LOCAL DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES AS PROMOTERS OF SOCIAL INNOVATION: EVIDENCE FROM TWO EUROPEAN RURAL REGIONS

Marina Novikova, Maria de Fátima Ferreiro, Tadeusz Stryjakiewicz LOCAL DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES AS PROMOTERS OF SOCIAL INNOVATION: EVIDENCE FROM TWO EUROPEAN... QUAESTIONES GEOGRAPHICAE 39(2) • 2020 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES AS PROMOTERS OF SOCIAL INNOVATION: EVIDENCE FROM TWO EUROPEAN RURAL REGIONS Marina Novikova , Maria de Fátima Ferreiro 1 , Tadeusz Stryjakiewicz 1 2 DINÂMIA’CET-IUL – Centre for Socioeconomic and Territorial Studies, University Institute of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal 2 Institute of Socio-Economic Geography and Spatial Management, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland 1 Manuscript received: January 15, 2020 Revised version: April 5, 2020 Novikova M., de Fátima Ferreiro M., Stryjakiewicz T., 2020. Local development initiatives as promoters of social innovation: Evidence from two European rural regions. Quaestiones Geographicae 39(2), Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Poznań, pp. 43–53. 1 fig. Abstract: Social innovation entered the academic discourse several decades ago and has since been seen as a way of tackling existing problems in various contexts. Although an extensive body of research has been conducted into the role of social innovation in urban context, there is still a gap when it comes to studying the role of social innovation in the development of rural areas. In this paper, an attempt is made to look at the role of Local Action Groups (LAGs) and Local Development Associations (LDAs) as promoters of social innovation in rural areas in Austria and Portugal, aiming to understand the role of such organisations and the challenges faced by the latter in promoting social innovation. Keywords: social innovation, local action groups, local development associations, rural regions, Austria, Portugal Corresponding author: Marina Novikova, ISCTE-Instituto Universitario de Lisboa, Avenida das Forças Armadas, 1649-026 Lisbon; e-mail: Introduction According to Eurostat, more than half (as for 2012) of the land area in the European Union is within regions classified as being predominantly rural1 (Eurostat 2016). Such areas are often characterised by issues of depopulation (Margaras 1 According to the European Commission (2014), rural is considered to be an area where more than 50% of the population live in rural grid cells. Eurostat gives an explanation in which NUTS III regions are classified as ‘predominantly rural’ if the share of the population living in rural areas is higher than 50%. 2019), weak economic performance (Dax, Fisher 2018) and large physical distances to end markets (Tregear, Cooper 2016). In order to overcome these challenges, rural development policy has sought out novel solutions through social innovation (SI). However, despite there being various approaches to SI in territorial development, few have addressed the phenomenon in a rural context, with the notable exception of Neumeier (2012, 2017), Bock (2016) and Bosworth et al. (2016). There is still a lack of knowledge on how SI emerges in rural areas and how it might contribute to an area’s development. In addition, the © 2020 Author(s) This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license doi: 10.2478/quageo-2020-0012 ISSN 0137-477X, eISSN 2081-6383 44 Marina Novikova, Maria de Fátima Ferreiro, Tadeusz Stryjakiewicz drivers and promoters of SI in rural regions remain rather unexplored despite attempts to analyse the role of actor networks (Neumeier 2012), local communities (Di Iacovo et al. 2014) and social enterprises (Richter 2019) in the process of SI promotion. The importance of SI in rural development comes from a paradigm shift towards a more ‘qualitative’ development of regions, focusing on dimensions such as the population’s wellbeing, network building, local participation and capacity building. Indeed, the literature (e.g. Dax, Fisher 2018) suggests that future approaches to regional development will have to go beyond the economic growth paradigm and will have to focus more on issues such as local participation and SI. This article examines LAGs and LDAs role in promoting SI in rural regions and how their work responds to their respective region’s issues by using the cases LAGs and LDAs in the Mühlviertel (Austria) and Baixo Alentejo (Portugal) NUTS III regions. The results of the study show that by addressing the issues of empowerment, capacity building, inclusion and network building, LAGs and LDAs contribute to the overall development of a given region. However, irrespective of this success, such organisations face various challenges comprised of bureaucratic burden, difficulties with finances and the need to work towards changing community perceptions of both their work and the region. The article is structured as follows. First, theoretical underpinnings regarding SI are presented. Second, the role of SI in regional development, namely in the (neo)endogenous development of rural regions, is discussed. Following that, the methodology alongside the cases under study is presented. Finally, the role of LAGs and LDAs as promoters of SI is analysed along with the challenges and opportunities of such promotion. Social innovation as a concept of complementary meanings Despite the steady growth of academic interest in the field of SI (Moulaert 2016; Phillips et al. 2015), its role in rural development still remains underexplored with most research concerning urban SI (e.g. Moulaert 2010; Angelidou, Psaltoglou 2017). Despite this, what research there has been into the importance of, and drivers behind, SI for rural development (Dargan, Shucksmith 2008; Neumeier 2012, 2017; Bock 2016), the field has been gaining momentum. In general, ‘innovation appears to be a novelty in a given setting based on the recombination of existing elements, the transfer of ideas or solutions to or from other contexts, or inventions’ (Richter 2019: 179, citing Schumpeter, 1983 [1911]). SI, in turn, relates to ‘changes of attitude, behaviour and/or perception that result in new forms of collaborative action’, which, then, improve the lives of those involved (Neumeier 2012: 55). Thus, SI is not only about meeting unmet needs, it is also concerned with the way in which this is done (e.g. through enhancing the capacity of actors, building networks and empowering disadvantaged groups). It involves new forms of organisation at both an institutional and personal level, which are developed at the local level and result in social changes beneficial to the communities involved (Moulaert et al. 2005). According to Bock (2012), SI as a concept originated from the ‘debate and critique on traditional innovation theory with its focus on material and technological inventions, scientific knowledge and the economic rationale of innovation’ (Bock 2012: 57). Whilst looking into various conceptualisations and definitions of SI, ‘social’ is being placed to be a ‘core element of innovation’ (Bock 2012: 59). The extant debate on the nature of S (...truncated)