IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

European Rural Development under the Common Agricultural Policy's 'Second Pillar': Institutional Conservatism and Innovation


  • Janet Dwyer
  • Neil Ward
  • Philip Lowe
  • David Baldock


Dwyer J., Ward N., Lowe P. and Baldock D. (2007) European rural development under the Common Agricultural Policy's 'Second Pillar': institutional conservatism and innovation, Regional Studies 41, 873-887. The EU Rural Development Regulation (RDR) was launched in 2000 as the new 'second pillar' of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), promoting sustainable rural development. The rhetoric surrounding the Regulation emphasized decentralized, participative delivery and a territorial and multi-sectoral focus - relatively new and unfamiliar principles for the CAP. Evidence from a European study of RDR Programmes is used to evaluate how this experiment has performed in the initial years, highlighting the need for further institutional adaptation to enable effective delivery. The relevance of lessons learned in the design and delivery of EU regional policy is also highlighted. The prospects for more effective adaptation are assessed in the light of the most recent sets of CAP reforms. Dwyer J., Ward N., Lowe P. et Baldock D. (2007) Le developpement rural europeen sous le deuxieme pilier de la Politique agricole commune: conservatisme institutionnel et innovation, Regional Studies 41, 873-887. La Reglementation communautaire en faveur du developpement rural (RDR) a ete lancee en 2002 en tant que le 'deuxieme pilier' de la Politique agricole commune (Pac), pronant le developpement rural durable. Le discours qui a entoure cette reglementation a souligne une mise en oeuvre decentralisee et participative, et un point de mire territorial et a plusieurs secteurs - des principes relativement nouveaux et inhabituels a la Pac. On se sert des preuves provenant d'une etude europeenne de la RDR afin d'evaluer les resultats de cette experience dans ses debuts, tout en soulignant la necessite d'autres adaptations institutionnelles pour faciliter une mise en oeuvre efficace. On souligne aussi l'importance des lecons tirees de la mise au point et de la mise en oeuvre de la politique regionale communautaire. A la lumiere des reformes de la Pac, on evalue les perspectives pour une adaptation plus efficace. Politique agricole commune Developpement rural Amenagement du territoire Apprentissage institutionnel Dwyer J., Ward N., Lowe P. und Baldock D. (2007) Europaische landliche Entwicklung unter der ,zweiten Saule' der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik: institutioneller Konservatismus und Innovation, Regional Studies 41, 873-887. Die EU-Verordnung fur landliche Entwicklung wurde im Jahr 2000 als neue ,zweite Saule' der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik (GAP) zur Forderung der nachhaltigen landlichen Entwicklung eingefuhrt. In der die Verordnung umgebenden Rhetorik wurden eine dezentralisierte, beteiligungsorientierte Umsetzung sowie ein territorialer und multisektoraler Fokus betont - relativ neue und unbekannte Prinzipien fur die GAP. Wir bewerten anhand von Belegen aus einer europaischen Studie uber die Programme der Verordnung fur landliche Entwicklung, zu welchen Ergebnissen dieses Experiment in den ersten Jahren gefuhrt hat, und verdeutlichen, dass fur eine wirkungsvolle Umsetzung eine weitere institutionelle Anpassung erforderlich ist. Ebenso heben wir die Relevanz der Lehren hervor, die beim Entwurf und der Umsetzung der EU-Regionalpolitik gezogen wurden. Die Chancen fur eine wirkungsvollere Anpassung werden angesichts der jungsten Reformen der GAP untersucht. Gemeinsame Agrarpolitik Landliche Entwicklung Regionalentwicklung Institutionelles Lernen Dwyer J., Ward N., Lowe P. y Baldock D. (2007) El desarrollo rural europeo bajo el 'segundo pilar' de la Politica Agricola Comun: conservadurismo e innovacion institucionales, Regional Studies 41, 873-887. El Reglamento de Desarrollo Rural (RDR) de la UE fue introducido en 2000 como el nuevo 'segundo pilar' de la Politica Agricola Comun (PAC), que fomenta el desarrollo rural sostenible. La retorica en torno a este Reglamento hacia hincapie en ofrecer una politica descentralizada y participativa y ponia su atencion en un enfoque territorial y multisectorial; unos principios relativamente nuevos y poco familiares para la PAC. Utilizamos ejemplos de un estudio europeo sobre los programas del RDR para evaluar como se ha desempenado este experimento durante los primeros anos, recalcando que para obtener buenos resultados, es necesario adaptarlo desde un aspecto institucional. Asimismo destacamos la importancia de las lecciones que se han aprendido en disenar y poner en practica la politica regional de la UE. Analizamos tambien las perspectivas para adaptarlas de un modo mas eficaz en vistas a las reformas mas recientes de la PAC. Politica Agricola Comun Desarrollo rural Desarrollo regional Aprendizaje institucional

Suggested Citation

  • Janet Dwyer & Neil Ward & Philip Lowe & David Baldock, 2007. "European Rural Development under the Common Agricultural Policy's 'Second Pillar': Institutional Conservatism and Innovation," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(7), pages 873-888.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:regstd:v:41:y:2007:i:7:p:873-888
    DOI: 10.1080/00343400601142795

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.


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

    Cited by:

    1. Augustyn, Anna & Nemes, Gusztáv, 2014. "Catching up with the West? Europeanisation of policies in Hungary and Poland," Studies in Agricultural Economics, Research Institute for Agricultural Economics, vol. 116(3), December.
    2. Midmore, Peter, 2008. "Landscape Conservation And Economic Interdependence: A Case-Study Of Welsh National Parks And The Regional Economy," 82nd Annual Conference, March 31 - April 2, 2008, Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, UK 36864, Agricultural Economics Society.
    3. Dwyer, Janet & Clark, Mike & Kirwan, James & Kambites, Carol & Lewis, Nick & Molnarova, Anna & Thompson, Ken & Mantino, Francesco & Tarangioli, Serena & Monteleone, Alessandro & Bolli, Martina & Fagia, 2008. "Review of Rural Development Instruments: DG Agri project 2006-G4-10. Final Report," MPRA Paper 50290, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Helen Caraveli & Anastassios Chardas, 2013. "Rural Development and Local Governance: The case of Greece," ERSA conference papers ersa13p285, European Regional Science Association.
    5. May, Daniel E. & Tate, Graham J. & Worrall, Leslie, 2011. "Understanding innovation in a dynamic agricultural business environment: a multivariate approach," International Journal of Agricultural Management, Institute of Agricultural Management;International Farm Management Association, vol. 1(1), July.
    6. Voutilainen Olli & Wuori Olli, 2012. "Rural development within the context of agricultural and socio-economic trends – the case of Finland," European Countryside, De Gruyter Open, vol. 4(4), pages 283-302, January.
    7. Katonáné Kovács, Judit & Navarro, Francisco & Labianca, Marilena, 2016. "Introduction: Human and social capital in rural areas," Studies in Agricultural Economics, Research Institute for Agricultural Economics, vol. 118(1), April.
    8. Marielle Berriet-Solliec & Aurélie Trouvé, 2012. "Développement des territoires de projet : quels enjeux pour les politiques rurales ? / Territorial development projects: what issues for rural policies ?," INRA UMR CESAER Working Papers 2012/3, INRA UMR CESAER, Centre d'’Economie et Sociologie appliquées à l'’Agriculture et aux Espaces Ruraux.
    9. Marusca De Castris & Daniele Di Gennaro, 2018. "Does agricultural subsidies foster Italian southern farms? A Spatial Quantile Regression Approach," Papers 1803.05659,
    10. Martin Pělucha & Dana Viktorová & Zuzana Bednaříková, 2009. "Options for Setting Up An Effective EU Rural Development Policy," Acta Oeconomica Pragensia, University of Economics, Prague, vol. 2009(5), pages 53-69.
    11. Anne Margarian, 2013. "A Constructive Critique of the Endogenous Development Approach in the European Support of Rural Areas," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(1), pages 1-29, March.


    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:taf:regstd:v:41:y:2007:i:7:p:873-888. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.