16 disP 166 · 3/2006 Empowerment of Regional PartnershipsThe Example of the Regional Action Pilot Program in Germany

Sarah Peter and Karlheinz Knickel

Sarah Peter is a PhD student and Junior Researcher at the Institute for Rural Development Research (IfLS), J. W. Goethe University, Frankfurt/Main.

Dr. Karlheinz Knickel is Deputy Director and Head of Depart-ment of Sustainable Develop-ment at the Institute for Rural Development Research (IfLS), J. W. Goethe University, Frank-furt/Main.

Abstract: Within the framework of the Regional Action–Rural Areas Shaping the Future pilot program launched by the German Federal Min-istry of Consumer Protection, Food and Agricul-ture (BMVEL) in 2001, integrated development concepts are being implemented in eighteen model regions. Trial-testing a new bottom-up approach, policy-makers aim at achieving best-practice examples of sustainable rural develop-ment. The cooperation structures established in the regions are expressed mainly in the form of regional partnerships. The paper aims at giv-ing an impression of their structures and roles, and illustrates the learning and democratization processes initiated by the program.

1 Introduction: The Regional Action pilot program

1.1 Background and objectives

The Regional Action–Rural Areas Shaping the Future pilot program in Germany was initiated by the Federal Ministry of Consumer Protection, Food and Agriculture (BMVEL) in 2001. It fol-lows an integrated approach to regional devel-opment, acknowledging the need for rural areas to harmonize their various functions in order to be strengthened and create new sources of income. Regional actors, institutions and stake-holders were encouraged to develop visions for the future of their region and to devise inte-grated development concepts geared to their particular regional situation. Policy-makers ex-pect the pilot program to provide best-practice models for sustainable rural development and for connecting rural and urban economies (BM-VEL 2002).

Through the program, support is given for the realization of development concepts that aim at quality production and environmental protection in the agricultural sector, proximity between producers and consumers, and eco-nomic stimuli through regional products and direct marketing. Instead of supporting indi-vidual sectors, the program focuses on the re-gion as a whole, aiming to make it a catalyst for

innovation. The combination of economic de-velopment and social balance with intact nature and environmental protection is a major goal in all model regions participating in the Regional Action program. The objective is to explore and develop fi elds of action that might demonstrate the ideal of sustainable development in a clear and comprehensible manner. Interrelationships between different fi elds of activity are consid-ered important, and projects are conceived in mutually supportive ways. The aim is to create synergies between different developments at the farm household, communal/local, and regional level.

The entire pilot program builds in many re-spects on the positive experiences gained in the EU “Leader” program. In the Regional Ac-tion program, however, emphasis is more ex-plicitly on the reorientation of the agricultural sector towards quality and sustainable produc-tion, strengthening rural-urban links, generat-ing added-value and income at the farm and rural area level as well as adding value to natural resource uses (Knickel, Peter 2005).

1.2 Implementation

At the beginning of 2002, eighteen model re-gions were chosen by a jury on the basis of the quality of their concepts for an integrated and sustainable development (iREK). More than 200 regions took part in the competition. The concepts were presented at the regional level to those who are actively involved, including the major regional interest groups, who then selected the winners. The winning regions re-ceived an annual grant of approximately 1.5 million euro. Through the grant, the Ministry provides a support framework to actively back up regional development activities, in particu-lar, a regional management structure and the implementation of particularly innovative core projects. During the period from 2002 to 2007, the regions, which mirror the vast diversity of Germany’s rural areas, are supposed to develop innovative ideas and provide useful examples by putting their integrated development plans into practice (BMVEL 2002).

disP 166 · 3/2006 17The cooperation structures that had to be conceptualized as part of the regional devel-opment concepts and which, in many regions, were subject to continuous improvements, pro-vided the basis for the implementation of the program.1 These newly formed structures – the regional partnerships – are expected to provide the foundation for regional actors’ long-term involvement and cooperation in regional devel-opment processes (BMVEL 2002).

1.3 Accompanying research: methods

The accompanying research for the pilot pro-gram carried out was in the initial phases by the Institute for Rural Development Research (IfLS) at Goethe University, Frankfurt. It was aimed at providing the policy level with com-parative analyses and recommendations for fur-ther policy formulation and the mainstreaming of bottom-up approaches, as well as supporting regional level learning processes.2 The methods used in the accompanying research included interviews with key actors involved in the pro-gram, i.e., stakeholders and representatives of local and regional administrations, participant observation, especially participation in meet-ings or general assemblies, steering groups and working groups, and the intensive analysis of documents, projects and processes. This paper is based on the results of the accompanying re-search with a focus on cooperation structures, and the learning and democratization processes initiated by the program. The two regions pre-sented in section 2.2 are illustrative of the spec-trum of regions in terms of location, structural conditions and historical trajectories.

1.4 Relevant theoretical frameworks

Two important theoretical frameworks that un-derlie the program and the accompanying re-search are endogenous and integrated rural development theories, and new institutional economics, with governance theory as a key component. In the positive feedback aspect of the Regional Action program, different ac-tivities and linkages across sectors reinforc-ing each other are emphasized, as well as the “production” of new technologies and human capital. The initial start-up support given to the model regions aimed at increasing the incen-tive and potential to innovate. The “empower-ment” of local citizens and institutions and the development of their capacity to manage rural development is seen as a major goal of the program. Both correspond to the key ideas of

endogenous and integrated rural development theories.

The second theoretical framework that helps to understand the effectiveness of the program design is new institutional economics, which builds on “old” institutional economics argu-ments about the embeddedness of economic ac-tivity in social and legal institutions. It captures a key idea of the Regional Action program that seeks to promote institutional or organizational solutions that are more effi cient than the tradi-tional ones. It is important to note that here a wider understanding of institutions as the “rules of the game” is applied, consisting of both for-mal legal rules and informal social norms that structure social interactions. Organizations, in contrast, are perceived as structural mechan-isms that utilize, alter, and enforce institutions (Williamson 2000). The term governance, as used in this article, stands for the continuous process that relates to the negotiation, coordi-nation and implementation of joint multi-level and cross-sectoral initiatives (Benz 2001; Benz, Fürst 2002; Diller 2002, 2004; Knickel, Peter 2005). It derives from Latin origins that sug-gest the notion of “steering”, which can be contrasted with the traditional “top-down” ap-proach of governments “driving” society. The role of governance is to “craft order, thereby to mitigate confl ict and realize mutual gains.” (Williamson)3

2 Regional partnerships in the Regional Action model regions

2.1 Organizational structures and the role of regional partnerships

In each of the model regions, a group repre-sentative of those who are actively involved is responsible for organizing the program’s im-plementation. The main idea behind this is to keep decision-making power within the regional partnerships themselves. A public regional body – often the district authorities or the agricultural offi ce – is in charge of fi nancial management and budget administration. Regional management teams play a key role in promoting regional net-working, supporting the development and in-terlinking of projects as well as in preparing decisions in relevant bodies of the regional part-nerships (Knickel et al. 2004). Figure 1 provides a schematic representation of organizational structures typical of the model regions. The fed-eral ministry is in charge of framework steering as a promoter, while detail steering, according to

18 disP 166 · 3/2006

the principle of subsidiarity, is conferred on the regional level. Horizontal partnerships within (and partly between) the model regions go along with vertical partnerships between the model regions and the state level whose overall inter-ests are considered while regions receive greater scope to realize their own objectives.

In the model regions, new forms of deci-sion-making and organization are being tested in an ongoing learning process. In almost all of the regions, a bottom-up orientation predomi-nates. Starting conditions for the implementa-tion of Regional Action differed in the regions participating with regard to the development of a regional identity, spatial defi nition, or level of experience made with other programs. Some of the regions could build on networks existing be-fore Regional Action and benefi t from key per-sons who functioned as “motivators” for regional cooperation, while other regions had defi cits in this respect or struggled to overcome preoccu-pations between different sectors (see Böcher 2002).4 Where starting conditions were less fa-vorable, the creation of a transparent system of communication and decision-making was even more important (Knickel et al. 2004).

Those actively working in the regional part-nerships realized that motivating actors to par-

ticipate was an ongoing task demanding not only passive communication, for instance, in-formation through the joint Regional Action website, but also active personal dialogue with potential participants (Netzwerk Regionen der Zukunft 2001). In order to achieve active in-volvement as a precondition of sustainable net-works, support for common regional objectives needs to be won, and at the same time actors’ own benefi ts must be apparent (Netzwerk Re-gionen der Zukunft 2001). In spite of differ-ences in organization (for example, proximity to public bodies), in general, the partnerships represent a wide spectrum of regional groups, thus integrating various competences (see Baier, Bennholdt-Thomsen 2003). As an effect of the involvement of various interests, confl icts do oc-cur, which can, however, result in strengthened bonds within the partnerships if settled in con-structive ways (Putnam 1993), as was the case in the Chiemgau region (see section 2.2).

Which role do regional partnerships gen-erally play? First of all, they support an inter-sectoral and multidisciplinary information ex-change, interlink key actors and various groups, and help raise awareness of new development programs such as Regional Action and opportu-nities within and eventually as well outside their

Fig. 1: Overview of organizational structures in a typical Regional Action model region (Source: based on BMVEL 2001b)

AdvisoryBoard

FederalMinistry(BMVEL)

Regional PartnershipRegional

Management*

ProjectsPublic Regional Body

Advice & evaluation

Contractbased on

RD concept

Supportsprojects

development

Level of decision-making

Projectproposals

Realization ofRD concept

* Location of regional management varies from region to region

Funding

Financialresources

for innovative projects

FEDERAL LEVEL

Frameworksteering

Initiation of the Regional Action Pilot Program

Detailsteering

Content

Budgetadministration

MO

DE

L R

EG

ION

disP 166 · 3/2006 19region (IFSA 2004). Local partnerships also initi-ate new approaches to development expressed in intersectoral action, and arrangements and ne-gotiations between actors. Thus, they also serve as an instrument for the creation of social co-herence. Instead of a participation of all, the partnership represents various interests as a re-gionally acknowledged group. The partnerships in the model regions can be viewed, according to the defi nition of Champetier and Janot (1997) as both “project partnerships” and “mobilization partnerships”.5 Yet, as proposed by the authors, fi nancial resources supplied through develop-ment programs are likely to function as a catalyst only in regions where other initiatives already exist. Where the program is the sole impulse, partnerships will remain mere project partner-ships, which are likely to dissolve at the end of the program period (Champetier, Janot 1997).

Sensitization and the creation of participa-tion are central to the work of local mobilization partnerships. Sharing information takes place within the partnership in the sense of know-ledge acquisition, which is part of its qualifi ca-tion. Communication in the sense of knowledge transfer into the region serves sensitization and initiation, and thus contributes to the partner-ship’s extension through the inclusion of new actors and objectives. The latter, in turn, are pre-conditions for a long-term duration of the part-nership without loss of motivation as is likely for a static group of actors following a fi xed set of objectives (Champetier, Janot 1997).

By and large, the model regions have made remarkable achievements concerning inter-sectoral cooperation and networking as well as creating awareness of regional potentials and identity (Knickel 2001; Knickel, Peter 2005; Tränkner 2006). The formation of new alliances holds potential for multiplier and synergetic ef-fects. There are examples of successful coopera-tion in fi elds such as• the combination of agricultural quality pro-duction with objectives of nature protection and regional gastronomy,• the combination of nature-friendly agricul-ture with (green) rural tourism and• the use of natural resources and landscape as economic potential (instead of restriction).

Another example to be found in many model regions is projects exploring renewable sources of energy. Such projects are related to energy crop production, marketing activities, and the development of decentralized energy supply systems (BMVEL 2001b).

It is not surprising that there are always fric-tions and failures accompanying the rather

demanding targeted changes. The necessary dem ocratization of the new forms of local level decision-making, for example, is seen as a long-term endeavor in most regions. Exclusion al-ways remains an issue, and inclusion of the rel-evant groups and interests needs continuous attention.

2.2 Examples of regional partnerships in two model regions

In the following sections, two types of regional partnerships are introduced. As organizational structures differ among the regions, these are not intended to represent the eighteen model regions, but to give a concrete impression of how they are structured and how they work. The diversity of organizational patterns corresponds to the wide range of types of regions. Within the framework of the pilot program, regions are de-fi ned as functionally or spatially homogenous areas sharing problems and potentials. Often, they represent coherent landscape units and may encompass several municipalities and ad-ministrative districts (BMVEL 2001a).

Basis-oriented decision-making

The Barnim-Uckermark model region is located in the federal state of Brandenburg near Berlin in northeastern Germany. Development within the framework of the Regional Action program is focused on weak rural areas located within the region, which encompasses two rural districts. The administration, as well as the two major na-ture reserve head offi ces in the area, are strongly supporting the Regional Action process.

A so-called co-ordination group, the per-manent working board of the partnership, rep-resenting the groups relevant for the regional development process, is responsible for fi nding opportunities for cooperation and creating con-tact. It functions as an interface between mem-bers of the partnership, where it has initiated an intense communication, and the partner-ship’s environment. In order to create a wider perspective for realizing activities and creating knowledge transfer, members of the association (Partnerschaft Barnim-Uckermark e.V.) as well as non-members are included in the board.

Active members of the regional partnership mainly come from the areas of tourism, agricul-ture, technology, administration, education, and science. Some actors are key persons for the re-gional partnership, helping to make its objec-tives and work known to the public and to win potential new partners and supporters.

20 disP 166 · 3/2006 The basis of the regional partnership, the member assembly, functions as the highest board of decision-making regarding project proposals. The co-ordination group participates in decision processes while the executive board prepares decisions and represents the regional partnership internally as well as throughout the region. The latter also steers the regional man-agement team.

The regional management, which is located within a regional institution responsible for landscape care, functions as an interface be-tween regional actors and groups. Its main tasks are project monitoring, creating transparency of processes and outcomes and networking and external communication. It gathers competence from seminars, direct exchange of knowledge and experiences, and “learning-by-doing”. Ac-ceptance for the regional management is high within the partnership as well as in the regional public. The public body responsible for budget administration is the agriculture offi ce in one of the two rural districts, where new skills had to be acquired in order to fulfi ll this task.

The partnership follows an internal as well as external communication strategy (Knickel, Peter 2004). Objectives of the former include creating transparency of project decisions, integrating single projects into the overall regional devel-opment strategy and initiating cooperation, as well as interlinking the partnership’s working levels. Public relations work had started with the elaboration of the integrated regional develop-ment concept, which allowed public participa-tion. Media reports raised public awareness of the region’s participation in the Regional Ac-tion program. The partnership’s main message is its objective of creating a sustainable regional development network that is expected to pro-vide the basis of strengthened regional mar-kets, value chains and synergies between differ-ent activities instead of merely implementing single projects (Knickel, Peter 2005). Means of communication are regular media appearances, information and presentation materials, and the partnership’s presence on the World Wide Web (Partnerschaft Barnim-Uckermark e.V. 2004).

Concentration of decision-making power

The Chiemgau region is located in the far south of Bavaria near the German-Austrian border. The regional partnership is supported exter-nally by a range of actors and institutions, such as commercial enterprises, NGOs, and state and communal bodies. In the fi rst place, support is received from NGOs from the areas of agricul-

ture as well as nature and environmental pro-tection, whose objectives are in line with those of the regional partnership (see Olukosi 1996). Tasks such as creating awareness of the regional partnership’s work within the region in order to improve its external relations and fostering ex-isting contacts are fulfi lled by the regional man-agement team as well as partly informally. The skills necessary for networking and public rela-tions work (IFSA 2004) were acquired through seminars and exchanges with other model re-gions, some of which were organized by the BMVEL and the central program management bureau. The public body responsible for bud-get administration had to acquire new skills as well. Further qualifi cation took place within the regional partnership through systematic know-ledge integration via experts on the one hand, and unsystematic knowledge gain through in-tersectoral cooperation, on the other. External exchange and networking refers, for example, to regions in neighboring Austria.

The organizational structure of the regional partnership includes working groups concerned with different fi elds of action instead of a coord-ination group as in the Barnim-Uckermark re-gion. Additionally, an advisory board was estab-lished in 2004 in order to help bind support to the regional partnership and in which further re-gional groups are included. The member assem-bly of the association (Region aktiv Chiemgau-Inn-Salzach e. V.) encompasses groups from several areas corresponding to the partnership’s fi elds of action, i.e., agriculture, rural develop-ment, nature and environment, learning region, tourism, and renewable sources of energy. As in Barnim-Uckermark, there are key people with a long-term commitment to the region’s develop-ment and a high regional knowledge, who also managed to mobilize groups that were at fi rst reluctant to cooperate in the Regional Action process.6

In this partnership, the executive board holds decision-making power. Severe confl icts in the beginning over the criteria for project selec-tion, working procedures, and budget allocation could be settled by professional confl ict man-agement and coaching. This led to an organiza-tional restructuring, which proved to be an im-portant learning process. Among other changes, projects are now being better integrated, and the partnership is more open to new members and infl uences. Cooperation and communica-tion within the partnership have become more effi cient and constructive, and motivation for a long-term commitment beyond the program period was heightened.

disP 166 · 3/2006 21The objectives of the internal communica-tion strategy are good information channels that allow for transparency of decisions and focal points of work. External communication be-longs to the tasks of the regional management team and addresses the media, children and youth, farmers, and consumers as main target groups, with the aim of making the region bet-ter known and winning new active participants for the partnership (Region aktiv Chiemgau-Inn-Salzach e. V. 2004).

One of the differences between the two re-gional partnerships is the concentration of deci-sion-making power in the executive board in the Chiemgau region, while it rests with the mem-ber assembly in Barnim-Uckermark. In general, the degree of centralization of decision-making power is a factor that infl uences the capacity to coordinate activities (Enright 1996). Decision-making by the member assembly is being used in six of the eighteen model regions, while the ex-ecutive board makes decisions in eight regions, and two have included an advisory board of exter-nal experts for these purposes or have let an ex-ternal steering committee make decisions. Par-ticipatory decision processes can be interpreted as a sign of local democracy and the basis of a dynamic partnership (Champetier, Janot 1997). One potential advantage of the basis-oriented constellation is a high legitimacy and transpar-ency of outcomes. Possible disadvantages lie in likely interest confl icts, higher effort needed for decision processes, and sometimes a lack of de-tailed information about the issues concerned among the actors. Short communication chan-nels and identifi cation with the regional devel-opment strategy are the advantages of executive board decisions. On the other hand, singular in-terests are more likely to be given priority, and a concentration of power might pose an obstacle to broad participation in the development pro-cess. External experts are advantageous because of their knowledge, higher objectivity and exter-nal relations, but are likely to identify less with regional objectives eventually resulting in lower motivation (Dosch 2003; Lo, Schamp 2003).

3 Learning processes and skill building

3.1 Necessity of learning processes at different levels

Vital to a bottom-up approach like the Regional Action program’s is regional actors’ awareness of their possibilities of participation. The basic idea is that new alliances between various re-

gional groups need to be formed and that they can function as centers of non-state steering and power.7 Their formation and the creation of awareness of regional potentials require learn-ing processes at the regional level. As stated by actors from the model regions as well as docu-mented by the accompanying research, learning processes have been experienced concerning the creation of new intersectoral cooperations and networking, a heightened regional self-re-sponsibility and regional identity, as well as the establishment of organizational structures for the implementation of the pilot program. New relationships between groups and sectors for-merly acting separately have been formed, con-tributing to an integrated regional development process. Organizational restructuring, as in the case of the Chiemgau region described above, is part of this learning process (Knickel et al. 2004).

Individual entrepreneurs need to acquire new skills as well. For instance, farmers need to learn about their agricultural enterprise’s po-tential for diversifi cation and ways to realize it.

From the point of view of the accompanying researchers, the learning process also involves the ministerial level considering the testing of a new approach towards policy formulation and implementation (Knickel et al. 2004; Knickel, Peter 2004).

3.2 Skill building and knowledge transfer in the model regions

Fundamental to the pilot program is the idea that regional actors themselves take charge of the development of their region, and, explor-ing development processes carried by newly-involved actors is among the focal points of the program. The support mechanism tries to en-courage community participation and action, and to foster local, co-operative initiatives at dif-ferent levels, geographically as well as between private, public and community organizations. It attempts to facilitate the creation of new alli-ances and joint action (Knickel et al. 2004).

The exchange of knowledge and experience takes place through various channels, at the program level as well as within the model re-gions. Concrete examples are the Website es-tablished in the context of the pilot program (BMVEL 2001b), which offers actors the possi-bility of knowledge exchange, for example, via a so-called competence-development network. It addresses issues such as regional management, regional and direct marketing, networking and cooperation, moderation, evaluation and public

22 disP 166 · 3/2006 relations. Internet-based discussion platforms on critical issues and topics allow an exchange of questions and advice concerning the imple-mentation process among actors from different model regions.

Working groups on various issues formed by regional actors are very clearly an effective method of “face-to-face” knowledge transfer within the regions (Knickel, Peter 2004). Know-ledge transfer takes also place via external ex-perts, who function as professional advisers on specifi c questions. Interregional “network-ing seminars” are another example to be men-tioned. Press and public relations work help make the program and its progress known to the public, thus also addressing potential cus-tomers for newly-established services and prod-ucts (Knickel et al. 2004).

3.3 Key role of regional management teams

Identifying critical knowledge and skills and making them accessible to actors are crucial factors for sustainable agricultural and rural development (Lo, Schamp 2003). Communica-tion, organizational, moderation, mediation and networking skills are preconditions for forming new cooperation structures (Benz, Fürst 2002; Diller 2002). The promotional spectrum of the Regional Action program encompasses such soft measures as well as hard measures such as promoting investment and infrastructures. Regional management teams function as im-portant agents of networking and skill building, and, at the same time, need training themselves in order to successfully fulfi ll this task (Knickel et al. 2004; Tränkner 2006).

The organizational and technical skills re-quired by actors in order to take an active part in the development of their region as well as the organizational and networking skills required by the regional management teams and agen-cies for providing the support necessary are both products and conditions of successful develop-ment initiatives. Ideally, the support program and the agency implementing it play a facilitat-ing role. As experiences from the model regions show, particular support ought to be given to skill building activities through adequate bud-getary provisions so that regional management teams and other agencies can function primar-ily as learning agents and regional level catalysts assisting in the translation of overall program objectives into regional initiatives.

The regional management teams, whose forms of organization vary in the individual re-

gions, have proven to be the main “motor” of de-velopment in the model regions, as they actively support regional cooperation. Because of this important role, suffi cient personal and fi nancial resources as well as the qualifi cations, experi-ences and skills necessary turn out to be crucial (Knickel et al. 2004).

4 Conclusions: How does Regional Action contribute to participation and innovation processes?

4.1 Processes of local democratization

The Regional Action program provides an ex-ample of the supplementation of state inter-vention with less institutionalized mechanisms of coordination, discussed as “governance”. Framework steering complements, and in some sectors like integrated rural development ini-tiatives, even replaces traditional intervention-ist policies. Territory- and function-oriented meas ures increasingly replace sectoral ones and regional markets are emphasized. The mobi-lization of endogenous regional development potential allows for counterbalancing the nega-tive effects of globalization and an effective re-alization of environmental and social objectives that are neglected at the state level (Benz 2001; Diller 2002, 2004; Fürst 2001a, 2001b). The Regional Action program is at the same time in-tended to remain embedded in the greater EU and global contexts (Künast 2001).

Regarding the processes of local democrati-zation, the following key lessons can be derived from the Regional Action program.

The Regional Action program is a concrete translation of the so-called “agricultural turn-around”, declared by the German government as a response to the BSE crisis. While it might be argued that the program as a whole, being a state initiative, is still a top-down measure, the concrete implementation is taking place in a bottom-up manner. The relevance of the re-gion as a level of action is clearly recognized. It is related to the complexity of an integrated sustainable development that is still transpar-ent at the regional level, where the intertwined economic, ecological and social dimensions can be grasped by actors. Proximity to the regional situation and problems is likely to create higher motivation for regional actors to get actively involved in their solution (Diller 2004; WWF Deutschland 2002). Therefore, the program fo-cuses on mobilizing endogenous regional po-tentials from within the region.

disP 166 · 3/2006 23Most regions with basis-oriented struc-tures have had positive experiences with this approach. The model regions’ actors have ac-knowledged that an open, democratic develop-ment process is vital (Knickel et al. 2004). At the same time, the experience has been made that participatory decisions cost much time and that consensus is diffi cult to achieve when many in-terests are involved. In this respect, the limits of participation have to be taken into consid-eration. The ideal of consensus and absolutely symmetrical relations between actors has to be replaced by a model of task division that can be worked with effi ciently (Benz, Fürst 2002; Diller 2002, 2004; IFSA 2004). Equally important is the transparent communication of decisions by representative groups.

Basis-oriented organizational structures and participatory decisions require a high degree of unpaid commitment, self-responsibility, and ac-tive use of possibilities of participation by actors. It has become evident that bottom-up processes and participation require constant active fos-tering. Intersectoral networks and cooperation that have been established in the model regions need to be further strengthened and broadened in order to really be able to carry sustainable development in the longer term (Knickel et al. 2004).8

Among the problems occurring was a lack of integration of single projects into the overall re-gional development concept as well as individ-ual interests prevailing. Another problem some-times observed were decisions regarding project proposals made by informal circles without clear criteria (Knickel et al. 2004). Transparent deci-sion-making processes and a clear allocation of fi nancial resources, however, are precondi-tions of a participatory and lasting development process. The inclusion of new actors should be secured and it should be ensured that the devel-opment program is not used as an opportunity to realize personal interests that are not in line with the regional development strategy.

All in all, the question of the best balance of bottom-up structures and hierarchical steering remains. The quality of the framework condi-tions and regulations put in place by the BM-VEL seem critically important. The key success factor might be a good combination of hier-archical forms of steering (programmatic pre-scriptions, evaluations) with more integrative bottom-up structures. At the moment, much more research is still needed on multi-level-governance frameworks.9

4.2 Competitions: A way towards innovation?

The design of the pilot program as a competi-tion is intended to encourage innovativeness at different levels. First, it aims at constructive competition between the regions, resulting in innovative regional development concepts. Sec-ond, innovative means of program implemen-tation in the winning model regions is aimed at. Finally, competition takes place at the intra-regional level regarding the innovativeness of concrete projects. According to Enright (1996), there is greater competitive potential as well as greater cooperation potential within regional level networks. The Regional Action approach secures the two central principles of sustainable regional development by stimulating innovation in a goal-oriented manner and allowing for sub-sidiarity (WWF Deutschland 2002).

What might raise questions about the inno-vation potential of the regional partnerships is the fact that those concerned are also those who make decisions about the development of their region. On the one hand, this can be an advan-tage, for instance, because of a precise regional knowledge, as already discussed. On the other hand, it might pose an obstacle to innovation processes, which are at the concrete cost of re-gional actors who therefore try to block them (see Adrian 2003; Lo, Schamp 2003). Others argue that partnerships have the special capa-bility of working beyond the level of “being con-cerned”, and therefore create access to innova-tion. They can function as motors of innovation because they integrate different perspectives and competences better than single institutions (Champetier, Janot 1997).

Notes1 The formation of regional partnerships taking

charge of the implementation of the program was obligatory for the regions participating.

2 For further information on the pilot program and the accompanying research please contact Karlheinz Knickel (E-mail: knickel@em.uni-frankfurt.de) or see www.modellregionen.de.

3 New institutional economics supposes four levels of institutions, each building upon the next to form the current system. The fi rst con-sists of embedded informal institutions, includ-ing, for example, traditions, customs, values and religion. The second level is where formal rules are created, for instance, a constitution, where the property rights are defi ned. The third is the

24 disP 166 · 3/2006 level of governance, which includes the continu-ous process that relates to implementation, en-forcement and arbitration. It is the level at which negotiations and coordination are most impor-tant. The term governance is important here. It derives from Latin origins that suggest the no-tion of “steering”, which can be contrasted with the traditional “top-down” approach of govern-ments “driving” society. The role of governance is to “craft order, thereby to mitigate confl ict and realize mutual gains” (Williamson 2000).The fourth level is the level at which neoclassical economics operates, thus essentially the level of the market. In this article, we mainly address the second and third level, focusing on networks that involve public-private partnerships (PPP) and the collaboration of community organiza-tions.

4 See Adrian (2003) for the infl uence of key actors on innovation processes.

5 Champetier and Janot (1997) defi ne “project partnerships” as closely linked to budget distri-bution within the framework of a development policy program. They are limited to a certain period of time and limited in their fi elds of activities. “Mobilization partnerships”, on the other hand, serve sensitization, participation in social development processes, and initiation in the fi rst place. They are territory-related and are intended to support the development of a regional identity. Their main objective is an in-tegrated sustainable development through mo-bilization.

6 The need for acknowledgement of non-scien-tifi c forms of regional key knowledge (regional actors’ opinions, experiences, problem-aware-ness) is proposed by different authors (for ex-ample: IFSA 2004; Knickel, P. 2004; Röling, N. 1996). Lo and Schamp (2003) are exploring the role of knowledge (as an important resource in a globalizing world) and deal with its conceptual, process, and spatial dimensions.

7 Even if endogenous regional development pro-cesses still need to be started up with the help of the state and its programs, they might still be a more effi cient way of achieving goals such as a balanced development of rural areas than top-down measures.

8 The further development of the regional part-nerships with regard to strategic orientation, fo-cal points of their work as well as their cohesion are issues for further examination.

ReferencesAdrian, L. (2003): Regionale Netzwerke als Hand-

lungskonzept: Erfolg versprechender Weg einer innovationsorientierten Regionalentwicklung? Materialien Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik (Difu) 2003/2, Berlin.

Baier, A.; Bennholdt-Thomsen, V. (2003): Der “Stoff”, aus dem die soziale Nähe ist. In Kluge, T.; Schramm, E. (eds.): Aktivierung durch Nähe: Regionalisierung nachhaltigen Wirtschaftens. München: Ökom-Verlag, S. 12–21.

Benz, A. (2001): From associations of local gov-ernments to “regional governance” in urban regions. German Journal of Urban Studies, Vol. 40 (2) (http://www.difu.de/index.shtml?/publika-tionen/dfk/en/01_2).

Benz, A.; Fürst, D. (2002): Policy learning in re-gional networks. European Urban and Regional Studies, No. 9, pp. 21–35.

BMVEL (2002): Active regions – shaping rural fu-tures: competition winners. Bonn: Federal Min-istry of Consumer Protection, Food and Agri-culture.

BMVEL (2001a): Von der Vision zur Realisierung in-nerhalb einer neu ausgerichteten Agrarpolitik. Bonn: Federal Ministry of Consumer Protection, Food and Agriculture.

BMVEL (2001b): Regionen Aktiv – Land gestaltet Zukunft. Website of the model regions competi-tion, http://www.modellregionen.de/home.htm.

Böcher, M. (2002): Nachhaltige Regionalentwick-lung durch Kooperation? Erfolgsfakto ren für regionale Partnerschaften aus politikwissen-schaftlicher Sicht. In Müller, K.; Dosch, A.; Mohrbach, E.; Aenis, T.; Baraneck, E.; Boeck-mann, T.; Siebert, R.; Toussaint, V. (eds.): Wis-senschaft und Praxis der Landschaftsnutzung: Formen interner und externer Forschungskoop-eration. Weikersheim: Margraf Verlag, S. 65–75.

Champetier, Y.; Janot J.-L. (1997): Aufbau und Or-ganisation lokaler Partnerschaften, Europäische Beobachtungsstelle LEADER (AEIDL). Series: Innovation im ländlichen Raum 2. Stadt.

Diller, C. (2002): Zwischen Netzwerk und Institu-tion. Eine Bilanz regionaler Kooperationen in Deutschland. Opladen.

Diller, C. (2004): Regional Governance im “Schat-ten der Hierarchie”. Raumforschung und Raum-ordnung, Nr. 4–5, S. 270–279.

Dosch, A. (2003): Organisationsformen und Entschei-dungsformen der Partnerschaften in Regionen Aktiv. unpublished paper.

Enright, M. J. (1996): Regional clusters and eco-nomic development: A research. In Staber, U. H.; Schaefer, N. V.; Sharma, B. (eds.) Business networks: prospects for regional development; Walter de Gruyter studies in organization No. 73: Organizational theory and research. Berlin/New York: Pp. 190–213.

Fürst, D. (2001a): Regional governance zwischen Wohlfahrtsstaat und neoliberaler Markt wirt-schaft. retrieved on 15 January 2005 from http://www.laum.uni-hannover.de/ilr.

Fürst, D. (2001b): Regional governance: Ein neues Paradigma der Regionalwissenschaften. Raumforschung und Raumordnung, Nr. 59 5/6, S. 370–380.

IFSA (2004): Knowing and learning: labor and skills

disP 166 · 3/2006 25at stake for a multidimensional agriculture, In-troductory paper of Workshop 4, 6th IFSA Eu-ropean Symposium. Vila Real, Portugal, April 4–7 2004.

Knickel, K. (2001): The marketing of Rhöngold milk: An example of the reconfi guration of natu-ral relations with agricultural production and consumption. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, No. 3 (2), pp. 123–136.

Knickel, K.; Siebert, R.; Ganzert, C.; Dosch, A.; Peter, S.; Derichs, S. (2004): Wissenschaftliche Begleitforschung des Pilotprojektes Regionen Aktiv – Land gestaltet Zukunft: Ergebnisse der Begleitforschung 2002–2003. Frankfurt/M.: IfLS.

Knickel, K.; Peter, S. (2004): Rural areas are shaping the future: some experiences with the Regional Action program in Germany. In Cristovao, A. (ed.) Farming and rural systems research and ex-tension: European farming and society in search for a new social contract learning to manage change. Vila Real: UTAD, pp. 595–604.

Knickel, K.; Peter, S. (2005): Amenity-led develop-ment of rural areas: The example of the Regional Action pilot program in Germany. In Green, G.P.; Marcouiller, D.; Deller, S. (eds.): Ameni-ties and rural development: Theory, methods and public policy. Series: New Horizons in Environ-mental Economics. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 302–321.

Künast, R. (2001): Grußwort, Website of the Model Regions competition, retrieved on 15 January 2005 from http://www.modellregionen.de.

Lo, V.; Schamp, E. W. (2003): Knowledge, learning, and regional development: an introduction. In Lo, V.; Schamp, E. W. (eds.) Knowledge, learn-ing, and regional development. Wirtschaftsgeo-graphie No. 24, pp. 1–12.

Netzwerk Regionen der Zukunft (2001): Veranke-rung der Netzwerke und Nachhaltigkeitsprozesse

in den Regionen. Workshop paper, 9 October 2001, Weimar.

Olukosi, J. O. (1996): Local organizations and in-novation in systems-oriented research in agri-culture and rural development. In Lectures and Debates of the International Symposium, Mont-pellier, France 21–25 Nov. 1994, pp. 362–364.

Partnerschaft Barnim-Uckermark e. V. (2004): Halbzeitbericht der Modellregion Barnim-Ucker mark. Regionen Aktiv – Land gestaltet Zu-kunft, retrieved on 5 May 2004 from http://www.modellregionen.de.

Putnam, R. D. (1993): Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Region aktiv Chiemgau-Inn-Salzach e. V. (2004): Halbzeitbericht der Modellregion Chiemgau-Inn-Salzach. Regionen Aktiv – Land gestaltet Zukunft, retrieved on 6 May 2004 from http://www.modellregionen.de.

Röling, N. (1996): The interface between farmers’ knowledge and research workers’ knowledge, in systems-oriented research in agriculture and rural development. In Lectures and Debates of the International Symposium, Montpellier, France 21–25 Nov. 1994, pp. 315–319.

Tränkner, S. (2006): Regional Governance und integrierte Ländliche Entwicklung – Begleitfor-schung zum Bundesmodellvorhaben Regionen Aktiv. Raumforschung und Raumordnung, Nr. 64 (3).

Williamson, O. E. (2000): The new institutional economics: Taking stock, looking ahead. Journal of Economic Literature, No. 38, pp. 595–613.

WWF Deutschland (2002): Entwicklung einer Me-thodik zur Nutzung des Instruments Global-zuschuss gemäß EU-Strukturfonds, Endbericht zum F&E Vorhaben 900 19 153/02. Berlin: Um-weltstiftung WWF Deutschland.

Sarah PeterInstitute for Rural Development Research (IfLS)at J. W. Goethe University Frankfurt/MainZeppelinallee 31 D-60325 Frankfurt/Main

Dr. Karlheinz KnickelInstitute for Rural Development Research (IfLS) at J. W. Goethe University, Frankfurt/MainZeppelinallee 31 60325 Frankfurt/MainGermanyknickel@em.uni-frankfurt.de