This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Wiley via http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/soru.12079The LEADER approach has been at the heart of European rural development policy for the last 20 years, encompassing the principles of bottom-up endogenous development and community empowerment. Initially delivered through autonomous local action groups (LAGs), since the 2007?2013 programming period, LEADER has been integrated with other measures in broader regional rural development programmes. It has been claimed that these changes have diluted the participatory principles of this programme. We examine the extent and impact of participation in rural development through LEADER, how this has changed over time, and the factors driving changes, through surveys of LAG managers in two case study regions in Spain (Andalusia) and the UK (Wales). The findings show that LAG managers are very positive about the breadth of participation in their own group and its role in decentralising decision-making, but critical of the structure, operation and management of LEADER in rural development programmes. In particular bureaucracy and the increased influence of regional and local government are perceived to have limited the autonomy of LAGs and to have deterred the participation of marginalised groups. The principles of this initiative are perceived to have been diluted and LEADER appears to have been a victim of its own success.authorsversionPeer reviewe

No abstract

In the Leader approach, innovation plays a key role in European territories, especially in marginal and peripheral ones, being essentially assumed, from a programmatic point of view, as social innovation. This paper aims to understand the interpretation and the declination of innovation in the practice of Leader initiative at local scale and analyze contextual factors related to its implementation in two southern provinces of Spain and Italy (Granada and Lecce). The study aims to analyze the projects reported as innovative by the leaders of the Local Action Groups, starting from the literature and using a key Community document entitled “Extended report on preserving the innovative character of LEADER”. Lastly, the study reveals common significant problems linked to local awareness of the role of social innovation, as well as the absence or limitations of key institutions.

203issn impreso 0250-7161 | issn digital vol  | n o  | septiembre  | pp. Introducción: hipótesis y estructura del trabajo ue pdr leader i, ii proder i y ii objetivos, siendo esenciales los siguientes: un desarrollo rural integrado, una diversificación de las economías y un desarrollo ascendente, todo ello promoviendo la participación, el autogobierno y el partenariado. En este artículo nos centraremos en el estudio de este último aspecto, esencial a la hora de promover un desarrollo ¿han sido controladas por las elites económicas y políticas locales? Ambas cuestiones han sido realmente los implicados en los procesos de desarrollo, o si se ha avanzado estudiar los propios resultados de los pdr.Se parte de la siguiente hipótesis: la participación local, promovida tanto por leader como por proder -rrollo socioeconómico desde el Estado a las comunidades rurales. Entre tales riesgos pocos miembros dentro de una comunidad se implican en la gobernanza local.y poderes. Por esta vía, otros muchos actores son excluidos del proceso de desaentre otros. Por tanto, desde nuestro punto de vista, y compartiendo la opinión deprimidas. Sus principios filosóficos fueron recogidos en el texto comunitario El futuro del mundo rural, y se comenzaron a implantar a partir de 1991 como una iniciativa piloto para leader i leader ii leader 2 Se trata de un "leader a la española", un programa diseñado por el Estado español para las zonas de desarrollo rural diseñado y aplicado en España y cofinanciado por la Unión Europea.205 Navarro, Cejudo y Maroto | Reflexiones en torno a la participación en el desarrollo rural... | ©EURE -dades rurales se ayuden a sí mismas.Tras exponer los antecedentes y aclarar una serie de conceptos clave en la segunda participación final de los pdr reflexiones y conclusiones finales. Participación y poder. Aclaraciones conceptuales y antecedentesCon una cierta perspectiva histórica en torno a la aplicación de leader en los territocomo un instrumento de poder, y por su control disputaron los diferentes agentes de gal de los gal -cionados con determinadas actividades: cargos elegidos, representantes culturales, presión entendieron leader como un instrumento para el desarrollo de "su" sector de aplicar los principios de la gobernanza territorial en la gestión de las políticas -mayor responsabilidad, para controlar y gestionar su propio proceso de desarrollo; en definitiva, para tomar decisiones. Esta perspectiva implicaba no solo superar su inicial concepción ligada a la simplificación de la toma de decisiones por parte de los sino incluso del "buen gobierno", fundamentada en un papel insustituible del Estado una pluralidad de actores públicos y privados, con el propósito de mejorar la toma de decisiones, la gestión y el desarrollo de lo público y lo colectivo, con una marcada 206 ©EURE | vol  | n o  | septiembre  | pp.

Rural tourism has commonly been identified as one of the main areas of application of the principles of sustainable tourism, but the literature has typically focused solely on the ecological dimension, particularly when referring to agritourism. This study presents a new approach to assessing the “eco-effectiveness” of the evolutionary dynamics of agritourism, as applied in a study of NUTS-2 regions in two European countries (Spain and Italy) that have implemented similar rural development strategies. To this end, a synthetic sustainability index was developed using the Index Decomposition Analysis (IDA) technique. The last period of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) 2007–2013 was chosen for the study in order to analyze the outcomes of a programming cycle focusing on the diversification of agriculture through tourism. The results show that the sustainability of agritourism growth is not homogeneous and has specific features in different regions of the same country. In some cases, there were more similarities with regions from other countries. This tool could help evaluate the impact of agritourism and facilitate comparisons between different regions, in this way supporting the process of transition from a linear to a circular economy.