B i o - b a s e d a n d A p p l i e d E c o n o m i c s BAE Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 265-281, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12364 Copyright: © 2021 F. Mantino. Open access, article published by Firenze University Press under CC-BY-4.0 License. Firenze University Press | www.fupress.com/bae Citation: F. Mantino (2021). Rural areas between locality and global networks. Local development mechanisms and the role of policies empowering rural actors. Bio-based and Applied Eco- nomics 10(4): 265-281. doi: 10.36253/bae- 12364 Received: November 29, 2021 Accepted: February 8, 2022 Published: March 31, 2022 Data Availability Statement: All rel- evant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Competing Interests: The Author(s) declare(s) no conflict of interest. Editor: Fabio Bartolini. Discussant: Davide Viaggi, Giovani Belletti, Donato Romano. ORCID FM: 0000-0001-5338-4333 BAE 10th Anniversary paper Rural areas between locality and global networks. Local development mechanisms and the role of policies empowering rural actors Francesco Mantino Consiglio per la ricerca in agricoltura e l’analisi dell’economia agraria (CREA) Abstract. The main objective of this work is to review the recent achievements on the mechanisms explaining local and rural development, which underpin the current defi- nition of rural areas in the European literature. The analysis carried out in this article acknowledges a gap between local development processes and the current representa- tion of rural diversity by international organisations and national/regional authorities. New concepts can be drawn from this comparative analysis: 1) rural diversity cannot be explained exclusively by agglomeration forces and geographical distance from urban centres; b) multiple functions of rural areas, often rooted into sustainable agri-food systems or other forms of territorial capital, contribute to explain more autonomous roles of rural areas; c) organised or relational proximity is emerging in a context of a globalised economy and non-geographical networks, as a critical factor of connection between rural areas and distant regions/markets. This article translates these differ- ent disciplinary developments into a practical and integrated conceptual approach, in which local development processes result from three components: local resource sys- tems, networks, institutions and enabling policies. Keywords: rural development, local development, regional disparities, networks, rural policies. JEL codes: O13, O18, Q18, R11, R12, R58. 1. INTRODUCTION Rural development is a topic that still deserves attention both in research programmes and policymaking. Since the key paper on L’avenir du monde rurale (“The future of rural society”) was published in 1988, European Com- mission clearly identified, for the first time, the need for a territorial rural policy that went beyond agriculture and included local development and environmental concerns as key elements (European Commission, 1988). Indeed, a key feature of the debate about rural development is the close inter- action between research and policy (Bock, 2016), that translates into recipro- cal influences over time in a complex relationship that deserves some future analysis (Bryden and Mantino, 2018). In the context of EU mutual relations between research and policy design, the rural development research, espe- cially in rural sociology and agricultural economics, gained social relevance, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode 266 Francesco Mantino Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 265-281, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12364 especially for the CAP reform. In contrast, economic geography and development economics contributed notably to the regional cohesion policy revision over time. Still, rigid boundaries among different disciplines have been reduced, and in several research projects we can see examples of interdisciplinary cross-fertilisation. After forty years of debates about the conceptualiza- tion of rural development and its role within the CAP, and more generally the EU framework, it is hard to say that the scientific process brought about a single, uni- fied theory. Nevertheless, the knowledge of the rural development processes has been significantly enriched in these decades by the contribution of different disciplines. In addition, there are different paradigms and visions of rural areas between disciplines as well as within the same discipline. In the vast literature on the topic, there is no consensus about the driving forces of rural devel- opment, and multiple development trajectories are pos- sible, resulting from various combinations of local, regional, national and global forces in a given context (Ward and Hite, 1998). The main objective of this work is to review the recent achievements on the mechanisms explaining local and rural development, which underpin the cur- rent conceptualisation of rural areas in the European policy-making and research. This article is structured as follows. First, it begins with exploring how the diversity of rural areas is represented in the most recent literature, both with regards to the urban-rural relations and the differences within the rurality (section 2). In this regard, we think there is a gap between the current representa- tion of rural areas and the recent rural development the- ories, as achieved by the different disciplinary approach- es in rural sociology, rural/economic geography, agri- cultural economics and development economics. The main problem, in our opinion, is that official definitions and analyses of rural diversity in Europe do not match the complexity of rural processes as they emerge from research and policy analysis (section 3). We conduct an interdisciplinary review of the theoretical approaches to rural development processes (sections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3) and then we seek to explore how these achieve- ments have influenced policy frameworks, notably place- based policies and policy approaches targeting the most peripheral/marginalised rural areas (section 3.4). The article proceeds, in the light of the development factors examined by the different theoretical approaches, with an exploration of how these approaches can contribute to creating a different theoretical framework (section 4), which re-defines the functions of rural areas, not simply depending on functional relations with urban centres but considering the capacity of rural actors to develop more autonomous networks and development pathways. The article ends with drawing up implications for future research and policy actions (section 5). 2. THE REPRESENTATION OF THE RURAL DIVERSITY AND INCREASING RURAL-URBAN DISPARITIES The definitions of “rural” and “rurality” has been a hot topic in both scholarly and policy debates for almost 60 years. While trying to define ‘rurality’, research- ers have proposed various typologies based on differ- ent quantifiable criteria. In recent decades, a series of relevant research projects and activities have provided substantial evidence on the diversity of rural areas. Approaches and methods to analyse and describe rural diversity have changed over time, moving from simple indicators of population density and percentage of rural population to more elaborate criteria, units of reference and thresholds (Copus et al., 2008; Féret et al., 2020). There is consensus on two points across the definitions, approaches, and scientific positions on the subject of rurality. First, rurality is a concept that is difficult to define. Rural areas have undergone profound economic and social changes since the early agricultural poli- cies aimed at modernisation and land management in the 1960s. As a consequence, rurality can no longer be defined solely according to farming activities and associ- ated lifestyles. Second, determining rurality depends on several factors (Féret et al., 2020): 1) the global contexts (i.e. the characteristics of the socio-economic systems of which the rurality is a part); 2) the discourse and politi- cal objectives that were pursued; 3) the social representa- tions of the different categories of stakeholders. In Europe, each country has developed its own defi- nition of rurality, often as a response to a particular political, administrative and the broadest territorial con- text, and in some cases as an output of national classi- fications of other factors (e.g. population, accessibility). Approaches and definitions are rarely similar between countries (Depraz, 2007; Bontron, 1996). Methods combining severa l criteria have been adopted since rural areas were recognised as complex and unable to be characterised by a single criterion. Six types of approaches can be identified in the literature: 1) the administrative (or statutory) approach, based on the legal-administrative character; 2) the morphologi- cal (or demographic) approach, based on population criteria such as population density; 3) the locational approach, based on spatial relationships between urban and rural areas; 4) the functional approach; 5) the landscape approach, based on land-cover and climatic 267 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 265-281, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12364 Rural diversity, local development mechanisms and the role of policies empowering rural actors conditions; and 6) the combined approach, which used a combination of at least two of the other approaches (Féret et al., 2020). The functional approach has been recently used in the OECD Rural 3.0 Policy Note (2018), based on the relationships between rural and urban centres and the proximity to urban centres as factors conducive to eco- nomic performance and development potentials. A functional urban area (FUA) includes a town and its surroundings consisting of less densely populated local units which are nevertheless part of the town’s labour market due to commuting, i.e. people travelling from their place of residence to the labour market and/or to access services (healthcare, education, culture, shops, etc.) (Dijkastra and Poelman, 2019). This approach has gained particular interest in the last decades due to the transnational (EUROSTAT and OECD) institutional legitimation (OECD, 2018). According to this defini- tion, OCDE has further developed the classical dis- tinction between predominantly urban, intermediate and predominantly rural areas into a new typology: a) rural areas within an FUA, which are an integral part of the commuting zone of the urban centre; b) rural areas close to an FUA, which have strong linkages to a nearby FUA, but are not part of its labour market; c) remote rural areas, distant from an FUA and some- how connected through the market exchange of goods and services. In this model, the proximity of less than 1 hour travel time to a large urban region is an essen- tial predictor of rural growth: “proximity allows stronger linkages between urban and rural places” (OECD, 2018) since it allows better access to services, healthcare, edu- cation and transports, thus rural areas within or close to an FUA are more advantaged than remote rural are- as. Remote areas dwellers, instead, can count on better environmental conditions and more affordable housing. Rural regions close to cities displayed higher productiv- ity growth before the 2008 economic crisis, and higher resilience after the crisis began (Table 1), whilst remote regions were the most badly affected by the crisis, with an annual average drop of GDP per capita of -2.5%, almost ten times worse than rural regions close to cities. This representation of rural differences masks a more diversified situation and re-defines the func- tions of rural areas as dependent on the sphere of influ- ence of various types of urban areas and as ‘commuting zones’. The OECD model seems to neglect rural areas’ capability to develop autonomous functions associated with specific assets and opportunities in terms of local development. Furthermore, as we will see in the follow- ing sections, there is an evident gap between the knowl- edge achievements about rural diversity and the most relevant representations of rural areas in international and national policy documents. In short, the definition of rural areas related to the OECD approach does not seem to respond to the need to effectively understand rural areas diversity and the different opportunities for rural development (ESPON, 2021). Thus, a definition less dependent on the role of urban centres, more appropri- ate indicators and territorial scales seem to be necessary for policy design (Migas and Zarzycki, 2020). Even the definition of the rural development concept has changed over time. In the 1970s, rural development was identified with agricultural modernisation, focus- ing on encouraging labour and capital mobility (Ward and Hite, 1998). By late 1970, this model was criticised, and theories of endogenous development (see section 3.2) emphasised the need for overcoming exclusion through capacity building (skills, institutions, infrastructures) and diversified rural economies. In the first decade of the new millennium, neo-endogenous theories, assuming the need for mixing endogenous and exogenous forces (Shucksmith, 2010), advocated a more holistic approach to address inadequate service provision, unbalanced Table 1. Trends in population growth, regional GDP per capita and labour productivity. Type of region Average annual population growth, % Annual average GDP per capita growth, % Annual average labour productivity growth, % 2000-07 2008-12 2000-07 2008-12 2000-07 2008-12 Predominantly urban 0.76 0.67 2.39 -0.70 1.65 0.24 Intermediate 0.55 0.45 2.20 -0.28 1.57 0.65 Predominantly rural (total) 0.31 0.38 2.29 -1.11 1.97 0.12 Predominantly rural close to cities* 0.61 0.55 2.29 -0.26 2.15 0.56 Predominantly rural remote -0.03 0.18 2.30 -2.45 1.69 -0.61 All regions 0.47 0.46 2.29 -0.70 1.74 0.34 Note: *defined as within 1 hour travel time of a large urban centre. Source: OECD (2018), RURAL 3.0. A framework for rural development, Paris. 268 Francesco Mantino Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 265-281, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12364 communities, remoteness, isolation and lack of critical mass. This approach has to include capacity building and adding value to local resources, enhancing connectivity and promoting innovation. Also, the role of innovation became more and more relevant in many respects (gov- ernance, sustainable production, social inclusion, etc.). 3. DIFFERENT APPROACHES IN UNDERSTANDING RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY ANALYSIS Different strands of disciplines and theoretical approaches studied rural diversity and related develop- ment processes. Rural sociology, regional economics and geography, agricultural economics and development economics have often looked at rural development from different perspectives and adopting different approaches. However, manifold research projects, especially within European Horizon programmes, have been carried out in recent years through multidisciplinary efforts. At least four relevant strands of literature have deepened the knowledge of rural development processes and pro- vided new evidence and arguments in many directions (Figure 1). First, the group of neo-endogenous models, that evolved into networked approaches, studied in rural sociology and economic geography. As we will see, geo- graphical differentiation factors are increasingly coun- terbalanced by the importance of a system of networks going beyond spatial differences. Second, regional convergence/divergence models have studied particularly the role of factors explaining increasing territorial disparities in developed countries and rural-urban interlinkages in these diverging trajec- tories. The third strand of literature, focusing on clus- ters, territorial milieu and localised systems, explores the importance of relevant spatial processes and the role of endogenous development factors, notably locality and internal networks of actors and firms. This strand also includes the territorial agri-food systems, mainly studied by the French and Italian economic geography and agri- cultural economics schools. Figure 1. Different disciplinary approaches to local-rural development processes. 269 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 265-281, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12364 Rural diversity, local development mechanisms and the role of policies empowering rural actors Finally, the fourth strand of literature explores to what extent policy institutions play a crucial role in determining the development potential of any territory. This question has been widely studied in development economics theory (North, 1990; Acemoglu and Robin- son, 2012). 3.1 Rural areas in regional development models and terri- torial disparities The OECD conceptualisation of rural areas diversity heavily relies on theories of agglomeration (McCann and van Oort, 2019), which explain why urban/metropoli- tan areas accumulate over time comparative advantages and external economies, based on the concentration of physical and financial capital, technological innovation, research and development activities, skills and human capital. Theories of divergent development and cumula- tive causation models (Myrdal, 1957; Hirschman, 1958; Krugman, 1995) explain why the inter-regional dispari- ties can persist and grow over time. The new economic geography, in particular, highlighted that since 1970 onward, and especially in the new millennium, the tech- nological progress and the long cycle of regional evo- lutionary features led to increasing regional divergence (Iammarino et al., 2018). According to OECD study (2020), inter-regional disparities grew mainly, in terms of GDP per capita, in France, Italy, Germany, Poland and the US. Still, the polarisation across space is even higher when the gap is measured within the regions (at NUTS3 level). After 2009, regions near metropolitan areas have grown faster than metropolitan regions, but remote rural regions trends do not confirm the traditional divergence cities-rural areas model: they grew faster than regions with the small-medium city (OECD, 2020). The diversity of rural areas and related wealth dis- parities make more complex the urban-rural dichotomy and their relationships. In the last two decades, many efforts have been focused on identifying main drivers of territorial disparities, which go beyond agglomera- tion forces and geographical distance from the centre. There is evidence that the economic relations between urban and rural areas do not follow a one-way function- al dominance relation. For example, in-depth research conducted over recent years in the rural regions of Italy, The Netherlands and the UK have pointed out differ- ent forms of sustainable rural development (Marsden, 2009). These studies support the idea that rural areas can achieve higher territorial competitiveness and more autonomous roles in different ways: a) through local agri-food systems (LAFS), according to the definitions of the French and Italian schools (Sforzi and Man- cini, 2012; Arfini et al., 2012; Vaquero-Piñeiro, 2021); b) alternative food networks, representing more com- plex and sustainable pathways within the agri-food sys- tem (Lamine et al., 2012; Sonnino and Marsden, 2005); c) horizontal networks of economic activities located within an area (Murdock, 2000), based on new synergies between agri-food, tourism, amenity, forestry, renew- able energy, waste, information technologies and locality food chain developments (Marsden, 2009). These differ- ent processes imply the sustainable valorisation of “ter- ritorial capital”1 (Camagni and Capello, 2012) in many rural areas. More value can be added locally, and more balanced production-consumption relations can occur between rural and urban areas. Increasing and more complex territorial disparities also emerged in studies on the so-called peripheral ter- ritories, in particular within the framework of ESPON research programmes. Periphera lisation has been recently interpreted as a process due to different drivers (Noguera et al., 2017): a) low accessibility to centres of economic activity, in other words, localities geographi- cally disconnected from the centre (conventional periph- erality); b) poor access to services of general interest (education, healthcare, transports, etc.), whether this is a consequence of geographic remoteness, or to chang- ing service delivery technologies, or to austerity, or other changes in the provision such as privatisation; c) absence of “relational proximity”, and exclusion from the main- stream of economic activity, due to low levels of social and institutional interaction with the broader world. These latter conditions are often associated with discon- nection from the centre of political power and a lack of influence in terms of governance, and they may affect even geographically accessible regions. Most areas iden- tified as peripheral seem to be affected by a combination of at least two of the drivers described above (Noguera et al., 2017). The ESPON study (PROFECY) estimated that peripheral areas cover approximately 45% of the Euro- pean territory and only about half of them lack access to centres and services as key drivers. Another 46% is represented by areas predominantly suffering from poor economic potential and demographic situation, and the remaining 4% covers areas affected by all types of driv- ers. Peripherality is not a process involving only rural areas (according to the OECD nomenclature) but also a significant share of intermediate and urban and met- ropolitan regions (table 2), due to increasing unemploy- 1 The notion of territorial capital defined by Camagni and Capello includes not only physical assets (private and public goods and resourc- es), but also human, social, relational capital and cooperative networks. In this regard, this notion shares relevant theoretical concepts with neo-endogenous approaches to rural development in the section 3.2. 270 Francesco Mantino Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 265-281, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12364 ment, decreasing wealth (GDP per capita) and further impact on out-migration. Connection or disconnection can also be the result of poor governance of relations between urban and rural areas. New forms of territorial cooperation are emerg- ing between rural and urban areas (rural-urban part- nerships) to avoid over-exploitation and depletion of the rural assets (land, soil quality, water, amenities and landscape, ecosystem services, etc.) and foster the val- orisation of complementary functions (Copus, 2010). Rural-urban interactions find very different governance solutions across the European countries (Wood and Haley, 2017). However, a series of obstacles hamper the cooperation: absence of trustful relationships, frictions between peripheral municipalities and the urban pole, power imbalances, inadequate financing and capac- ity constraints about personal and time resources (Oedl- Wieser et al., 2020). 3.2 From exogenous to neo-endogenous and networked models In the 1970s’ and part of the 1980s’ rural develop- ment thinking was dominated by exogenous develop- ment models: rural areas were considered “backwards” and were thought to lack the dynamism of their own, be dependent on urban growth poles, external invest- ment in agricultural modernisation, infrastructural connections, and the transfer of social and technologi- cal innovations from dynamic urban centres. Even sci- entific knowledge was conceived as a mere uptake of technologies produced elsewhere (Lowe et al., 2019). The main functions of rural areas were producing food and primary products for urban economies. This model was criticised mainly for fostering dependent development, reliant on continued subsidies and policy decisions of distant institutions (Gkartzios and Lowe, 2019), for del- egitimising local knowledge, and its negative social and environmental impacts (Lowe et al., 2019). In the late 1980s’ and 1990s, rural development theories were enriched by endogenous models, whose main principles were harnessing local potentials of its particular natural, human and cultural assets, includ- ing local knowledge and skills, for sustainable develop- ment; a territorial rather than sectoral approach, at a small scale; and finally, a focus on the needs, capacities and perspectives of local people (Ray, 1997). The pri- mary function of rural areas was providing diversified activities in the local economies. The LEADER initiative relied on these principles and fully represented the most typical example of a policy instrument empowering peo- ple and endogenous potentials within the CAP. How- ever, even this approach became quite simplistic, relying on assumptions of rural areas as self-sufficient and iso- lated from external forces (Lowe et al., 2019). Further- more, LEADER experiences demonstrated problems of limited participation of marginal groups (unemployed and young people), the dominance of “who are already powerful and….enjoy a greater capacity to act and to engage with the initiative” (Shucksmith, 2000), and lim- ited impact on social inclusion of the most vulnerable population. Finally, specific relevant policies such as the support to farming, public investments for infrastruc- tures and general interest services, and taxation remain strongly exogenous in their design and delivery. This evolution from the exogenous to neo-endog- enous or networked approaches highlights the impor- tance of social, economic, and institutional networks in regional economics and rural sociology/geography. Rural development approaches need to combine endog- enous potentials with external forces in the context of a globalised economy, growing mobility of capital and people, substantial national reforms aimed at cutting public costs. Consequently, it was suggested that there is a need to go “beyond exogenous and endogenous modes” (Lowe et al., 1995) and focus on strategies that contin- ue to valorise local assets in a multisectoral perspec- tive but are also able to involve actively external actors. Some authors name this different perspective as “neo- endogenous approach” (Shucksmith, 2010 and 2012), but the family of neo-endogenous contributions embrace a series of theoretical frameworks focusing differently on relations and networks between rural actors (rural- rural), between rural and urban actors (rural-urban) or between rural and other relevant actors in the national and international context (rural-global market). These models are referred to in different ways. Table 2. Percentage of peripheral areas in European countries by types of driver and types of region (ESPON, 2017). Types of region A. Peripherality due to longer travel times from urban centres (%) B. Peripherality due to poor access to services of general interest (%) C. Peripherality due to lack of relational proximity and depleting processes Urban regions 9.6% 18.8% 32.2% Intermediate regions 48.6% 40.0% 34.1% Rural regions 41.8% 41.2% 33.7% Mountain regions 49.5% 38.2% 24.4% Metropolitan regions 24.0% 23.0% 43.0% Source: ESPON-PROFECY project. Noguera et al, 2017. 271 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 265-281, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12364 Rural diversity, local development mechanisms and the role of policies empowering rural actors The first example of the networked approach is within the “rural web” framework, defined as “a com- plex of internally and externally generated interrelation- ships that shape the relative attractiveness of rural spaces, economically, socially, culturally and environmentally” (Ploeg et al., 2008, p. vii). The web encompasses a series of multi-actor (including institutions, companies, state agencies, civil society, etc.) dynamic networks of a mul- tilevel character (local and regional, which also influence the relations in other levels). The web also presents six theoretical dimensions (endogeneity, novelty production, sustainability, social capital, institutional arrangements and governance of markets). They can generate multi- functionality and intra-sectoral intertwinement if they interact correctly and thus contribute to the competitive- ness of rural development processes. Shucksmith (2012), Lowe et al. (2019) and Esparcia (2019) refer to a “networked approach” to rural develop- ment which seeks to link localities “..into broader inter- woven circuits of capital, power and expertise, such as rural professionals, regional agencies, NGOs, companies, universities and research institutes”. They highlighted a vast number of networks in exploring the actors neces- sary for the setting-off, implementation and development of innovative projects in rural areas: actors involved in the scientific and technical support (provided by research centres, technical staff in government offices, certifying agencies, etc.), knowledge and information (on specific and technical and more generic issues, pro- vided by a wide variety of public bodies), the physical infrastructure (needed for the everyday operation of the project, provided by public bodies, primarily local but, to a lesser extent, also national governments), organisa- tion and marketing (provided by local governments, pri- vate organisations and NGOs), and finally implementa- tion of regulatory standards (provided mainly by local and regional governments). Gkartzios and Lowe (2019) describe a series of “hybrid neo-endogenous” frameworks where local and extra-local agencies collaborate in rural governance and development processes, mentioning in particular: the role of universities in creating a research- practice rural network; the role of in-migrants in rural areas in terms of employment they might generate for locals, etc. Copus (2010) outlines the importance of business networks in rural areas to transmit information and promote innovation. In these business networks, inno- vation depends, on the one side, on both the “bridging capability” to channel information from globally signifi- cant firms and, on the other side, the “bonding capabil- ity” to distribute them among the local firms and entre- preneurs. In other words, the role of business networks depends not only upon their local network density, degree of embeddedness and human and social capi- tal but upon their connections to more distant sources of specialist information. In analysing the process of knowledge creation within a geographic cluster, Bathelt et al. (2004) outline that this process relies on both information exchange and learning process within the cluster, achieved through informal day-by-day and face- to-face relations (the “buzz”), on the one side, and more complex channels used in distant interactions (the “pipe- lines”), on the other side. Finally, co-location and visibil- ity generate potentials for efficient inter-personal transla- tion of important news and information between actors and firms. In contrast, trans-local pipelines allow more information and news about the markets and technolo- gies to be “pumped” into internal networks. Recently, Bock (2016), focusing on the problems of promoting rural development in the marginal rural areas, outlined that these areas need more collaboration and linkages across space to give access to exogenous resources. In this regard, rural-urban linkages are essen- tial, but broader connectivity and “virtual proximity” across the space are also relevant for remote rural are- as. Collaborations with nationally operating large busi- ness and external companies, third sectors corporations like cooperative movements, the presence of temporary residents, etc., can activate social innovation processes at the local level, including “the uptake of novel solu- tions developed elsewhere” (Bock, 2016, p. 17). This can be necessary, especially in those marginal areas where mobilising citizens, NGOs, third sectors, and busi- ness is problematic because “the local asset basis is too weak” (Bock, 2016, p.17). Supporting networks in the most peripheral areas is necessary to reduce physical and socio-economic isolation or counterbalance restrictive fiscal policies dismantling regional institutional struc- tures (Shucksmith, 2012). Bock calls this “nexogenous approach” to rural development since it emphasises the importance of reconnection and re-establishing socio- political connectivity, which allows for vitalisation if matched with endogenous forces. Networks can work at different levels. For example, in a study on rural networks in UK, Miller and Wallace (2012) define a typology of rural networks based on the geographical remit: a) locally-based networks; b) nation- al networks; c) networks that transcend both national and international regions. From the networks identified, those operating within a locality tended to focus mainly on rural issues, whereas national networks were more likely to work on issues affecting both rural and urban areas. Despite finding no substantive differences in why participants accessed rural networks, the three most 272 Francesco Mantino Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 265-281, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12364 common reasons for using rural development networks were to obtain advice and information, identify sources of funding, and share local learning and experience. This implies that a lack of funding for rural development networks can have a detrimental effect on communities. Other examples of transnational networks can be found in LEADER (Dwyer et al., 2022): some Local Action Groups (LAGs) were able to promote innovative partner- ships within the local area, but also supported the crea- tion of transnational networks under the cooperation measures, lasting well beyond the project duration (as in numerous Italy-Austria transnational projects). Other types of network, notably food-networks that go beyond the territory where productions are based, have been emphasised in other studies (Lamine et al., 2019; Lamine et al., 2012), identifying the link- ages between collective brands, Geographical Indications (GIs) and alternative food networks, on the one side, and groups of urban consumers, on the other side. Some of these networks can transform into encompassing civil society organisations and broader territorial agri-food systems (see the case studies analysed in the Lamine et al. works). The variety of these networks depends upon the diversity of actors involved and their changing nature over time. In conclusion, various studies confirm the increas- ing role of social, institutional and business networks in enabling connectivity between rural areas, adjacent urban areas and mainly beyond the geographical prox- imity. These networks can act as a factor complementary to (or maybe as a substitute for) agglomeration forces in peripheral rural areas2. 3.3 Clusters and localised systems The concept of localised agri-food systems (LAFS) focused on the production system and interactions among firms within a given territory: this can explain why it was strongly influenced by the concept of cluster (Porter, 1990; Porter and Ketels, 2009), adopted by Por- ter to define the spatial proximity of many production units and their reciprocal relationships. Spatial proxim- ity, specialisation of territorial systems and their com- plex interplay were also at the core of studies on the new economic geography in Krugman (1995), on one side, and in Becattini and his school focusing on the con- cept of Marshallian industrial district (Beccattini et al., 2 This concept has been developed by Johansson and Quigley (2004, p. 175): “…small regions may survive and prosper – to the extent that net- works can substitute for geographically proximate linkages, for local diver- sity in production and consumption, and for the spillouts of knowledge in dense regions”. 2009), on the other side. LAFS concept emerged in the mid-1990s and referred to geographical concentrations of specialised farms, food-processing units and distribu- tion networks, private and public entities in a determined place. LAFS appeared in French literature as Systèmes agro-alimentaires localisés (SYAL) (CIRAD-SAR, 1996). Three distinctive features characterise LAFS: a) place, b) social relationships and c) institutions. The place is con- sidered in its broadest meaning as used in the French school, “terroir”. Social relationships relate to trust and cooperation among actors. Institutions include all private and public agents promoting actions regulated by formal and informal rules. LAFS is “an agri-food system (pro- duction/transformation/services) in a specific territory in which actors try to set up coordination and collabora- tion processes in partnership terms, with internal man- agement and regulation, but with strong ties to public managers and companies” (Torres Salcido and Muchnick, 2012). This definition outlines the capability of main actors to set up innovative and effective solutions to gov- ern the system and ensure the participation of farmers, processors, services providers and marketing operators. The contribution of LAFS’ approaches to the under- standing of sustainable rural development mechanisms relies upon three aspects: a) there can be broad and intense economic and social linkages between the territorial agri-food systems and the rest of the local economy, as in the case of the bigger agri-food chains (e.g. the case of the pro- cessed tomato in North Italy) (Giacomini and Man- cini, 2015; Mantino and Forcina, 2018); b) agri-food systems can have a relevant role in enhancing the local governance. In each LAFS, spe- cific coordination methods can emerge, and govern- ance arrangements to change production, processing and consumption practices and create alternative networks. Better local governance arrangements are supported by collective action that may take differ- ent forms and typologies of organisation. The OECD classical definition identifies three types of collective actions, based on the participants (OECD, 2013a): a) farm-led action; b) non-farm-led action; c) govern- ment-led action. In practice, multiple actors usually carry out collective action. A good start depends on a sufficiently large number of participants and the management capability of actors taking the lead in the process. Indeed, LAFS is a typical multi-actor situation where farmers are only a component, and the fundamental leading role can emerge either within the supply chain or civil society; c) finally, there are various cases of territorial alterna- tive food networks in Europe (Lamine et al., 2019), 273 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 265-281, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12364 Rural diversity, local development mechanisms and the role of policies empowering rural actors contributing to connecting small farmers and peripheral rural areas with urban/extra-local mar- kets and ensuring new development perspectives. 3.4 The role of institutions and public policies Public rural policies are an essential component of all rural development models. Moving from exogenous to neo-endogenous models implies the need for a dif- ferentiated use of policy instruments, decentralisation of policymaking, integration of multi-tiered institutions and sectors, participation of local stakeholders and more emphasis on investments in physical assets rather than mere subsidies. These were the main principles for a new territorial policy put forward by the New Rural Para- digm (NRP) for the OECD countries (OECD, 2006). The NRP was a turning point in the conceptualisation of the rural policy framework since it took on board the ongo- ing best practices coming from the OECD policy reviews in different countries (Mexico, Spain, Italy, Hungary, Greece, Germany, UK and Canada) and distilled the key lessons to foster rural development in the new millen- nium. According to the NRP, the LEADER initiative and other territorial approaches in Europe were recognised as success cases due to their innovative character and results, despite the relatively limited budget. However, despite the increasing number of innova- tive experiences, policies implemented in rural areas have not achieved significant impacts. On the contrary, in the last decades, some authors included rural areas in the so-called “geography of discontent”, which includes rural population left behind by national public institu- tions, lacking faith in the future, and supporting anti- globalisation and populist movements/parties (Rodri- guez-Pose, 2018). Thus, the OECD New rural paradigm needs to be updated, and today the debate on policies for rural areas needs to address three main questions: a) to what extent the place-based approach is effective and should be improved; b) what should be the role of public institutions in enabling/empowering local actors capac- ity building; c) which policy instruments should be set up to strengthening cooperation and networks (rural- rural, rural-urban and rural-wider markets). We are going to discuss point a) in 3.4.1 section and b) and c) in 3.4.2. 3.4.1 Place-based policies and the CAP The debate occurring in the late 1900s and first decade of the 2000s was dominated by two radical con- trapositions between place-based and spatially-blind (or generalised) policies, on the one side, and bottom- up and top-down approaches, on the other side. This debate strongly concerns the CAP since, in most rural areas, this policy also aims to cover inequalities between rural and urban areas, but in reality, CAP instruments, notably Pillar I, mainly address agricultural incomes. In a recent evaluation study of CAP impact on the bal- anced territorial objective (Schuh et al., 2020), the most important target groups proved to be farmers and rural young people. Only Pillar II instruments impact low skilled, unemployed people and the population in the most remote areas (Schuh et al., 2020, p. 84-88). Accord- ing to respondents in the concerned case studies, pillar I instruments (primarily basic and green payments) are not designed to solve territorial needs, and they have controversial impacts. On the one hand, they favour large-scale farms or farms owners not actively involved in agricultural activities (Schuh et al., 2020, p. 90). On the other hand, they can have relevant income support effects in the less developed and marginalised rural are- as and areas affected by the environmental and social crisis (e.g. the area hit by the plant pathogen Xylella in the Apulia region). In these areas, Pillar I instruments intervene as income transfers to mitigate the symptoms of economic backwardness and decline of farmers and family’s incomes. Within the CAP, Common Market Organisations (CMO) and rural development instruments seem more appropriate to remove farm structures’ weaknesses and enhance competitiveness. Nevertheless, the effects on territorial disparities are uncertain and depend on local institutions and capacity building. For example, inno- vative approaches foster synergies between CAP instru- ments, reducing intra-sectoral income disparities and strengthening cooperation in the supply chain (Schuh et al., 2020). This happened in agri-industrial districts that were able to combine schemes targeting specialised production with more generalised CAP instruments (e.g. operational programmes for COM producers). LEADER is the most typical example of place-based approach within the CAP. Despite the LEADER broad- er scope in the last programming period (through the adoption of a multi-fund approach), two recent evalu- ation reports (Schuh et al., 2020; Dwyer et al., 2022) indicate that rural peripheral regions need more robust national policies than LEADER and more diversified supporting systems to face the lack of services of general interest and shortage of employment opportunities. Due to the small budget share (5% of the rural development programmes), LEADER can only provide impulses at the local level. Still, LEADER can generate higher social and economic impact when working alongside other nation- 274 Francesco Mantino Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 265-281, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12364 al/regional schemes. Similar impacts have been reported in some Spanish and Italian rural areas, whereby linkag- es occurred with national programmes for depopulated areas3. These case studies provide relevant lessons on place-based policy’s effectiveness: the need for combin- ing different types of policies under a common territo- rial approach. This result has two relevant methodo- logical implications: a) first, to overcome the traditional dichotomy between spatially-blind (or people-based) and place-based development policies and adopt what Iam- marino et al. (2018) call “place-sensitive development policy approach”, whereby agglomeration effects are promoted in as many places as possible through a mix of policy instruments; b) second, to reconcile top-down and bottom-up policies in a “ joint” meso-level concep- tual framework (Iammarino et al., 2018; Crescenzi and Rodriguez-Pose, 2011). Empirical evidence shows that social marginalisation and low local development oppor- tunities render many place-based policies ineffective and often make them frequently function more as social rather than economic development policies achieving inter-territorial equity. Within a broader perspective, even the World Bank has advocated the need for recon- ciling policies to enhance institutions, infrastructures, and local interventions, but the right policy mix depends on the types and intensities of interregional disparities (World Bank, 2009). 3.4.2 The role of public institutions in empowering local actors, capacity building and networks The quality of institutions plays a crucial role in the development processes. Recent research has demon- strated that weak institutions represent a crucial obsta- cle to the effective use of European Cohesion policies (Rodriguez-Pose and Garcilazo, 2015) and undermine the capacity to innovate (Rodriguez-Pose and Di Cat- aldo, 2015). Weak institutions imply ineffective regional and local governments, low efficiency in managing pub- lic programmes, limits in accountability and voice, and generation of rent-seeking positions, corruption, and lack of confidence in the future. In reality, the quality of institutions also includes the capability to enable local actors and communities “to make choices and transform those choices into desired actions and outcomes” (Steiner, 3 These programmes are the National Strategy for Inner Areas in Italy and the regional Strategy against depopulation in Castilla-La Mancha region (Spain). For more details on these programmes see Barca et al., 2014 and Schuh et al., 2020. More recently, these two policies have been presented in a webinar organised by the European Rural Development Network in Brussels (Mantino, 2021; Martinez Arroyo, 2021). 2016). This capability is crucial for two reasons: a) to create an enabling policy environment for community- led initiatives; b) to allow new institutions and groups to emerge in less active places and facilitate the taking action to address social, economic and environmental challenges (Shucksmith, 2012). In other words, enabling policies should help local actors and communities to develop and support resilience (Markantoni et al., 2018). Nevertheless, public bodies remain in most cases una- vailable, if not hostile, to these local needs, creating “a not supportive environment” that generate policy barri- ers in accessing public funding by “hard to reach” com- munities (Celata and Coletti, 2018). Many authors outline that local development pro- grammes usually are distributed unevenly across rural areas since the most experienced communities come for- ward and become increasingly empowered, while others fall further behind (Markantoni et al., 2018). Marginalised communities are less ready to participate in local develop- ment processes “unless explicit attention is given to their inclusion” (Shucksmith, 2012) and that communities with well-established partnerships and networks are more suc- cessful at obtaining funds. In these contexts, we call ena- bling policies those policies explicitly addressing “hard to reach” communities and providing financial, techni- cal, and animation support. A good example of enabling policy is the programme funded in Scotland, Capacity for Chance (C4C), under the LEADER funds, since it pro- vides financial support to selected communities that usu- ally do not engage due to lack of human, economic and relational capital. For these reasons, the programme does not require finding match-funding but simply local peo- ple voluntary support and offers the support of a project manager to assist the communities in developing their selected projects (Markantoni et al., 2018; Steiner, 2016). This study emphasises how the national, regional and local institutions need to set up rules, organisation and behaviours consistently empowering local actors. Other examples come from a recent evaluation study of the LEADER implementation in Europe (Dwyer et al., 2022). An enabling environment for the LEADER implementation is determined by two conditions: a) first, reducing the administrative complexity and enhancing coordination, especially in a multi-fund environment (as it happens when all European Funds support LEADER) through a clear definition of tasks and roles between responsible authorities of programme implementation and local agencies; b) establishing a collaborative and mutual learning process between LAGs and programme authorities, through actions such as guidelines, manuals, websites, FAQ sessions, working groups, regular com- munications and meetings, formal collaborations (for- 275 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 265-281, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12364 Rural diversity, local development mechanisms and the role of policies empowering rural actors malised in joint committees including local agencies). These conditions are mainly promoted by the public administration bodies. Regarding networks, the impact of public poli- cies upon networks gained low attention in policy analysis. The need for supporting networks as a spe- cific policy objective is only gradually shaping rural development strategies. In the last decade the attention is much focused on setting up either “networks of net- works” (e.g. through funding the European Network of Rural Development and the National Rural Networks) or trans-national networks. It is the case of many coop- eration projects supported by transnational coopera- tion programmes, both within Cohesion policy and the LEADER instrument. Still, many obstacles and institu- tional barriers undermine their effectiveness (Dwyer et al., 2022). On the contrary, there is a broad spectrum of stud- ies measuring the influence of networks upon policy design, but some authors highlighted the capacity of rural networks to engage in lobbying activities, provid- ing voice and keeping rural issues on the political agen- da (regionally and nationally) (Lamine et al., 2019; Mill- er and Wallace, 2012; Dwyer et al., 2022). 4. TRANSLATING RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS INTO A DIFFERENT OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORK To translate different disciplinary developments into a practical and integrated conceptual approach, we can borrow from the triple helix formalised to study region- al learning and innovation (Wellbrook et al., 2012). The model interpreting learning and innovation processes has to be adapted according to the main concepts drawn by our previous analysis. Thus, local development pro- cesses can be conceived as the result of what happens in three main domains: local resource systems, networks, enabling institutions and policies (Figure 2). The central dotted circle represents how the specific components of the three domains and how they interact in influencing the local development processes. The first component includes the territorial resource system, the different actors and their specific capabili- ties that bring about grassroots development initiatives. According to Wellbrook et al. (2012), “the [territory]… can thus be regarded as an arena which comprises diverse actors and their different grassroots activities” (p. 6). Identifying the concept of territory is a crucial step in this framework. Following Camagni and Capello (2013), we can use a notion of a “system of localised production activities, traditions, skills and know-how”, based on “cultural elements and values which attribute sense and meaning to local practices and structures and define local identities” (p. 1387). In practice, this component identi- fies the physical and human capital underpinning neo- endogenous development in a rural area, focusing on innovative designing and implementing local projects. When designing schemes to support new initiatives, this framework envisages a sort of inventory of local resourc- es and existing initiatives. The second component is the “institutional system”, which encompasses a series of public, semi-public and private institutions managing policies for the rural terri- tory and undertaking different tasks (planning, organis- ing, directing, coordinating, monitoring and evaluation). We include in the institutional system the bodies operat- ing at national and regional level, and also institutional actors and rules set up at local level and aiming to deliv- er EU, national and regional policy instruments to the rural area. Even in this case we replaced the Wellbrook et al. string “Supporting Policies” with “Enabling Policies” that, in our opinion, has a more pro-active meaning. Thus, more than providing financial and administrative support, “enabling policies” for local actors imply at least three other conditions (see figure 2): a) supporting local development strategies through co-design, whereby public administration or other agencies collaborate with local stakeholders to define long-term actions and possible funding, especially in the areas lacking resources and human capabilities. In these areas, poor access to development policies is strongly correlated to the lack of human capital and poor networks; Figure 2. The triple helix model (Wellbrook et al., 2012), adapted to understand local development processes. 276 Francesco Mantino Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 265-281, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12364 b) eliciting innovators to emerge and participate in actions’ design and implementation. In the most peripheral areas, conservative groups and socially dominant coalitions often do not allow innovators to voice alternative needs and access policy sup- port. This is detrimental for them to introduce social innovation and get opportunities to play a role in the future of the area; c) finally, connecting actions and actors, by promoting intersectoral and multi-actor initiatives in the area, either by valorising the current networks or creating new ones. The third component of the local processes in fig- ure 2 concerns the different types of networking activi- ties. By replacing the string “knowledge support struc- ture”, we have adapted the Wellbrook et al. conceptual framework, since networks gained more relevance in the literature concerning more general rural development processes. They include a set of geographical proxim- ity relations (within the rural territory) and “organised proximity” (with distant areas/business systems). Both can generate localised collective learning processes and can be identified as relational capital in Camagni and Capello (2013) definition of territorial capital. We can further expand the model to include a fourth helix as the new technologies have become more relevant in recent decades. Looking at the model repre- sented in figure 2, external actors or local innovators as providers of internal and tacit knowledge can introduce and develop new technologies in the area. Local and national/international networks can play a relevant role in both cases. New technologies can also be fostered by enabling policies through the institutional system (private and public research and experimental bodies, advisors, trainers, etc.). Public policies have supported digital and broadband infrastructures through regional and rural development incentives and financial resourc- es addressed to peripheral rural areas. In many rural areas, especially the most peripheral, inadequate broad- band infrastructures hamper networks and distant mar- ket relations. In conclusion, new technologies represent a relevant development factor, but they can enter the model and be diffused in the rural context through dif- ferent modes. Local development processes are the result of both the action of each component and of interactions among them. For example, evidence suggests that an enabling policy environment foster grassroots initiatives and new networks, notably at the local level and sometimes (and less evidently) with more distant networks. Vice versa, good grassroots initiatives and local networks can inspire and facilitate a good use of existing policies. It is worth noticing that good local governance is a funda- mental ingredient ensuring successful supporting poli- cies, autonomous grassroots initiatives and dense local networks (Mantino and Vanni, 2019). This conceptual framework can provide a practi- cal outline for development projects at the local scale. A similar framework has been adopted in co-design processes of local strategies in Italy, within the national programme for Inner Areas aiming to support inte- grated initiatives in the most depopulated areas. The programme entails activating the three components in setting up initiatives through the participation of local actors through: a) an inventory of available infrastruc- ture and service gaps, existing needs and initiatives aim- ing to overcome these gaps; b) an analysis of policy mix needed to support initiatives in the field of services of general interest and development of local sectors; c) deep and comprehensive scouting of innovators and potential networks to be involved in the project co-design pro- cesses. An essential condition for the success of the strat- egy design is formal governance arrangements signed by partnerships of local municipalities that ensure coopera- tion among the relevant local institutions (Barca et al., 2014). The Inner Areas approach can solve another rel- evant failure in the rural development initiatives (World Bank, 2009), that is the appropriate mix of policies addressed to people (education, healthcare, and mobility of population) and policies addressed to places (infra- structures, incentives to economic activities, etc.). This mix allows to strengthen the impact of place-based poli- cies through the support of more general policies, usually falling under the category of macro-economic policies. 5. CONCLUSIONS AND KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND POLICY The analysis carried out in this article acknowledges a gap between the unfolding of local development pro- cesses and the current representation of rural diversity by international organisations and national/regional authorities. This gap is influenced by two relevant fac- tors: a) high heterogeneity in terms of recent and accept- ed methods and definition criteria of rural diversity; b) a vision of rural areas as strongly dependent on the sphere of influence of urban areas. In the last two decades, a series of studies, mainly supported by the European Commission (HORIZON, ESPON, evaluation studies, etc.), provided a more com- plex and diversified vision of rural diversity, regard- ing theoretical models and practical definitions. Mov- ing from a simplistic definition of rural development 277 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 265-281, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12364 Rural diversity, local development mechanisms and the role of policies empowering rural actors processes to more complex frameworks implies tak- ing account of the contribution of different disciplines. New concepts can be drawn from comparative analy- sis: 1) rural diversity cannot be explained exclusively by agglomeration forces and geographical distance from urban centres; b) multiple functions of rural areas, often rooted into sustainable agri-food systems or other forms of territorial capital, contribute to explain more autono- mous roles of rural areas; c) “organised” or “relational proximity” is emerging in a context of a globalised econ- omy and non-geographical networks, as a critical factor of connection between rural areas and distant regions/ markets. Thus, the definition of rural peripherality is changing accordingly. Likewise, the dichotomy between exogenous and endogenous models is losing its interpre- tative appeal, and networks models are gaining interest among rural development scholars. Which implications do these research achieve- ments get in the directions of future research? First, they call for moving from a functional model to another approach based on the territorial capital endowments of rural areas, whereby territorial capital also includes different forms of “relational capital” and networks. In practice, this requires a detailed analysis of territorial capital variables and deep scouting of relations within the locality and between the locality and markets. Second, there is a need for developing a rural area concept by revising the current urban-rural typology and introducing criteria based on the variety of func- tions that rural areas play in the socio-economic and environmental context (ESPON, 2021). The Direction of Agriculture and Rural Development of EC is emphasis- ing this need (Migas and Zarzycky, 2020), but there is also a need to fill persistent data gaps at the correct geo- graphical scale (local in many cases) through the coop- eration between different data providers and screening a wide range of possible (including new) data sources beyond conventional indicators such as population den- sity and settlement configuration. Third, understanding rural diversity across Euro- pean regions has to be used to read better the dynamics of megatrends, including climate change, environmental crises, and socio-economic and demographic drivers of change. The Commission’s Megatrends Hub has identi- fied fourteen global megatrends, and its Strategic Fore- sight Report (European Commission, 2020a) provides a preliminary systematic analysis of resilience, but we need a significant focus on how different rural areas can face megatrends. In this regard, Bock and Krzysztofow- icz (2021) have contributed to the long-term vision for rural areas by drawing four types of scenarios through the combination of diverse future developments rang- ing from demography and multilevel governance to cli- mate change, economic development and digitalisation (rururbanities, rural renewal, rural connections and rural specialisation). Within the possible megatrends, particular attention deserves the digital transition as a powerful driver of technological innovation. Digitalisation connected with artificial intelligence (AI), big data, and automation can potentially reshape the economy, which will represent a threat and an opportunity for rural areas. Technology can be a way of overcoming economic disadvantages, notably for rural areas with a shrinking population. New communication technologies can limit the effect of dis- tance. Digital infrastructures will be crucial to facilitate connection, integration, and provision of e-services (e.g. administration, health, education, finance, culture) and enable the digitalisation of agriculture and the bioecon- omy (e.g. precision farming, automation). These invest- ments do not require only covering infrastructural needs but also grass-roots initiatives by local communities under the form of “Smart Villages projects” (European Commission, 2020b). This approach encourages rural areas and communities to develop projects, build on their existing strengths and assets, and develop decen- tralised services, energy solutions, and digital technolo- gies and innovations. Another relevant question concerns to what extent the current policy framework fits local development needs of the different rural areas. The recent Commu- nication of the European Commission on “A long-term Vision for the EU’s Rural Areas” (LTVRA) (EC, 2021) seeks to provide new answers to increasing territorial disparities and the feeling of left behind characterising most rural areas. But, as it was emphasised in the analy- sis of policies, place-based policy approach is used only for a marginal share of the CAP. To be more effective, territorial lens need to be applied to a mix of different policies, including CAP instruments other than LEAD- ER and cooperation measures. The 2021-27 reform of the CAP offered the opportunities of mixing different instruments in the CAP Strategic Plan (CSP) to prompt sustainable and integrated rural development. Neverthe- less, the opportunity to address territorial differences within the CSP and implement a broader place-based approach does not seem realistic, given the dominant visions in the agricultural policies and the traditional barriers and silos between the two CAP Pillars. As part of the Better Regulation Agenda, the LTVRA puts in place a Rural Proofing mechanism, nota- bly to assess the anticipated impact of major EU legisla- tive initiatives on rural areas. It will be based on territo- rial impact assessments and a better monitoring of the 278 Francesco Mantino Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 265-281, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12364 situation of rural areas. The way in which rural areas are integrated in the EU’s policies will be monitored, nota- bly through regular reports on the implementation of relevant policies. Rural Proofing will mean putting more attention to territorial distribution of EU policies before their implementation and potential impacts. This mech- anism can become an interesting innovation whether reproduced at national level, but this will strongly rely on political positions of the agricultural world. A further relevant challenge concerns enabling all individuals to take active part in policy and decision- making processes, involving a broad range of stakehold- ers and networks as well as all levels of governance. The methodological framework proposed here seeks to acti- vate a process that elicit endogenous capital and inno- vators through the empowerment of local communities and an enabling policy environment, notably in most peripheral and depopulated rural areas. These types of rural areas need a rather different approach to local development, whereby local institutions and innovators work alongside with regional and transnational actors, and public administrations as well. The provision of public funds is not sufficient to overcome the different obstacles, since empowering local communities requires a radical change in public institutions’ objectives, instru- ments and behaviour. In this regard the contribution of researchers and scholars should be more oriented to multi-actor action research methods, notably in mar- ginalised rural areas and grassroots initiatives by rural communities. REFERENCES Acemoglu, D., Robinson, J. A. (2012) Why Nations Fail. The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty. Lon- don: Profile Book Barca F., Casavola P. and Lucatelli S. (2014). A Strategy for Inner Areas in Italy: Definition, Objectives, Tools and Governance, Materiali Uval Series, https://www. agenziacoesione.gov.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ MUVAL_31_Aree_interne_ENG.pdf Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A., Maskell, P. (2004) Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation, Progress in Human Geography, 28:1, 31-56 Becattini, G., Bellandi, M., and L. De Propris (eds.), (2009). The Handbook of Industrial Districts, 172- 183. Cheltenham, UK, 2009, Edward Elgar. Bock, A.K., Krzysztofowicz, M., (2021) Scenarios for EU Rural Areas 2040. Contribution to European Com- mission’s long-term vision for rural areas, EUR 30755 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, ISBN 978-92-76-39407-5, doi:10.2760/29388, JRC125368 Bock, B. (2016). Rural marginalisation and the role of social innovation: A turn towards nexogenous devel- opment and rural reconnection. Sociologia Ruralis 56(4): 1-22. Bryden J. and Mantino F. (2018), Rural Policy in Europe, Chapter 5, Handbook of International Food and Agricultural Policies, World Scientific Publishing, Volume 1, 89-119 Bontron, J. C. (1996). Le monde rural: un concept en évolution. Revue internationale d’éducation de Sèvres, (10), 25-30. Camagni R. and Capello R. (2013). Regional Com- petitiveness and Territorial Capital: A Conceptual Approach and Empirical Evidence from the Euro- pean Union, Regional Studies, 47:9, 1383-1402, DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2012.681640 Celata F., Coletti R. (2019). Enabling and disabling policy environments for community-led sustainability tran- sitions Regional Environmental Change 19:983–993 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01471-1 CIRAD-SAR, (1996).. Systèmes agroalimentaires locali- sés: organisations, innovations et development local. Montpellier, Rapport ATP. Commisariat général à l’egalité des territorires-CGET (2018). Rapport sur la cohésion des territories. htt- ps://www.vie-publique.fr/rapport/36660-rapport-sur- la-cohesion-des-territoires Copus A. K. (2010). New Relationships Between Rural and Urban Areas in EU Countries. Invited paper presented at “The territorial approach in agricultural and rural policies. An international review.” 4-.5th November 2010, Rome. Copus, A., Psaltopoulos, D., Skuras, D., Terluin, I., Weingarten, P., Giray, F. H., & Ratinger, T. (2008). Approaches to rural typology in the European Union. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 47-54. Crescenzi R., Rodriguez-Pose A. (2011). Reconciling top- down and bottom-up development policies, Environ- ment and Planning A 2011, volume 43, pages 773- 780, doi:10.1068/a43492 Depraz S. (2007). Quelle méthode d’analyse pour le rural centre-européen? In: Maurel M.-C., Lacquement G. Agriculture et ruralité en Europe centrale. Paris: Aux lieux d’être. p. 19-35. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes. fr/halshs-01547480 Dijkastra L, Poelman H. and Veneri P. (2019). The EU- OECD definition of a functional urban area. Paris: OCDE 17p. https://www.oecd.org/cfe/regionaldevel- 279 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 265-281, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12364 Rural diversity, local development mechanisms and the role of policies empowering rural actors opment/THE%20EU-OECD%20DEFINITION%20 OF%20A%20FUNCTIONAL%20URBAN%20AREA. pdf Dwyer J., Kubinakova K., Powell J., Micha E., Dunwood- ie-Stirton F., Mantino F., Forcina B., Beck M., Gruev K., Ghysen A., Schuh B., Münch A. (2022), Evalua- tion Support Study on the Impact of Leader on Bal- anced Territorial Development, European Commis- sion. B-1049 Brussels European Commission (2021). A long-term Vision for the EU’s Rural Areas - Towards stronger, connected, resilient and prosperous rural areas by 2040, Brussels, 30.6.2021 COM(2021) 345 final. https://ec.europa.eu/ info/sites/default/files/strategy/strategy_documents/ documents/ltvra-c2021-345_en.pdf European Commission (2020a). 2020 Strategic Foresight Report, COM (2020) 493 final https://ec.europa.eu/ transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=COM(20 20)493&lang=en European Commission (2020b), Pilot Project on Smart eco-social villages - final report. Luxem- bourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/ publication/9ff90911-a0c9-11ea-9d2d-01aa75ed71a1/ language-en European Commission. 1988. L’Avenir du Monde Rurale (The Future of Rural Society). Com(88) final of 28.07.88. Esparcia, J. (2014). Innovation and networks in rural are- as. Journal of Rural Studies, 34, 1–14. ESPON (2021), Territorial evidence and policy advice for the prosperous future of rural areas. Contribution to the Long-Term Vision for Rural Areas. Policy paper https://www.espon.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/ ESPON%20Policy%20paper%2C%20Rural%20areas_ long%20version.pdf Féret M, Berchoux T, Requier M, Abdelhakim T. (2020). Framework providing definitions, review and opera- tional typology of rural areas in Europe, Horizon 2020 SHERPA: Sustainable Hub to Engage into Rural Policies with Actors, Deliverable / Working docu- ment D3.2, H2020 Galdeano-Gómez E., Aznar-Sánchez, J.A. and Pérez- Mesa, J.C. (2011). The Complexity of Theories on Rural Development in Europe: An Analysis of the Paradigmatic Case of Almería (South-east Spain) Sociologia Ruralis. 51(1):54-78. Giacomini G.; Mancini M.C., (2015). Organisation as a key factor in Localised Agri-Food Systems (LAFS). Bio-Based and Applied Economics 2015, 4, 17-32. Gkartzios, M. and Lowe, P. (2019) Revisiting Neo-Endog- enous Rural Development, in: Scott, M., Gallent, N. and Gkartzios, M. (eds) The Routledge Companion to Rural Planning, Routledge: New York Hirschman A H. (1958). The Strategy of Economic Development. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Iammarino S., Rodriguez-Pose A. and Storper M. (2018). Regional inequality in Europe: evidence, theory and policy implications, Journal of Economic Geography (2018) pp. 1–26 Krugman, P. R. (1995). Development, geography, and economic theory, 1995 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Johansson, B. and Quigley, J. (2004). Agglomeration and Networks in Spatial Economics Papers in Regional Science 83, 165-176 Lamine, C., Garçon L., Brunori, G. (2019). Territorial agrifood systems: A Franco-Italian contribution to the debates over alternative food networks in rural areas. Journal of Rural Studies, 68 (2019) 159-170. Lamine, C., Renting, H., Rossi, A., Wiskerke, H., Brunori, G. (2012). Agri-food systems and territorial develop- ment: innovations, new dynamics and changing gov- ernance mechanisms. In: Darnhofer, I., Gibbon, D., Dedieu, B. (Eds.), The Farming Systems Approaches into the 21st Century: the New Dynamics. Springer Nature 2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007- 4503-2 Lowe P., Phillipson J., Proctor A., Gkartzios M. (2019). Expertise in rural development: A conceptual and empirical analysis, World Development 116 (2019) 28–37 Lowe, P., J. Murdoch and N. Ward (1995) Networks in rural development: beyond exogenous and endog- enous models. Pp. 87–106 in J.D. Van der Ploeg and G. Van Dijk eds, Beyond modernisation: the impact of endogenous rural development (Assen: Van Gor- cum) Mantino F. (2021), The Inner Areas Strategy in Italy: rural revitalisation through an enabling policy, pres- entation at the ERDN 1st meeting of the ENRD The- matic Group on Rural Revitalisation, 15 December 2021, https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/tg1- rr-inner-areas-strategy-it_mantino.pdf Mantino F., Vanni F. (2019). Policy Mixes as a Strategy to Provide More Effective Social and Environmental Benefits: Evidence from Six Rural Areas in Europe, Sustainability 2019, 11, 6632; doi:10.3390 https:// www.mdpi.com/search?authors=francesco+mantino& journal=sustainability Mantino F., Forcina B. (2018), Market, Policies and Local Governance as Drivers of Environmental Public Ben- efits: The Case of the Localised Processed Tomato in 280 Francesco Mantino Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 265-281, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12364 Northern Italy, Agriculture, 2018, 8, 34; doi:10.3390/ agriculture8030034 Markantoni M., Steiner A., Meadorc J. E., Farmerd J. (2018). Do community empowerment and enabling state policies work in practice? Insights from a com- munity development intervention in rural Scotland https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.10.022 Marsden T. (2009). Mobilities, Vulnerabilities and Sus- tainabilities: Exploring Pathways from Denial to Sustainable Rural Development, Sociologia Ruralis, Vol 49, Number 2, April 2009, DOI: 10.1111/j.1467- 9523.2009.00479.x Martinez Arroyo F. (2021), Law 2/2021 of Economic, Social and Tax Measures Against Depopulation and for the Development of the Rural Areas in Castilla La Mancha, presentation at the ERDN 1st meeting of the ENRD Thematic Group on Rural Revitalisation, 15 December 2021, https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/sites/ default/files/tg1-rr-law-combat-depopulation_es_ martinez_v3_en_2.pdf McCann P. (2019). Perceptions of regional inequal- ity and the geography of discontent: insights f ro m t h e U K , R e g i o n a l St u d i e s , D O I : 10.1080/00343404.2019.1619928 McCann P. and van Oort F. (2019).Theories of agglom- eration and regional economic growth: a historical review, in Handbook of Regional Growth and Devel- opment Theories, edited by Capello R. and Nijkamp P., Revised and Extended Second Edition, E. Elgar Publishing, https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edco ll/9781788970013/9781788970013.00007.xml Migas M. and Zarzycki M. (2020). Concept of Function- al Rural Areas (FRA), Virtual good practice work- shop with member states on data for evaluations, 05/14/2020, https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/ files/gpw-13_10_functional_rural_areas_migas_dg_ agri.pdf Miller M. and Wallace J. (2012). Rural Development Net- works – A Mapping Exercise, Dunfermline: Carnegie UK Trust. http://www.carnegieuktrust.org.uk/publi- cations/2012/rural-development-networks Murdoch, J. (2000) Networks-A new paradigm of rural development, Journal of Rural Studies, 16, 407-419 Myrdal G. (1957) Economic Theory of Under-developed Regions. Gerald Duckworth, London. Noguera J., Ortega-Reig M., del Alcázar H., Copus A., Berlina A., Moodie J., Mantino F., Forcina B., Weck S., Beißwenger S., Hans N., Tagai G., Koós B., Kovács K., Uzzoli A., Dax T., Machold I., Schür- mann C., Tobiasz-Lis P., Dmochowska-Dudek K. and Wójcik M., (2017). Inner Peripheries: National territories facing challenges of access to basic ser- vices of general interest, Final Report, ESPON project PROFECY (Processes, Features and Cycles of Inner Peripheries in Europe), 2017 https://www.espon.eu/ inner-peripheries North, D. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press. OECD (2020), OECD Regions and Cities at a Glance 2020, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi. org/10.1787/959d5ba0-en. OECD (2018). Rural 3.0, A framework for rural develop- ment. Paris: OCDE. 27 p. (Policy note). https://www. oecd.org/cfe/regional-policy/Rural-3.0-Policy-Note.pdf OECD (2013a), Providing Agri-environmental Public Goods through Collective Action. OECD Publishing, 2013, Paris. OECD (2013b), Rural-Urban Partnerships, An Inte- grated Approach to Economic Development, OECD Rural Policy Reviews: Paris: OECD https://www. oecd.org/publications/rural-urban-partnerships- 9789264204812-en.htm OECD (2006). The New Rural Paradigm: Policies and Governance, June 2006, Paris https://www.oecd.org/ regional/regional-policy/thenewruralparadigmpol- iciesandgovernance.htm Oedl-Wieser T., Hausegger-Nestelberger K., Dax T. and Bauchinger L. (2020). Formal and Informal Gov- ernance Arrangements to Boost Sustainable and Inclusive Rural-Urban Synergies: An Analysis of the Metropolitan Area of Styria, Sustainability 2020, 12, 10637; doi:10.3390/su122410637 Office for National Statistics (ONS). (2017). Exploring labour productivity in rural and urban areas in Great Britain: 2014. Newport: ONS. Retrieved from: htt- ps://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/ peopleinwork/labourproductivity/articles/exploring- labourproductivityinruralandurbanareasingreatbrit- ain/2014 Ploeg, J.D., van der Broekhuizen, R., Brunori, G., Son- nino, R., Knickel, K., Tisenkopfs, T., Oostindie, H., (2008). Towards a framework for understanding regional rural development. In: Ploeg, J.D., van der Marsden, T. (Eds.), Unfolding Webs. The Dynamics of Regional Rural Development. Royan van Gorcum, Assen, pp. 2-26 Porter, M.E., (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations, New York, 1990, The Free Press Porter, M.E. and Ketels, C., (2009). Clusters and industri- al districts: common roots, different perspectives, in Beccattini, G., Bellandi, M., and L. De Propris (eds.), The Handbook of Industrial Districts, 172-183. Chel- tenham, UK, 2009, Edward Elgar. 281 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 265-281, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12364 Rural diversity, local development mechanisms and the role of policies empowering rural actors Ray, C. (1997). Towards a theory of the dialectic of local rural development within the European Union. Soci- ologia Ruralis 37 (3) pp. 345–362 Rodriguez-Pose A. (2018). The revenge of the places that don’t matter (and what to do about it), Cambidge Journal of regions, Economy and Society 2018, 11, 189-209 doi:10.1093/cjres/rsx024 Rodrıguez-Pose, A., Di Cataldo, M. (2015) Quality of government and innovative performance in the regions of Europe. Journal of Economic Geography, 15: 673–706. Rodrıguez-Pose, A., Garcilazo, E. (2015) Quality of gov- ernment and the returns of investment: examin- ing the impact of cohesion expenditure in European regions. Regional Studies, 49: 1274–1290. SHERPA project (Sustainable Hub to Engage into Rural Policies with Actors), RUR-01-2018-2019–D, https:// rural-interfaces.eu/work-packages-deliverables/ Shucksmith, M. (2012). Future Directions in Rural Devel- opment? Carnegie UK Trust, Dunfermline. Shucksmith M. (2010), Dis-integrated Rural Develop- ment: neo-endogenous rural development, planning and place-shaping in diffused power contexts, Socio- logia Ruralis, 50, 1-15, 2010 Shucksmith, M. (2000). Endogenous development, social capital and social inclusion: perspectives from LEADER in the UK. Sociol. Ruralis 40 (2), 208–218. Schuh B., Brkanovic S., Gaugitsch R., Gorny H., Münch A., Kirchmayr-Novak S., C., Badouix M.(ÖIR); Dwyer J., Kubinakova K., Khafagy A., Powell J., Micha E. (CCRI); Mantino F. (CREA); Ghysen A. (ADE), (2020). Impact of the CAP on territorial development of rural areas: socioeconomic aspects. Evaluation support study. Final Report, European Commission B-1049 Brussels, Luxembourg: Publica- tions Office of the European Union https://ec.europa. eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common- agricultural-policy/cmef/rural-areas/impact-cap- territorial-development-rural-areas-socioeconomic- aspects_en Sonnino, R. and Marsden T (2006). Beyond the divide: rethinking relationships between alternative and con- ventional food networks in Europe. Journal of Eco- nomic Geography 6: 181–199. Steiner A. (2016). Assessing the Effectiveness of a Capac- ity Building Intervention in Empowering Hard-to- Reach Communities, Journal of Community Practice, 24:3, 235-263, DOI: 10.1080/10705422.2016.1201561 Steiner A. (2016) Assessing the Effectiveness of a Capac- ity Building Intervention in Empowering Hard-to- Reach Communities, Journal of Community Practice, 24:3, 235-263, DOI: 10.1080/10705422.2016.1201561 Torres Salcido, G.; Muchnik, J., (2012). Globalisation/ Fragmentation Process: Governance and Public poli- cies for Localised Agri-Food Systems. In Local Agri- Food systems in a global World: market, Social and Environmental Challenges; Arfini, F., Mancini M.C., Donati M., Eds.; Cambridge Scholars publishing: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, pp. 97-116, ISBN (10): 1-4438-3664-8, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-3664-7 Vaquero-Piñeiro, C. (2021). The long-term fortunes of territories as a route for agri-food policies: evi- dence from Geographical Indications. Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(2): 89-108. doi: 10.36253/ bae-9429 Ward, W.A. and J.C. Hite (1998) Theory in rural devel- opment: an introduction and overview. Growth and Change 29 (3) pp. 245–258 Wellbrock, W., Roep, D., Wiskerke, J.S.C., 2012. An integrated perspective on rural regional learning. Eur. Countryside 1, 1e16. https://cyberleninka.org/ article/n/588741/viewer Woods M. and Heley J. (2017). ROBUST: Conceptualisa- tion of Rural-Urban Relations and Synergies, Hori- zon 2020 ROBUST (Rural-Urban Outlooks: Unlock- ing Synergies), Deliverable 1.1, November 2017 htt- ps://rural-urban.eu/publications/conceptualisation- rural-urban-relations-and-synergies World Bank (2009), World Development Report 2009, Reshaping Economic Geography, THE WORLD BANK Washington, DC. https://openknowledge. worldbank.org/handle/10986/5991 Volume 10, Issue 4 - 2021 Firenze University Press The effect of attribute framing on consumers’ attitudes and intentions toward food: A Meta-analysis Irina Dolgopolova, Bingqing Li, Helena Pirhonen, Jutta Roosen* Rural areas between locality and global networks. Local development mechanisms and the role of policies empowering rural actors Francesco Mantino Understanding the bioeconomy: a new sustainability economy in British and European public discourse Irene Sotiropoulou1, Pauline Deutz2 Sustainable water resources management under population growth and agricultural development in the Kheirabad river basin, Iran Ghasem Layani1,*, Mohammad Bakhshoodeh2, Mansour Zibaei2, Davide Viaggi3 The distributors’ view on US wine consumer preferences. A discrete choice experiment Lina Lourenço-Gomes, Tânia Gonçalves*, João Rebelo