Both in practice and policy a new model of rural development is emerging. This paper reflects the discussions in the impact research programme and suggests that at the level of associated theory also a fundamental shift is taking place. The modernization paradigm that once dominated policy, practice and theory is being replaced by a new rural development paradigm. Rural development is analyzed as a multi‐level, multi‐actor and multi‐facetted process rooted in historical traditions that represents at all levels a fundamental rupture with the modernization project. The range of new quality products, services and forms of cost reduction that together comprise rural development are understood as a response by farm families to both the eroding economic base of their enterprises and to the new needs and expectations European society has of the rural areas. Rural development therefore is largely an autonomous, self‐driven process and in its further unfolding agriculture will continue to play a key role, although it is a role that may well change. This article provides an introduction to the nine papers of this ‘special issue’ and the many reconfiguration processes embodied in rural development that they address.in rural development

No abstract

This paper summarizes the main findings of the GLAMUR project which starts with an apparently simple question: is "local" more sustainable than "global"? Sustainability assessment is framed within a post-normal science perspective, advocating the integration of public deliberation and scientific research. The assessment spans 39 local, intermediate and global supply chain case studies across different commodities and countries. Assessment criteria cover environmental, economic, social, health and ethical sustainability dimensions. A closer view of the food system demonstrates a highly dynamic local-global continuum where actors, while adapting to a changing environment, establish multiple relations and animate several chain configurations. The evidence suggests caution when comparing "local" and "global" chains, especially when using the outcomes of the comparison in decision-making. Supply chains are analytical constructs that necessarily-and arbitrarily-are confined by system boundaries, isolating a set of elements from an interconnected whole. Even consolidated approaches, such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), assess only a part of sustainability attributes, and the interpretation may be controversial. Many sustainability attributes are not yet measurable and "hard" methodologies need to be complemented by "soft" methodologies which are at least able to identify critical issues and trade-offs. Aware of these limitations, our research shows that comparing local and global chains, with the necessary caution, can help overcome a priori positions that so far have characterized the debate between "localists" and "globalists". At firm level, comparison between "local" and "global" chains could be useful to identify best practices, benchmarks, critical points, and errors to avoid. As sustainability is not a status to achieve, but a never-ending process, comparison and deliberation can be the basis of a "reflexive governance" of food chains.

R estructuring processes in the global economy have made clear that power and success in business are not necessarily linked to scale of operations. Rather, what matters is the ability to control others at a distance (Whatmore 1998), replacing hierarchical and vertically integrated organizations with networks based on a continuity between the 'in' and the 'out' of the firm (Saxenian 1994). This may imply subcontracting operations, the creation of partnerships with suppliers and customers (Peters 1992) or the centralization of strategic functions (Harrison 1994) such as those linked to 'intellectual properties': r&d, strategy, and communication (Henderson 1998). As industrial firms reshape themselves to find new ways to compete at the global level, important forces lead to a general restructuring of economic regulation. National corporations and national trade unions lose their power of control in favour of both trans-national and local institutions.Rural development can be seen as one of the responses to the crisis in the postwar mode of agricultural regulation and its techno-economic paradigm ( Van der Ploeg et al. 2000). Centralized state intervention, agricultural co-operatives and national farmers' organizations -its pillars -have lost their capacity to regulate the agro-food system and to respond to the emerging problems of farmers, consumers and citizens. New practices based on alternative techno-economic principles and embodying a reshaping of local-global relations have begun to develop.One of the key points of rural development practices is collective action at the local level and its capacity to create alliances beyond the locality. Collective action enables small entrepreneurs to mobilize social relations to improve their economic performance and create new opportunities for growth. Successful cases of rural development demonstrate that collective action produces a local framework in which a constructed environment, institutions, symbols, and routines facilitate the activities of small firms by giving them access to resources that could not be accessed by individual action alone.The modernization paradigm does recognize the importance of collective action. However, its major principals are scale and efficiency. Thus agricultural development is seen in terms of balancing the power of the agribusiness by creating cooperatives in an effort to reduce costs and concentrate economic power, and of concentrating politic power by stimulating lobbying. In other words, an attempt

This article aims at analysing the features and the dynamics of those alternative agri-food networks in which consumers act as initiators. Drawing on a survey of ongoing initiatives at national level and on evidence from empirical fieldwork in a specific territorial context showing a variegated and dynamic reality at this regard (Tuscany), the article analyses consumers' evolving attitudes and behaviour, around and even beyond food, unfolding during their involvement in these initiatives. In particular, it focuses on the experience of the solidarity-based purchasing groups, consumers' organisations promoted by groups of citizens aiming at getting control of the food they consume. Using an actor-network perspective, the article analyses how purchasing and consumption routines change when consumers join these initiatives. The article also discusss the potential of these initiatives as drivers of change along with the following questions: to what extent do these initiatives challenge dominant food practices and system governance? On what basis are these initiatives sustainable and are replicable in different contexts? How can they foster other forms of civic engagement? In this regard, the article tests a transition management approach, considering solidarity-based purchasing groups as socio-technical niches within broader socio-technical regimes in a macro landscape characterised by the globalisation of the food system. In particular, it analyses the critical points where niches enter in conflict with existing socio-technical regimes, and the way in which these groups act to remove legal, technological and cultural barriers to their development.