Who Decides and Who Invests? The Role of the Public, Private and Third Sectors in Rural Development according to Geographical Contexts: The LEADER Approach in Andalusia, 2007–2015
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Framework
3. Sources, Methodology and Study Area
4. Results
4.1. The Role of the Stakeholders in Decision-Making, Planning and Investments
4.2. Investment
4.3. Geographical Distribution across Andalusia
5. Discussion and Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- European Communities. The Leader Approach. A Basic Guide; Office for Official Publications: Luxembourg, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Cejudo García, E.; Navarro Valverde, F. Neoendogenous Development in European Rural Areas. Results and Lessons; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1–304. [Google Scholar]
- Delamaza, G.; Thayer, L.E. Percepciones políticas y prácticas de participación como instrumento para la gobernanza de los territorios. EURE 2016, 42, 137–158. Available online: http://www.eure.cl/index.php/eure/article/view/1741/919 (accessed on 25 January 2022). [CrossRef]
- Scott, M. Reflecting on theory and practice. Plan. Theory Pract. 2019, 20, 3–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Davoudi, S.; Evans, N.; Governa, F.; Santangelo, M. Territorial governance in the making. Approaches, methodologies, practices. Boletín Asoc. Geógrafos Españoles 2008, 2008, 33–52. [Google Scholar]
- Esparcia, J.; Escribano, J.; Buciega, A. A perspective of LEADER Method in Spain based on the Analysis of Local Action Groups. In Evaluating the LEADER Approach to Rural Development. Grass-Roots Experiences of the Leader Programme; Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2015; pp. 33–51. [Google Scholar]
- Pawlowska, A. Territorial partnerships in rural Regions-Neo-institutional perspective. Pol. Sociol. Rev. 2017, 197, 95–108. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26383069 (accessed on 1 January 2022).
- European Commission Guidance on Community-Led Local Development in European Structural and Investment Funds (v2 May 2014). 2014. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/guidance_community_local_development.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2022).
- European Commission. Guía de Desarrollo Local Participativo para Actores Locales; Publications Office: Luxembourg, 2014; p. 121. [Google Scholar]
- Noguera, J.; Esparcia, J.; Pitarch, M.D. Leader en España: Desarrollo rural, poder, legitimación, aprendizaje y nuevas estructuras. Documents d’Anàlisi Geogràfica 2003, 37, 95–113. [Google Scholar]
- Lacquement, G.; Chevalier, P.; Navarro, F.; Cejudo, E. Public Action and Territorial Development: The Leader Approach in the Recomposition of Rural Spaces in Languedoc-Roussillon (France) and Andalusia (Spain). In Neoendogenous Development in European Rural Areas: Results and Lessons; Cejudo García, E., Navarro Valverde, F., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 63–86. [Google Scholar]
- Belliggiano, A.; Cejudo, E.; De Rubertis, S. The Role of Agriculture in Rural Development in Spain and Italy within the Framework of the LEADER 2007–2013 Programming Period. In Neoendogenous Development in European Rural Areas. Results and Lesson; Cejudo, E., Navarro, F., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 149–180. [Google Scholar]
- Labianca, M.; De Rubertis, S.; Belliggiano, A.; Salento, A.; Navarro, F. Social Innovation, Territorial Capital and Leader Experiences in Andalusia (Spain) and in Molise (Italy). In Neoendogenous Development in European Rural Areas: Results and Lessons; Cejudo García, E., Navarro Valverde, F., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 111–131. [Google Scholar]
- Furmankiewicz, M.; Thompson, N.; Zielińska, M. Area-based Partnerships in Rural Poland: The Post-accession Experience. J. Rural Stud. 2010, 26, 52–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chmielinski, P.; Faccilongo, N.; Fiore, M.; La Sala, P. Design and implementation of the Local Development Strategy: A case study of Polish and Italian Local Action Groups in 2007–2013. Stud. Agric. Econ. 2018, 120, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Court of Auditors. Implementation of the Leader Approach for Rural Development; Special Report No 5; Publications Office: Luxembourg, 2010; p. 108. [Google Scholar]
- Furmankiewicz, M.; Macken-Walsh, Á. Government within governance? Polish rural development partnerships through the lens of functional representation. J. Rural Stud. 2016, 46, 12–22. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743016716300663 (accessed on 5 January 2022). [CrossRef]
- Konečný, O. The Leader Approach Across the European Union: One Method of Rural Development, Many Forms of Implementation. Eur. Countrys. 2019, 11, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saradin, P.; Sulak, T. Local Action Groups and Participation. Contemp. Eur. Stud. 2015, 2, 25–31. Available online: https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=964253 (accessed on 15 January 2022).
- Esparcia Pérez, J.; Escribano Pizarro, J.; Sánchez Aguilera, D. Los territorios rurales. In Geografía Humana de España; Romero, J., Ed.; Tirant lo Blanch, Universitat de Valéncia: Valencia, Spain, 2017; pp. 367–488. [Google Scholar]
- OECD. Innovation and Modernising the Rural Economy; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2014; p. 151. [Google Scholar]
- Fadic, M.; Garcilazo, J.E.; Monroy, A.M.; Veneri, P. Classifying Small (TL3) Regions Based on Metropolitan Population, Low Density and Remoteness; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2019; p. 28. [Google Scholar]
- Sancho Comíns, J.; Reinoso Moreno, D. La delimitación del ámbito rural: Una cuestión clave en los programas de desarrollo rural. Estud. Geográficos 2012, 73, 599–624. Available online: http://estudiosgeograficos.revistas.csic.es/index.php/estudiosgeograficos/article/view/384 (accessed on 12 January 2022). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sánchez Escolano, L. Las redes de ciudades medias en la provincia de Granada: Transformaciones recientes y nuevas tipologías (1950–2008). Cuad. Geográficos 2010, 46, 111–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molinero Hernando, F. El espacio rural de España: Evolución, delimitación y clasificación. Cuad. Geográficos 2019, 58, 19–56. Available online: https://revistaseug.ugr.es/index.php/cuadgeo/article/view/8643 (accessed on 12 January 2022). [CrossRef]
- De Cos Guerra, O.; Reques Velasco, P. Vulnerabilidad territorial y demográfica en España. Posibilidades del análisis multicriterio y la lógica difusa para la definición de patrones espaciales. J. Reg. Res. Investig. Reg. 2019, 45, 201–225. Available online: https://investigacionesregionales.org/es/article/vulnerabilidad-territorial-y-demografica-en-espana-posibilidades-del-analisis-multicriterio-y-la-logica-difusa-para-la-definicion-de-patrones-espaciales/ (accessed on 25 January 2022).
- United Kingdom Government. Defining Rural Areas; United Kingdom Government: London, UK, 2017; p. 5.
- Prieto-Lara, E.; Ocaña-Riola, R. Updating Rurality Index for Small Areas in Spain. Soc. Indic. Res. 2010, 95, 267–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bibby, P.; Brindley, P. Urban and Rural Area Definitions for Policy Purposes in England and Wales: Methodology (v1.0); Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs. Department for Communities and Local Government. Welsh Government: London, UK, 2013; p. 36.
- Guastella, G.; Pareglio, S. Urban Systems, Urbanization Dynamics and Land Use in Italy: Evidence from a Spatial Analysis. Curr. Urban Stud. 2014, 2, 291–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ratcliffe, M.; Burd, C.; Holder, K.; Fields, A. Defining Rural at the U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey and Geography Brief; Census Bureau: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, J.; Ameratunga, S.; Lee, A.; Browne, M.; Exeter, D. Developing a New Index of Rurality for Exploring Variations in Health Outcomes in Auckland and Northland. Soc. Indic. Res. 2019, 144, 955–980. Available online: https://search.proquest.com/docview/2170092424 (accessed on 13 January 2022). [CrossRef]
- Rodero-Cosano, M.L.; Garcia-Alonso, C.R.; Salinas-Pérez, J.A. A Deprivation Analysis for Andalusia (Spain): An Approach Based on Structural Equations. Soc. Indic. Res. 2014, 115, 751–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, T.; Noble, M.; Noble, S.; Wright, G.; Mclennan, D.; Plunkett, E. The English Indices of Deprivation 2015: Research Report; Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government: London, UK, 2015; p. 94.
- Exeter, D.; Zhao, J.; Browne, M.; Lee, A. Towards a new Index of Multiple Area-Level Deprivation for Auckland, New Zealand. N. Z. Geogr. 2016, 72, 92–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eurostat; European Commission. Income Poverty and Material Deprivation in European Countries; Publications Office: Luxembourg, 2010; p. 64. [Google Scholar]
- Reig Martínez, E.; Goerlich Gisbert, F.J.; Cantarino Martí, I. Delimitación de Áreas Rurales y Urbanas a Nivel Local: Demografía, Coberturas del Suelo y Accesibilidad; Fundación BBVA: Bilbao, Spain, 2016; p. 131. [Google Scholar]
- Cejudo García, E.; Navarro Valverde, F.; Cañete Pérez, J.A. Evolución y distribución territorial de los trabajadores eventuales agrarios subsidiados en Andalucía. Boletín Asociación Geógrafos Españoles 2016, 72, 117–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- López Ontiveros, A. La agrociudad andaluza: Caracterización, estructura y problemática. Rev. Estud. Reg. 1994, 39, 59–91. Available online: http://www.revistaestudiosregionales.com/documentos/articulos/pdf443.pdf (accessed on 5 January 2022).
- Esparcia, J.; Escribano, J.; Serrano, J. From development to power relations and territorial governance: Increasing the leadership role of Leader Local Action Groups in Spain. J. Rural Stud. 2015, 42, 29–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD. The New Rural Paradigm: Policies and Governance; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2006; p. 168. [Google Scholar]
- Neumeier, S. Social innovation in rural development: Identifying the key factors of success. Geogr. J. 2017, 183, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dijkstra, L.; Garcilazo, E.; McCann, P. The effects of the global financial crisis on European regions and cities. J. Econ. Geogr. 2015, 15, 935–949. Available online: https://academic.oup.com/joeg/article-pdf/15/5/935/3648785/lbv032.pdf (accessed on 7 January 2022). [CrossRef]
- Cañete, J.A.; Nieto, A.; Cejudo, E.; Cárdenas, G. Territorial Distribution of Projects Within the LEADER Approach (2007–2013) in Extremadura and Andalusia. In Neoendogenous Development in European Rural Areas: Results and Lessons; Cejudo, E., Navarro, F., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 87–109. [Google Scholar]
- Cañete, J.; Navarro, F.; Cejudo, E. Territorially unequal rural development: The cases of the LEADER Initiative and the PRODER Programme in Andalusia (Spain). Eur. Plan. Stud. 2018, 26, 726–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cárdenas Alonso, G.; Nieto Masot, A. Towards Rural Sustainable Development? Contributions of the EAFRD 2007–2013 in Low Demographic Density Territories: The Case of Extremadura (SW Spain). Sustainability 2017, 9, 1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cejudo García, E.; Cañete Pérez, J.A.; Navarro Valverde, F.; Capote Lama, A. Fracaso en la implementación de los proyectos Leader en el rural profundo de Andalucía (España): Juventud y mujer. J. Depopul. Rural Dev. Stud. 2021, 33, 267–293. Available online: http://ruralager.org/wp-content/uploads/10-Ager-33-Cejudo-01.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2022). [CrossRef]
- Salamaña, I.; Baylina, M.; Ramon, M.D.; Porto, A.M.; Villarino, M. Dones, trajectòries de vida i noves ruralitats. Doc. D’anàlisi Geogràfica 2016, 62, 661–681. Available online: https://dag.revista.uab.es/article/download/v62-n3-salamana-baylina-garcia-etal/403-pdf-ca (accessed on 25 January 2022). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Baylina, M.; Villarino, M.; Garcia Ramon, M.D.; Mosteiro, M.J.; Porto, A.M.; Salamaña, I. Género e innovación en los nuevos procesos de re-ruralización en España. Finisterra Rev. Port. Geogr. 2019, 54, 75–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vercher Savall, N.; Escribano Pizarro, J.; Valero, D.E. Models de vida femenins en el medi rural. Un cas d’estudi a la Sierra del Segura (Albacete). Documents d’Anàlisi Geogràfica 2019, 65, 139–161. Available online: https://dag.revista.uab.cat/article/view/v65-n1-vercher-escribano-valero (accessed on 5 January 2022). [CrossRef]
- Cejudo, E.; Navarro, F.; Cañete, J.A. Young and women entrepreneurs in neo-endogenous development. In Neoendogenous Development in European Rural Areas. Results and Lessons; Cejudo, E., Navarro, F., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 209–234. [Google Scholar]
- Alario Trigueros, M.; Morales Prieto, E. Iniciativas de las mujeres: Emprendimiento y oportunidades en el espacio rural de Castilla y León. Documents d’Anàlisi Geogràfica 2016, 62, 613–637. Available online: https://doaj.org/article/617d8e63a0544319882ec07c9f804e05 (accessed on 15 January 2022). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Martín, M.P.M.; de Castro, P.C.; Gómez, D.C. Welfare Citizenship in the Shadow of the Recession in Spain: The Case of Households in Hardship. Rev. Española Investig. Sociológicas 2020, 169, 85–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alvarez-Sousa, A. Emprendedores por necesidad. Factores determinantes. Rev. Española Investig. Sociológicas 2019, 166, 3–24. Available online: https://reis.cis.es/REIS/PDF/REIS_166_011547120128092.pdf (accessed on 12 January 2022). [CrossRef]
- Martín, P.; Tovar, F.J. Desmontando la seguridad en las políticas de empleo: La propuesta europea de flexiguridad. Rev. Int. Sociol. 2019, 77, e124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cejudo García, E.; Cañete Pérez, J.A.; Navarro Valverde, F.; Ruiz Moya, N. Entrepreneurs and Territorial Diversity: Success and Failure in Andalusia 2007–2015. Land 2020, 9, 262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cejudo García, E.; Cañete Pérez, J.A.; Navarro Valverde, F.; Ruiz Moya, N. Empleo rural y LEADER: Actores, territorios y beneficiarios en Andalucía (2007–2015). Boletín Asociación Geógrafos Españoles 2022, 92, 1–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez Molina, M.; Sánchez Escolano, L.M.; Cejudo García, E.; Camacho Ballesta, J.A. Variety in local development strategies and employment: LEADER programme in Andalusia. Agric. Econ. 2019, 65, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Comité Económico y Social Europeo. Evaluación ex Post de Los Programas de Desarrollo Rural 2007–2013; Comité Económico y Social Europeo: Brussels, Belgium, 2017; p. 26. [Google Scholar]
- Thuesen, A.A. Is Leader Elitist or Inclusive? Composition of Danish LAG Boards in the 2007-2013 Rural Development and Fisheries Programmes. Sociol. Rural 2010, 50, 31–45. Available online: https://api.istex.fr/ark:/67375/WNG-DSHT85TH-X/fulltext.pdf (accessed on 11 January 2022). [CrossRef]
- Delin, M. The role of farmers in Local Action Groups: The case of the national network of the Local Action Groups in the Czech Republic. Agric. Econ. 2012, 58, 433–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Navarro, F.; Woods, M.; Cejudo, E. The LEADER Initiative has been a Victim of Its Own Success. The Decline of the Bottom-Up Approach in Rural Development Programmes. The Cases of Wales and Andalusia. Sociol. Rural 2016, 56, 270–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olmedo, L.; O’Shaughnessy, M. A Substantive View of Social Enterprises as Neo-endogenous Rural Development Actors. Voluntas Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit Organ. 2022, 33, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bidet, E.; Eum, H. Une analyse socio-économique de la trajectoire institutionnelle de l’entreprise sociale: Le cas de la Corée du Sud. Ann. Public Coop. Econ. 2022, 93, 229–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hahn, S.; McCabe, A. Welfare-to-work and the emerging third sector in South Korea: Korea’s third way? Int. J. Soc. Welf. 2006, 15, 314–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pestoff, V. Towards a paradigm of democratic participation: Citizen participation and co-production of personal social services in Sweden. Ann. Public Coop. Econ. 2009, 80, 197–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaney, P.; Wincott, D. Envisioning the Third Sector’s Welfare Role: Critical Discourse Analysis of ‘Post-Devolution’ Public Policy in the UK 1998–2012. Soc. Policy Adm. 2014, 48, 757–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Darby, S. Dynamic Resistance: Third-Sector Processes for Transforming Neoliberalization. Antipode 2016, 48, 977–999. Available online: https://api.istex.fr/ark:/67375/WNG-5T0SV456-S/fulltext.pdf (accessed on 12 January 2022). [CrossRef]
- Cejudo-García, E.; Navarro-Valverde, F.; Cañete-Pérez, J.A.; Ruiz-Moya, N. The Third Sector: The “Other” Actors of Rural Development, Andalusia 2000–2015. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makkonen, T.; Kahila, P. Vitality policy as a tool for rural development in peripheral Finland. Growth Change 2021, 52, 706–726. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338841673_Vitality_policy_as_a_tool_for_rural_development_in_peripheral_Finland (accessed on 13 January 2022). [CrossRef]
- Chen, H.; Knierim, A.; Bock, B.B. The emergence of social innovation in rural revitalisation practices: A comparative case study from Taiwan. J. Rural Stud. 2022, 90, 134–146. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743016722000250 (accessed on 25 January 2022). [CrossRef]
- Pinilla, V.; Sáez, L.A. What Do Public Policies Teach us About Rural Depopulation: The Case Study of Spain. Eur. Countrys. 2021, 13, 330–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Viladomiu Canela, L.; Rosell Foxà, J.; Francès Tudel, G. Factores determinantes de la participacion de la mujer como promotoras de proyectos Leader+. Rev. Española Estud. Agrosoc. Y Pesq. 2010, 226, 177–206. Available online: https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/spreea/186260.html (accessed on 11 January 2022).
- Augustyn, A.M.; Nemes, G. Catching up with the West? Europeanisation of Rural Policies in Hungary and Poland. Stud. Agric. Econ. 2014, 116, 114–121. Available online: https://studies.hu/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2152.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2022). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tirado Ballesteros, J.G.; Hernández, M.H. Promoting tourism through the EU LEADER programme: Understanding Local Action Group governance. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2019, 27, 396–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sacristán López, H.; Martínez Arroyo, F.; Yagüe Blanco, J.L. Los órganos de decisión de los grupos de acción local en el periodo 2007–2013 en España: Relaciones entre los actores del medio rural. Rev. Española Estud. Agrosoc. Y Pesq. 2016, 245, 47–66. Available online: https://www.mapa.gob.es/app/publicaciones/art_datos_art.asp?articuloid=1426&codrevista=REEAP (accessed on 25 January 2022).
- Dargan, L.; Shucksmith, M. Leader and Innovation. Sociol. Rural 2008, 48, 274–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lukesch, R. Leader Reloaded. In Proceedings of the ELARD conference on the heartbeat of the Leader community, Évora, Portugal, 26–28 September 2018; pp. 1–23. [Google Scholar]
- Furmankiewicz, M.; Janc, K.; Macken-Walsh, Á. Implementation of the EU LEADER programme at member-state level: Written and unwritten rules of local project selection in rural Poland. J. Rural Stud. 2021, 86, 357–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Esparcia, J. Innovation and networks in rural areas. An analysis from European innovative projects. J. Rural Stud. 2014, 34, 1–14. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743016713000995 (accessed on 5 January 2022). [CrossRef]
Variables | Urban | Intermediate | Rural | Total | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Closed | Open | Near | Remote | Near | Remote | Deep | ||
Type_1 | Type_2 | Type_3 | Type_4 | Type_5 | Type_6 | Type_7 | ||
No. of municipalities | 28 | 18 | 125 | 91 | 228 | 132 | 151 | 773 |
Area km2 | 826 | 5071 | 16,500 | 19,170 | 18,895 | 12,138 | 15,186 | 87,786 |
Population 2011 (thousands) | 2,086,485 | 2,071,715 | 1,997,533 | 1,225,614 | 555,114 | 238,687 | 214,696 | 8,389,844 |
Density 2011 (inhab./km2) | 2.527 | 409 | 121 | 64 | 29 | 20 | 14 | 96 |
Travel time (minutes) | 3.8 | 3.4 | 17.3 | 45.0 | 30.3 | 51.7 | 73.3 | 40.4 |
Altitude (m) | 256 | 264 | 267 | 381 | 518 | 631 | 718 | 504 |
Women (%) | 51.7 | 51.3 | 49.4 | 50.1 | 49.0 | 49.3 | 49.3 | 50.5 |
Men (%) | 48.3 | 48.7 | 50.6 | 49.9 | 51.0 | 50.7 | 50.7 | 49.5 |
Inhab./Municipality | 74,517 | 115,095 | 15,980 | 13,468 | 2435 | 1808 | 1422 | 10,854 |
Real Growth 2007–2015 | 88,402 | 80,538 | 182,781 | 2659 | 20,825 | −8123 | −14,527 | 352,555 |
Real Growth 1961–2011 | 43.3 | 41.9 | 36.7 | 1.3 | −6.6 | −7.1 | −9.6 | 100.0 |
Age 0–14 (%) | 15.9 | 16.8 | 17.8 | 16.0 | 14.5 | 12.8 | 12.6 | 16.3 |
Age 15–64 (%) | 68.9 | 68.9 | 69.6 | 67.5 | 66.7 | 65.4 | 64.2 | 68.5 |
Age ≥ 65 (%) | 15.2 | 14.3 | 12.6 | 16.5 | 18.9 | 21.8 | 23.2 | 15.2 |
Ageing Index | 95.7 | 85.4 | 71.1 | 103.3 | 130.3 | 171.0 | 183.3 | 93.3 |
Average age (mean age) | 37.9 | 37.7 | 38.1 | 40.4 | 43.3 | 45.7 | 46.0 | 42.7 |
Affiliated General Regime * | 81.0 | 78.8 | 50.3 | 40.8 | 30.0 | 29.8 | 28.3 | 62.7 |
Affiliated Agrarian Regime * | 1.2 | 3.6 | 26.5 | 37.4 | 51.1 | 50.3 | 49.2 | 17.7 |
Types of Rural Areas | LAG. Decision-Making Bodies | LDS. Objectives | LDS. Action Plan | Investments | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Public Sector | Private Sector | Third Sector | Pub. Sect | Priv. Sect | Third Sector | Others | Pub. Sect | Priv. Sect | Third Sector | Others | Public Sector | Priv. Sect | Third Sector | LAGs | |
Deep | 47.1 | 35.3 | 17.6 | 43.8 | 7.9 | 24.7 | 23.8 | 60.0 | 4.0 | 19.1 | 17.5 | 28.9 | 49.3 | 1.3 | 20.5 |
Intermediate | 49.9 | 40.1 | 10.0 | 46.1 | 18.9 | 21.7 | 25.3 | 56.1 | 4.3 | 13.5 | 35.0 | 16.4 | 52.6 | 7.8 | 23.2 |
Periurban | 47.3 | 38.4 | 14.4 | 36.4 | 13.8 | 34.5 | 15.4 | 26.9 | 19.2 | 23.1 | 30.8 | 1.7 | 69.5 | 9.8 | 19.0 |
Average | 48.1 | 37.9 | 14.0 | 42.1 | 13.5 | 27.0 | 21.5 | 47.7 | 9.2 | 18.6 | 27.8 | 15.7 | 57.1 | 6.3 | 20.9 |
Promoter | Urban | Intermediate | Rural | Total | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Closed | Open | Near | Remote | Near | Remote | Deep | ||
Type 1 | Type 2 | Type 3 | Type 4 | Type 5 | Type 6 | Type 7 | ||
PLCs | 0.0 | 4.1 | 5.4 | 2.3 | 4.1 | 0.0 | 4.6 | 3.7 |
Limited Companies | 0.0 | 47.8 | 39.6 | 35.8 | 34.9 | 35.2 | 33.5 | 36.4 |
Business Partnerships | 0.0 | 2.9 | 1.6 | 2.4 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 1.8 | 1.7 |
Cooperatives | 0.0 | 14.7 | 12.4 | 12.1 | 13.9 | 8.7 | 9.4 | 11.9 |
Private enterprises | 0.0 | 69.5 | 59.0 | 52.6 | 54.5 | 44.6 | 49.3 | 53.7 |
Individual Entrepreneurs | 70.6 | 18.3 | 19.1 | 16.7 | 18.0 | 20.9 | 17.3 | 18.3 |
Private Sector | 70.6 | 87.8 | 78.1 | 69.3 | 72.5 | 65.5 | 66.6 | 71.9 |
Local Councils | 29.4 | 1.7 | 13.2 | 16.4 | 20.6 | 27.1 | 28.9 | 19.2 |
Public Bodies | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 |
Departments of Central and Regional Governments | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Public Sector | 29.4 | 1.7 | 13.3 | 17.1 | 21.1 | 27.1 | 28.9 | 19.5 |
Associations and Foundations | 0.0 | 9.8 | 3.6 | 7.8 | 2.1 | 3.5 | 1.3 | 4.0 |
LAGs | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.9 | 3.0 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 2.1 |
Civil Societies | 0.0 | 0.3 | 1.8 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 0.9 |
Religious Congregations and Institutions | 0.0 | 0.3 | 1.0 | 2.4 | 0.9 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 1.4 |
Third Sector | 0.0 | 10.5 | 8.8 | 13.6 | 6.5 | 7.4 | 4.2 | 8.5 |
Others | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.1 |
Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Promoter | Urban | Intermediate | Rural | Total | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Closed | Open | Near | Remote | Near | Remote | Deep | ||
Type 1 | Type 2 | Type 3 | Type 4 | Type 5 | Type 6 | Type 7 | ||
PLCs | 0 | 107,834 | 309,272 | 108,821 | 332,288 | 0 | 568,023 | 254,518 |
Limited Companies | 0 | 172,507 | 133,028 | 134,801 | 177,291 | 159,747 | 196,729 | 151,876 |
Business Partnerships | 0 | 76,061 | 94,045 | 98,688 | 115,309 | 39,410 | 123,222 | 96,389 |
Cooperatives | 0 | 102,555 | 180,898 | 171,665 | 167,26 | 102,748 | 165,215 | 160,884 |
Private enterprises | 0 | 139,935 | 147,277 | 137,823 | 178,187 | 138,414 | 197,246 | 155,178 |
Individual Entrepreneurs | 110,884 | 27,052 | 56,945 | 55,773 | 67,189 | 56,181 | 68,189 | 58,655 |
Private Sector | 110,884 | 74,775 | 106,049 | 101,684 | 126,307 | 94,289 | 132,199 | 109,432 |
Local Councils | 138,625 | 34,815 | 72,152 | 70,900 | 41,795 | 49,145 | 69,123 | 57,306 |
Public Bodies | 0 | 0 | 100,947 | 92,817 | 155,603 | 0 | 27,635 | 102,918 |
Departments of Central and Regional Governments | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8431 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8431 |
Public Sector | 138,625 | 34,815 | 72,270 | 71,299 | 42,411 | 49,145 | 68,989 | 57,628 |
Associations and Foundations | 0 | 60,464 | 52,624 | 69,074 | 44,872 | 49,321 | 23,46 | 54,146 |
LAGs | 0 | 0 | 44,776 | 46,021 | 33,259 | 42,403 | 39,81 | 40,8 |
Civil Societies | 0 | 18,035 | 76,506 | 51,963 | 83,969 | 54,306 | 21,901 | 66,995 |
Religious Congregations and Institutions | 0 | 34,263 | 105,952 | 133,263 | 145,672 | 121,332 | 139,283 | 125,967 |
Third Sector | 0 | 54,911 | 57,761 | 66,531 | 46,639 | 55,061 | 39,025 | 55,984 |
Others | 0 | 0 | 244,101 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 240,886 | 242,494 |
Total | 117,819 | 70,741 | 93,743 | 88,832 | 82,745 | 72,444 | 97,012 | 87,153 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Cejudo-García, E.; Navarro-Valverde, F.; Cañete-Pérez, J.A. Who Decides and Who Invests? The Role of the Public, Private and Third Sectors in Rural Development according to Geographical Contexts: The LEADER Approach in Andalusia, 2007–2015. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3853. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073853
Cejudo-García E, Navarro-Valverde F, Cañete-Pérez JA. Who Decides and Who Invests? The Role of the Public, Private and Third Sectors in Rural Development according to Geographical Contexts: The LEADER Approach in Andalusia, 2007–2015. Sustainability. 2022; 14(7):3853. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073853
Chicago/Turabian StyleCejudo-García, Eugenio, Francisco Navarro-Valverde, and José Antonio Cañete-Pérez. 2022. "Who Decides and Who Invests? The Role of the Public, Private and Third Sectors in Rural Development according to Geographical Contexts: The LEADER Approach in Andalusia, 2007–2015" Sustainability 14, no. 7: 3853. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073853