This is the presentation of a paper I wrote for the XXVI European Society for Rural Sociology Congress, Places of Possibility? Rural Societies in a Neoliberal World, 18-21 August, Aberdeen, Scotland

1. Enacting neo-endogenous rural development
through the bioeconomy, social innovations
and territorial governance
Alexandre Dubois
Researcher, Dept. of Urban and Rural Development

2. Background
• Rural change as a response to wider processes of socio-economic change, including
globalization and urbanization
– Globalisation -> re-valorisation of natural resources
– Depopulation -> loss of knowledge capital and know-how affects local social capital
• Access to ‘new’ knowledge not available in the locality
• The bioeconomy, social innovation and territorial governance considered as flagship
paradigms for territorial rural development are based on systemic change, but rarely
framed as co-occurent processes

3. My point
• Systemic change (usually) does not occur by magic
– Is it reasonable to expect rural areas to realize these three paradigm shifts simultaneously?
– What types of external knowledge is needed to support these transitions?
– What new relations are needed to source them?
– And are they compatible with each other knowing the fact that the relational capital emerging of
rural (remote) areas is constrained?
• Key conceptual points
– Neoendogenous rural development
– Novelty & Knowledge sourcing
– New local/extra-local interfaces

4. Neo-endogeous rural
development in a nutshell
• Regenerate old practices via new knowledge
– Changes as well how relations are structured within the community
• incorporate extra-local factors requires local actors to share a common identity and the
capability of working together (Bosworth and Atterton 2012)
• Rural places as meeting spaces
– Rural mobilities, ≠ temporality, ≠ origin: in-migrants, labour migration, rural diaspora, return
migration
– Virtual connectivity: online market, organizing local networking/trade using mobile technologies

5. How do you induce novelty?
• From a sociological standpoint (Nooteboom)
– Large cognitive distance tend to induce novel ideas
– Small cognitive distance fosters trust and capacity to act collectively
• Having access is one thing, but open attitude towards novelty is key

6. Rural Innovation processes
• Mapping the sites of knowledge
production
• Overcome the disadvantage of their
position in terms of knowledge formation
• Place of knowledge as a driver of rural
change
• Incremental innovation, new knowledge
applications

7. Systemic change(s)
• Bioeconomy
– Diversify business opportunities for bio-based products
– New applications; new markets; new skills and practices
• Social innovation
– Improved forms of societal organisation and problem-solving practices” (Neumeier 2012)
– Anticipate and collectively address local needs in the future (hence systemic)
• Territorial Governance
– Problems do not stop at jurisdictional borders -> pooling resources and coordinating collective
action across jurisdictions may provide more leverage for solving issues
– Multilevel, Multi-actor, multifaceted (ex:LEADER)
– Improving the management of the natural capital in rural areas

8. Synergies and frictions
• All part of the move towards the New Rural Economy
– Rural economies as a system of social, economic and environmental interactions
– Recoupling the management of natural resources, societal progress and economic growth
– Co-occurrence of the realization of BE, SI and TG? -> adaptive capacity
• Institutions enable or constrain local innovation
• New production practices -> increase the societal benefits (i.e. jobs)
• Systemic change necessitates new forms of relational capital to/from/within rural
regions -> systematic analytical approach needed

9. Relational framework (1)
• Agency
– Who are the key actors for the realization
of the BE, SI and TG?
• Directionality
– In what direction does the local/extra-
local interface translate?
• Knowledge-base
– What are the crucial types of knowledge
that these relations should convey?
From Pollermann et al. 2014

10. Relational framework (2)
• Agency
– Who are the key actors for the realization
of the BE, SI and TG?
• Directionality
– In what direction does the local/extra-
local interface translate?
• Knowledge-base
– What are the crucial types of knowledge
that these relations should convey?
• Vertical networking -> integration a
single value-chain, potentially across
localities (Murdoch 2000)
• Horizontal networking -> connection
with integration of non-agricultural parts of
the rural economy (Murdoch 2000)
• Translocal networking -> exchanges
mong actors at the same level but in
different loci

11. Relational framework (3)
• Agency
– Who are the key actors for the realization
of the BE, SI and TG?
• Directionality
– In what direction does the local/extra-
local interface translate?
• Knowledge-base
– What are the crucial types of knowledge
that these relations should convey?
Synthetic (engineering-
based)
Analytic (science-based) Symbolic (arts-based)
Rationale for
Knowledge
creation
Innovation by
application or novel
combination of
existing knowledge
Innovation by
creation of new
knowledge
Creating meaning, aesthetic
qualities
Development
and use of
knowledge
Importance of applied,
problem related
knowledge
(engineering) often
through inductive
processes
Importance of
scientific knowledge
often based on
deductive processes
and formal models
Importance of creative
processes
Actors
involved
Interactive learning
with clients and
suppliers
Research
collaboration
between firms (R&D
department) and
research
organizations
Experimentation in project
teams
Knowledge
types
Dominance of tacit
knowledge due to
more concrete know-
how, craft and
practical skill
Dominance of
codified knowledge
due to
documentation in
patents and
publications
Importance of interpretation,
creativity, cultural
knowledge, sign values
Importance of
spatial
proximity
Meaning varies
substantially between
places
Meaning relatively
constant between
places
Meaning highly variable
between place, class and
gender
Outcome Mainly incremental
innovation
More radical
innovation
Incremental and radical
innovations
From Asheim, Boschma et al. 2011

12. Bioeconomy

13. Example: the global virus expert
• Located one hour away from main
regional centre, university and airport
• Started as a farm in 1976; then started
produced virus in eggs for research
regionally based on a friend’s demand
• Today: selling antibodies over the
internet
• Locational advantage: lots of space to
keep animals; good proximity and contact
with regional university; ‘exotic’ factor
• Strongly internationalized, but
embedded in the region

14. Rationale
• Introduction of science-based knowledge
– Upstream: produce agricultural outputs that meet the quality standards needed for its
integration in diverse chains (How to handle different demands from different sectors?)
– Downstream: process these raw outputs into different semi-processed products
– Local universities: bridge between theoretical knowledge and local know-how
• Improving industrial processes
– Synthetic knowledge to improve the process management and logistics
• More markets, greater awareness
– More intermediaries -> Impact on prices for agricultural outputs
– Enhance awareness of fluctuations in multiple markets
– Role of banks: from local -> loans, to regional/national -> financial watchman

15. Lessons
• Increased socio-technical complexity of rural networking
• Adopting scientific techniques: based on trust, not just based on rational convincing
• Bioeconomy clusters: Are these processes driven by localisation economies?
– Availability of land is an important parameter for not clustering
• Positioning of local producers in global exchanges
– Are small producers better off in other sectors than the agrifood one?

16. Social Innovation

17. Examples
• Car-pooling app in rural community of
Tolg (Småland, Sweden)
• Röstånga: limited company with small
shareholders buying empty, abandoned
properties and refurbishing them and turn
them as public spaces (pubs, art-
gallery…)

18. Rationale
• Governmental sphere has not the exclusivity for delivering public services anymore
– ‘Forced’ empowerment of civil society
• Using tools and methods from business management
– social enterprises: delivering the most pressing social services in a manner is economically
viable, socially just and environmentally sustainable
– Critical moment: securing funding continue after initial public subsidies have ended
• Promoting social inclusion from the outside-in
– Not substituting to existing services -> developing ‘missing links’
– enable marginalized groups of the local community to interact with external agents, such as
potential employers -> ‘public’ services are built for the masses, not the outliers
– Substituting to rural businesses in serving the community

19. Lessons
• Time will tell what differentiates traditional initiatives from ‘social innovations’
• Not scaling up, but replication should be possible
– Mobile technologies provide an easy, cheap start-up kit to organize local networking and extra-
local visibility
• Analytical knowledge -> identification of key patterns of social marginalization as well
as a mapping of the most pressing needs for the rural community
• Synthetic knowledge -> business management competences for developing a
‘business plan’, securing investments and monitoring progress
• Collaborative or sharing economy: customers are financiers; less reliant on bank for
initial investment

20. Territorial Governance

21. Examples
• Multi-level governance in support for
Europe 2020 (EU Commission)

22. Rationale
• Mobilization of local stakeholders has become an important the main feature of
territorial governance
– Empowerment necessitates multi-scalar integration of this mobilisation
• Policy learning through ‘best practices’
– Best for whom?
– Peer-to-peer diffusion: joint reconstruction of the process vs selling a finished (policy) product
• Critical points
– Who facilitates? Trust from all parties needed -> participatory leadership
– Multi-funding ensures meeting multi-scalar objectives for rural development
– Coalitions need to evolve over time with the needs

23. Lessons
• Operational knowledge, for instance based on methods, techniques, know-how and
operating rules, are more likely to be transferred than knowledge about institutional
change
• Territorial governance initiatives are constrained by jurisdictional boundaries
– They tend to accommodate them, but not a systemic change
– Learning and cooperation based on similarity rather than contiguity
• ‘Project regions’
– Instead of rural-urban cooperation
– Cross-boundaries rural-rural linkages based on shared challenges and joint vision

24. Concluding remarks
• BE, SI and TG have in common
– Idea of a systemic change - Establishment of new coalitions of rural actors - Application of novel ideas
• The relational capital of rural (remote) regions cannot be stretched at will (in spite of high keenness)
– (if systemic change) New relations and knowledge-bases need to feed multiple purposes
• These paradigms are not mere improvements in the way the traditional spheres of rural societies are
coordinated and managed -> change is not systemic if so
• Neoendogenous development theory helps underlying the complexity of the knowledge-sourcing process
• Limits of community-thinking: Networks of practice are boundary-bridging exchanges that draw together
“different communities of practice to promote knowledge sharing and creation” (Oreszczyn, Lane et al.
2010).

25. Thank you!
alexandre.dubois@slu.se