
this
often
involves
very
dierent
forms
and
is
not
completely
mastered,
is
a
signal
of
the
vitality
that
emanates
from
the
territories,
and
permits
the
mobilization
of
energies,
the
creation
of
chains
of
values
and
skills,
and
the
development
of
new
ideas.
This
is
also
the
case
with
fab
labs
(Gershenfeld
2005)
or
living
labs
(Lehmann,
Frangioni,
Dubé
2015)
as
places
for
exchange
and
interaction
in
which
complex
collaborations
are
formed
the
precise
content
of
which
is
not
always
easy
to
describe.
However,
even
if
their
virtues
in
economic
terms
(i.e.,
added
value)
are
often
dicult
to
quantify,
the
societal dimension appears to be proven.
Other
examples
can
be
found
in
short
local-value-added
chains
or
peasant
agriculture,
which
consist
of
bringing
together
producers,
often
agricultural,
and
consumers,
involving
the
possibility
to
identify
the
origin
of
the
products
to
be
consumed
and
avoid
industrial
intermediates
that
are
considered
too
expensive
or
dangerous
to
health.
In
addition
to
controlling
the
origin
of
food,
there
is
a
social
dimension
through
familiarity
with
the
producer,
or
collaborative
relations
between
producers
and/or
sellers,
as
well
as
the
integration
and
re-creation
of
the
social
link
through
cooperative
production,
the
creation
of
solidary
grocery
stores
or
places
of
distribution,
and
the
sale
of
products,
for
example.
Further
initiatives
include
the
introduction
of
local
currencies,
joint
nancing
initiatives
(crowdfunding)
for
raising
small
amounts
of
local
funds,
collective
support
for
projects,
loans
between
individuals,
and
local
savings.
Additionally,
crowdsourcing,
which
brings
together
groups
of
local
actors
to
develop
and
implement
common
projects
that
allow
inhabitants
to
create
products
and
develop
concrete
solutions
20 André Torre
but
also
to
identify
opportunities
and
innovate
together
in
service
of
their
territory.
This
component
is
also
found
in
the
analysis
or
movement
of
commons,
which
highlights
the
shared
use
and
management
conducted
in
whole
or
in
part
of
a
good
or
space
by
a
collective
or
a
community
of
users.
The
interest
in
this
case
and
in
what
interests
us
lies
in
the
public
or
mixed
nature
of
these
goods,
but
above
all
in
the
fact
that
these
commons
are
often
approached
from
a
relational
perspective
(Polko,
Czornik,
Ochojski
2022).
A
forest,
an
irrigation
system,
a
pasture,
a
parking
lot,
a
cycling
route,
or
a
local
currency
can
be
dened
not
only
as
a
shared
resource
but
also
as
a
set
of
actions
and
decisions
of
a
group
of
people,
cooperating
in
their
management
and
use.
Here,
there
are
also
non-localized
commons
(certain
computer-based
networks
such
as
Wikipedia
or
communities
of
practice
or
music,
for
example),
which
cannot
be
dened
in
a
territorialized
way,
that
appear
from
the
moment
when
geographical
proximity
is absent.
Shared
or
collaborative
enterprises
(SCOPs),
activity
and
employment
cooperatives,
community
transport
organizations,
the
pooling
of
care
and
parental
nurseries
contribute
to
the
resilience
of
territories
by
their
ability
to
recreate
proximities
and
maintain
local
solidarity,
in
addition
to
or
substituting
technological
innovation.
Finally,
the
social
and
solidarity
economy
contributes
to
social
or
societal
innovation
(Moulaert,
MacCallum
2019).
The
development
of
networks
of
cooperation
between
local
actors
is
a
factor
of
assistance
and
support
to
people,
but
also
of
resistance
to
the
eects
of
the
crisis.
These
initiatives
are
particularly
valuable
in
territories
where
traditional
economic
and
social
structures
are
being
eroded,
with
the
disappearance
of
local
services
such
as
stores
and
grocery
stores,
post
oces
or
hospital
branches,
contributing
to
the desertication of places and the isolation of people.
The
last
example
is
in
the
area
of
sustainable
development.
It
is
the
circular
economy
or
industrial
ecosystems
which
integrate
the
recycling
of
outputs
and
propose
to
replace
the
succession
of
processing
operations,
ranging
from
the
use
of
raw
materials
to
the
sale
of
products,
with
a
more
resource-ecient
model
which
involves
reintegrating
waste
into
the
production
cycle
(Jacobsen
2006).
For
example,
anaerobic
digestion
is
one
of
the
solutions
adopted
by
most
European
countries
(Jacobsen,
Laugesen,
Dubgaard
2014;
van
Foreest
2012)
in
peripheral
and
rural
areas.
This
refers
to
the
production
of
biogas
and
digestate
through
a
process
of
transforming
plant
biomass,
such
as
crop
residues,
livestock
manure,
household
waste,
or
bio-waste,
that
can
be
reused
as
fuel,
transformed
into
electricity and heat, or used as agicultural fertilizer.
Smart development for peripheral areas. A never-ending story? 21
Development strategies for rural areas
All
these
elements
open
up
avenues
for
the
implementation
of
development
strategies
that
are
alternatives
to
those
generally
presented,
particularly
in
the
most
industrialized
and
urbanized
territories.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
if
we
take
into
account
the
various
dimensions
of
innovation,
it
is
possible
to
design
smart
development
policies
for
peripheral
areas,
taking
into
account
both
their
specicities
and
the
peculiarities
of
the
types
of
innovation
found
in
these
territories.
Obviously,
we
are
moving
away
from
‘one-size-ts-all’
policies
and
have
to
adapt
to
the
various
cases
that
are
studied,
and
to
the
various
expressions
of innovation at stake.
Let
us
consider
now
the
case
of
rural
areas
which
we
have
described
in
a
recent
book
(Torre
et
al.
2020).
Being
smart
in
terms
of
policies
is
associated
with
specic
challenges
for
rural
areas,
which
represent
a
large
part
of
peripheral
areas,
at
least
in
terms
of
land
occupation.
We
will
show
that
the
usual
‘smart’
approach
which
is
based
primarily
on
the
exploitation
of
technological
innovation – must be modied to address the specicities of this type of area.
Given
our
previous
studies
and
the
experiences
generated
from
several
EU
rural
areas,
we
can
assess
that
ve
key
factors
must
be
considered
to
build
an
ecient
smart
development
strategy
in
rural
areas.
These
key
factors
do
not
exclude
technological
innovation,
but
they
enlarge
and
enrich
the
paths
to
development for these areas.
a)
Support
variety
and
diversity:
It
is
not
diversity
per
se
that
creates
growth,
but
diversity
in
related
business
sectors
with
a
common
knowledge
base.
Related
variety
plays
an
even
bigger
role
in
innovation
and
growth
in
rural
areas
than
in
larger
urban
centers,
where
the
diusion
of
knowledge
is
facilitated
by
the
presence
of
many
related
sectors.
Regional
stakeholders
(politicians,
development
agencies,
business
owners,
unions,
and
the
interested
public)
should
strive
to
identify
and
understand
the
competitive
advantages
of
their
region.
The
strengths
of
a
region
must
be
developed
further,
capitalized
on,
and
made
visible
to
external
regions
as
well
as
to
local
actors.
One
possibility
is
to
create
regional
brand(s)
which
could
represent
an
industry,
a
group
of
businesses,
or
specic
products
or
services
of
a
region.
Collective
approaches
implemented
through
the
formation
of
networks
of
producers
interacting
with
other
stakeholders
are
also
channels
through
which
rural
economic
systems
can
be
adapted
to
the
local
environment,
as
evidenced,
for
example,
by
Agricultural
Knowledge
and
Innovation
Systems (AKIS).
b)
‘Borrow
size’
Rural
and
peri-urban
areas
often
lack
the
regional
R&D
centers
or
educational
facilities
needed
to
intensify
research
and
development
through
which
they
can
technically
enhance
their
products
or
services.
The
need
for
extra-regional
knowledge
and
expertise
becomes
a
deciding
factor
regional
businesses
must
cooperate
with
external
R&D
centers
or
universities
to
22 André Torre
compensate
for
this
lack.
To
increase
the
willingness
to
cooperate
with
external
knowledge
centers,
the
implicit
and
explicit
costs
incurred
by
local
entrepreneurs
to
engage
in
such
eorts
must
be
reduced.
Local
entrepreneurs
in
rural
areas
can
be
encouraged
to
‘borrow
size’
and
with
it,
knowledge
in
several
ways,
among
which
the
most
standard
are
direct
subsidies
or
tax
incentives
for
R&D,
or
temporary
geographical
proximity.
The
latter
can
be
achieved
through
short
visits
and
through
the
organization
of
or
participation
in
congresses
or
conferences
on
topics
related
to
the
core
activities
of
the
region
concerned
that
are
relevant
to
regional
businesses.
Besides
presenting
the
latest
research
results,
such
events
can
serve as starting points for cooperation and network-building.
c)
Implement
education
measures:
Once
the
competitive
advantages
of
a
rural
region
have
been
identied,
the
adoption
of
measures
for
supporting
education
could
help
regional
businesses
to
secure
their
position
in
the
global
economy
by
giving
them
easier
access
to
a
well-trained
and
educated
workforce.
This
could
be
achieved
either
in
the
form
of
internal
courses
within
rms,
or
through
platforms
of
cooperation
between
local
rms.
Firms
should
be
encouraged,
through
tax
incentives,
to
actively
promote
employee
training.
Furthermore,
regional
secondary
schools
as
well
as
specialized
commercial
and
agricultural
schools
(often
present
in
rural
areas
as
a
way
of
compensating
for
the
lack
of
tertiary
institutions)
can
respond
to
regional
demand
by
providing
training
and
education
programs
tailored
to
the
needs
of
learners
and
local
rms.
These
complementary
educational
instruments
can
also
contribute
to
increasing
the
related
variety.
This
is
a
specialized
form
of
support
for
knowledge
creation
and
exchange
between
the
rms
that
form
the
core
of
a
region’s
strength.
d)
Make
use
of
amenities:
These
can
range
from
natural
amenities
(land
and
water
resources,
mountains
and
lakes)
to
built
amenities
(thanks
to
which
natural
resources
can
be
utilized
for
recreational
activities)
to
social
and
cultural
amenities
(special
sites
and
buildings,
local
culture
and
tradition,
including
food,
crafts,
festivals,
and
lifestyles).
Firms
can
use
them
to
generate
new
business
activities
such
as
tourism
and
recreation,
which
then
generate
other
activities
upstream
and
downstream.
Amenities
can
also
attract
a
creative
class:
because
outdoor
amenities
are
often
considered
as
quality
of
life
factors,
they
can
play
a
key
role
in
attracting
specialized
workers
and
encouraging
them
to
stay
in
the
area.
The
amenities
and
resources
provided
by
rural
areas
should
be
considered
in
initiatives
aimed
at
promoting
more
sustainable
development
models.
Given
the
biodiversity
and
ecosystem
services
they
provide
and
the
opportunities
for
agricultural
and
energy
production
they
represent,
rural
areas
have
a
vital
function.
This
calls
for
the
implementation
of
public
policies
that
promote
both
smart and sustainable development.
e) Improving
the
multidimensionality
of
infrastructure:
The
main
characteristics
of
rural
areas
are
the
geographical
distance
separating
individuals
and
villages
from
one
another,
on
the
one
hand,
and
their
lower
density
on
the
Smart development for peripheral areas. A never-ending story? 23
other.
Common
solutions
for
compensating
for
this
distance
besides
those
already
mentioned
concerning
smart
development
are
better
transport
facilities
and
an
improved
ICT
infrastructure,
such
as
high-speed
internet.
This
reduces
the
importance
of
distance
and
also
enhances
the
possibility
to
work
from
home.
However,
digital
connectivity
is
a
necessary
but
insucient
condition
for
rural
growth.
Indeed,
the
availability
of
connectivity
and
IT
on
the
one
hand,
and
of
digital
skills
on
the
other,
are
necessary
as
factors
of
growth
in
rural
areas.
Measures
for
supporting
and
strengthening
the
technological
and
digital
competences both of entrepreneurs and employees become vital.
Consequently,
long-term
strategies
for
smart
development
in
rural
areas
must
aim
at
helping
the
latter
to
reinforce
their
core
by
promoting
the
development
of
various
economic
and
social
activities
and
cultural
services.
Instead
of
encouraging
uncontrolled
development
and
trying
to
reach
an
impossibly
level
of
high-tech
development,
what
must
be
promoted
is
rural
growth
through
the
reinforcement
of
the
core
activities
and
assets
of
these
areas.
Thus,
a
challenge
for
spatial
planning
is
developing
rules
and
incentives
that
promote
a
concentration
of
economic
and
social
activities
and
facilities
in
these
rural centers that are vital for rural development.
Conclusion
The
objective
of
this
article
was
to
examine
the
opportunities
for
the
smart
development
of
peripheral
areas,
with
particular
attention
to
rural
territories.
We
have
found
that
the
development
policies
devoted
to
these
territories
have
multiplied
over
the
last
thirty
years,
mostly
by
means
of
cohesion
or
smart
specialization
strategies.
However,
the
inhabitants
of
peripheral
areas
very
often
feel
dissatised
with
their
situation
and
express
their
opposition
through
voting
for
extreme
parties
or
public
demonstration.
One
of
the
major
reasons
for
this
growing
gap
between
the
proliferation
of
EU
policies
and
the
dissatisfaction
of
the
population
is
that
the
innovations
and
novelties
of
these
areas
are
rarely
considered
and
encouraged
by
the
current
policies.
The
latter
attach
too
great
an
importance
to
technological
dimensions
and
are
mainly
directed
towards
industrialized
and
densely
populated
areas,
whereas
the
innovations
stemming
from
peripheral
territories,
which
are
very
real,
are
concentrated
primarily
in
the
social,
institutional,
and
organizational
elds.
In
the
end,
a
large
part
of
such
policies
are
disconnected
from
the
needs,
the
will,
and
the
skills
of
the
local
populations in peripheral areas.
In
order
to
avoid
these
problems
and
to
reduce
the
obstacles
on
the
development
path
of
peripheral
areas,
we
advocate
policies
that
are
better
adapted
to
these
territories
and
which
seriously
consider
their
innovative
character.
The
case
of
rural
areas
in
Europe
provides
interesting
insights
because
24 André Torre
it
shows
that
a
mix
of
‘traditional’
and
more
social
and
institutional
policies
is
possible,
and
that
various
mixes
can
be
adapted
to
the
peculiarities
of
these
regions;
from
peri-urban
areas
to
remote