Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
and the current quality of the existing networks. Three sorts of networks have been
identified by the stakeholders (in both case studies): The first group of contacts results
from ties before the existence of the LEADER region. Especially in rural areas, this
sort of strong local involvement is typical, but is often rather a means of identity
building than of actual significance for the LEADER process. The second group of
contacts does play an important role in this, but did not originate from it. Bindings of
political stakeholders often fall in this category, as they have further means of com-
munication and opportunities for exchange apart from the LEADER institutions,
which are often perceived as additional structures. In case those ties are stronger than
the relatively fresh ones in the LEADER context, incentives for new bindings are low,
remain arbitrary and do not lead to stronger networks. Finally, a strikingly high num-
ber of stakeholders denoted themselves as “outsiders” or “newcomers” to the process,
leading to a suspicion of being generally cut off from procedures.
Another important aspect of the interviews was to address the development goals
of the stakeholders for their region. These were connected to the aspects of the sub-
mitted projects that assembly members regarded important for the region and that
made significant contributions to convince them in their decision. They were compli-
mented from the observation results of the meetings and assigned to categories.
Again, the German case serves as an example for figure 2:
Fig. 2.
Categories of stakeholders' development goals
The relative importance of the categories “ideas/development” (2) and “im-
age/tourism” (4) highlight the emphasis on innovative and highly visible projects in
the LEADER approach. Two of the categories may deserve further elaboration: “per-
sonality/trust” (3) refers to the confidence of the decision makers that a submitted
project will be realized, depending to some extent also on a personal impression of the
applicant. The category “money” (5) summarizes some quite differing economical
arguments: While “earnings” (51) and “economic stability” (55) refer to the survival
chances of a project, “distribution” (52) and “not our money” (53) reveal a desire to
allocate funds as quickly as possible.
Just like the others, the category “townscapes” (6) appeared in interviews in both
study regions, this one however in quite contrary sense. While it was an important
aspect of LEADER funding in Germany to preserve the rural settlements (”tidy and
