IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/esconf/228489.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What are favouring conditions for the implementation of innovative projects in Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) approaches?

Author

Listed:
  • Pollermann, Kim
  • Fynn, Lynn-Livia
  • Schwarze, Stefan

Abstract

Fostering innovation-driven regional development has become a major priority for public policy. Thus innovation is a crucial issue in Rural Development Programmes (RDP) to overcome challenges like economic development and demographic change. One part of RDP funded by the European Union, which explicitly addresses innovation, is LEADER: a bottom-up-oriented, participatory approach which relies on cooperation between local actors in the sense of a Community-led local development (CLLD). Stakeholders of different institutions and origins come together in a Local Action Group (LAG) to decide on the projects to be financed. Previous research provides evidence that rural communities are innovative when they have the necessary space and power to act. There is, however, little knowledge about the factors, which are crucial for the power to act, and about the policy framework that provides the necessary space in CLLD-context. The aim of the paper is hence to identify factors, which influence the implementation of innovative projects. Our analysis builds on surveys among LAG-managers, LAG-members and beneficiaries in 115 LEADER areas in four federal states in Germany (Hesse, Lower-Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia and Schleswig-Holstein). Since the explanatory is a dummy variable we used logit models for the analysis. Overall, 56% of the beneficiaries classified their own project as innovative. There are, however, large differences between the different federal states. Our econometric results suggest that origin of the project idea and the type of beneficiary significantly influence the likelihood of innovation. The expectation that heterogeneity fosters innovative ideas is not supported by our analyses.Fostering innovation-driven regional development has become a major priority for public policy. Thus innovation is a crucial issue in Rural Development Programmes (RDP) to overcome challenges like economic development and demographic change. One part of RDP funded by the European Union, which explicitly addresses innovation, is LEADER: a bottom-up-oriented, participatory approach which relies on cooperation between local actors in the sense of a Community-led local development (CLLD). Stakeholders of different institutions and origins come together in a Local Action Group (LAG) to decide on the projects to be financed. Previous research provides evidence that rural communities are innovative when they have the necessary space and power to act. There is, however, little knowledge about the factors, which are crucial for the power to act, and about the policy framework that provides the necessary space in CLLD-context. The aim of the paper is hence to identify factors, which influence the implementation of innovative projects. Our analysis builds on surveys among LAG-managers, LAG-members and beneficiaries in 115 LEADER areas in four federal states in Germany (Hesse, Lower-Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia and Schleswig-Holstein). Since the explanatory is a dummy variable we used logit models for the analysis. Overall, 56% of the beneficiaries classified their own project as innovative. There are, however, large differences between the different federal states. Our econometric results suggest that origin of the project idea and the type of beneficiary significantly influence the likelihood of innovation. The expectation that heterogeneity fosters innovative ideas is not supported by our analyses.

Suggested Citation

  • Pollermann, Kim & Fynn, Lynn-Livia & Schwarze, Stefan, 2021. "What are favouring conditions for the implementation of innovative projects in Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) approaches?," EconStor Conference Papers 228489, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:esconf:228489
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/228489/1/Pollermann-Fynn-Schwarze-GfR_2020.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pollermann, Kim & Raue, Petra & Schnaut, Gitta, 2014. "Multi-level Governance in rural development: Analysing experiences from LEADER for a Community-Led Local Development (CLLD)," EconStor Conference Papers 104063, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    2. Navarro Francisco & Labianca Marilena & Cejudo Eugenio & de Rubertis Stefano & Salento Angelo & Maroto Juan Carlos & Belliggiano Angelo, 2018. "Interpretations of Innovation in Rural Development. The Cases of Leader Projects in Lecce (Italy) and Granada (Spain) in 2007–2013 Period," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 10(1), pages 107-126, March.
    3. Kim Pollermann & Petra Raue & Gitta Schnaut, 2014. "Multi-level Governance in Rural Development: Analysing Experiences from LEADER for a Community-Led Local Development (CLLD)," ERSA conference papers ersa14p1071, European Regional Science Association.
    4. Elvira Uyarra & Kieron Flanagan & Edurne Magro & James R Wilson & Markku Sotarauta, 2017. "Understanding regional innovation policy dynamics: Actors, agency and learning," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(4), pages 559-568, June.
    5. Schnaut, Gitta & Pollermann, Kim & Raue, Petra, 2012. "LEADER - an approach to innovative and suitable solutions in rural areas?," 131st Seminar, September 18-19, 2012, Prague, Czech Republic 135779, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Kieron Flanagan & Elvira Uyarra, 2016. "Four dangers in innovation policy studies -- and how to avoid them," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(2), pages 177-188, February.
    7. Kevin Morgan, 1997. "The Learning Region: Institutions, Innovation and Regional Renewal," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(5), pages 491-503.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pollermann, Kim, 2018. "Participants in participative processes – who they are and what they think about participation," EconStor Conference Papers 190762, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    2. Pollermann, Kim, 2019. "Participation in rural development – the view of non-participants," EconStor Conference Papers 209647, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    3. Henderson, Dylan, 2019. "Policy path dependency in a less developed region: The evolution of regional innovation policy in Wales (UK)," Revista Galega de Economía, University of Santiago de Compostela. Faculty of Economics and Business., vol. 28(2), pages 39-52.
    4. Pollermann, Kim & Raue, Petra & Schnaut, Gitta, 2016. "Implementation and impacts of the LEADER-approach – reflections on the intervention logic of a participatory approach for rural development," EconStor Conference Papers 148578, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    5. Dylan Henderson & Neil Roche, 2020. "Examining the policy mix for broadband deployment in Wales: The role of informal coordination in the last mile," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 35(1), pages 48-67, February.
    6. Pollermann, Kim & Fynn, Lynn-Livia, 2021. "Place-based and participative approaches: reflections for policy design in rural development," EconStor Conference Papers 267150, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    7. Pappalardo Gioacchino & Sisto Roberta & Pecorino Biagio, 2018. "Is the Partnership Governance Able to Promote Endogenous Rural Development? A Preliminary Assessment Under the Adaptive Co-Management Approach," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 10(4), pages 543-565, December.
    8. Davenport, Sally, 2005. "Exploring the role of proximity in SME knowledge-acquisition," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 683-701, June.
    9. Rehák Štefan & Buček Milan & Hudec Oto, 2013. "Path dependency and path plasticity in emerging industries," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 57(1-2), pages 52-66, October.
    10. D. G. Pickernell, 1999. "Inward Investment, Diffusion of Knowledge and New Working Practices," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 14(2), pages 144-160, August.
    11. Kean Birch & Andrew Cumbers, 2010. "Knowledge, Space, and Economic Governance: The Implications of Knowledge-Based Commodity Chains for Less-Favoured Regions," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 42(11), pages 2581-2601, November.
    12. Alexander Cordes & Ulrich Schasse, 2015. "The firm's evaluation of local research institutes and universities - an empirical analysis for Germany," ERSA conference papers ersa15p933, European Regional Science Association.
    13. Henderson, Dylan & Roche, Neil, 2018. "From consensus to conflict in the regional policy mix for broadband deployment: examining the role of informal coordination," 29th European Regional ITS Conference, Trento 2018 184944, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    14. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Riccardo Crescenzi, 2008. "Mountains in a flat world: why proximity still matters for the location of economic activity," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 1(3), pages 371-388.
    15. Serhat Burmaoglu & Ozcan Saritas, 2019. "An evolutionary analysis of the innovation policy domain: Is there a paradigm shift?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 823-847, March.
    16. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Fabrice Comptour, 2010. "Do clusters generate greater innovation and growth? An analysis of European regions," Working Papers 2010-15, Instituto Madrileño de Estudios Avanzados (IMDEA) Ciencias Sociales.
    17. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Michael Storper, 2006. "Better Rules or Stronger Communities? On the Social Foundations of Institutional Change and Its Economic Effects," Economic Geography, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 82(1), pages 1-25, January.
    18. Emil Evenhuis, 2017. "Institutional change in cities and regions: a path dependency approach," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 10(3), pages 509-526.
    19. Doloreux, David & Parto, Saeed, 2005. "Regional innovation systems: Current discourse and unresolved issues," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 133-153.
    20. Tappeiner, Gottfried & Hauser, Christoph & Walde, Janette, 2008. "Regional knowledge spillovers: Fact or artifact?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 861-874, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Innovation; Rural development; LEADER; evaluation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • R1 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:esconf:228489. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.