Case study research in two rural market towns in the north of England investigates the local connectivity of micro-businesses and notions of co-operative behaviour with a view to informing a debate on the extent to which external (state) agencies can support the formation of local business networks. The research finds that co-operation is often associated with symbolic activities to express local identities with few cases of formal collective action. The case studies highlight an inherent danger of external state intervention in the facilitation of small business networks, in that, by disturbing established local norms and networks, such interventions may jeopardise the latent structures of social capital which they seek to exploit.

Business cooperation and networking have been posited as crucial elements within successful approaches to local economic development. With the aid of a case study from the North East of England, the authors explore issues surrounding network formation and facilitation. They raise questions concerning the nature of local business communities and the potential of local business networks to represent these communities legitimately and to reflect patterns of social and economic differentiation. They also demonstrate how attempts to promote or utilise local cooperation must include awareness of the implications of policy intervention. This is of particular importance in a political context where there are efforts to promote ‘local’ initiatives below the existing level of local authorities.

This article examines how sustainable development is actually being applied to rural development, and the assumptions about different forms of knowledge and their integration used in this application. The results of the study are based on a comparative analysis of research reports from 12 European countries on 27 projects and programmes for nature protection and biodiversity maintenance. It is argued that the distribution of different forms of knowledge and their evaluation are related to the form and structure of local civil society. The results suggest that the kinds of knowledge that are most prevalent in nature protection and biodiversity management are mainly scientific knowledge and, to limited degree, managerial knowledge, with the latter gaining in importance. In contrast, local knowledge as a knowledge system rooted in local resource use practices has become a rare feature of the European countryside.

In this chapter, characteristics and definitions of inter-and transdisciplinary research are presented and discussed with specific attention to bioeconomyrelated policy discourses, concepts and production examples. Inter-and transdisciplinary research approaches have the potential to positively contribute to solving complex societal problems and to advance the generation of knowledge relevant for innovative solutions. As a key concept for integrating different disciplines across social and natural sciences within a common research project, we present principles, models and examples of system research and highlight systems practice with the help of the farming systems and the socioecological systems approaches. Next, we concretise inter-and transdisciplinary research practice as a three-phase process and operationalise cooperation of scientists and stakeholders in bioeconomy contexts. Specific attention is given to a differentiated understanding of knowledge. The chapter is closed with a reflection on the role researchers play in inter-and transdisciplinary research and the impacts created by norms and values emanating from science. Keywords

Twenty years after German unification, rural East Germany still remains in deep economic crisis. The fact that the physical, social and private infrastructure have improved significantly, but with seemingly little effect on the economic performance and negative demographic trends, raises the question of alternative, institutional and social explanations for the current crisis. In this context this paper explores the concept of social capital and its relation to rural development in order to understand the current rural crisis in East Germany. It describes the process of agricultural restructuring after unification and analyses the processes of formation and destruction of different forms of social capital in this process.It is argued that social capital is connected with particular institutions and activities. In the case of Rural East Germany it was difficult for many actors to draw on network relations, simply because those networks vanished after having lost their meaning, institutional and physical basis. However, the new institutional framework, which has been transferred from the West, does not offer suitable incentives for the formation of other, new forms of social capital that are necessary to overcome the rural crisis.A generalization from the East German experience is that it is important to identify the base of social capital and thereby its likely durability in times of change. If an economic, social or cultural function is lost, it is likely that social capital related to this function will also be destroyed. However, this also gives room for careful optimism, due to the fact that new economic, social or cultural activities may serve as a basis for new social capital.