Rural Policy and Direct Local Participation: Democracy, Inclusiveness, Collective Agency, and Locality‐Based Policy*

Abstract

During the closing decades of the twentieth century, the federal government has experienced a period of delegitimation and fiscal crisis that has led to decentralization of some federal programs and a fledgling revival of community-and place-based policies. These and other locality-based policies are not new tools. The renewed interest in this type of policy raises questions about their effectiveness. Historic and recent records of locality-based policies suggest that they are not panaceas for achieving programmatic goals. Three cases provide an empirical, comparative basis for assessing the liabilities of locality-based policies: the Third New Deal efforts to institute county land-use planning; Mexico's experiences with community forestry; and emerging grassroots ecosystem management movements in the western United States. Among other factors, the degree of local democracy and inclusiveness and the quality of local social, economic, and physical infrastructures are identified as important in mediating effective policy implementation.

Constraints to the Development of Community

“…Soon this will be a 'ghost town'! Conclusion, Implications, and Recommendations Theoretically, from the interactional perspective (Kaufman ,1959(Kaufman , , 1985Wilkinson, 1970Wilkinson, , 1991, active participation in community affairs is said to foster a sense of self-efficacy, as local residents express shared interest in their locality and interact with the intent of solving community problems, improving the quality of life, and shaping future well-being (see also Bridger & Alter, 2006;Claude, Bridger, & Luloff, 2000;Kolawole, 1982;Littrell & Littrell, 2006;Luloff 1998;Luloff & Bridger, 2003;Luloff & Swanson, 1995;Murphy & Cunningham, 2003;Swanson, 2001;Theodori, 2005). Empirically, as evidenced by examination of the existing community development-related literature, locality-oriented collective actions do, in fact, more or less successfully influence developments at the community level (e.g., Farmer et al, 2002;Green, 2003;Grisham, 1999;Njoh 2002;Reybold & Herren, 1999;Richards & Dalbey, 2006;Uttal, 2006).…”

The Learning Rural Area Framework: A Heuristic Tool to Investigate Institutional Arrangements which Support Collaboration in Rural Areas

“…Collaborative modes of governance can be interpreted as public and private actors jointly (i.e., collaboratively) engaging in formulating, implementing and executing policies, rules and regulations that determine the development of a specific place. More collaborative modes of governance thus require collective agency, including both private and public development actors (Massey ; Gieryn ; Swanson ; Healey et al . ; Amin ; Roep et al .…”

Climate change and water policy in Australia's irrigation areas: a lost opportunity for a partnership model of governance

“…By contrast, in response to economic crisis, many European governments have returned to the notion of place-based policy, giving serious attention to the principles underpinning regional development, particularly in disadvantaged, or lagging, regions (Swanson 2001). The OECD's (2006) New Rural Paradigm, for example, calls for inclusive partnerships between the public, private and voluntary sectors -akin to Shucksmith's (2009) notion of governing through community.…”