IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i8p6977-d1128994.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder Empowerment in Sustainable Rural Development Partnerships: Two Case Studies from Italy

Author

Listed:
  • Nazgul Esengulova

    (Department of Humanities, Letters, Cultural Heritage, Education Sciences, University of Foggia, 71121 Foggia, Italy)

  • Massimo Manrico Carella

    (Department of Economics, Management and Territory, University of Foggia, 71121 Foggia, Italy)

  • Antonio Lopolito

    (Department of Economics, Management and Territory, University of Foggia, 71121 Foggia, Italy)

Abstract

The funds allocated through the EU Rural Development Programme provided the engine for local stakeholders to interact, forming mixed collaboration partnerships. This paper investigates the structure of such partnerships with the aim of verifying whether (R1) there are significant differences between the various stakeholder categories in influencing the rural development process, and (R2) which categories of stakeholders are more empowered in directing the design of sustainable rural development. The study is focused on two Italian cases: the regions of Apulia and Veneto. Using a combination of SNA and nonparametric tests, the results demonstrate that the empowerment of the stakeholders followed unequal paths in the two cases; i.e., a central role is clearly played by economic associations in Apulia, while this power is more distributed between different kinds of stakeholders in the case of Veneto. Agricultural associations in Apulia play an important role in the densely connected rural development network, promoting information flow and collective action. On the other hand, the weakness of this configuration lies in the fact that the rural development agenda can receive strong pressure from the agricultural sector, pushing more sectoral strategies in turn. Private companies play a key role in Veneto’s rural development, bridging the network gaps between more clustered local groups and increasing pluralism and inclusion. However, the network is sparse and shrinking, posing challenges in terms of coordination and collective action. This kind of evaluation makes policymakers and managers aware of both the most influential and weakest actors. This is crucial to improving the effectiveness and sustainability of the project, as they can involve the most influential groups from the early stages of the design process to ensure support as well as address the needs of the lagging stakeholder categories to reinforce tacit rules, trust, accountability, and responsibilities.

Suggested Citation

  • Nazgul Esengulova & Massimo Manrico Carella & Antonio Lopolito, 2023. "Stakeholder Empowerment in Sustainable Rural Development Partnerships: Two Case Studies from Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-14, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:8:p:6977-:d:1128994
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/8/6977/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/8/6977/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Agrawal, Arun & Gupta, Krishna, 2005. "Decentralization and Participation: The Governance of Common Pool Resources in Nepal's Terai," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(7), pages 1101-1114, July.
    2. Dax, Thomas & Oedl-Wieser, Theresia, 2016. "Rural innovation activities as a means for changing development perspectives – An assessment of more than two decades of promoting LEADER initiatives across the European Union," Studies in Agricultural Economics, Research Institute for Agricultural Economics, vol. 118(1), pages 1-8, April.
    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. Alexandru Olar & Mugurel I. Jitea, 2021. "Enabling Factors for Better Multiplier Effects of the LEADER Programme: Lessons from Romania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-14, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Xiaojuan Yang & Weiwei Li & Ping Zhang & Hua Chen & Min Lai & Sidong Zhao, 2023. "The Dynamics and Driving Mechanisms of Rural Revitalization in Western China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-26, July.

    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. Franziska Lengerer & Tialda Haartsen & Annett Steinführer, 2023. "Exploring Justice in the Process of Redesigning Local Development Strategies for LEADER: Representation, Distribution, and Recognition," World, MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-24, January.
    2. Kahsay, Goytom Abraha & Medhin, Haileselassie, 2020. "Leader turnover and forest management outcomes: Micro-level evidence from Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    3. He, Lulu, 2019. "Identifying local needs for post-disaster recovery in Nepal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 52-62.
    4. Kapri, Kul & Ghimire, Shankar, 2020. "Migration, remittance, and agricultural productivity: Evidence from the Nepal Living Standard Survey," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 19(C).
    5. Grillos, Tara, 2017. "Participatory Budgeting and the Poor: Tracing Bias in a Multi-Staged Process in Solo, Indonesia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 343-358.
    6. 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.
    7. Heinrich, Carolyn J. & Lopez, Yeri, 2009. "Does Community Participation Produce Dividends in Social Investment Fund Projects?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1554-1568, September.
    8. Nieto-Romero, M. & Parra, C. & Bock, B., 2021. "Re-building historical commons: How formal institutions affect participation in community forests in Galicia, Spain," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    9. Pollermann, Kim, 2019. "Participation in rural development – the view of non-participants," EconStor Conference Papers 209647, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    10. Paudel, Jayash, 2018. "Community-Managed Forests, Household Fuelwood Use and Food Consumption," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 62-73.
    11. Tiberiu Iancu & Ionuț Laurențiu Petre & Valentina Constanta Tudor & Marius Mihai Micu & Ana Ursu & Florina-Ruxandra Teodorescu & Eduard Alexandru Dumitru, 2022. "A Difficult Pattern to Change in Romania, the Perspective of Socio-Economic Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-29, February.
    12. Wang, Yahua & Chen, Chunliang & Araral, Eduardo, 2016. "The Effects of Migration on Collective Action in the Commons: Evidence from Rural China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 79-93.
    13. Nunan, Fiona & Menton, Mary & McDermott, Constance L. & Huxham, Mark & Schreckenberg, Kate, 2021. "How does governance mediate links between ecosystem services and poverty alleviation? Results from a systematic mapping and thematic synthesis of literature," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    14. Cécile Barnaud & Annemarie van Paassen, 2013. "Equity, power games, and legitimacy: dilemmas of participatory natural resource management," Post-Print hal-01386409, HAL.
    15. Soe, Khaing Thandar & Yeo-Chang, YOUN, 2019. "Perceptions of forest-dependent communities toward participation in forest conservation: A case study in Bago Yoma, South-Central Myanmar," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 129-141.
    16. Hussein Luswaga & Ernst-August Nuppenau, 2020. "Participatory Forest Management in West Usambara Tanzania: What Is the Community Perception on Success?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-24, January.
    17. Okumu, Boscow & Muchapondwa, Edwin, 2020. "Determinants of successful collective management of forest resources: Evidence from Kenyan Community Forest Associations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    18. Mercedes Rodriguez & Luis Miguel Sanchez & Eugenio Cejudo & Jose Antonio Camacho, 2019. "Variety in local development strategies and employment: LEADER programme in Andalusia," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 65(1), pages 43-50.
    19. Paudel, Jayash, 2016. "Community-Managed Forests and Household Welfare: Empirical Evidence from Nepal," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235481, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. 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.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:8:p:6977-:d:1128994. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.