IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/devpol/v19y2001i4p545-552.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The European Commission Perspective on Rural Development: Integrating New Trends into Multi‐sectoral Approaches

Author

Listed:
  • Philip Mikos

Abstract

Rural development thinking has changed. The increased focus of governments and donors on the reduction of poverty, combined with the large concentration of poverty in rural areas, has helped revive a concept characterised by lack of policy focus, over‐complicated structures and, ultimately, poor results and elusive sustainability. The European Commission has reviewed its rural policy to increase the poverty focus and encompass new development concepts and practices such as empowerment, participation, and decentralisation. A new approach has emerged which links national and international levels of intervention into a single operational framework. The article argues that a strategic framework is necessary but in itself not sufficient to ensure greater effectiveness.

Suggested Citation

  • Philip Mikos, 2001. "The European Commission Perspective on Rural Development: Integrating New Trends into Multi‐sectoral Approaches," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 19(4), pages 545-552, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:devpol:v:19:y:2001:i:4:p:545-552
    DOI: 10.1111/1467-7679.00151
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7679.00151
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1467-7679.00151?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. YIlmaz, Bülent & Dasdemir, Ismet & Atmis, Erdogan & Lise, Wietze, 2010. "Factors affecting rural development in turkey: BartIn case study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 239-249, April.

    More about this item

    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:bla:devpol:v:19:y:2001:i:4:p:545-552. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/odioruk.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.