Local Initiatives for Rural Vitality and Social Inclusion: Some Experiences from Serbia

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to identify the main problems related to the sustainable development of rural communities, as well as the possible solutions to overcome them. This paper uses an analytical and synthetic approach, method of comparison and analogy, and descriptive analysis. The starting point of the research is actually a brief overview of the current situation in rural serbia, while the central part of the paper presents an analysis concerning the development of the rural economy in the representative villages of Grabovica and ribare in the republic of serbia. research results are given in the form of specific guidelines for a new approach to local rural development and strengthening the role and responsibilities of local government in the development process. The main conclusion that follows from the results of the research is that continued and constant work is needed in order to empower local communities to take responsibility for their own development, as well as to support local initiatives to this end.

New Assessment of Development Status among the People Living in Rural Areas: an Alternative Approach for Rural Vitality

“…Development is presented as a multi-dimensional concept (Todaro and Smith, 2011, p. 16). It is fundamentally different from economic growth because it provides a comprehensive view on progress that includes, besides the traditional interpretation of growth (Iyer et al, 2005(Iyer et al, , p. 1016McManus et al, 2016, p. 102), other dimensions regarding social and health aspects, adding, lately, also the environment and cultural ones (Kim and Yang, 2016;Bubbico and Dijkstra, 2011;Vujicic et al, 2013;McManus et al, 2016;Song et al, 2012;Lee and Park, 2002). Better understanding of the principle determinants of rural development remains one of the main policy issues even our days.…”

“…Successively, each other index takes into consideration different dimensions closely related to development and capable for evaluating its level. For example, rural vitality has also three dimensions related to economic, social and cultural aspects ( Van Rij and Koomen, 2010;Turcanu and Koomen, 2012;Vujicic et al, 2013); regional development focuses on the economic, social, cultural and environmental ones (Bubbico and Dijkstra, 2011;Vujicic et al, 2013;McManus et al, 2016;Song et al, 2012;Kim and Yang, 2016;Lee and Park, 2002); rural development includes economic, education, health, environment, and culture dimensions (Kim and Yang, 2016). The HDI still remains the most representative index for measuring development.…”

Factors and Directions of Public Policy for Rural Development

“…The priority for the development of socially oriented entrepreneurship is justified as a counterweight to the trends of globalization and commercialization [9][10], or as a kind of mechanism for the partial replacement of state functions by the initiative of the local community and individual citizens [11]. The role of local initiatives in rural development is increasing within the framework of the neo-endogenous approach [12], while the important factors are the availability of professional competencies of local authorities, the possibility of wide community involvement in solving local issues, and building a system of responsibility for the use of financial resources [13]. An interesting conclusion of the authors is that the activity of local self-government initiators in solving certain problems largely depends on external financing and voluntary participation.…”

Assessment of the Activity of Residents and Economic Growth in the Lag Territory

“…Partnerības darbības viens no galvenajiem uzdevumiem ir veikt pienākumus saskaņā ar Latvijas lauku attīstības programmu (Biedrība "Rēzeknes..., 2013;Biedrība "Rēzeknes..., 2015). Līdzšinējā zinātniskā izpēte ārpus Latvijas aktualizē sekojošus problēmjautājumus, kas rada zinātnisko diskusiju VRG kā finanšu avots reģiona attīstībai (Varvažovská, 2013), VRG kā jauna sociālās infrastruktūras institūcija lauku iedzīvotāju iztikai (Atkočiūniene, 2006), VRG funkcionēšanas problēmas no sociālā kapitāla koncepta perspektīvas (Zajda, 2014), Vietējās iniciatīvas lauku vitalitātei un sociālajai integrācijai: Serbijas pieredze (Vujicic et al, 2013). Minētajos pētījumos dominē problēmas un izaicinājumi, kas ir aktuāli Latvijai un Latgales reģionam 1) VRG darbība teritorijās, kur samazinās iedzīvotāju skaits un līdz ar to arī teritoriju apdzīvotība; 2) iedzīvotāju mentalitāte ar relatīvi zemu ekonomisko aktivitāti un sabiedrisko iniciatīvu.…”