Rural development in Europe is a long‐standing issue that has been supported through EU policies in various ways. The effects of rural development have been uneven, and differences between well‐to‐do and marginal rural areas have been increasing both across and within countries. This process is reinforced by the current financial crisis. Recently, social innovation has been introduced as the new panacea for realising development and growth while, at the same time, warranting social inclusion and counteracting social inequality. A central question of this article is whether social innovation may help to effectively fight rural marginalisation, why that could be the case and what conditions then must be met. Three examples of rural social innovation are used to distil specific features of social innovation and compare them with other concepts and approaches to rural development. Rural social innovation is distinctive in its dependence on civic self‐reliance and self‐organisation due to austerity measures and state withdrawal, and its cross‐sectoral and translocal collaborations. This article concludes that it is time to go beyond earlier ideas of exogenous versus (neo‐)endogenous development and introduces the idea of nexogenous development with socio‐political reconnection as an engine of revitalisation.

No abstract

Conventions to protect domestic animals during transport, farming and slaughter were established by the Council of Europe and approved by many European states. Conventions are followed by recommendations that specify how the general principles of conventions apply for the different species. The European Union (EU) started discussions on animal welfare in the 1980s and adopted a series of Directives to protect farm animals. Both Recommendations and Directives define higher space allowance, more opportunity for social contacts, balanced diet, enriched environment, and limitation of harmful procedures. Animal welfare law varies across Europe with Northern states generally having the most stringent legislation.There is also an increasing variety of farm production schemes within European member states which contain animal welfare standards that go beyond the legal minimum. Some schemes are retailer-led; others are founded by producer organizations, sometimes in co-operation with non-governmental organisations. The differences between schemes reflect higher national legal requirements, higher quality industry schemes, organic production schemes and specific welfare-friendlier schemes. The communication of these higher welfare standards to consumers through the use of a quality assurance scheme logo on a product or packaging claims does not always happen. Farmers differ in their motivation for participating in animal welfare schemes. Some are mainly encouraged by premium prices; others give ethical reasons for changing towards animal friendly production methods.Although there is no official link between the Brambell report and European regulations to protect farm animals, the fact that the first European regulations to protect animals were adopted 10 years after the report and were in line with the conclusions of the report suggest that the report was influential, not only in the United Kingdom but also in the rest of Europe. #

Society's relationship with modern animal farming is an ambivalent one: on the one hand there is rising criticism about modern animal farming; on the other hand people appreciate certain aspects of it, such as increased food safety and low food prices. This ambivalence reflects the two faces of modernity: the negative (exploitation of nature and loss of traditions) and the positive (progress, convenience, and efficiency). This article draws on a national survey carried out in the Netherlands that aimed at gaining a deeper understanding about the acceptance of modern dairy farming in Dutch society. People take two dimensions into account when evaluating different aspects of modern dairy farming: (1) the way living beings are used for production and (2) the way a dairy farm functions as a business. In both these dimensions people appeared to adopt cautious opinions: most people preferred relatively traditional and natural farms and were concerned about the use of nature and treatment of animals in modern production-although this did not imply an outright rejection of modern animal farming. The study also looked for (and sought to explain) differences of opinion between social groups. Besides sociodemographic factors such as age and gender, farming experience and valueorientation (such as socially minded and professional) appeared to be important variables. The values and convictions within modern society can help to explain why some people are greatly concerned about animal welfare while some show less concern. This diversity also helps to explain why general information campaigns are quite ineffective in allaying concerns about modern animal farming.

All over Europe more and more farm families start new income generating activities on and off the farm to supplement the decreasing income from primary productions. Farmwomen play an important role in these strategies but are at the same time perceived as less professional entrepreneurs compared to men. This is due to women's cautious and small‐scaled approach to entrepreneurship, which is in its turn explained by women's lack of resources. This article follows another line of argument and departs from the question why women themselves choose to behave differently and prefer certain behaviour modes above others. The article is based on two research projects, which took place in the Netherlands during 1995–2001. The first research focused on how and why farmwomen started new economic activities on and off the farm. It shows that Dutch farmwomen share a specific approach to rural entrepreneurship and paid labour, which is characterised by fitting in and multi‐tasking. Women add the new activities to their regular tasks and fit them into the already existing working scheme because they want to make sure that neither family nor farm is troubled by their initiatives. The second project focused on the development of new on farm activities over the course of time and followed five female rural entrepreneurs from 1995 to 2001. It demonstrates that women may change their approach and expand their business when they experience that work and care may be successfully combined and that their new business is rewarding financially as well as emotionally. Understanding women's specific approach to entrepreneurship is important in order to more effectively support them. So far, rural development policies are of little help to women as they usually promote a type of entrepreneur and an approach to entrepreneurship most common among men.