Rural paradigms and governance models in the LEADER Programme: Case studies from North Karelia (Finland) and (Italy)

FULVIO RIZZO

Abstract Because of a variety of postmodern developments, throughout the 20th century the Westphalian state changed in many ways. New structures between state-like forms, civil society organizations, and private market actors have emerged, resulting in a hybrid combination between both government and governance, and sectoral and integrated policies. The interaction between LEADER partnerships and the broader regionali- zation and regionalism contexts represents an important contribution to the understanding of different rural paradigms and their associated governance models. This paper investigates the key actors and how their power relations are structured in two LEADER Local Action Groups, one located in North Karelia (Finland) and the other in South Tyrol (Italy). The empirical data collected confi rms the current struggle between the old and new rural paradigms, which is occurring from the local to the transnational scale. Furthermore, the investigation of this comparison suggests that the introduction of new governing structures has taken different forms in the rural context; as such, they have to be verifi ed in the light of geographical contingencies.

Finland, North Karelia, Italy, South Tyrol, rural area, LEADER Programme, governance models

Zusammenfassung Paradigmen des ländlichen Raumes und Governance-Modelle in dem LEADER-Programm: Fallstudien aus Nordkarelien (Finnland) und Südtirol (Italien) Aufgrund einer Vielzahl postmoderner Entwicklungen veränderte sich das Bundesland Westfalen im 20. Jahrhundert auf vielfältige Weise. Zwischen staatsähnlichen Formen, zivilgesellschaftlichen Organisationen und privatwirtschaftlichen Akteuren entstanden neue Strukturen, die zu einer Hybridkombination von Regierung und Governance sowie von sektoralen und integrierten Politiken führen. Die Interaktion zwi- schen LEADER-Partnerschaften und dem breiteren Kontext von Regionalisierung und Regionalismus ist ein wichtiger Beitrag zum Verständ- nis verschiedener Paradigmen des ländlichen Raumes und der damit verbundenen Governance-Modelle. Dieser Artikel untersucht die Haupt- akteure in zwei lokalen LEADER-Aktionsgruppen (die eine befi ndet sich in Nordkarelien, Finnland und die andere in Südtirol, Italien) und legt dar, wie deren Machtverhältnisse strukturiert sind. Die erhobenen empirischen Daten bestätigen den zwischen alten und neuen Paradigmen des ländlichen Raumes derzeit stattfi ndenden Wettstreit, der sich von der lokalen bis zur transnationalen Ebene vollzieht. Die Untersuchung dieses Vergleichs deutet ferner darauf hin, dass die Einführung neuer Lenkungsstrukturen im Zusammenhang mit den ländlichen Gegebenheiten verschiedene Formen angenommen hat, die aus der Sicht geographischer Möglichkeiten bestätigt werden müssen.

Finnland, Nordkarelien, Italien, Südtirol, ländlicher Raum, LEADER-Programm, Governance-Modelle

Introduction An example of such governing practices DOCH 2000), and gave little attention to In recent years, both state and interna- is the LEADER Community Initiative, the multi-faceted spatial development of tional bodies such as the European Union launched by the European Union in 1991 the countryside. In contrast, the multi- or the World Bank have encouraged in- as one of the most distinctive methods of sectoral and integrated new rural para- stitutional governing arrangements that the so-called new rural paradigm (OECD digm recognizes the importance of local emphasize the role of private economic 2006). This is based on the increasing at- factors; development processes involve a actors and various segments of the civil tention given to the diversifi cation of the variety of features that are contingent on society in policy-making; this role was rural economy beyond primary produc- geographical space and time (SARACENO previously provided and organized by tion, as well as on highlighting a terri- 1999). Within this context, LEADER the state (SWYNGEDOUW 2005). Contem- torial and integrated approach. The new promotes the involvement of local stake- porary offi cial policy documents, at all rural paradigm is associated with the holders in the formulation and delivery levels, highlight the role of partnerships notion of rural development, which has of programmes and projects (HIGH and and networks beyond the scope of for- emerged from the competing discussions NEMES 2007); the actors responsible for mal governmental structures (GOODWIN concerning agriculture and the country- the ‘grass-root’ programming are the so- 1998). Partnership formation is a result side (VAN DER PLOEG et al. 2000). Until called Local Action Groups (or LAGS), of various sources of change, such as ad- the 1990s EU discourses on rurality and composed by private and public compo- ministrative practices, EU-integration, rural space usually referred to the Com- nents, which must express the views of a and public fi nances; the main goal is to mon Agricultural Policy (CAP) (HADJI- specifi c rural territory. solve problems and interpret policies MICHALIS 2003). Traditional agricultural So far, there have been four genera- through actors’ constellations (ÖSTHOL policies and strategies were associated tions of LEADER. LEADER I (1991- and SVENSSON 2002). with exogenous development (MUR- 93), LEADER II (1994-99), and LEAD-

147 ER + (2000-06) were all fi nanced by EU Structural Funds, and Member States Location of the investigated regions in Europe and regions had separate LEADER pro- grammes separately funded by the Euro- pean Union. On the basis of the 2003 and Reykjavίk

ICELAND Y 2004 reforms of the Common Agricul- D

A N tural Policy, COUNCIL REGULATION (CE) N

W A No 1698/2005 established that, for the E RUSSIAN R L

D N current 2007-2013 period, the LEADER O I E method is one of the axes of the Europe- N F North Karelia

W Helsinki an Agricultural Fund for Rural Develop- FEDERATION Oslo S ment. As a result, LEADER is no longer Tallinn Stockholm ESTONIA autonomous, but has been incorporated Moscow into national and regional rural develop- Riga LATVIA DENMARK UNITED LITHUANIA ment programmes, alongside other rural Copenhagen Dublin Vilnius development axes. IRELAND Minsk KINGDOM BELARUS By means of an international compar- Amsterdam London NETHER- LANDS Berlin Warsaw ison, the aim of this article is to inves- Kiev Brussels GERMANY POLAND BELGIUM tigate the infl uence of actors on the im- Luxembourg Prague UKRAINE LUXEMBOURG CZECH Paris REPUBLIC plementation of rural policies. Attention SLOVAK Bratislava Vienna MOLDOVA focuses on identifying the key actors and Budapest Berne Chisinau FRANCE AUSTRIA HUNGARY SWITZERLAND how their power relations are structured SLOVENIA ROMANIA South Tyrol Zagreb in two LEADER Local Action Groups, Ljubljana A T I A Bucharest I O R BOSNIA C Belgrade T AND HERZE- one located in North Karelia (Finland) GOVINA

L A Sarajevo SERBIA BULGARIA A MONTENEGRO Sofia and the other in South Tyrol (Italy) G U Madrid L A T Podgorica L Skopje Ankara R Y B

Lisbon O A MACEDONIA (Fig. 1). The basic research hypothesis P Rome Tirana

SPAIN N

I A is that difference in policy implementa- TURKEY tion can be explained by a combination GREECE Athens of relations of autonomy and dependence Nicosie Rabat Algiers MOROCCO within policy networks on the one hand, Tunis CYPRUS IfL 2011 CYPRUS Draft: F. Rizzo ALGERIA TUNISIA and contextual issues such as regionali- Design: C. Kunze Scale 1 : 34 000 000 zation and regionalism on the other. Fig 1: Location of North Karelia in Finland and South Tyrol in Italy The article is structured as follows: Section 2 starts by highlighting the com- plexity of the European regional level, (in particular the degree of regions’ power regions or regionalisms can be identifi ed which includes the emergence of new in relation to the central level of govern- (KEATING 1998). The evolution and spa- governing structures in the contempora- ment), and different region building pro- tial variation that the regionalism phe- ry era; furthermore, it conceptualizes cesses. The core data come from face-to- nomenon has experienced since World power in policy networks. Sections 3 and face semi-structured interviews collected War II is attributable to a variety of 4 focus on the North Karelia case study: in Finland and in Italy in 2008 and 2009. post-modern developments, such as glo- fi rst, the regional context is introduced, Most were gathered in the two regional balization, Europeanization, economic and, then, the Joensuun Seudun LEA- settings; a few interviews were conducted reorganization, the development of the DER Ry LAG is investigated, particu- with policy experts at the central level information society as well as social and larly the various local actors comprising of government. In order to obtain a wide cultural fragmentation, which are typical policy-setting and their power relations. spectrum of responses, the interviewees of the contemporary era (SJÖBLOM 2006). Using a similar structure, Sections 5 and in both case studies have different edu- Thus, regionalism is a complex phenom- 6 investigate the South Tyrol case study, cational and working backgrounds and enon that cannot be confi ned to the idea where the LAG Alta Valle Isarco/Wipp- include a variety of key stakeholders deal- of a regional level of government; rather, tal is analyzed. Section 7 draws conclu- ing with rural development and policy, it includes a wide range of new forms of sions from the empirical data, highligh- such as researchers, university professors, territorial action (KEATING 1998). ting how geographical contingency is the entrepreneurs, farmers, civil servants, The Westphalian state, for instance, key to understanding the paradigm and politicians, staffs of Local Action Groups has changed in many ways; new struc- governance models in rural areas. and, in the case of North Karelia, also vil- tures between state-like forms, civil soci- A qualitatively oriented comparative lage activists and village planners. ety organizations and private market ac- method (RAGIN 1987) has been deemed tors have emerged, resulting in a hybrid the most appropriate means of investigat- New governing structures and po- combination between government and ing the case studies selected, and answer- wer network analysis governance. While government tradi- ing the research questions. To fulfi ll the Europe does not have a uniform or ho- tionally involves a top-down perspective, hypothesis, the choice of the case studies mogenous regional level in terms of often associated with the “old” political has been undertaken in the light of di- administrative, political, and judicial class, governance is associated with the verse administrative territorial regimes systems. In contrast, different types of “new” self-governing group of actors

148 Europa Regional 17(2009)3 who work in networks (SJÖBLOM 2006). interactions, and interdependencies be- inces of Finland. True “Finnishness” was BECK (1994) refers to the latter as subpoli- tween actors which result from the imple- located in inland forested areas, such as tics, which involves the shaping of society mentation of the LEADER Programme in present-day North Karelia, to distin- from below, with a decreasing importance two different regional contexts. guish them from the Swedish-speaking of the central rule approach, and at the Although power in social science re- minority who inhabited the coastal re- same time with growing opportunities search has traditionally been an impor- gions (HÄYRYNEN 2003). for citizens, social movements and expert tant issue in theoretical analysis, little Historically, the sources of livelihood groups. Responsibilities become blurred, research has been done regarding power in North Karelia have come from the for- and often no single actor is able to decide functions and how they are structured est: fi rst hunting, then slash and burn cul- alone (GOODWIN 1998). (KOVÁCH and KRISTÓF 2008). GIDDENS tivation, forest work, wood processing GOVERDE and VAN TATENHOVE (2000, (1984, p. 16) argues that “power within and sales have provided support to the p. 98) claim that “the optimism that leads social systems which enjoy some con- region (BJÖRN 2006). Agriculture, mostly to seeking to manage social problems tinuity over time and space presumes characterized by milk and grain produc- within the network is probably based on regularized relations of autonomy and tion (PRO AGRIA 2009), has traditionally the main assumption that society, nowa- dependence between actors or collectivi- been marginal in the economy for a vari- days, functions in essence on horizontal ties in contexts of social interaction”. In ety of reasons including physical geogra- relations between individuals, groups, structuration theory power is considered phy (hilly terrain, presence of numerous organizations and institutions”. This type as a multi-layer concept: power refers to lakes and harsh climate) as well as ag- of horizontal and polycentric structure, the capacity of agents, and is understood riculture and settlement policies favour- where power is dispersed, is increasingly as a relational and structural phenome- ing land fragmentation. Through the common in the fi elds of development and non (GOVERDE and VAN TATENHOVE 2000). end of the nineteenth century slash and scientifi c research in the form of projects Power as a capacity, which is the most burn cultivation was still practiced, es- (KOVÁCH and KRISTÓF 2008). Within this apparent and visible type of power, refers pecially in eastern North Karelia, where projectifi ed European rural/territorial to the way the social and physical envi- the climate and soil conditions hindered system, a new social class has emerged, ronment is maintained or transformed. the birth of productive agriculture. It is involving a growing number of civil ser- Secondly, power as a relational phenom- in this period that the forest became the vants, experts and managers who play enon refers to the fact that it is exercised most important resource in the region, an increasingly relevant role in design- within the relative abilities of actors in infl uencing the construction of society ing and managing European as well interaction. The third layer, power as a and community. The timber boom of the as national development programmes structural phenomenon, means that pow- late 1800s was unable to create a strong (KOVÁCH and KUČEROVÁ 2006; PICCHI er is shaped by and “shapes the socially peasant upper class, as was the case in 2002 in KOVÁCH and KUČEROVÁ 2009). structured and culturally patterned be- southwest Finland, which could rely Furthermore, this new project class may haviour of groups and the practices of or- on a relatively productive agriculture to a various degree compete for power ganizations” (GOVERDE and VAN TATEN- (ALAPURO 1980). with the farming lobbies, as well as with HOVE 2000, p. 107). As MURDOCH (2000, Due to its role in the national econ- the public administration. p. 408) suggests, from a rural perspec- omy – based on the production of raw In order to investigate the possible de- tive it is appropriate to question whether material for the forest industry and pe- centralization and redefi nition of power the assumption of a society based on ripheral location on the border with Rus- relations resulting from LEADER policy, horizontal relations “is as prevalent as sia compared to industrial centers and the research questions presented in this is often assumed by theorists of the ‘net- harbours – North Karelia has for centu- paper address the use of power in pol- work society’”, and to what extent this ries been (and still is) one of the poor- icy network approaches. In spite of “the assumption is related to the regionalism est regions in Finland (HÄYRYNEN 2003). ‘Babylonian’ variety of different under- and regionalization contexts. The region has witnessed “an extremely standings and applications of the policy fast structural change from an agricul- network concept” (BÖRZEL 1998, p. 254), North Karelia: regional context tural society towards a modern informa- in the science of public administration North Karelia, located in Eastern Fin- tion based society” (REGION OF NORTH policy networks are usually defi ned as land at the border with Russia, has a KARELIA 2010), as shown in Figure 2. “more or less stable patterns of social population of 166 129 inhabitants (AL- ESKELINEN and FRITSCH (2006) defi ne its relations between interdependent actors, TIKA DATABASE 2009). With the estab- current settlement structure as shifting which take shape around policy problems lishment of the Finnish state in 1917, the from a dispersed pattern towards a nodal and/or policy programmes” (KICKERT et building process of this region was the one, with decreasing population fi gures al. 1997, p. 6). Policy network analysis result of national interests rather than a in sparsely populated areas. tries to interpret new ways of governance bottom-up process (HÄYRYNEN 2003). Under the administrative point of that involve a variety of public and private This factor has contributed to the strong view, North Karelia is contextualized in actors within the mutating relationships and constant dependence of this region a unitary state rooted in a strong central between state, civil society and the mar- on the central level. In order to construct level and municipalities with extensive ket (GOVERDE and VAN TATENHOVE 2000). nationhood, Fennoman intellectuals, es- powers. The regional level is character- In this paper, the focus is on policy net- pecially those of the regional students’ ized by both municipal cooperation and works as a heuristic analytical approach association of Helsinki University, as- de-centralization of the state (VIRKKALA (GOVERDE and VAN TATENHOVE 2000); the sociated the national landscape imagery 2002). With the exception of the autono- goal is to unravel the power relations, with the already defi ned historical prov- mous, Swedish-speaking region of the

149 on network modes of governance for de- away, is a zone of agricultural land, and veloping and implementing its policies even farther, remotely and sparsely po- (BALDERSHEIM and ØGÅRD 2009). pulated areas. Only the areas nearby the This type of bipolar structure of the city of Joensuu are growing, in particular Finnish state (central level versus mu- Kontiolahti, Liperi, and the densely po- nicipalities) has important implications pulated areas close to Joensuu. Growth is on the way in which LEADER is im- concentrated especially within a reaso- plemented. In this Nordic country, Lo- nable commuting distance (LEADER + cal Action Groups are responsible for OBSERVATORY CONFERENCE…2007). selecting the projects; however, the fi - In the Finnish context, local initia- nal decision regarding the allocation of tive and local development have a long funding is made by the Centres for Eco- and well-established tradition, and nomic Development, Transport and the their roots are in traditional co-oper- Environment,2 which determine whether ation and assistance between neigh- Fig. 2: Employment structure in North Kare- the projects comply with EU and Finn- bours, which refl ects the scattered na- lia 1940-2008 ish legislation. The responsibility of the ture of its settlements; village commit- Sources: ALTIKA database, Statistics Finland; Statistical Yearbooks of Finland. Compiled partly by Jukka Oksa Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is tees have been an important manifes- to create a fi nancial framework for the tation of local development (HÄRKÖNEN Åland Islands (and to a smaller extent Local Action Groups as well as monitor and KAHILA 1999). Joensuun Seudun Kainuu1), the Finnish regional level does the progress of the programme and re- LEADER Ry is a typical case where not include regions with independent port to the EU Commission (LEADER + village action and village associations budgetary power, elected decision-mak- PROGRAMME FOR FINLAND 2002). represent the main theme of develop- ers, relevant competencies and impor- ment in the LEADER Programme. One tant tasks. The regional councils, estab- The Joensuun Seudun LEADER Ry rural researcher and activist argues that lished in 1993, have regional develop- The Joensuun Seudun LEADER Local when this LAG was established, most ment and planning responsibilities, but Action Group (Fig. 3) was established in of the people involved were village lack political and legislative power and the spring of 1995 by a group of active activists who had a core role in start- have minimal fi nancial responsibility individuals when the fi rst news of the ing and running this EU partnership. (RIZZO 2007). LEADER approach started to circulate Nevertheless, in the fi rst LEADER The foundation of these regional in Finland. Two project staff members period (LEADER II 1996-1999), some councils (including the one in North from the Regional Council of North Ka- confl icts arose between this LAG and Karelia) is rooted in the wave of “new relia, along with the current Local Ac- the municipalities, caused by a compe- regionalism” which materialized when tion Group manager, organized a mee- tition between the “old” top-down ap- Finland joined the European Union in ting to select a working group to design proach (municipalities represented by 1995. This “new regionalism” devel- the LEADER II strategy. The LEADER the municipal manager, and the local oped in the 1980s and 1990s; the driv- II Programme of the region was written politicians who had been in offi ce for ing forces behind this political doctrine during the summer and fall of 1995. At a long time), and the “new” bottom-up were the processes of globalization, so- the outset, Joensuun Seudun LEADER project class which came and started cio-economic restructuring and state re- was an informal association with no of- forms (RODRÍGUEZ-POSE 2002). Although fi cial status; it was a group of about 15 EU membership was quite important in to 20 people with different backgrounds Joensuun Seudun the creation of Finnish regional councils, and networks (such as village activists, LEADER Local Action Group Surface area: 6 300 km²

this factor has to be interpreted as a func- entrepreneurs, municipal offi cers and Population: 56 084* (2004) F *The city of Joensuu is not tion of the wider political, economic and researchers) who collected ideas for the included in the LAG.

social context that characterized Finland LEADER II development plan from their

A throughout those years (RIZZO 2007). Re- own networks. Joensuun Seudun LEA- I

cent developments, however, particularly DER acquired offi cial status as a registe- North

I the remarkable recovery of the Finnish red non-profi t association in June 1996 at N economy in the late 1990s, increasing a meeting of 86 participants (LEADER + BSERVATORY ONFERENCE Liperi globalization, and European integration, O C …2007). This S

L Polvijärvi are making Finnish regions move beyond Local Action Group contains three diffe- Outokumpu Joensuu Joensuu “the new regionalism” into “network re- rent zones. Just outside the city of Joen- Liperi S gionalism”, which relies to a major extent suu, is a zone of residential areas. Farther A Karelia U N 2 The 15 Centres for Economic Development, Transport 1 Kainuu is located in Eastern Finland and has a surface and the Environment (in Finnish ELY Keskukset) started R area comparable to that of Belgium. The self-govern- operating on January 1st, 2010. These Centres have D IfL 2011 0 25 50 km ment experiment in this region, which took force on been assigned the tasks of the former Employment Draft: F. Rizzo January 1st, 2005, represents an embryonic form of and Economic Centres (which were responsible for the Cartographers: C. Kunze, H. Nödler Scale 1 : 3 500 000 regional self-government, and it is the fi rst democrati- LEADER Programme), Road Districts, Regional Environ- cally elected regional body on the Finnish mainland mental Centres and State Provincial Offi ces (CENTRES FOR Fig. 3: LAG Joensuun Seudun LEADER Ry (RIZZO 2006). ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE ENVIRONMENT 2010). Source: Own Design with ARCGIS 9

150 Europa Regional 17(2009)3 working with this innovative rural de- quently these two organizations fi nance courses between farmers and rural devel- velopment tool. similar projects. The overlap, however, is opers, who compete for power in the lo- Since the inception of LEADER + not perceived as a problem because appli- cal rural context. Most representatives of (2000-2006), the municipalities’ accep- cants have more options at their disposal MTK support the idea that it is crucial to tance of this method of development has and LEADER is a preliminary tool for guarantee the continuity of agriculture in increased; in addition, the devising of the seeking suitable ways of funding projects: the countryside, since this development tripartite structure of LEADER partner- LEADER has often funded preliminary tool is a signifi cant means of delaying ships by Finnish LEADER offi cials (one- briefi ngs for entrepreneurs and the actual population loss in rural areas. In contrast, third of the partnership composed of vil- project has then been funded by some oth- rural developers clearly differentiate lage associations, one-third by munici- er actor (forest sector entrepreneur). themselves from the farmers; most ar- palities and one-third by local citizens) According to a regional village coordi- gue that farmers already receive enough has prevented the dominance of the “old” nator, the LEADER Local Action Group funding and due to the structural changes government structure (municipalities) in and the Centre for Economic Develop- that have occurred in Finnish agricul- favour of the “new” local development of ment, Transport, and the Environment ture, it is more important to emphasize village associations. Nevertheless, with- represent the fi nancial line of rural devel- the diversifi cation of the rural economy. in the context of the current municipal opment, and, as a result, cooperation be- As Figure 4 indicates, the policy-setting reform, which involves mergers of small tween these two organizations is intrinsi- surrounding Joensuun Seudun LEADER municipalities into larger urban centres, cally close. In contrast, the regional coun- is rather complex, with power relations the power relations between the Local cil (Pohjois-Karjalan Maakuntaliitto) constantly being redefi ned. At the upper Action Groups and municipalities are not and the North Karelia Regional Village level of the fi gure are positioned the mu- always clear, and are in a constant pro- Association (Pohjois-Karjalan Kylät or nicipalities and the Centre for Economic cess of redefi nition. According to a high- PKK) represent political aspects of rural Development, Transport and Environ- ranking village offi cer, “municipalities development. The North Karelia Regional ment, which represent the fi nancial inputs may feel that the LAGS can assume du- Council oversees the general develop- to the local action group, and the research ties of municipalities, for example advis- ment of the region, in cooperation with institution of the Karelian Institute. On ing the business and service sector.” state authorities (REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT the right side, the Central Union of Ag- The importance and support of the role ACT 602/2002 Section 7). It coordinates ricultural Producers and Pro Agria (an- of villages by Joensuun Seudun LEADER different EU programmes, which also other farming organization) follow their is refl ected by the active cooperation be- include those making social policy. The own policy lines, as to a broad extent is tween this LAG and the Joensuu Union North Karelia Regional Village Asso- also the case of the regional council, the of Rural Education and Culture (Joen- ciation, however, is another organization highest authority in Finland concerning suun Maaseudun Sivistysliitto or MSL), that deals directly with villages. Accord- regional development. It is, however, a a state-centred and politically sponsored ing to a rural researcher, the latter orga- weak strategic actor at the regional level. (by the Centre Party) association, which nization is rather weak and, unlike MSL, At the bottom of the fi gure is located the organizes cultural courses for village does not cooperate with Joensuun Seudun village branch of policy-setting. Although organizations, and at the same time ac- LEADER. The above-mentioned regional cooperation between these two organiza- tivates citizens together with Joensuun village coordinator argues that the North tions (Union of Rural Education and Cul- Seudun LEADER. Its function is to help Karelia Village Association is an NGO ture, and Regional Village Association) village organizations design their village of villages, whose core work focuses on and the LAG may vary according to the plans and advise them on how to use their the village as a basic unit of society. He personal relations between these actors, budget (MSL representative). A number further notes that this association is quite village work represents the backbone of of researchers from the Karelian Institute different from the LAG, which in turn is Joensuun Seudun LEADER. of the University of Eastern Finland have a ‘rural’ NGO, whose main target is rural In the following sections (Sections 5 also been involved in the activities of this development. If the North Karelia Vil- and 6) the South Tyrol case study is ana- local action group; some have worked in lage Association is viewed according to lyzed. Because of the different region- the organization, for example, helping to this perspective, the activity of this asso- alism and regionalization context, in write the LEADER rural development ciation is more related to the work of the this German-speaking region the power plan, or as project managers; others have North Karelia Regional Council than that relations between government and gov- indirectly provided experience drawn of the Centre for Economic Development, ernance, and between the old and new from their work and evaluation of rural Transport, and Environment (regional vil- rural paradigm, tend to show more hier- plans or as experts in rural development. lage coordinator). archical structures in comparison to the Another important partner of Joen- In light of the investigated compari- Finnish case study. suun Seudun LEADER is the state agency son, it is also important to note the posi- of the Centre for Economic Development, tion of the Central Union of Agricultural South Tyrol: regional context Transport and the Environment, which is Producers and Forest Owners (Maa- ja South Tyrol is a predominantly German- the key player in the programme, serving metsätaloustuottajain Keskusliitto or speaking autonomous province located as the funding authority in LEADER. As MTK), which represents the farmers’ in north-eastern Italy bordering Austria, highlighted by a few interviewees, there lobby. There is virtually no cooperation Switzerland, and the Italian provinces may be some overlap between the LAG between Joensuun Seudun LEADER and of Trento, Belluno, and Sondrio. The and this organization since a common this farming organization; the empirical area was previously a component of the task is to fi nance enterprises, and conse- material shows the often diverging dis- Austro-Hungarian Empire as part of the

151 yards and fruit orchards; this is also true North Karelia for those farms located close to towns Joensuun Seudun LEADER and its main policy setting and transport infrastructure (BOCCHETTI et al. 2009). Similarly to North Karelia Centre for Economic Municipalities Development, Transport Karelian Institute (although less sharply), the employment (Financial Agents) and Environment (Research) structure of South Tyrol in the second (Financial Agent) half of the twentieth century experienced a profound transformation from an ag- ricultural to a industrial and service so- ciety (Fig. 5). Even though in the Italian Regional Joensuun The Central Union of context South Tyrol is still unique in its Council Seudun Agricultural Producers (Regional development; and Forest Owners ability to maintain an equal distribution social policy) LEADER Ry (Farming organization) of population within its territory, this province is also moving towards a con- centration of population in the main ur- ban centers (BOCCHETTI et al. 2009). Regional Village Union of Rural Association Education and Culture Pro Agria LECHNER and MORODER (2010) argue (Village organization) (Village organization) (Farming organization) that the historical and political events oc- curring in this region – particularly the IfL 2011 Draft: F. Rizzo co-existence of the dominant German- Design: P. Mund speaking group and the Italian-speaking minority – have strongly infl uenced Fig. 4: Joensuun Seudun LEADER and its main policy setting Source: Own Design the development of the South Tyrolean economy. According to the LEADER coordinator, there is a clear distinction greater Tyrol region, constituted by what duties of the farmers themselves were between the main urban center / are today North and East Tyrol (Austria), discussed with the aristocrats and church Bozen, and the rural territory. Since the and Trentino (Italy). It became part of authorities (later artisans as well). This period of the Italianization Programme, Italy in 1919 when the Austro-Hungarian early practice of self-government gave when the Fascists established an indus- Empire was dissolved after World War I farmers both a strong consciousness of trial area in the capital of the province (MARKUSSE, 1997). their own class and a strong link to the to encourage Italian settlement, Bolza- Unlike North Karelia, this region has territory, which was lived as their ‘own’, no/Bozen has been an ‘Italian enclave’, a long tradition of autonomy, with roots and not only considered as the property where the Italian-speaking ethnic group dating back as far as 1248, which marks of the earl (DE BIASI 2008). The strong dominates, and is run autonomously by the fi rst temporary constitution of the Ty- bond to the territory has materialized its political representatives. The rest of rol County by Albert III (DE BIASI, 2008). through the implementation of the closed the territory, in contrast, has always been Farmers have since historically repre- farm (in German geschlossene Hof, in mostly German-speaking; as a result, the sented a relatively strong social class, Italian maso chiuso), a juridical institu- ethnic party Südtiroler Volkspartei at- holders of rights and not just subjected to tion which still survives in the contem- tracts votes mainly in the rural territory, the supremacy of the aristocracy. Farm- porary South Tyrolese countryside.3 and political attention goes to the rural ers were involved in the local assemblies, South Tyrol has a population of areas, because politically this is crucial. where possible attacks by enemies, fi - 503 400 inhabitants, its territory is In the last few decades, the development nancial matters, and also the rights and mountainous in character, and only a of the economy in South Tyrol has been small part can be inhabited and exploited successful for a variety of reasons, in- economically (LECHNER and MORODER cluding the uniqueness of the mountain- South Tyrol 2010). In some areas of the province ag- ous landscape, the geographical location Employment structure 1931- 2011 riculture is wealthy, and due to the rela- at the border between Austria and Italy, Percentage of employees tively wide surfaces and the legal insti- and bilingualism (LECHNER and PARTA-

100 8 % tution of the closed farm – which has CINI 2008). Primary sector 80 23 % prevented land fragmentation – permits As a result of long negotiations with Secondary sector 60 a good living for farmers. This is true for Rome throughout the 1970s and 1980s, farms located at the bottom of valleys or South Tyrol became an autonomous prov- 40 69 % Tertiary sector in a favourable position in the mountains, ince within the Region of Trentino-Alto- 20 which makes possible the growth of vine- Adige/South Tyrol, recognized by both 0 1931 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011* the Italian state and the European Union Census years (COLE 2001). The Autonomous Statute of IfL 2011 1972 assigned this province legislative Draft: F. Rizzo 3 * Estimated values Design: P. Mund This institution provides that “upon the farmer’s death, the farm is not divided among the heirs, but power as well as numerous competencies it is inherited by only one person, usually one of the in the economic fi eld, including agricul- Fig. 5: Employment structure in South Tyrol coheirs, called heir contractor (Anerbe)” (MORI and ture and forestry (PAOLAZZI 2008). Conse- 1931-2011 HINTNER 2009, p. 6). The other heirs have only the right Source: LECHNER and MORODER 2010 to compensation. quently, the province of South Tyrol can

152 Europa Regional 17(2009)3 be classifi ed as an example of the “old re- Alta Valle Isarco/ Surface area: 650 km2 gionalism”, since it was largely linked to Population: 17 238 (2000 data) historical, linguistic, and cultural factors. LEADER Local Action Group The German-speaking group felt it nec- essary to protect and promote their local AUSTRIA culture, language, and identity against Brennero/ Val di Vizze/ the aggressive attitude of the Italian na- Brenner Vipiteno/ tional culture and language. During this D Racines/ Campo di Trens/ fi rst wave of regionalism, regional au- N Ratsching A Fortezza/ tonomy and devolution referred mostly to L Franzenfeste R a question of identity, while economic is- E

Z

T

sues (if they were present at all) were not I W South Tyrol

ODRÍGUEZ OSE as relevant (R -P 2002). S Currently, South Tyrol is contextual- ized in what is usually defi ned as a region- Bolzano/Bozen al state, whereas regions have less autono- my than in federal states (RODRÍGUEZ-POSE 2002, p. 165). Within such an administra- I Y tive context, the LEADER Programme in T A L Italy is implemented through 21 regional IfL 2011 0 15 30 km programmes; regional administrations Draft: F. Rizzo Scale 1 : 1 500 000 and autonomous provinces are the man- Cartographer: A. Müller aging and funding authorities, and they Fig. 6: LAG Alta Valle Isarco/Wipptal are also responsible for selecting the Lo- Source: Own Design with ARCGIS 9 cal Action Groups. The latter are respon- sible for choosing the individual projects. Since its start, the LEADER Programme any other South Tyrolean local action The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in South Tyrol has been both introduced groups) has been decided by provincial Policies, on the other hand, has a coor- and implemented in a top-down man- politicians along with local mayors, not dinating role in the implementation of ner. The policy setting of LAG Wipptal by the valleys’ inhabitants (civil servant LEADER (RAPPORTO SULLO STATO...2005). is depicted in Figure 7 using a vertical of the Province of Bolzano). Unlike the structure. At the top is located the Presi- case of Joensuun Seudun LEADER, LAG Alta Valle Isarco/Wipptal dent of the Province, Luis Durnwalder, where local development has emerged LAG Wipptal (Fig. 6) was established who is the most infl uential and powerful through village work and associations, in July 2002 for the LEADER + period fi gure at the political level in this region. in LAG Wipptal the public, top-down (2000-2006). When the Wipptal district The establishment of LAG Wipptal (like sector entrenched with the “old” political was chosen in 2001 for the implemen- tation of the LEADER + Programme, a cooperative was established in January 2002 to host the Local Action Group Wipptal as well as other EU funds such as INTERREG and the European So- cial Fund (COMUNITÀ COMPRENSORIALE WIPPTAL ... 2009). The members of the local action group were appointed by an act of the District Community (Comu- nità Comprensoriale). This local action group is located right at the border with Austria and has witnessed a period of restructuration following the disman- tling of border structures upon the im- plementation of the Schengen Treaty in 1998. Additionally, remote alpine valleys in this area, such as the Rac- ines/Ratsching and the Val di Vizze/ Pfi tsch, suffer from delayed develop- ment. Wipptal is not a homogenous entity; valleys are small, and the towns of Vipiteno/Sterzing, Brennero/Bren- ner and Fortezza/Franzenfeste focus on transport and highway axis (LEADER Fig. 7: LAG Wipptal/Alta Valle Isarco policy setting + WIPPTAL 2008). Source: Own Design

153 hierarchies still prevails. An interviewed The most prominent association in South in this province regional development mayor clearly states that “local politics Tyrol at the political level is the Südti- almost in its entirety means agricul- embodied by the mayors and municipal roler Bauernbund (League of South Ty- ture. Moreover, in the 2008 provincial councilors of the various municipalities rolean Farmers). This association, which council elections, members of the agri- in LAG Wipptal have had a key role in was the fi rst to be re-established after cultural lobby gained the most represen- the introduction and execution of the the Second World War, re-organized tatives, compared to the other economic LEADER Programme.” The above- the agricultural sector in the province associations. mentioned Bolzano civil servant further (GATTERER 2007). As the Südtiroler Bau- Due to the marginality of the notes that “here regional policy does ernbund (the agricultural lobby compa- LAGs, especially in this current period not work, because it is more important rable to the Finnish MTK) is the most 2007- 2013, in discussions between civil that the politician in his/her own sector prominent association in South Tyrol at servants of the province and the various decides what he/she wants, without hav- the political level, it is not surprising that staffs of the LAGs, it was decided that ing a general vision. In our province the nine of ten farmers voted for the Südti- these EU partnerships (including LAG bottom-up approach is rare; here we are roler Volkspartei in the last elections on Wipptal) will become a centre of regio- more at the top-down level.” 26 October 2008, and agriculture is still nal development and planning – in each The bridge between the province, em- the strongest working group within the of the Comunità Comprensoriali – and bodied by politics and provincial offi ces, party. The Südtiroler Volkspartei has deal not only with LEADER funding, and LAG Wipptal (as well as all the other ruled the province since the end of the but also INTERREG, the European So- LAGs, at least until the LEADER + Pro- Second World War. In the last elections, cial Fund, and other Community fun- gramme) is represented by the provincial even though the party received less than ding (civil servant, province of Bolza- coordinator, a person of trust of the pro- 50 % of the total vote (48.1%) for the fi rst no). To summarize, rural development vincial council, who knows the territory time, it still has the majority of seats in in the province is dominated by the two well and has coordinated the activity of the provincial council (18 of 35). Presi- axes of politics and the farmers’ lobby; the various LAGs. The provincial coor- dent Durnwalder started his career in the however, there is also a political will dinator has been able to implement the Südtiroler Bauernbund and has been in that recognizes the importance of these programme as they wanted at the provin- power since 1989 (more than 20 years). new governing structures to effectively cial level and has carried out the task of These considerations suggest that far- tackle the post-modern developments of exchanging experiences among the vari- ming enjoys a signifi cant position in the current society. ous LAGs, at the same time giving feed- development strategies of the political back to politicians and to the province representatives of the province (SÜDTIRO- Final refl ections (representative of the provincial agricul- LER BAUERNBUND 2008; CONSIGLIO DELLA The interaction between relations of au- tural offi ce, LAG Wipptal). PROVINCIA…2008). tonomy and dependence within policy The integrated and multi-sectoral ap- This also has important implications networks and the broader regionalization proach, typical of the LEADER method, on the implementation of the LEA- and regionalism contexts represents an has not only clashed with the sectoral DER programme. In the current period important contribution to understanding perspective of the provincial offi ces, (2007- 2013), where LEADER is no lon- different rural paradigms and their as- but also with the lobbying interests of ger autonomous and is included in the sociated rural governance models. The the associations involved in the various regional rural development programme empirical data from these two case stud- economic sectors (agriculture, tourism, along with the other rural development ies confi rm the current struggle between handicrafts, etc.). A high-ranking civil axes, the province has decided to focus the old and the new rural paradigms, servant in the province remarks that the on farming instead of rural diversifi - which although in this paper has been lobbying interests of these associations cation, as was the case until the LEA- analyzed at the local level, also occurs at are represented by their members in the DER + period. This decision implies the national and international levels. The provincial council; he further defi nes that projects have to include agriculture, LEADER method has found more fertile these associations as bureaucratic bod- and if any other sector, such as tourism, ground in North Karelia’s horizontal ru- ies comparable to public administration commerce, or handicrafts, wants to be ral policy setting than that of South Tyrol. itself. The LAGs’ private sector mem- part of a LEADER project, it has to be North Karelia’s fl exible and con- bers are usually the highest represen- linked to agriculture. The detachment of stantly mutating regional level – recently tatives of the local associations. In the LEADER from its original target, rural from new regionalism to network region- case of LAG Wipptal, one deals with the development, has sparked a lively debate alism – has favoured the introduction of Consorzio Turistico Valle Isarco (Tour- among the interviewees; if it is true that an equally fl exible instrument such as ism Consortium of Isarco Valley), the agriculture is a vital sector in this pro- LEADER. In this region, the rural pol- Unione dei Commercianti (Chamber of vince as a social, economic, and cultural icy arrangements embody the structural Commerce), the Unione degli Artigiani system well-rooted in the territory, the characteristics of the so-called new rural (Craftsmen Union), the Ente Distrettuale other economic sectors, especially han- paradigm, whereas the diversifi cation of dell’Agricoltura (District Association of dicrafts and tourism, may suffer from rural economy and socio-administrative Agriculture), the Liberi Professionisti this decision. Relevant to this discussion innovation have a long and well-estab- (Professionals), the Ispettorato Forestale is the comment by a representative by lished tradition rooted in the work of the di Vipiteno (Vipiteno Forestry Inspec- the handicrafts association, who states village associations. In this case, the new torate), and the Centro Giovani (Youth that politicians have not considered the governing structures, as well as the new Centre). opinion of the handicrafts people since rural paradigm, have succeeded in com-

154 Europa Regional 17(2009)3 peting and to some extent in prevailing of centralized rural governance model, rol. In: NIEDERMÜLLER, P., B. STOKLUND over the old politics and traditional sec- where the responsibility for LEADER (eds.): Europe: Cultural construction toral policies. This is also attributable to clearly lies with the provincial authori- and reality. Copenhagen, pp. 109-115. the historical marginality and structural ties; power is mostly exerted by politics, COMUNITÀ COMPRENSORIALE WIPPTAL weakness of agriculture in this region. which plays a crucial role not only in the (2008). http://grw.wipptal.org/it/grw/s In South Tyrol, rural policy-setting animation of this programme, but also in vilupporegionale/programmemi/ still resembles the old paradigm, where its coordination and implementation. Un- CONSIGLIO DELLA PROVINCIA AUTONO- the agricultural lobby and interests still like North Karelia, in South Tyrol the ver- MA DI BOLZANO (2008): Risultati delle prevail over the formal arrangements re- tical concentration of power within the elezioni provinciali. November 2008. quired for the functioning of the LEAD- “old” government structures brings a po- http://www.landtag-bz.org/it/banche- ER Programme, and the countryside tential inhibition of endogenous develop- dati-raccolte/risultati-legislatura-13. is still to a large extent associated with ment processes. However, the introduc- asp. (Access 28/10/2008) agriculture, referred to as a German- tion of new governing structures has led COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) NO 1698/2005 speaking landscape system well-rooted to some embryonic competition among (2005). http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUr in the territory. The South Tyrol “old the rural actors, representing a concrete iServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:200 regionalism” background – pre-estab- institutional innovation in the rigid South 5:277:0001:0040:EN:PDF (Access: lished administrative structures, vertical Tyrolean administrative system. 5/06/2010) hierarchies, strong regional autonomy – To conclude, in an era of homogeniza- DE BIASI, M. (2008): Il Sud Tirolo: dal- has not favoured the introduction of the tion of rural and regional policies at the la contea alla Heimat 1200-1500. Bol- LEADER instrument; as such, the sub- EU level, this study suggests that case zano. politics of the project class is much more studies at the regional level are needed ESKELINEN, H., M. FRITSCH (2006): The challenged in competing with the old po- for two main reasons. Firstly, to verify reconfi guration of Eastern Finland as litical class. which policies are appropriate, and in an interface periphery. In: ESKELIN- The investigation of this compari- which context; secondly, to challenge EN, H., T. HIRVONEN (eds.): Positioning son also suggests that the introduction the assumption that society today is ar- Finland in a European space. Helsin- of these new governing structures has ranged according to a network logic, ki, pp. 54-70. taken different forms in the rural con- based on the dominance of subpolitics GATTERER, C. (2007): In lotta contro text; as such, they must be verifi ed in and its associated project class. Roma. Cittadini, minoranze e autono- the light of geographical contingen- mie in Italia. Bolzano. cies. North Karelia is an example of the Bibliographies GIDDENS, A. (1984): The constitution of mixed rural governance model. On the ALAPURO, R. (1980): Finland: an interface society: outline of the theory of struc- one hand, it is characterized by a con- periphery. Helsinki. turation. Cambridge. stellation of regional and local-level ALTIKA DATABASE (2009). Helsinki. GOODWIN, M. (1998): The governance of actors who, at different levels, are in- BALDERSHEIM, H., M. ØGÅRD (2009): In- rural areas: some emerging research terlinked with each other. On the oth- troduction. In: BALDERSHEIM, H., issues and agendas. In: Journal of Ru- er hand, the key player at the regional H. VEGARD, M. ØGÅRD (eds.): The rise ral Studies, Vol. 14, issue no 1, pp. 5-12. level is not a truly regional, politically of the networking region: the chal- GOVERDE, H., J. VAN TATENHOVE (2000): accountable organization; rather, it is lenges of regional collaboration in a Power and policy networks. In: the state, through its regional offi ces of globalized world. Nordregio, Vol. 10, GOVERDE, H., P. CERNY, M. HAUGAARD, the Centre for Economic Development, pp. 11-20. H. LENTNER (eds.): Power in contem- Transport and the Environment, which BECK, U. (1994): Refl exive moderniza- porary politics: theories, practices, has a dominant role in the horizontal tion. Politics, tradition, and aesthetics globalizations. London, pp. 96-111. rural policy-setting. The strengths of in the modern social order. Cambridge. HADJIMICHALIS, C. (2003): Imagining ru- this power-dispersed horizontal system, BJÖRN, I. (2006): Metsämaakunta siirtyy rality in the new Europe and dilem- based on interdependencies with well- kotitarpeesta metsätalouteen. In: KA- mas for spatial policy. In: European specifi ed duties and goals, are coop- TAJALA, K., J. JUVONEN (eds.): Maakun- Planning Studies, Vol. 11, issue no 2, eration and compromise (RIZZO 2007). nan Synty. Pohjois-Karjalan historia pp. 103-113. Nevertheless, the lack of regional self- 1809-1939. Helsinki, pp. 147-174. HIGH, C., G. NEMES (2007): Social Lear- government, which is typical of the BOCCHETTI, F., G. ZOTTA, E. CAMANNI ning in LEADER: exogenous, endo- current Finnish intermediate level, may (2009): Sudtirolo – il cammino degli genous and hybrid evaluation in rural varyingly fragment policy responsibili- eredi. Trento. development. In: Sociologia Ruralis, ties and, most importantly, lead to the BÖRZEL, T. (1998): Organizing Babylon Vol. 47, issue no 2, pp. 103-119. lack of a unitary strategy. The empiri- – on the different conceptions of po- HÄRKÖNEN, E., P. KAHILA (1999): Fin- cal data, for instance, indicates that the licy networks. Public Administration, land. National initiatives adding to the regional council, the highest regional Vol. 76, issue no 2, pp. 253-273. EU-programmes. In: WESTHOLM, E., development authority in Finland, and CENTRES FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, M. MOSELEY, N. STENLÅS (eds.): Local the LAG are perceived as two separate TRANSPORT AND THE ENVIRONMENT partnerships and rural development in bodies, almost in competition with each (2010). http://www.ely-keskus.fi /fi /Siv Europe. A literature review of practice other. ut/inenglish.aspx (Access: 5/06/2010) and theory. Helsinki, pp. 129-156. As also suggested by OECD (2009), COLE, J. (2001): The reproduction of HÄYRYNEN, S. (2003): The spatial na- South Tyrol is, in contrast, an example identity in contemporary South Ty- ture of cultural recognition: construct-

155 ing Finnish North Karelia in the cen- Tyrol. In: GeoJournal, Vol. 43, issue gional Councils within Regional Policy tre/periphery dimension of cultural no 1, pp. 77-89. Governance. Master Thesis, Joensuu. policy. In: The International Journal MORI, E., W. HINTNER (2009): Il maso RODRÍGUEZ-POSE, A. (2002): The Europe- of Cultural Policy, Vol. 9, issue no 1, chiuso. La sua storia e la normativa vi- an Union: economy, society, and poli- pp. 65-81. gente. Bolzano. ty. Oxford. KEATING, M. (1998): A regional level of MURDOCH, J. (2000): Networks – a new SARACENO, E. (1999): The evaluation of government in Europe? In : LE GALÈS, paradigm of rural development? In: local policy making in Europe. Learn- P., C. LEQUESNE (eds.): Regions in Eu- Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 16, issue ing from the LEADER Community rope. London, pp. 11-29. no 4, pp. 407-419. Initiative. In: Evaluation, Vol. 5, issue KICKERT, W., H. KLIJN, J. KOPPENJAN OECD (2006): The New Rural Para- no 4, pp. 439-457. (1997): Introduction: a management digm. Paris. SJÖBLOM, S. (2006): Introduction: to- perspective on policy networks. In: OECD (2009): OECD Rural Policy Re- wards a projectifi ed public sector – KICKERT, W., H. KLIJN, J. KOPPENJAN views: Italy. Paris. project proliferation as a phenome- (eds.): Managing complex networks: ÖSTHOL, A., B. SVENSSON (2002): Intro- non. In: SJÖBLOM, S., K. ANDERSSON, E. strategies for the public sector. Lon- duction. In: ÖSTHOL, A., B. SVENSSON EKLUND, S. GODENHJELM (eds.): Proj- don, pp. 1-13. (eds.): Partnership responses – regio- ect Proliferation and Governance – the KOVÁCH, I., L. KRISTÓF (2008): The pro- nal governance in the Nordic states. Case of Finland. Helsinki, pp. 9-31. jectifi cation of power: the impact of Nordregio, Vol. 6, pp. 13-39. SWYNGEDOUW, E. (2005): Governance European integration on power and PAOLAZZI, L. (2008): Dai Comprensori innovation and the citizen: the Janus society. In: BAYER, J., J. JENSEN (eds.): alle Comunità di Valle, il cambiamen- face of governance-beyond-the-State. From transition to globalization: new to amministrativo nella Provincia Au- In: Urban Studies, Vol. 42, issue no 11, challenges for politics, the media and tonoma di Trento (1967-2008). Il caso pp. 1991-2006. society. Budapest, pp. 191-205. della Valle di Cembra. Tesi di Laurea. SÜDTIROLER BAUERNBUND (2008): Bau- KOVÁCH, I., E. KUČEROVÁ (2009): The so- Trento. ernstand steht kompakt zusammen. cial context of project proliferation – PRO AGRIA (2009). http://www.proagr December 2008. www.sbb.it (Access The rise of a project class. In: Journal iapohjois-karjala.fi /pages/proagria_w 10/12/2008) of Environmental Policy & Planning, ww/proagria-pohjois-karjala.php (Ac- VAN DER PLOEG, J., H. RENTING, G. BRUNO- Vol. 11, issue no 3, pp. 203-221. cess 07/09/2009) RI, K. KNICHEL, J. MANNION, T. MARS- KOVÁCH, I., E. KUČEROVÁ (2006): The proj- RAGIN, C. (1987): The comparative meth- DEN, K. DE ROEST, E. GUZMÁN, F. VEN- ect class in Central Europe: the Czech od: moving beyond qualitative and TURA (2000): In: Rural development: and Hungarian cases. In: Sociologia quantitative strategies. Berkeley. from practices and policies towards Ruralis, Vol. 46, issue no 1, pp. 3-21. RAPPORTO SULLO STATO DI ATTUAZIONE theory. In: Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 40, LEADER + OBSERVATORY CONFERENCE DELL’ INIZIATIVA COMUNITIARIA LEA- issue no 4, pp. 391-408. ‘LEADER ACHIEVEMENTS: A DIVERSITY OF TER- DER + IN ITALIA (2005). VIRKKALA, S. (2002): Combining “top- RITORIAL EXPERIENCE’ (2007). Portugal. REGION OF NORTH KARELIA (2010). down” and “bottom-up” partnerships LEADER + PROGRAMME FOR FINLAND http://www.pohjois-karjala.fi /Resourc formation. In: ÖSTHOL, A., B. SVENS- (2002). Helsinki. e.phx/maakuntaliitto/english/index.ht SON (eds.): Partnership responses – re- LEADER + WIPPTAL (2008). Provincia di x (Access: 05/06/2010) gional governance in the Nordic states. Bolzano. REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACT NO. Nordregio, Vol. 6, pp. 135-202. LECHNER, O., B. MORODER (2010): Ritrat- 602/2002 (2002): Ministry of the In- to economico dell’Alto Adige. Bolza- terior (unoffi cial translation). Helsinki. MSSC. FULVIO RIZZO no. http://www.camcom.bz.it/7534.pdf RIZZO, F. (2007): The institution and the PhD Candidate (Access: 07/06/2010) role of the Regional Councils with- Karelian Institute LECHNER, O., L. PARTACINI (2008): L´Alto in the Finnish regional policy gover- University of Eastern Finland Adige come localizzazione econo- nance: an outsider’s perspective. In: Joensuu Campus mica. Bolzano. http://www.camcom. Kunnallistieteellinen Aikakauskirja, P.O. Box 111 bz.it/6089.pdf (Access: 07/06/2010) Vol. 2, pp. 161-173. FIN-80101 Joensuu MARKUSSE, J. (1997): Power-sharing and RIZZO, F. (2006): Finnish Administrative Finnland ‘consociational democracy’ in South Reforms in the 1990s: the Role of the Re- fulvio.rizzo@uef.fi

156 Europa Regional 17(2009)3