Search results

Wealthy rural areas, or rural areas in wealthy regions, have a specificity that should be taken into consideration both in empirical and theoretical research. In most of the cases, rural development in these areas depends not only on the capacity of rural communities to mobilise endogenous resources, but also to be able to link endogenous resources with outside networks. In Italy this approach has widely been put into practice through strategies centred on the link between local food and its place of production. To explore the implications of this link, the paper will explore the implication of an adoption of the concept of ‘terroir’. Terroir can be seen as a mix of a set of localised invariants in the space related to natural, cultural, and social spheres. It is highly specific of a place, as it is produced and reproduced through localised processes. The peculiarity of the ‘terroir’ is that it is embodied into the product, which means that it is the source of local products’ identity and specificity. Local products are then a component of a broader socio-technical system, and product and terroir co-evolve. What are the mechanisms that make local products keys to rural development in a neo-endogenous perspective? In a neo-endogenous perspective, valorisation of local products is mainly related to its capacity to be recognised and evaluated by outside observers as different (and possibly better) from others. This capacity is embodied into what Bourdieu calls symbolic capital. Symbolic capital becomes a thread linking ‘terroir’ and the product to external observers, and convey to them meanings like notoriety, reputation, and trust. In order to be able to create, maintain, and increase symbolic capital, rural communities activate communication practices within and outside themselves. This may generate conflicts as well as strengthen identities and alliances. Three case studies will show the network building processes related to the creation of symbolic capital and its mobilisation into food production and marketing. The Cutigliano case shows how a small community borrows symbolic capital from the outside to enhance its capacity to sell a local cheese outside the area. The Colonnata case shows the risk that neo-endogenous strategies generate interlocal conflicts, hampering its competitiveness as a whole. The Chianti case shows an internal conflict over the use of the symbolic capital with both positive effects on the public debate and potential negative effects on the cohesion of the area. All the three cases make possible a reflection on governance, and especially on the role of the state (or the regional administration) in the governance of these processes.

Are radically novel practices more likely to attract recognition when the evaluating audience is composed of external evaluators? Our baseline argument asserts that radical novelty is more likely to be positively evaluated by an external audience and that peripheral (rather than core) producers have higher incentives to adopt novel practices that depart from tradition. Yet, because peripheral producers often lack the necessary support and legitimacy to promote novelty, audiences play a critical role in recognizing their innovative efforts. How can peripheral producers mitigate the challenges associated with novelty recognition? To answer this question, we explore how peripheral producers’ collaboration with acclaimed consultants affects the process of external audience recognition in the context of the Italian wine field from 1997 to 2006. Our findings suggest that radical novelty is positively received by an external audience composed of critics, although we do not find a significant difference between core and peripheral producers. However, external audiences are more open to recognizing peripheral producers’ use of novel practices when they collaborate with well-connected consultants. We find that the use of central consultants produces a “boosting” effect that accentuates the differences between evaluations of peripheral producers who embrace novelty and evaluations of those that follow the tradition. Our study thus advances theory by providing empirical evidence of the value of considering third-party actors such as consultants, who sit at the nexus between the agency required for innovation and external audiences’ recognition of novelty, when studying novelty evaluation and recognition.

Comparing rural development with agricultural modernisation, there are fundamental differences. Industrial development of agriculture more and more segregates agriculture from other functions and is based on an ‘individualised transaction model’ in which the world consists of loose particles that are linked by markets (atomistic world view). Conversely rural development can be perceived as a form of re-socialisation of agriculture and is based on a ‘relational cooperation model’ in which new relations characterise business development.

This chapter is a second level type of analysis of many research findings of these common traits or features and gives a picture of the distinctiveness of rural development practices. Nine different features that characterize rural development practices are described and discussed: (1) novelty production, (2) relative autonomy, (3) synergy, (4) clashes and competing claims, (5) coalitions and new relations; the construction of rural webs, (6) common pool resources, (7) new division of labour, (8) the distinctive different impact and (9) resilience. The more these features are present and intertwined, the better the specific practice can face and withstand adverse conditions. These features and the associated practices have to be understood as part of a wider transitional process that might co-evolve with or run counter to competing transitional processes.