DP_2010_IOB

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

1/68

DISCUSSION PAPER / 2010.02

The new territorial paradigmof rural development: Theoreticaloundations rom systems andinstitutional theories

MateoAmbrosio-AlbalJohan Bastiaensen

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

2/68

Comments on this Discussion Paper are invited.Please contact the author at: [email protected]

Instituut voor Ontwikkelingsbeleid en -BeheerInstitute o Development Policy and ManagementInstitut de Politique et de Gestion du DveloppementInstituto de Poltica y Gestin del Desarrollo

Postal address: Visiting address:Prinsstraat 13 Lange Sint-Annastraat 7B-2000 Antwerpen B-2000 AntwerpenBelgium Belgium

Tel: +32 (0)3 265 57 70

Fax: +32 (0)3 265 57 71e-mail: [email protected]://www.ua.ac.be/dev

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

3/68

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

4/68

5

TableofConTenTs

absTraCT 6

rsum 7

resumen 8

1. InTroduCTIon 9

2. PolICy:arenewedaPProaChToruraldeveloPmenT 11

2.1. Thenewruralparadigmindevelopedcountries 11

2.2 Theterritorialprocesses 12

2.2.1 Productive transormation 122.2.2 Institutional transormation 132.2.3 Crosscutting issues 14

2.3 Thepolicyinstrument 15

2.4 Ruraldevelopmentindevelopmentstudiesandpractice 17

3. objeCT:TheruralTerrIToryasaComPlexsysTem 21

3.1 Complexityandcomplexsystems 22

3.2 Perturbationsandstatesofstability 24

3.3 Movingtowardsnewstabilitystatesandenduring:resilienceand

adaptation 25

3.4 Implicationsforruralterritories 26

3.4.1 Rural territory as a complex social-ecological system 26

3.4.2 Perturbations and states o stability in rural areas 273.4.3 Coping with perturbations in rural areas 28

4. TIme:evoluTIvePaTTernsInsoCIal-eCologICalsysTems 30

4.1 Evolutionasaresultofchanginginstitutions 30

4.2 Evolutionasrecursivepattern 31

4.2.1 Stages in the adaptive cycle 314.2.2 Trap states within an adaptive cycle 34

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

5/68


4.3.1 Features o complex systems 364.3.2 Logic o change in social systems 374.3.3 Some implications or policy making 39

5. sPaCe:mulTIPlICITyoflevelsandsCalesInsoCIal-eCologICalsysTems 40

5.1 Dynamicsbetweenmicro-macrolevels:thedilemmasofbottom-up

andtop-downprocesses 41

5.2 Scalechallengesandverticalinterplays 42

5.3 Panarchiesasadynamicandmultilevelconstructwithrespectto

social-ecologicalsystems 43


6. a genTs:governIngresIlIenCeInasoCIal-eCologICalsysTem 47

6.1 Adaptivegovernance 47

6.1.1 Basic propositions to build an adaptive governance 486.1.2 Critical implications o the propositions 48

6.2 Dynamicmanagementofresilience:adaptation 49

6.2.1 Creative thinking and cognitive synergies 50

6.3 Dynamicmanagementofresilience:transformation 51

6.3.1 Shadow networks and transormational leaderships 51

7. fInalrefleCTIons 53

referenCes 57

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

6/68

IOB DIscussIOn PaPer 2010-02 ThenewTerriTorialparadigmofruraldevelopmenT

absTraCT

In recent decades, a new paradigm or public policies in rural areas has made head-way. This new approach aims to support economic and institutional transormation processesdesigned and implemented by local rural actors themselves. It argues or the building o local

partnerships as a tool or the governance o rural change.

This paper reects about the governance o development and change in rural areas.It builds a conceptual ramework rom two complementary theoretical sources: (a) complexitytheory views on the governance o resilience and (b) institutional theories. Given the impossi-bility to predict and plan social change in a top-down ashion, it stresses that change requiresthat actors o a social system construct a sufciently shared vision o a desired uture state andmanage to act together in order to navigate the pathway towards that aim. Capacity or terri-torial governance is also critical in rural governance o resilience. System resilience reers to thecapacity o actors to adjust the desired pathway whenever external shocks threaten its viability,or in certain cases, impose the need or a more undamental change in the prevailing system andthe desired pathways o change.

We argue that these theoretical inspirations provide a useul substantiated under-pinning or the territorial paradigm o rural development and allow us to show why and how thelocal partnership has the potential to improve the governance and the resilience o rural territo-ries. We also develop a number o urther reections about the challenges o such partnerships,in particular the difculties emerging rom heterogeneous interest and power o local actors.

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

7/68

ioB discussion paper 2010-02 ThenewTerriTorialparadigmofruraldevelopmenT

rsum

Ces dernires dcennies, on a assist la progression dun nouveau paradigme enmatire de politiques publiques dans les zones rurales. Cette nouvelle approche vise soutenirles processus de transormation conomique et institutionnelle conus et mis en uvre par les

acteurs ruraux eux-mmes. Ce paradigme propose des partenariats locaux comme instrumentde gestion du changement rural.

Le prsent essai propose une rexion sur la gestion du dveloppement et du chan-gement dans les zones rurales. Il labore un cadre conceptuel partir de deux perspectives tho-riques complmentaires : une perspective sur la gestion de la rsilience base sur la thorie dela complexit, et une perspective institutionnelle. Devant limpossibilit de prvoir ou de plani-fer le changement social, cela exige que les acteurs dun systme social construisent une visionsufsamment partage dun utur tat dsir, et quils parviennent agir ensemble en vue dedfnir et de parcourir le chemin qui mne cet tat. La capacit de se doter dune gouvernanceterritoriale est un aspect critique de la gestion rurale de la rsilience. La rsilience du systmedsigne la capacit des acteurs adapter ce chemin lorsquinterviennent des acteurs extrieursqui menacent sa viabilit, voire mme, dans certains cas, de rinventer tout le systme et red-fnir le chemin qui mne au changement.

Nous considrons que ces rexions proposent des ondements thoriques utiles ettays pour expliquer le paradigme territorial du dveloppement rural et quelles nous permet-tent de montrer pourquoi et comment le partenariat local est un instrument qui a le potentieldamliorer la gouvernance et la rsilience des territoires ruraux. Nous menons galement desrexions sur les dfs que rencontrent ces partenariats, en particulier sur les difcults occa-sionnes par lhtrognit des intrts et du pouvoir parmi les acteurs ruraux.

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

8/68

IOB DIscussIOn PaPer 2010-02 ThenewTerriTorialparadigmofruraldevelopmenT

resumen

En las ltimas dcadas ha ganado terreno un nuevo paradigma de polticas pbli-cas para las zonas rurales. Este nuevo enoque aboga por el apoyo a procesos de transormacineconmica e institucional diseados e impulsados por los propios actores rurales. Este para-

digma propone un partenariado local como instrumento de gestin del cambio rural.

En el presente ensayo se orece una reexin sobre la gestin del desarrollo y delcambio en las zonas rurales. Se elabora un marco conceptual a partir de dos perspectivas teri-cas complementarias: una perspectiva sobre la gestin de la resiliencia desde la complejidad yuna perspectiva institucionalista. Ante la imposibilidad de prever o planifcar la ocurrencia delcambio social, ste requiere que los actores de un sistema social construyan una visin suf-cientemente compartida de un estado uturo deseado del mismo y naveguen la senda paraalcanzarlo. La capacidad para dotarse de una gobernanza territorial es un aspecto crtico de lagestin de la resiliencia. La resiliencia del sistema se refere a la capacidad de los actores para

adaptar esa senda cuando existan actores que amenacen su viabilidad o, llegado el caso, paraincluso reinvertar el propio sistema y redefnir la senda.

Consideramos que estas reexiones orecen undamentos tericos sustantivospara explicar el paradigma territorial del desarrollo rural y nos permiten mostrar por qu y cmoel partenariado local es un instrumento con potencial para mejorar la gobernanza y la resilienciade los territorios rurales. Tambin reexionamos sobre los retos de dichos partenariados, enespecial, las difcultades provocadas por la heterogeneidad de intereses y poder en los actoresrurales.

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

9/68

ioB discussion paper 2010-02 ThenewTerriTorialparadigmofruraldevelopmenT

1. InTroduCTIon

Agriculture and rural development are two basic pillars in the fght against ruralpoverty and or the enhancement o ood security. Agricultural activities determine the liveli-

hoods o most o the poor all over the world. In Sub-Saharan Arica, agriculture provides 65%o the employment opportunities or the labour orce and accounts or up to 32% o GDP (WorldBank, 2007). But primary sector activities are not the only source o employment and incomesor the rural population (De Ferranti et al., 2005). The rural economy is shaped by multiple ac-tivities that reect the diversity o livelihoods o the rural population, especially o the rural poor.These rural o-arm activities can be decisive to fght rural poverty.

During the last fty years, dierent topics have been proposed as policy prioritiesor the development o rural areas. These shiting priorities also reect how dierent academicdisciplines have successively prevailed to inorm rural policy making. Concepts and methodolo-gies to assess and manage rural change have shited rom technological, managerial and central-ized approaches to more constructionist, participatory and decentralized perspectives o ruralchange (Ellis and Biggs, 2001). Present-day research agendas on rural areas emphasize systemicrather than analytical approaches. Social, economic and institutional issues are integrated andunctional interrelations among the elements o the system as well as spatial and temporal his-torical considerations are highlighted (Cairol et al., 2005; RIMISP, 2007). Other felds o studyhave started to explore similar systemic approaches, such as landscape management (Bai-Lian,2000; Naveh, 2001).

From a development perspective, not only considerations on the evolution o therural areas are relevant, but also the approaches or delivering aid have become increasinglyimportant. In 2005, the donor community endorsed the principles o aid eectiveness (OECD,2005). New instruments and programming rameworks to manage aid (SWAPs, budgetary sup-port, PRSPs, MTEF) have gained pride o place in development practice. As a consequence, poli-cies and strategies to fght poverty in principle have to be country-owned and context-specifc.But central governments in poor countries are usually limited to reach subnational administra-tive levels. New agreements on aid eectiveness (OECD, 2008) thereore encourage the transero policy and executive responsibilities to the local level. Thereby it is ensured that policies andstrategies become more location-specifc.

The territorial approach to rural development may help to implement sector strate-gies and to attain the goals o aid eectiveness. This approach to rural policy ormulation andimplementation promotes joint-action among rural agents, coordination between the dierentadministrative levels o government and articulation among dierent sector policies addressingthe problems o rural areas (agriculture, education, health, inrastructure, employment). Sucha policy approach could contribute to shape a new generation o public policies or fghtingpoverty in rural areas.

The main purpose o this paper is to contribute to the construction o a conceptual

ramework that supports this territorial or place-based approach to rural policy (OECD, 2006).The ramework provides a comprehensive and systemic understanding o the dynamics occurring

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

10/68

10 IOB DIscussIOn PaPer 2010-02 ThenewTerriTorialparadigmofruraldevelopmenT

within rural territories. We suggest an approach that integrates two complementary perspec-tives: on the one hand, an institutional perspective which deals with social interactions amongagents and the rules that govern these interactions, and on the other hand, a complexity theoryperspective that provides the structural components or a dynamic, multi-level perspective withwhich to assess only partially predictable change processes in social systems. While during the

last two decades a lot o work has already been done rom an institutionalist perspective, thelatter perspective is relatively new within development studies but oers quite promising pros-pects or the feld (Warner, 2001; Osbahr and Boyd, 2007; Fowler, 2008; Ramalingam et al.,2008).

This paper is primarily intended or researchers interested in the theoretical under-pinning or this policy approach to rural development. Given that the paper is exploratory innature, comments and critiques are welcome to make urther progress on the theoretical discus-sion. As theory inorms our action, an improved understanding should lead to a better and pos-sibly more modest and realistic design and management o those development interventions

which try to oster processes o benefcial rural change. Hopeully, policy-makers and develop-ment practitioners concerned with fghting rural poverty will fnd some inspiring metaphors andreections to help them tackle this complex task.

The paper is divided into fve sections corresponding to the undamental issues othe proposal: the policy approach, the object o intervention, time and space considerations, andthe role o human and social agents. The frst section introduces the main elements o the ter-ritorial policy approach. Second, the epistemology o complexity is explained and applied to the

rural territory as an object o intervention acknowledging it to be a geographically-rooted andopen social system. In the third section, time considerations are taken into account in order to

outline a ramework on the logic o change in social systems. The contributions o North (1990)and Holling (2001) are undamental here. In the ollowing section, issues regarding scales andvertical interplays are presented and the idea o panarchy (Holling and Gunderson, 2001) isintroduced to join both dynamic and multi-scalar issues in social systems. The fth section dealswith the inuence o the human agency component in the governance o rural systems and theirreproduction. Finally, some reections are presented, linking the main elements o the policyapproach and the corresponding theoretical justifcation.

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

11/68

ioB discussion paper 2010-02 11ThenewTerriTorialparadigmofruraldevelopmenT

2. PolICy:arenewedaPProaChToruraldeveloPmenT

From a geographical perspective, economic growth is oten based upon econo-mies o scale and agglomeration in certain regions and cities. Those areas that ail to aggregate

enough employment and income opportunities lag behind. In this respect rural areas suer rommultiple economic and political disadvantages. Indicators o social and economic perormancein rural areas typically all under the national averages in most countries. While in developingcountries the deprived areas, especially rural areas, suer rom the most extreme poverty con-ditions, in developed countries these areas challenge territorial cohesion (Faludi, 2006). Tradi-tional sector policies and market mechanisms have ailed to address the regional imbalances.

Today, changes in the national and international context are shaping a new scenarioin which rural policies gain prominence. Firstly, environmental issues imply special considera-tion o the sustainable exploitation o natural resources. As a consequence, externalities o agri-culture in terms o land and water use, biodiversity and orestry ask or much more attention (e.g.Van Hecken & Bastiaensen, 2009). Secondly, the outcomes o international trade negotiationsdetermine and usually restrict the number and nature o policy options or agriculture. In orderto be able to maintain public support or agriculture activity, new perspectives are thereorecalled or. As highlighted in the multiunctionality paradigm, ood security, rural employment,production o rural landscape and conservation o the rural heritage and traditions are increas-ingly recognized as important non-commodity outputs o agriculture in this respect (Maier andShobayashi, 2001; Massot Mart, 2002). Finally, decentralization and deconcentration enablelocal actors to engage in the defnition o priorities and the use o resources to tackle regionalinequalities (OECD, 2006). However, this changing environment seems to have reinorced lo-cal actors perceptions that the decisions aecting their livelihoods are increasingly out o theirhands (Entrena Durn, 1999).

2.1. Thenewruralparadigmindevelopedcountries

As we indicated in the introduction, there has been a paradigm shit in rural policieso developed countries in the last twenty years. Rural out-migration, in particular the out-owo jobless young people, the aging o the population, a general decline o agricultural activitiesand a productivity all o rural labour orce are the dominant outcomes o widely prevailing rural

conditions (OECD, 2006). Facing this context, the new approach to rural development aims togenerate processes o proound structural change in rural territories (Delgado, 2004). At itscore is the conviction o the necessity to give greater prominence to local agents in driving thesocial, economic and political changes in the territory.

At the centre o this new paradigm lies a comprehensive and integrated view o allthose elements that constitute a rural territory. This concept o territory[1] resembles, butgoes beyond the idea o community as defned by IFAD (2009): a locus where all memberso a group o people, having some orm o collective claim over a territory and recognizing someorm o collective governance, can be given the opportunity to inuence decisions in matters o

public choice that aect their livelihood. An essential idea o the territorial approach is the key

[1] For a review on the origins o this approach, see Bassett et al. (2007)

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

12/68


role in rural governance or what people perceive as common limitations and opportunities orimproving their livelihoods. These perceptions condition their perceived set o opportunities andeasible alternatives or change, i.e. their vision or a possible and desired uture. A territory hasno pre-defned boundaries, neither administrative nor physical, but stems rom the aggregationo groups o people with similar problems and opportunities. In this sense, a territory might

correspond to a watershed, a set o coastal communities or various municipalities rom dierentdepartments sharing similar agro-ecological conditions. A territory reers to a system that inte-grates a diversity o endogenous resources and their interrelations. Every single element o theterritory thereby becomes a potential trigger or structural change. Rural territory is no longerdefned as a physical support or human activities but as an actor by itsel, a living organismormed by interacting cells (individuals, households, CBOs, tangible assets). From this systemicperspective, and within the relevant structural change processes encouraged by this policy ap-proach, two territorial processes along with a series o crosscutting issues can be identifed.

2.2 Theterritorialprocesses

2.2.1 Productivetransformation

The possibilities o agrarian policies to improve the living standards in rural areas,and especially o the non-armers, are low and even insignifcant (OECD, 2006). The rural popu-lation as a whole and its economic activities, whether agriculture-related or not, are to be clearlyincorporated into the rural policy. The intended productive transormation will provide employ-ment and income opportunities not only to arms but also to other rural actors, such as emaleentrepreneurs (Cruces Roldn and Palenzuela Chamorro, 2006) or immigrants (Kalantaridisand Bika, 2006). The driving orces behind this transormation include the exploitation o local

resources, in its broadest sense; the promotion o demand or territorial commodities and non-commodities, and the better exploitation o linkages between rural and urban areas.

In the context o developed countries, policy proposals aim at a broad transorma-tion, including at least our critical policy areas: development o transport and ICT inrastruc-ture, delivery o public services, valorisation o rural amenities and promotion o rural enterpris-es (OECD, 2006). Among the rural economic activities, tourism has received special attention,given its potential to regenerate rural areas (Morn Rodrguez, 2002), to articulate investmentsby private-, public- and voluntary-sector altogether (Garrod et al., 2006) and to help armerscomplement their incomes (Ciruela Lorenzo, 2008).

Economic diversifcation has been considered a undamental step orward towardsthe upgrading o agriculture production systems (Evans, 2009). In o-arm activities, armersfnd an alternative to complement their incomes, in spite o the difculties to carry out such astrategic shit (Meert et al., 2005). The sustainable exploitation o natural resources becomesa well-known alternative or rural transormation, be it either through extraction or leisure ac-tivities (Courtney et al., 2006) or by putting a value to ecological sustainability (Warner, 2007).Other non-agricultural activities should provide new sources o local employment. Manuactur-ing can oer an alternative, be it through local industries (Mndez et al., 2005) or access to newvalue-chains (Alonso Logroo and Rodrguez Gonzlez, 2005).

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

13/68


Public intervention has a role to play too. For instance, product certifcation can berequired to cover legislative gaps on protecting and regulating the use o local resources (SanzCaada and Macas Vzquez, 2005; Overton and Heitger, 2008). Oering business services toentrepreneurs could be another policy priority; in this case, context-specifc issues have to beconsidered in order to respond properly to local demands (Skuras et al., 2005).

The new rural paradigm also counts on non-commodities such as landscape, natu-ral heritage, environment and culture as important potential sources or rural economic trans-ormation (Knickel and Renting, 2000; Hilpert, 2006; Flysand and Jakobsen, 2007; Warner,2007). Within the EU context, social demand and willingness to pay or such goods and servicesjustiy public policy support to agriculture, as long as they are joint-outputs o the agricultureactivity (Gmez-Limn et al., 2007). It is recognized that this support should not be limitedto agriculture but also cover other economic activities that generate joint-outputs (Mann andWstemann, 2008). However, in spite o the strong political support received rom the EU in-stitutions, the implementation o the multiuncionality paradigm has so ar been quite limit-

ed (Cairol et al., 2005; Johnson et al., 2008). There are some experiences at the national level(Marsden and Sonnino, 2008), the Contrats Territoriaux dExploitation in France (Torre, 2000;Rmy et al., 2002; Velasco and Moyano, 2006) and the recently created Contratos Territoriales deZona Rural[1] in Spain.

2.2.2 Institutionaltransformation

The second territorial process is reerred to as institutional transormation. It pur-sues transormations at the level o the central administration, at the local level and in the verti-cal interplays between them (OECD, 2006). According to this multi-level shit, the local agents

are expected to impel and drive any change in their territory. Three drivers help understand thisinstitutional shit.

On the one hand, decentralization has consolidated the transer o competences tosubnational administrations (regional, local authorities) and led to an increase o territorial au-tonomy and the generation o new spaces or policy-making (Ramrez Prez et al., 2007). Yet theterritorial approach should not serve as an alibi to argue the case or transerring the provision opublic goods to sub-national public administration, even less to local governments. Even thoughoutsourcing delivery has become an alternative, such as in case o the Development Trusts inUK (Clark et al., 2007; Zograos, 2007; Di Domenico et al., 2009) or social enterprises (MozasMoral and Bernal Jurado, 2006; Berkes and Davidson-Hunt, 2007), the limited taxing base andhigh costs or delivering public services continues to justiy the fnancial and managerial supportrequired rom central administration (OECD, 2006). In some cases this support rom the centraladministration is inevitable, such as when regulation and oversight mechanisms are required onterritorial issues (Mutersbaugh, 2005). The territorial approach does not remove the need oreither centralised administration or sector policies, but rather makes both o them more evident(Murdoch and Abram, 1998).

[1] According to the Spanish Law 45/2007 or the Sustainable Development o Rural Areas (December 13th).

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

14/68


Among the territorial actors, local government plays a key role (Welch, 2002; Doug-las, 2005). Local authorities usually demand greater responsibilities and resources to carry outterritorial policies, not only economic but also health, education, inrastructure or taxation-re-lated (Pearce et al., 2005). The increase o local autonomy is attached to a broader responsibil-ity in the eective delivery o services. The search or eectiveness drives the constitution o

critical masses among municipalities, in order to generate economies o scale and to exploitthem (OECD, 2006). This is the rationale behind the prolieration o etablissements publicsde cooperation intercommunale in France (Ojeda Garca, 2008) or o the mancomunidadesin Spain as part o the decentralization process. Even though these municipal associations areconsidered to be appropriate institutional ormulas in order to assimilate and manage demandsand goals rom their constituencies (Riera et al., 2005), this does not prevent resistance to suchamalgamation o municipalities during their creation and consolidation (Hall and Stern, 2009).

Finally, a larger engagement o other local actors is taking place by means o par-ticipation and shared decision-making, as a way o actively engaging the rural population in

the transormation o their territory. In this way, a greater interdependence and interrelationamong local actors emerges. In more consolidated experiences it may even lead to cooperationwith agents rom other countries (Ray, 2001). Mechanisms to ensure eective coordination arethus required. An eective co-ordination among local institutions and organizations (horizontalco-ordination) and active involvement o population in the process o decision-making and im-plementation are critical. At the same time, the necessary access to external opportunities andresources (i.e. demand, inormation, decision-making process that inuence the territory) callsor attention on the interplays with exogenous agents (public, private, other partnerships). En-hancing agency ability o local actors oten requires coalitions and interplays with these outsideagents (vertical co-ordination). Vertical interplays are also relevant or dealing with issues that

go beyond the territorial boundaries or that happen at a larger scale beore impacting on theterritory. Frequently, it is assumed that these issues remain limited to environmental concerns(Berkes, 2007a) but also the management o pan-territorial inrastructures and economic spillo-vers or collective action to provide public services entails such vertical interplays.

2.2.3 Crosscuttingissues

Finally, a third type o territorial process relating to crosscutting issues o both pro-ductive and institutional processes can be captured under three guiding ideas: (a) innovation; (b)integrative and multi-sector approach; and (c) territorial competitiveness.

The need or innovation occupies a central place in the territorial approach. Amongthe productive and/or institutional initiatives undertaken by local agents, those containing ahigh degree o positive innovation within the territorial context must be heavily supported, sincerural development will not be orthcoming without radical and proound change in activities andmode o co-operation. Such responses must show coherence with the agreed goals, strategiesand ongoing interventions, while encouraging integrative linkages among local agents and re-sources.

These linkages should reect the whole range o activities and actors in a rural area

shaping its development path, beyond those connected to the primary sector. The institutionalarchitecture ostered by this approach aims to bring together individuals with diverging or even

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

15/68


contradictory interests, but holding a potential to attain yielding interactions. The integrativeand multi-sector nature o these linkages would not only come out rom integrating dierentactivities (entrepreneurship, education, health, inrastructures, governance, environment) intoevery single intervention. It mainly involves the engagement o local actors rom dierent insti-tutional spheres (private, public, voluntary) into joint-actions.

Finally, productive transormation cannot be at the expense o either the depletiono natural resources or an increasing precariousness o the local population assets. Territorialcompetitiveness (Farrel et al., 1999) calls or local entrepreneurs who are able to compete in themarket or to insert themselves into supra-local value-chains while ensuring environmental andsocial sustainability (Sanz Caada and Macas Vzquez, 2005; Gallego Bono, 2009).

2.3 Thepolicyinstrument

This new rural policy emphasizes changes in governance, above all at the local level.

As a common eature o the policy experiences, this approach encourages the generation o acommon perception among the rural inhabitants o the problems, opportunities and desired u-tures or the territory. This cognitive synergy becomes the key issue on the ascendant or bot-tom-up social construction o the territory, ar rom bureaucratic and top-down defnitions oterritorial boundaries. There is thus a need or a mechanism to help local agents articulate andexchange their views and, based on their expectations, build strategies to carry out the produc-tive and institutional transormations.

The privileged instrument to oer this joint-space is a partnership, defned as asystem o ormalised co-operation, grounded in legally binding arrangements or in ormal un-

dertakings, cooperative working relationships and mutually adopted plans among a number oinstitutions (OECD, 2006). This partnership becomes a bedrock or the territorial approach, asit establishes the boundaries o the territory according to the collective claim made by the stake-holders. Basically, the partnership must identiy the challenges acing the territory, trace a seto desirable goals and changes and defne what kind o local responses are to be supported withfnancial incentives. The stakeholders also agree on how responsibilities, costs and benefts areto be shared among them.

The LEADER initiative by the EU has provided one o the signifcant experiencesin this respect (see box). Other examples o this instrument can be ound in the Grupos de De-sarrollo Rural o the PRODER Program in Spain (Plaza Gutirrez, 2005), the Local StrategicPartnership in the UK (Bailey, 2003) or the County Enterprise Boards in Ireland (Moseley et al.,2001).

LEADER:aterritorialpolicyapproachtoruraldevelopment

Among the multiple experiences associated to the territorial approach or rural development,

the LEADER initiative o the European Union represents one o the better-known and widely

studied programmes. Between 1991 and 2006, the LEADER initiative was implemented inthree phases (LEADER, LEADER II and LEADER+), showing a ast territorial expansion across

both leading and lagging rural areas in the EU.

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

16/68


The LEADER method stood or one o the main eatures o this program. This method un-derscored the co-operation across and within public administrations and the private sector,

achieving remarkable impact on the governance o the rural areas. Three elements shaped

this method: a territory or LEADER area; an integrative development strategy based on anendogenous approach and innovative actions; and a local action group (LAG) characterised by

decentralised nancing, co-operation and public-private partnerships. The governance o the

program consisted o a complex multi-tier administrative scheme, which engaged adminis-trative units at dierent levels (European Commission, ministries, regional governments, LAGs

and private and institutional entrepreneurs at the local level) in the denition, implementation,

nancing and evaluation o the initiative.

As main actors or their success accounted its innovative character, though it was inspired byprevious experiences in some advanced EU countries, and the achieved results in many rural

areas despite the relatively limited budget. Ex-post evaluations o the initiative (IR, 2003)highlighted some success actors o this approach; among others: ability to close the gap be-

tween a top-down programme and local needs and aspirations; adaptability to every ruralsocio-economic and governance context, showing responsiveness to small-scale activities andprojects and ostering new avenues or creating added value or synergies between existing

value chains; capacity to bring local actors, administrations and support structures closer to-

gether, by conveying responsibility to local partnerships; ability to mobilize additional eortso committed local actors.

SOURCE: Elaborated rom OECD (2006: 90-94).

Even when no universal normative value should be attributed to particular typeso arrangement (Cleaver, 2002), a set o conditions must be met so that the constitutional and

operational rules o the partnership are both coherent with and unctional to the desired ruralstructural transormations.

First o all, it needs to be recognised that the core o the proposed partnership isbased upon a discursive creation, shaped by the sufciently shared perceptions and aspirationso the local actors and represented by the metaphor o the territory[1]. This defnition o theterritory oers the social construction that should turn into the bedrock o joint action or struc-tural change (Ray, 1999), in this way also guaranteeing the ever-changing reproduction o thediscursive reality o the territory.

For the discursive reality o the territory to be unctional within this new ruralplanning approach, criteria in at least three critical dimensions need to be met. A territory needsto comprise a minimum threshold o agents and population in order to achieve a certain criticalmass, a representative subset o the local human capital (quantitative dimension). It is held tobe advantageous when the territory is relatively homogeneous, i.e. that it shows a considerabledegree o uniormity in terms o economic structure, geography, natural resources and history(qualitative dimension). This makes it easier to shape and manage a coherent development pathor the territory. Finally, the territory should also exhibit a sufcient degree o territorial identity(cohesion), i.e. a shared sense o belonging should prevail among the population.

[1] Thereby the term territorial (or place-based) rural development, in opposition to other rural development ap-proaches, which can work with a multiplicity o actors but without including the territory as a cognitive synergy.

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

17/68


This institutional structure or territorial governance is however not exempt romcriticism. The most requent concern aects its suitability or generating cognitive synergy onthe territory. The partnerships should recognize and provide sensitivity to the multiple discours-es o the various interest groups in the territory (Paniagua, 2009). This is aimed at assimilatingexcluded collectivities into the processes o decision-making and discursive creation about the

territory. In this regard, a frst critique addresses the idea o the participation in terms o assess-ing who is to be considered excluded, why non-participation entails exclusion and what beneftsare to be expected rom participation (Shortall, 2008). Partnerships are criticized as they tendto become elitist and neo-corporativist spaces, lacking in capacity to eectively engage both ex-cluded groups and those economic actors that have a key impact on the local economy (Geddes,2000). An additional issue reers to the political character o these new arenas, even when thelocal actors themselves might not recognize this as a critical issue or community participation(Edwards, 1998). From a political point-o-view, asset endowment and network connectionsimpacts the relative power o actors involved in the negotiated re-elaboration o the rural dis-course. There are evidences o the inuence exerted by local elites (Brunori and Rossi, 2007) and

through the culture o patron-client relationships (Wassenhoven, 2008). Moreover, this politi-cal dimension o the partnership makes the legitimacy o the discourse more reliant on the repre-sentativity o the stakeholders than on their deliberations (Connelly et al., 2006). Nevertheless,it should also be considered that such negotiation power is dynamic and greatly depends on thekind o interplay at stake and the sort o assets required to win in the negotiation (Derkzen etal., 2008). Despite these criticisms, empirical studies show that local agents can also changetheir perception about the implications o these partnerships or the rural territory as they con-solidate. This change is especially remarkable in local governments. From being considered amere tool to obtain fnancial resources or local projects, these organizations become a develop-ment instrument or which new competences are demanded (Esparcia et al., 2000).

2.4 Ruraldevelopmentindevelopmentstudiesandpractice

From the perspective o the development agenda, agriculture and rural develop-ment are key issues or the fght against poverty. In developing countries, 75% o the poorestlive in rural areas and agriculture provides most o the employment opportunities or the poor-est (World Bank, 2007). Shortcomings in the access to basic services (water and sanitation, ed-ucation, health) have the greatest impact on rural populations (World Bank, 2003). The ruralchallenges remain and in some cases have even worsened. Global crises (ood, uel and fnancial)have jeopardized progress towards achieving the MDG, among other sources, by increasing theprices o goods that stand or over 50% o the poorest households expenses, bringing down theexport commodities rom the LDC and reducing remittances ows to LDC (World Bank, 2009).This situation however has not given rise to a signifcant increase in unding rom donors yet, butto the creation o new fnancial instruments (global acilities) that address the lack o liquidity inthe poor countries as a consequence o the global fnancial crisis (G20, 2009). Nevertheless, thisresponse should go beyond the present crisis situation.

While rural areas in general and agriculture in particular have substantially de-creased in importance on the priority list o donors in the 1990s, a renewed interest has emerged

during the last decade. Partnerships have been launched to enhance donors coordination (theInter-Agency Group on Rural Development in 2000 and the Global Donor Platorm or RuralDevelopment in 2004) and eorts have been undertaken to build a joint understanding o the

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

18/68


main rural challenges in developing countries (GDPRD, 2006). Agriculture, rural dynamics andeconomic geography have also returned to the last issues o the World Development Report(World Bank, 2007; World Bank, 2008).

Indeed, the policy agenda or fghting rural poverty has evolved over the last f-

ty years. The priority ocus has shited rom technologically upgrading the agriculture sector,through the in-depth reduction o the presence o public agencies, liberalisation and de-regula-tion o agrarian markets, to the promotion o o-arm economic activities as complementarysources o income, the re-building o public institutionality, including support to local govern-ments and the emergence o new arenas or decision-making (Ellis and Biggs, 2001). New topicshave gained pride o place in this agenda over the past years such as ood availability and im-migrant remittances impact on the livelihoods o rural households. Value-chains insertion andenvironmental services open new sources o employment and income opportunities or ruraleconomic agents. From a broader perspective, growth is back on the agenda. Besides macroeco-nomic stability and considerations on investment and fnancing, regional development and the

political economy o change are also topics at stake (Commission on Growth and Development,2008). While the ormer issue deals with all the evidences on the increase o regional disparitiesbetween rich and lagging areas, the latter stems rom the institutionalist wave o the last twodecades. They bring into discussion the need to improve the eectiveness o sector policies inpoor areas, especially in countries with signifcant market ailures.

The idea o perceiving development rom the perspective o the territory can signif-cantly contribute to the goal o delivering more eective public policies or rural development(De Ferranti et al., 2005). One o the main implications is that governance issues have becomebedrocks in any development intervention at central and above all at local levels. The support

or decentralization and participative approaches in developing countries assumes that local or-ganizations and actors have a better knowledge o the local potentiality and constraints. Policyeectiveness may largely beneft rom their engagement in the policy cycle (design, implemen-tation, monitoring and evaluation).

Developing countries have already gained an all-embracing experience in support-ing community-driven priorities (Kor and Oughton, 2006). For example, a large proportion o

social unds projects carried out by multilateral institutions and development organizationshave ollowed the so-called community-based or community-driven approaches (Mayo, 1958;Summers, 1986; Dahl-stergaard, 2003; Mansuri and Rao, 2004). Partly based on these ap-

proaches and the evidence rom the theoretical and strategic shits observed in rural develop-ment interventions (Berdegu et al., 2003; Richards, 2004; Schmitt and Benasayag, 2006), thediscourse on rural policy in Latin America is being reelaborated since about a decade ago (PrezCorrea, 2001; Seplveda et al., 2003; Romero Rodrguez and Ferrero, 2004; Schejtman and Ber-degu, 2004; Benedetto, 2006; Llamb Insua and Prez Correa, 2007; Kay, 2008). In this LatinAmerican perspective, the territorial approach not only aims at reducing regional inequalitiesor stirring economic or institutional transormations in rural areas. The fght against poverty isset at the centre stage, thereby broadening the rural policy agenda that prevails in developedcountries (Echeverri Perico and Ribero, 2002; De Janvry and Sadoulet, 2004; Schejtman andBerdegu, 2004; Berdegu and Schejtman, 2008).

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

19/68


This broadening o goals brings a number o context-specifc issues into discussionwhich might raise undamental doubts about the suitability o the territorial approach in LatinAmerican countries. In some o these countries, there still persist severe open and conictiveissues that oer a strong legitimacy to revindicative rural-based social movements, in particulararound access to land (Caldeira, 2008) or indigenous identity and rights (Yashar, 1998; Hooker,

2005). Severe inequalities and pervasive social conicts provoke social movements to directpriority attention towards negative sum, redistributive questions rather than towards poten-tial positive sum generation o additional growth or new economic opportunities (Bebbingtonet al., 2008).

Other topics could also hinder the eectiveness o the approach; among others, theactual urban demand or rural commodities and non-commodities, weak state legitimacy ei-ther at national or local level , the lack o robustness o the institutional architecture or thepoor record o the accumulated experience with the community development approach (Am-brosio-Albal, 2007). Concerning the institutional architecture, in such contexts decentraliza-

tion should clearly not be seen as a panacea. Risks o local government capture by local interestgroups and elites are high (Bardhan and Mookherjee, 2000; Bardhan, 2002), so is the eventual-ity o ailing to identiy economies o scale or delivering public services or to deal with regionalspill over. Central governments have to play a major role in the design, regulation and coordina-tion o territorial development policies (De Ferranti et al., 2005). In the EU experience, partner-ships actually do not emerge rom the grassroots as the upper levels o the public administrationdetermine both the undamental incentives and the working rules (Shortall, 2004).

Besides these cautions, some aspects o the territorial approach or poverty reduc-tion have been tested through community-development interventions. Some assessments

criticize the eectiveness o the participatory approach to eectively target the poorest, thelack o clear evidence on the causal link between the interventions dynamics and the outcomesas well as the strong external inuence on such outcomes (Mansuri and Rao, 2004). Other cri-tiques on the inuence o elites in collective action and outcomes are not conclusive. On the onehand, some sources draw attention to the heterogeneity o collective interests as well as to thepossession o available skills and the access to resources and spaces allowing to take part indecision-making (Bhattacharyya, 2007). Resistance rom local elites to political decentraliza-tion and even the capture o local social movements can burden such participatory processes(Schnwlder, 1997). On the other hand, in some cases no relationships have been ound be-tween communitys capacity or collective action, elite control over project decisions and elite

capture o project benefts (Dasgupta and Beard, 2007). A distinction between benevolentand pernicious elites is then likely to be important or understanding project dynamics andoutcomes (Mansuri and Rao, 2004). Also highlighted is the need or a shared perception o in-terdependence among those agents involved in order or the collective action to be eective(Beard and Dasgupta, 2006).

In spite o the critiques, the territorial approach seems to be attaining increasingrecognition or working in rural areas (Soto Baquero et al., 2007). In a working feld that cov-ers such a diversity o topics, its main contribution might be precisely to provide a strategy tohelp rural change occur. The approach aims at developing local capacities to overcome ruraldisadvantages, by ostering a broad visualization o rural potentialities that are not restrictedto primary activities. It encourages experimentation and innovation in local responses. It also

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

20/68


underlines the importance o how local actors interrelate among themselves and interact withexternal agents. In its essence, it entails a dierent perspective on the strategic management orural territories, by which local actors take a larger responsibility to tackle external changes anda greater control on the development path o their territories. Perhaps this managerial approachis not being ully grasped by the assessment exercises o the interventions. New considerations

on the structural and systemic outcomes should be taken into consideration. This is the basicassumption o this paper. The ollowing discussion will explore some pathways where such out-comes could emerge.

Our argument is inspired by two broad theoretical perspectives: complexity think-ing and institutionalism. The discussion is organised in our sections. First, we deal with our ob-ject o intervention: the rural territory as a socio-ecological system which eatures complexinteractions between human action and natural resources. Second, we introduce the temporaldimension and reect upon the dynamic nature o the territorial system. While some generalevolutionary patterns will be identifed, we argue that deterministic approaches are to be avoid-

ed. Third, we consider the spatial dimension. Even when rural territories inevitably require somedelineation o boundaries in order to operationally unction as objects o intervention, they mustat the same time be conceptualised as open systems in interaction with broader systems. In-deed, both bottom-up (rom the territory towards the outside) and top-down (rom the outsideinto the territory) inuences are oten critical drivers o change. And ourth, attention is directedtowards the local agents, which play a key role as the main drivers o endogenous changes in theterritory.

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

21/68


3. objeCT:TheruralTerrIToryasaComPlexsysTem

Rural studies have broadened their ocus rom merely technical and economic agrar-ian issues to a wider array o topics, inspired by disciplines such as sociology, politics, anthro-

pology, ecology and history. This shit has brought rural studies closer to a multi-disciplinaryapproach, attempting to characterize the multiple actors that aect social, institutional andeconomic dynamics in rural areas as well as their mutual interrelations.

The growing success o such a multi-disciplinary approach reects an increasinglyshared intuition concerning singularities o rural areas that cannot be ully captured by meanso mono-disciplinary analysis. Among these singularities, rural areas can be conceived as rela-tively isolated areas away rom more dynamic centres o activity and yet highly sensitive to mod-ernization dynamics rom urban areas. These rural areas usually set aside rom centres o deci-sion-making, with economic and social structures closely dependent on agrarian activity as wellas a social and economic heterogeneity which is not always sufciently taken into account. Also,some specifc rigidities and shortcomings appear to be quite common in such areas, in particulara kind o collective sense o permanent crisis related to decades o macro-economic discrimina-tion and political neglect, oten translated in a certain degree o atalistic determinism in thevision o the uture and an aected exaltation o external as compared to endogenous actors osuccess in development (Woodward, 1996; Cruickshank, 2009).

A traditional, narrow understanding o disciplinary methodological rigour has com-pelled many scholars to make abstraction o a number o potentially relevant actors and therebyelaborating models o understanding that are only valid under very restricted circumstances. Onthose occassions where systemic assessments o rural development were attempted (Bontkes,1993; Vanclay et al., 2003a; Vanclay et al., 2003b; Jamal et al., 2004; Johnson et al., 2008),they have requently relied on the assumptions o general systems theory and systems dynam-ics (von Bertalany, 1968; Forrester, 1961). These approaches assume that systems are shapedby static entities linked by linear relationships; that these relationships are defned by ows andstocks, emphasizing the quantities o ows; and that systems exist in equilibrium, thus denyingthe need to examine changing dynamic and non-linear interactions and relationships (Tweeten,1974; Manson, 2001).

Operationalizing the multi-disciplinary intuition in rural analysis is also handi-capped by restricted concepts and tools provided by the separate disciplines. Even though multi-disciplinary approaches tend to be very common in dealing with the multidimensional reality,they oten just result in a simple addition o mono-disciplinary analysis around such a multi-aceted research object. In a similar way, the rural territory and its interacting socio-ecologicalsystems have traditionally been assessed as a mere sum o its constituent parts and subsystems,dealt with in an additive multi- rather than inter-disciplinary manner or lack o analytical cat-egories and conceptual tools to comprehend rural territory rom a holistic perspective (Beaulieu,2005; Krannich, 2008; Wiek and Walter, 2009). A more integrated interdisciplinary analysis isthus required yet without rejecting the contributions o single disciplines (Redman et al., 2004;

Jansen, 2009). It is here that the feld o complexity sciences provides a promising ontologicalapproach to build a ramework o analysis or rural areas.

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

22/68


3.1 Complexityandcomplexsystems

Complexity science studies how the interrelations o parts o a system give rise tothe emergent collective behaviour o the system and how the system interacts with its envi-ronment (Prigogine, 1987; Kauman, 1993; Waldrop, 1992; Sardar y Ravetz, 1994; Funtowicz &

Ravetz, 1994; Levin, 2005). This new feld o science ocuses on the complex interactions be-tween parts and wholes, relationships and eedback mechanisms.

In order to deal with complexity, eorts are required to comprehensively and sys-temically come to grips with reality as an ever-changing whole. In complexity theory, empiricist-positivist rationality and linear thinking, which are common in disciplinary approaches inspiredby the exact (agronomic) sciences, economics and even other social sciences, are challenged. Ocourse, the application o scientifc method aims to generate knowledge that relates the realworld (natural and social systems) to the world o ideas (representation). Oten, scientists try tocode the ormer into ormal systems and to improve their reliability by successive modifcations.

Yet the insights rom complexity science indicate that a ormal system will never be able to ullycapture the real world due to the complex dynamic nature o the real world and its intrinsicallyunpredictable outcomes (Flood, 1999). Morin (2005) argues that misrepresentations in scienti-ic knowledge are not a matter o erroneous perceptions or shaky logic, but rather ollow rom theway in which knowledge about reality is typically organised in systems o ideas. Deterministicand linear causality-based models have long prevailed, and continue to dominate, both in natu-ral and social sciences. Positivist and Newtonian paradigms have impelled towards determinismand reductionism, making also believe that simple, oreseeable and linear phenomena prevail innature and the human world. As a consequence o that, scientifc mental models are limited intheir capacity to elaborate more appropriate cognitive and theoretical rameworks in order to

represent the structure and dynamics o the real world. Given that every experience is inormedby theory (Hanson, 1958), a theory based on reductionist knowledge and partial inormationlogically generates incorrect actions (Holling, 1997).

Following complexity theory, path dependency, eedbacks and unpredictability areundamental eatures o the real world. These phenomena stem rom the nature o interrela-tions among the parts o a system. Complex systems are shaped by a multiplicity o independentelements interacting with each other in such a way that they bring about collective behavioursthat cannot be simply inerred rom the individual behaviour o these elements but only throughtheir interrelations (Waldrop, 1992; Bar-Yam, 2003). Consequently, analysis o the behaviour oa complex system should highlight the interrelations o the constituent parts, rather than theirindividual behaviour. From this perspective, a rural area is not shaped, inter alia, by individuals,armers, roads, traditions, local governments or orests (as the constituting cells o the ruralarea), but rather by the continuous interactions among all these elements and other exogenouselements. In the complexity perspective, unlike in the cybernetic paradigm o system dynam-ics (Forrester, 1961), there are no longer clear-cut and unequivocal mechanical cause-eect re-lationships between the constituting parts o a system. The complex, non-linear interactionsamong them determine the nature o the system and its emerging evolutionary outcomes. Thussuch interactions, and not only the elements in themselves, have to become the object o study.

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

23/68


According to a complexity approach, the collective behaviour o complex systemsshould be explained by the nature o these interplays (Prigogine, 1987; Goldstein, 1999). First,elements are mutually interrelated and their unctions within the system draw on the interplayswith other elements. Interrelations are not only direct and in one single-orward direction. Short-range interplays between two elements aect the rest o the system. Multiple interrelations

and back loops may occur. Second, interrelations are non-linear. Back loops may change thebehaviour o an element. Given that the eedbacks may be either positive or negative, repeatedinterplays may bring about dierent outcomes. More than one path o change can appear (adap-tive non-linear inuences). Third, the intensity o the changes and their evolution depend on theinitial conditions o the system and so do the state o the elements and their current interrela-tions (hysteresis). As a consequence o this, the behaviour o the system is reliant on the previousinterrelations and hence history matters (path dependency). And ourth, it is difcult to defnethe boundaries o the system (open system, seemingly non-reductionist perspective). Given thatinterrelations within the system are non-linear and interactions with elements beyond theirlimits are constant, it is not possible to anticipate their uture evolution (nondeterministic).

These eatures explain two undamental mechanisms o complex systems: emer-gence and sel-organization. Non-linear interplays generate outputs whose properties havenothing in common with those o their constituting elements taken individually. The appearanceo this novel output is known as emergence. This emergence gives rise to structures, patternswhich respond to the internal logic o the system (Haan, 2006). These patterns are outcomes osel-organization, the tendency or small eects o bilateral interrelations to become magnifedwhen conditions are right, instead o dying away (Waldrop, 1992). This replication and amplif-cation o the interplays are based on the mechanism o positive eedbacks (Arthur, 1989; 1994).This sel-reinorcement brings about some sort o spontaneous order, the novel output. The

economy is a sel-organizing system; individual decisions o buying and selling organize the mar-ket structures in a spontaneous way (Krugman, 1997; Ball, 2005; Martin and Sunley, 2007).

However this novel output is neither stable nor tends to equilibrium. Given that itis an open system, small perturbations received by any element may provoke changes in inter-plays. Non-linearity and hysteresis make the system sel-organize in a dierent way and producenew emergent states. Thus variety and novelty in a systems behaviour is unpredictable (Flood,1999) and seemingly chaotic. In eect, this dynamic behaviour traces a continuum o states ostability (attractors), a pathway o emergent outputs that result rom dierent confgurations othe system (processes o sel-organization). That continuum sets aside the idea o a long-endur-ing and single equilibrium towards which the system tends to move, while it reinorces changeand adaptation as the undamental eatures o complex systems.

These concepts o emergence, sel-organization and attractors point out that sys-tems are permanently aected by perturbations. These impact on the elements, modiy theirinteractions and make the system evolve across states o stability. This transition is ar rombeing an abnormality. While permanently receiving impacts, this transition represents the natu-ral evolution o every system in order to endure. In accordance with the existing conditions othe system and/or the intensity o the shocks/crises, the system can either move towards newstates or get trapped in a certain state. To explain such situations, the metaphor o the land-scapes o stability is used.

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

24/68


3.2 Perturbationsandstatesofstability

Assuming that a system can be represented by a set o variables, we can defne theollowing (Walker et al., 2002; 2004):

a state o the system as one possible combination o all dierent values o the

variables that constitute the system; the state spaces or confguration as the whole set o easible combinations

o states; an attractor or regime as one state o stability towards which the system tends to

move; a basin o attraction or stability domain as the region o state spaces where the

system tends to remain. A basin o attraction represents all possible confgura-tions o variables around an attractor. In the real world, systems are continu-ously bueted by shocks, disturbances and the decisions made by the individuals.Those actors can induce a system to move away rom a given attractor towards a

new one, changing towards a new basin o attraction. For any given system, there may be more than one basin o attraction. The limit

between two basins o attraction will be termed a threshold. The set o basins o attraction that a system may occupy as well as the thresh-

olds that constitute the boundaries between basins are called the stability land-scape.

Figure 1: Perturbations, states o stability and basins o attraction

(a) Stability landscape and basin o attractions (b) Changes in the basins o attraction

Attractor 1

Attractor 2

Basin of attraction 1 Basin of attraction 2

ThresholdThreshold Threshold

Attractor 1'

Attractor 2'

Basin of attraction 1' Basin of attraction 2'

(c) Eect o perturbations over the system and basins changes (i) (d) Eect o perturbations over the system and basins changes (ii)



SOURCE: own elaboration, based on Walker et al. (2004).

The mechanism o change o a system can be explained in terms o transition along

basins o attraction. In terms o ideal-types, it may be graphically represented by means o two-dimensional stability landscapes (Figure 1(a)). The valleys represent basins o attractions and

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

25/68


the discontinuous lines are the thresholds. A basin o attraction contains the set o states thatserve as initial conditions that will tend toward an equilibrium state (Walker et al., 2004).Such state is located at the bottom o the valley, as a stability state or the system. Every basin isdelimited by thresholds values. Endogenous changes in the system and the inuence o externalactors shape the scenario o valleys within which the system moves. A change in the conditions

may entail certain shits in the system, but cause no immediate eect in the prevailing state ostability (Figure 1(b)). However, the accumulation o many tiny impacts may provoke changes inthe landscape that at one point can generate a undamental alteration o the state o stabilitytowards which the system moves (e.g. rom attractor 1 to attractor 2). These changes can thenmake the system to move beyond a threshold and gravitate towards a new basin o attraction(Figure 1(c)). In this situation, the system becomes highly vulnerable to any perturbation. Onceit occurs, the system exceeds the threshold and goes into a new basin o attraction (Figure 1(d)).As is graphically shown, the depth o the basin is a proxy o the eorts needed to move the sys-tem rom one to another state. The deeper the basin, the larger the eorts required.

Given that changes and perturbations continuously aect a system, the main im-plication is that a system does not move towards a single and stable equilibrium but transitsacross many stability states. The ability o the system to undertake this transition leads the keyidea o resilience and the ability o a complex system to recover rom random perturbations andshocks.

3.3 Movingtowardsnewstabilitystatesandenduring:

resilienceandadaptation

In ecology studies, the term resilience was coined by C.S. Holling as a measure

o the ability o [an ecological system] to absorb changes o state variables and parameters, andstill persist (Holling, 1973). Since this seminal contribution, resilience has been indistinctlyused to term the amount o perturbation that the ecosystem can bear without distorting itsunctions and structures, the degree to which one system is able to sel-organize as well asthe ability o the system to learn and adapt (Walker et al., 2002). Other defnitions reer to thespeed o recovery o the system once the perturbation ceases and the exogenous ability to helprecovering the system (Anderies et al., 2004). Two undamental issues related to resilience arethe sel-organization ability o the system (Abel et al., 2006) and the critical role o agents andorganizations or the governance o the system (Olsson et al., 2006). In social systems, the termcan also be used or the ability o the agents to cope and recover rom perturbations resultingrom social and political changes and crisis (Adger, 2000). This is not necessarily positive since adictatorship or a highly unequal stratifed social system (e.g. the Indian caste system) can alsodevelop the mechanisms needed to be resilient (Mubarak, 1997). So that the management othe resilience entails ability in the agents either to make the system remain in a given basin oattraction or to move it into another more desirable basin [1]. For the purpose o this paper, theterm resilience will be reerred to as the systems ability to absorb perturbations and to sel-organize to endure[2].

[1] In the latter case, adaptation can be carried out in two ways: (i) making the system cross the threshold (moveinto another basin, go ar rom an undesired attractor); (ii) making a threshold cross the system changing the basin,

by infuencing the (external) conditions that dene the scenario where the system operates. Moving across other pan-archys scales and levels above and below is critical or that.

[2] For a urther discussion on the resilience concept applied to regional economics, see Chistopherson et al. (2010).

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

26/68


Figure 2: Resilience dimensions in a bi-dimensional basin o attraction

L

R Pr

Attractor 1

Basin of attraction 1

SOURCE: own elaboration, based on Walker et al. (2004).

Resilience can be broken up into our critical dimensions (Figure 2). The frst one isthe largest amount o perturbations that a system can bear beore completely losing its abilityto recover (latitude). The loss o this ability is linked to the moment in which the system steps

over a threshold, complicating and even hindering the recovery o the system, that is, its tran-sition to a dierent state o stability. The larger the breadth o the basin o attraction (L), thelarger the set o stability states a system can experiment without stepping over the thresholds.Second is the ease or difculty to change the state o the system (resistance). It is representedby the depth o the basin o attraction (R) or, more precisely, by the ratio R/L. The deeper thebasin, the more eorts or changes will be needed to move the system away rom the attractor.Third is the proximity o the system to a limit or a threshold (precariousness). The larger theprecariousness (1/Pr, or Pr closer to the threshold), the larger the emergency is to introducechanges in the system, assuming that changes in the basin o attraction are not desirable. Andourth, the inuence exerted by another system (either located outside within a higher scale, or

inside o the system). This issue will arise again once the idea o panarchy is presented.

3.4 Implicationsforruralterritories

3.4.1 Ruralterritoryasacomplexsocial-ecologicalsystem

We have conceived rural areas as relatively isolated areas, set aside rom the cen-tres o decision-making, economically and socially heterogeneous, largely dependent on naturalresources (mainly through agrarian activity), highly sensitive to exogenous modernization dy-namics through linkages with urban areas, oten with a kind o collective sense o lasting crisis

and a deterministic and atalistic vision o the uture.

Theoretically, rural territories can be conceived as complex systems, and as suchas open social systems that exchange resources and inormation with each other and their envi-ronment, and that continually create new structures and order (Ramalingam et al., 2008). Theintensity o these exchanges challenges the artifcial division between rural and urban areas,making the idea o a rural-urban continuum more appealing (Tacoli, 1998; 2003). Commerciallinkages, migration and remittances, second residence and leisure activities are among the owsthat orm the rural-urban linkages (Bendavid-Val, 1989; Douglass, 1998; Bah et al., 2003). In-termediate cities (Trager, 1988; Bolay and Rabinovich, 2004; Satterthwaite and Taccoli, 2003;Caravaca et al., 2007) play a critical role in the emergence and acilitation o these ows.

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

27/68


Rural areas are a specifc type o complex system: a social-ecological system (SES)shaped by the relationships between ecological and human subsystems. Anderies et al. (2004)defne a SES as a subset o social systems in which some o the interdependent relationshipsamong humans are mediated through interactions with biophysical and non-human biologicalunits. In a wider sense, a rural territory can be conceived as a SES shaped by both social and

ecological subsystems in interaction. The survival o the ormer heavily depends on its inter-relations with the later; patterns o settlement and exploitation reect the human action ex-erted over the environment and natural resources, just like water stocks, mining resources orbiodiversity, among multiple circumstances, condition the living and productive strategies othe population.

3.4.2 Perturbationsandstatesofstabilityinruralareas

Far rom being a static reality, however, rural areas are permanently aected byperturbations and shocks o various types.

In the case o the ecological subsystem, these are mostly related to natural events(oods, droughts, earthquakes, climate change) and other underlying processes that take longerto make themselves elt (loss o biodiversity, depletion o water resources, species extinction ornatural soil improvements/degradation). In spite o the close relationship between the humanand ecological subsystems o a SES, an eventual collapse o the ecological subset does not auto-matically involve the loss o resilience within the system as a whole or within the human subset(Anderies et al., 2004). O course, certain human subsets may be more sensitive to ecologicalshocks, in particular those who are dependent on one particular resource or ecosystem (Adger,2000).

Perturbations also relate to the social subsystem. Some o them are unexpectedand abrupt (epidemic outbreaks, violent demonstrations, civil conicts), aect basic needs (oodcrises, illiteracy), change the livelihood strategies o the population (migration, unemployment),shape economic activity (hyperination, changes in prices o commodities, taxation, trade bar-riers) or fnd their origin in socio-political issues (shits in political regimes, corruption). Altera-tions do not only involve negative eects. Communication and transport networks, agrariansubsidies, trade barriers, incentives or economic diversifcation or biodiversity conservation,relations between government agencies and local associations, may all aect the opportunitiesand constraints or the rural population.

These can be related to the livelihood conditions o the population; to the abilityo the local entrepreneurs to launch and develop their businesses, to access new markets or toupgrade their arms; or to the capacity o local authorities or designing their own ormal insti-tutional rameworks, to tax incomes or to regulate activities, land use and the exploitation oother natural resources. The amount o stability states will decrease when any o these changeseventually reduce the amount o possible values or the variables o the system (increasing theconstraints or reducing the opportunities or change). This then makes the basin o attractiondeeper, thereby leading to the collapse o the system under its current confguration; that is,considering the variables that at this time shape the system.

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

28/68


3.4.3 Copingwithperturbationsinruralareas

The human subset plays a critical role within a SES. Unlike the constituents o theecological subsystems, humans are interpretive beings who can conront the rules and lawsthat aect their behaviour, and who may wish to change them (Stacey, 1996; quoted by Flood,

1999). Wherever a human subset is present, perturbations or shocks may thereore be counter-vailed by means o deliberate action.

In a SES, resilience cannot be detached rom the lived realities o the people. Theserealities defne the set o livelihoods aected by the crisis and perturbations, which at an ag-gregate level impact on the rural area. Dierent realities bring about dierent perceptions othe relevant variables and thresholds in the system as well as dierent perceptions o the de-sired states o stability (Osbahr and Boyd, 2007). Thus resilience is a subjective concept. Fourdimensions are proposed to help operationalize it. Managing resilience entails acting upon anyo these dimensions (Folke et al., 2004; Walker, 2005).

Firstly, the capacity to increase (reduce) the range o values or the variables o thesystem, i.e. to alter the number o stability states (latitude). One o the main concerns in rural ar-eas relates to the extent to which the productive strategies o the producers ft into sustainablepatterns; that is, accommodate to the range o stability states provided by the capacity burdeno the ecological subsystem (Bradley and Grainger, 2004). From the perspective o mono-activ-ity or economic depressed areas, seizing idle endogenous resources may require the generationo knowledge about income alternatives based on those assets and the diversifcation o territo-rial economy (Simmie and Martin, 2010).

Secondly, the capacity to modiy the difculty (ease) o changing the system (resist-ance), i.e. to change the values o the variables o the system. Since we are dealing with humanactors as interpretative beings, slow-changing variables such as identity, mental models andprejudices play a key role in the resistance to or the support or certain pathways o change. Peo-ple may have diverging opinions on the most appropriate regime to cope with the resilience othe system. Dierences in power and resources condition their voice, i.e. their ability to maketheir views prevail (Redman et al., 2004). The resistance dimension can be improved by guar-anteeing a more equitable distribution o gains and costs among groups, prompting social at-titudes avourable towards novelty or encouraging mobility. The migrants may indeed work aschannels o innovation or their communities, though they have been considered as a loss opotentiality or rural areas (Bjarnason and Thorlindsson, 2006; Stockdale, 2006).

Thirdly, the capacity to drive the pathway o the system by moving it ar rom (closerto) thresholds (precariousness). The precariousness dimension gives a sense o promptness toundertake changes and can be tackled through changes in consumption and productive pat-terns, social conict resolution or by modifcations in the regulatory ramework. Because o in-tense rural-urban migration, depopulation threatens the potentiality o rural human capital, inparticular when most o the emigrants are young and skilled. Fostering competitive advantagesshould not lead a rural territory to privilege mono-activity (similar to those areas dependenton large industrial actories: mining, energetic resources, naval industries). Just as in the caseo mono-crop arming in the ace o alling prices, such territorial rigidities make adjustments,when needed, more costly. Regarding the ecological subsystem, technological innovations and

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

29/68


more sustainable patterns o production, consumption and settlement may reduce the pressureexerted by human agents.

Finally, the capacity to be present at other levels and scales to make changes hap-pen (not happen) in the system (panarchy). This panarchy dimension is closely related to the

creation o new scales, levels and interplays. Appropriate actions to this end are political de-centralization, multi-level approaches or policy-making, enhanced access o local agents todecision-making processes in upper levels or a greater sensitivity to innovation eorts in lowerlevels o the panarchy. This dimension will be urther developed in the ollowing sections.

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

30/68


4. TIme:evoluTIvePaTTernsInsoCIal-eCologICalsysTems

The second key element o the proposal is related to the dynamic nature o the ter-ritorial processes. In spite o the apparently chaotic transition across states o stability sug-gested by the previous argumentation, i a larger temporal scale or this transition is taken into

account, a SES may show recurrent patterns o evolution. Contributions made by D.C. Northand C.S. Holling will be considered to help represent these patterns. The ormer explains eco-nomic development in social systems (generation o potentiality) as the outcome o institutionalchange. The latter devises the metaphor o adaptive cycles to propose an ideal-type evolutiono a complex system.

4.1 Evolutionasaresultofchanginginstitutions

North (1990) explains economic development in societies as an outcome o institu-tional change resulting rom competing institutions. As exchanges among individuals progres-sively shit rom personal to enorced impersonal exchanges, the governing rules have to evolve.Steady increases in productivity are acquired by a progressive reduction o transormationalcosts ollowed by diminishing transaction costs involved in exchange (Bastiaensen et al., 2002).

The process o wealth creation entails an increasing number and complexity oexchanges and social interactions among the agents o a social system. This requires a con-comitant evolution o institutions, i.e. the norms that govern exchanges and relations o anykind among individuals within a society. They limit contingencies and induce certain patterns obehaviour, becoming sources o stability or individuals, especially when they ace increasinglycomplex exchanges.

The slow process o institutionalization o norms and rules in a society guaranteessecurity and certainty or those exchanges. External sources can play a catalytic role in institu-tional change: oreign investments can broaden the employment options; aid organizations canprovide incentives to develop collective action or productive or policy purposes; local govern-ments may be orced to improve management and increase local taxes when central transersare reduced and more responsibilities denied by the central administration; returned emigrantsmay wish to set up businesses or introduce new technologies inspired by their experiencesabroad. Existing institutions can gradually become obsolete, as they provoke changes in the

structure o incentives and preerences o the agents: due to expanding employment opportuni-ties, traditional occupations may suddenly lack the necessary labour orce and be obliged to o-er higher salaries or better hiring conditions; empowered collectivities may demand new rightsand more voice in political processes; organized producers can better negotiate the input pricesrom providers or undertake larger investments; greater responsibility over their fnances mayimpose upon the municipalities new constraints on the local expenditures and demand moreaccountability on taxing decisions. In an open social system, changes in these structures con-stantly occur.

Theoretically, old institutions will be replaced by others that urther reduce uncer-

tainty, provide more gains and reduce losses. From this perspective, the most efcient rame-work would seem to prevail. However, the process also establishes a seed or social rigidities.

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

31/68


In many societies the institutional ramework might hinder change. This can be due to the in-creasing return to existing norms and the need or their progressive institutionalization (Arthur,1989); the prevalence o relative gains and losses among dierent groups o individuals (Bard-han, 2001); the persistence o status quo due to the power o vested interests (Bardhan, 2001);or the weight o inherited perceptions (Bastiaensen et al., 2002) and cognitive limitations to

conceive alternatives to current institutional ramework (Dimaggio and Powell, 1991), as well asthe public good character o the process o institutional change in itsel.

4.2 Evolutionasrecursivepattern

Studies o dynamics in complex systems show some regular patterns in their evo-lution (Holling, 2001; Beisner et al., 2003). These regular or recurrent patterns suggest that acomplex system needs change and evolution to endure.

In order to make these dynamics o a complex system intelligible, one needs ap-

propriate units o analysis. First, a complex system is a static concept. Thus to consider thisevolutionary and dynamic character within it, the idea o adaptive cycle (Holling, 2001) will beassumed. Both complex system and adaptive cycle reer to the same reality but, respectively,rom static and dynamic perspectives. An adaptive cycle is ormed by stages. Every one o thesestages is associated to dierent states in a complex system, considering a state as a combina-tion o their defning variables and dierent degrees o potentiality, internal controllability andresilience. These three emergent eatures shape uture and easible states o a SES. Potentialityis the wealth o the system, the potential array o assets that is available or change as theydetermine the range o uture options possible. Internal controllability reers to the degree oconnectedness between internal controlling variables and processes. Resilience is a measureo its vulnerability to unexpected or unpredictable shocks () can be thought o as the oppositeo the vulnerability o the system (Holling, 2001).

4.2.1 Stagesintheadaptivecycle

Within an adaptive cycle, our undamental stages can be defned (Holling, 2001;Walker et al., 2002). A frst stage o rapid growth and exploitation o the systems potentialityappears (stage r), ollowed by a lengthy phase o accumulation o resources and potentiality,monopolization and conservation o the systems structure (stage K) [1]. In both stages, a ten-dency to maintain this structure can be observed, hence allowing this phase o accumulation.This conservative tendency also stimulates the accumulation o rigidities in the system, whichbecomes more vulnerable to any change or alteration. The ollowing phase (stage OMEGA) rep-resents a sudden break in the growth stage, releasing the accumulated potential during a situ-ation o creative destruction. The cycle concludes with a relatively short phase o renovationand reorganization o the systems structure (stage ALPHA), giving rise to a new phase o ac-cumulation (r) and a new cycle. Figure 3(a) and 3(b) shows the usual way o representing theseour stages in the adaptive cycle

[1] The name o these stages stems rom ecology studies: r rom the rate o growth o a population, and K rom thecarrying capacity o a population.

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

32/68


Figure 3: Ideal representation o an adaptive cycle

(a) Bi-dimensional (b) Three-dimensional

SOURCE: Holling (2001). Arrows show the speed o changes: discontinuous arrows indicate ast change; continuous arrows indicate slow

change.

On a bi-dimensional basis, the our basic stages are shown as a continuum o states,combining dierent values o internal controllability (or connectedness) and potential. The di-erent lengths o every stage are represented according to the arrow type: aster stages (shortertime) by continuous arrow, slower stages (longer time) by discontinuous arrow. The inclusion othe third eature (resilience) needs a three-dimensional representation, as shown in Figure 3(b).

As shown in fgure 3.b. (bottom-right), the resilience o a system is a changing ea-

ture. It expands and shrinks across the dierent stages o the adaptive cycle. For a better visuali-zation, this ideal three-dimensional representation o the cycle can be split up urther into threeree-hand drawn graphs: internal controllability (Figure 4), potentiality (Figure 5) and resilience(Figure 6).

Figure 4: Ideal evolution o internal controllability within an adaptive cycle

Internalcontrollability

Time

!" !" r'

weak

strong

r K

reor

ganisation

cons

ervation

exploitatio

n

releas

e

8/7/2019 DP_2010_IOB

33/68


Figure 5: Ideal evolution o potentiality within an adaptive cycle

Potentiality

Time

!" !" r'

low

high

r K

Figure 6: Ideal evolution o resilience within an adaptive cycle

Resilience

Time

r K !" !" r'

low

high

Dividing lines between stages are merely indicative. The our stages may be associ-ated to two basic dynamics o the system: a orward, expansive and proactive dynamic (stager to stage K) and a back loop, recessive and retroactive dynamic (stage OMEGA to stage AL-PHA).

The orward dynamic begins with a steady accumulation and transormation o theassets o the system (r-stage). As these assets transorm, potentiality and efciency accumu-late. The connections between key variables and endogenous processes (internal controllability)increase, and hence the governance o the system is reinorced as it becomes more productive.This increasing connectedness involves a greater stability within the system, which becomesmore predictable. However, a higher connectedness also reects an increasing monopolizationo critical assets in just a ew expropriators or key controllers, even when a wide variety ocompetitors may exist. In other words, the production o assets increases the potentiality o thesystem, at the expense o increasing internal controllability, stability and monopolization.

Date post:	08-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	andrew-speedy
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

DP_2010_IOB

Documents