Leader-like Methods World Wide

in 15 minutes

George McDowell, USAProfessor Emeritus of Agricultural Economics, Virginia Tech

Starting Principles

1. Development in stagnant places requires investment in, or new knowledge of, community assets that can be privately exploited for economic gain – “territorial competitiveness.”

2. Assets of places = HC+SC+NC+HCC

Places are unique: “If you have seen one rural community, you have seen one rural community.”

3. Much knowledge of local assets is local; some is external but must be combined with local.

Starting principles cont:

4. Attributes of things matter in relationships. Person(s) «-» Thing «-» Person(s)

Consider the “relationship” between Canadian Maritime Authorities and US Navy in the North Atlantic via radio in 1995:

US Fleet: “Collision imminent – please alter your course!”Canadians: “You change your course!”US: “We insist you change course or suffer the

consequences.”Canadians: “We say again – you change your course!”US: “We are largest fleet in US Navy! We demand you change

course!”Canadians: “We are a lighthouse. Your call!”

Attributes of many community assets require collective decisions.

Starting Principles Imply: “bottom up” “networking” “collective decision-making” “partnerships” – all kinds “capacity building” “area based” “integrated multi-sector actions” Upper-level governance that can “empower unknown

actions by unknown agents in non-specified places.”These are specific to place-based development

programs – not to LEADER!That they are “watchwords” of LEADER’s method is

evidence that LEADER leadership, and “followership,” understand the world they work in.

One other RD consideration: Efficiency Vs. Equity (Fabrizio Barca)

Efficiency ≈ opportunity to increase well-being ≈ development ≈ territorial competitiveness ≈ investments ≈ saying “no” to some proposals.

Equity ≈ socially defined rights ≈ minimum standards ≈ not saying “no” below minimums.

Debates at the margin: Is “IT connectivity” equity or efficiency?

Efficiency vs Equity

the policy domain the grand plan

unachievable

Rural

Non - rural

Territory General

Policies

Minimum Standard

Regional

Rural

Non - rural

Territory

Policies

Regional General

Minimum Standard

GrandPlan

Efficiency vs Equity cont.

Niche Approach Coordinate/funded (LEADER) Regional Policies

Will mainstream LEADER only be more niche policy or coordinated/ funded regional policy?

Rural

Non - rural

Territory

Policies

Regional General

Minimum Standard

Rural

Non - rural

Territory

Policies

Regional General

Minimum Standard

RD Experiences Outside EU/LEADER

1.Bor Sang, Thailand – The Umbrella Village

Territorial development/agglomeration economies at work for over 200 years.

Lessons learned need not be lost.

1. Bor Sang, Thailand

2. Thai OTOP“One Tambon(Village), One Product”

Combines bottom-up development and knowledge sharing (agglomeration economies) with national and international marketing.

Territorial development based on handicrafts and tourism started in Japan in 1997. In Thailand since 1999.

Now collaborating in marketing with Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO)

Being adopted as one RD strategy in Malaysia, Sri Lanka, India, and Philippines.

http://www.thaitambon.com/English/index.htm;

3. Grameen Bank, Bangladesh

“economic & social development from below” – knowledge and risk sharing

- 7.27 million borrowers

- 97% women

- 2459 branch banks in Bangladesh

- serving 79,539 villages

Adopted/adapted in over 100 countries since 1976

2006 Nobel Peace Prize

4. Canada – was real rural policy – not “grand,” but good!

Governance at National level plus institutions to facilitate local regional development:

Canada Rural Lens: applied rural “priorities” and “considerations” to all policies – was supported by a cabinet minister for rural issues. (policy proofing)

Community Futures Development Corporations: 268 CFDC, some strictly economic, some broader.

Quebec: Strong regionally based RD – the major debates about issues/resources across programs takes place at the bottom. It includes 135 RD officers to assist rural municipalities.

5. Mexico – Micro-regions and national governance support.

Principles for Inter-ministerial Cooperation and Coordination (signed by 12 ministries, 2001). Inter-Secretariat Commission for Sustainable Rural Development.

Micro-regions – integral and sustainable development of most marginal regions. Establish Strategic Community Centers (CEC) as focus in the region for education, communication, and centers from which to deliver programs that are region-wide. Goals are substantially “equity” as well as development.

6. Costa Rica – Agencia para el Desarrollo del la Peninsula de Nicoya, ADP(Nicoya Peninsula Development Agency)

Over 60 ag producer organizations, officials from 5 cantons, committee of ag development project for the peninsula, with support from National RD programme in 2003.

Goals: - shared vision with all involved; - new governance responsive to all actors;

- process to evaluate initiatives, projects, and programs;

- manage financial resources; - establish a sustaining RD institution

governed by principles of participation, transparency, and legality.

7. USA – No coherent rural policy. . .

180 separate programs scattered across nine federal departments and 5 independent agencies.

Virtually all programs are traditional, top-down and very few are regionally (territorial development) focused.

Most rural development in the US is still dominated by “smoke stack chasing” at state and local levels.

. . . but some valiant efforts.

Strengthening America’s Communities Initiative, Economic Development Admin. builds on local knowledge

Workforce Innovation in Reg. Econ. Dev., Dept of Labor also builds on local knowledge

University of Wisconsin Extension Program. Employs community development professionals – most with MA/MSc degrees to initiate local action programs.

CNRED in Wisconsin

69 CD professionals resident in 54 rural counties and groups of counties. Work as educators, brokers, facilitators, grant writers, “Rainmakers,” but not money conduits.

85 university faculty in economics, sociology, planning, natural resources, tourism, leadership, political science, local government, organizational development, etc, etc. with formal responsibility to support above field staff.

field staff have formal university appointments so have direct claim on university staff.

No other states’ Extension Service has comparable program

15 minutes are up!

Thank you very much!!