Acta Oeconomica Pragensia 2009, 17(5):53-69 | DOI: 10.18267/j.aop.283

Options for Setting Up An Effective EU Rural Development Policy

Martin Pělucha, Dana Viktorová, Zuzana Bednaříková
Martin Pělucha, Vysoká škola ekonomická v Praze (pelucham@vse.cz); Dana Viktorová, NEWTON College (viktor.nhl@gmail.com); Zuzana Bednaříková, Vysoká škola ekonomická v Praze, Ústav zemědělské ekonomiky a informací (bednarikova.zuzana@uzei.cz).

This paper presents an analysis of the available options for an effective EU rural development policy. A classification of the methods used to determine an optimal rural development policy can be viewed as the specific aim of the paper. This aim is achieved by discussing theoretical-methodological approaches to rural development, an analysis of the current situation in EU rural areas, including appropriate economic tools, and a partial analysis of existing methods for defining the optimal status in the rural areas. The paper also stresses the main economic determinants influencing conditions in EU rural areas. The authors point out a disproportion between agricultural subsidies and their utilisation in the actual development of the rural areas. Moreover, the definition of the target group of the CAP seems to be essential. The final part of the paper discusses the most significant approaches defining the optimal status in EU rural areas together with their risks and opportunities in respect of an effective rural development policy.

Keywords: Rural development, Common Agricultural Policy, European Union
JEL classification: Q14, Q18, R58

Published: August 1, 2009  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Pělucha, M., Viktorová, D., & Bednaříková, Z. (2009). Options for Setting Up An Effective EU Rural Development Policy. Acta Oeconomica Pragensia, 17(5), 53-69. doi: 10.18267/j.aop.283
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. BALDWIN, R.; WYPLOSZ, CH. 2006. The Economics of European Integration, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, 2006.
    2. BALDWIN, R.; WYPLOSZ, CH. 2008. Ekonomie evropské integrace. 1. vyd. Praha : Grada, 2008, s. 482.
    3. BALMANN, A. 2006. A New Dimension of Structural Change in European Agriculture. Příspěvek na konferenci Vision of a Long-Term Agricultural and Rural Development in EU, Praha.
    4. BLAŽEK, J.; UHLÍŘ, D. 2002. Teorie regionálního rozvoje - nástin, kritika, klasifikace. 1. vyd. Praha : Karolinum, 2002, s. 211.
    5. DEFRA. 2005. Vize společné zemědělské politiky. Ministerstvo financí Velké Británie
    6. DOUCHA, T 2005. České zemědělství po roce 1990. In Venkov: jeho proměny a územní plánování. Sborník ze semináře, Ústav územního rozvoje. Příloha časopisu Urbanismus a územní rozvoj. 2005, č. 5.
    7. DWYER, J. et al. 2007. European Rural Development under the Common Agricultural Policy's "Second Pillar": Institutional Conservatism and Innovation. Regional Studies. October 2007, vol. 41.7, s. 873-887. Go to original source...
    8. EUROPEAN COMMISSION. 2007. SCENAR 2020: Scenario study on agriculture and the rural world. European Commission, Directorate-General Agriculture and Rural Development, version December 2006.
    9. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. 2004. New Perspectives for EU rural development. European Communities, 2004.
    10. EUROSTAT 2008a. Agricultural Statistics - main results 2006-2007. European Communities, 2008. ISSN 1830-463X.
    11. EUROSTAT. 2008b. Eurostat Yearbook 2008 - Europe in Figures. European Communities, 2008.
    12. EUROSTAT. 2006. Agricultural Statistics: Data 1995-2004. European Communities, 2006. ISBN 92-79-01107-3.
    13. EUROSTAT. 2002. Eurostat Yearbook 2002, The Statistical Guide to Europe, Data 1990-2000. European Communities, 2002.
    14. FRIEDMANN, J. 1969. The Role of Cities in National Development. The American Behavioral. 1969, vol. 12, no. 5, May/June, ABI/INFORM Global, s. 13. Go to original source...
    15. HAVLÍČEK T.; CHROMÝ P; JANČÁK V.; MARADA M. 2005. Vybrané teoreticko-metodologické aspekty a trendy geografického výzkumu periferních oblastí. In Problémy periferních oblastí. Praha : Univerzita Karlova, Přírodovědecká fakulta, Katedra sociální geografie a regionálního rozvoje, s. 1-24.
    16. HOLMAN, R. 2000. Transformace české ekonomiky. Praha : CEP 2000.
    17. HYTTINEN, P; NISKANEN, A.; OTTISCH, A. 2000. New challenges for the forest sector to contribute to rural development in Europe. Land Use Policy. 2000, no. 17, s. 221-232. Go to original source...
    18. IAMO. 2004. The Future of Rural Areas in the CEE New Member States. Institut für Agrarentwicklung in Mittel- und Osteuropa.
    19. LÉON, Y 2005. Rural Development in Europe: a research frontier for agricultural economists. European Review of Agricultural Economics. 2005, vol. 32, no. 3, s. 301-317. Go to original source...
    20. LÉON, Y; PERRIER-CORNET, P; SOULARD, CH. 2005. Rural Future: Alternative Scenarios for French Rural Society to 2020. EuroChoices. 2005, vol. 4, no. 2, s. 12-19. Go to original source...
    21. LOWE, P et al. 2002. Setting the next agenda? British and French approaches to the second pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy. Journal of Rural Studies. 2002, vol. 18, s. 1-17. Go to original source...
    22. MACFARLANE, R. 1998. Implementing Agri-environment Policy: A Landscape Ecology Perspective. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 1998, vol. 41, no. 5, s. 575-596. Go to original source...
    23. MAHÉ, P L.; ORTALO-MAGNÉ, F 1999. Five proposals for a European model of the countryside. Economic Policy. 1999, April 1999. Go to original source...
    24. NISKANNEN, A., LIN, CH. 2001. Regional similarities of forest resources and socio-economic structures in the EU member states. Forest Policy and Economics. 2001, no. 3, s. 55-67. Go to original source...
    25. OECD. 2003. Farm Household Income - Issues and Policy Responses. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
    26. OECD. 2006. The New Rural Paradigm - Policies and Governance. OECD Rural Policy Reviews, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
    27. OECD. 2001. Multifunctionality - Towards an Analitical Framework. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
    28. PRAŽAN, J. 2002. The EU Accession Process and the Challenge of Integrating Agri-Environmental Policies in the Candidate Countries - The Case of the Czech Republic. In PEZAROS, P D., UNFRIED, M. The Common Agricultural Policy and the Environmental Challenge: Instruments, Problems and Opportunities from Different Perspectives. Conference Proceedings, European Institute of Public Administration.
    29. SHUCKSMITH, M.; THOMPSON, J. K.; ROBERTS, D. 2005. The CAP and the Regions: the Territorial Impact of the Common Agricultural Policy. CAB International. Go to original source...
    30. TANGERMANN, S. 2006. The Future of the CAP under WTO Reform Pressure. Příspěvek na konferenci Vision of a Long-Term Agricultural and Rural Development in EU, Praha.
    31. VANĚK, D. 2006. Budoucnost patří venkovu. 2006, Zemědělec, č. 6, s. 4-5.
    32. WILKIN, J. 2003. The Future of EU Agricultural and Rural Policy from the Perspective of CEE Candidate Countries. Akademie fur Raumforschung und Landesplanung. www.arl-net.de/frames [17. 11. 2003].
    33. WWF 2001. Getting what we pay for: Switching funds from the first to the second pillar of the Common Agriculture Policy at its mid-term review. Worldwide Fund for Nature. www.wwf.org [10. 12. 2007].
    34. ŽIDEK, L. 2006. Transformace české ekonomiky. 1989-2004. 1. vyd. Praha : C. H. Beck, 2006.

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content