Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/213031 
Year of Publication: 
2013
Citation: 
[Journal:] Economics and Rural Development [ISSN:] 1822-3346 [Volume:] 9 [Issue:] 1 [Publisher:] Lithuanian University of Agriculture [Place:] Kauno [Year:] 2013 [Pages:] 27-45
Publisher: 
Lithuanian University of Agriculture, Kauno
Abstract: 
Funded “Networking” has steadily gained importance among European Union (EU) rural policies instrumentation: Since 1991, with LEADER the formation of regional public-private partnerships and EU-wide information exchange has been supported. Later also inter-territorial cooperation was funded. Additionally, National Rural Networks interlinked at the European level and associating the implementation of rural interventions have recently been established. Networking activities are acknowledged as drivers for rural development. While it is true that good practices are assiduously collected, the deficit in systematically scrutinizing networking activ-ities and their underlying causal patterns is only filled by the present research. Applying network theory, the concept of social capital and transaction-costs considerations, this paper strives to investigate the relevance of financial support for networking, and whether the potential that networking theoretically offers could be exploited more sufficiently. In addition to its unique approach, the empiri-cal data underlying this research presents a novelty, as the various stakeholders surveyed across the EU in the period 2008-2010 in-clude potential LAGs and the newly established rural networks. Reviewing the literature and survey results, determinants for using the potential of networking interventions are identified, and the effects of different types of networking are discussed against finan-cial, technical and social inputs. The results reveal significant contributions that sociology can make to public policies, and can allow conclusions about designing external support to networking. The findings highlight that: 1) funding networking can be meaningful; 2) strongly funded networks tend to fail to create added value; 3) networking needs endogenously grown objectives; and 4) support-ing networking between regions technically is preferable to funding inter-regional partnerships.
Subjects: 
networking
rural development policies
network theory
European Union
national rural networks
JEL: 
R30
R38
D85
H49
URL of the first edition: 
Creative Commons License: 
cc-by-nc Logo
Document Type: 
Article
Document Version: 
Published Version

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.