Rural Policy and Planning

Lapping, Mark B.

doi:10.4135/9781848608016.n7

Cited by 20 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Smart and Wright's (1983) study of decision-making in rural areas in England of the 1970s, was commissioned as a result of a concern that the problems affecting rural areas were at least partly due to the structure of government itself. As Lapping (2006) notes, a certain commonality of such rural problems could be noted internationally at least across Europe, the Americas and Australasia, where low rural wages, limited access to affordable housing and poor rural service provision had endured at least since the 1950s in many rural areas. A number of authors (Cloke andLittle, 1990, Marsden et al, 1993) have charted the resource-centric nature of an institutionalised rural planning in these countries, and the primacy of agricultural policy, as contributing to the problems endured by rural communities.…”

Section: Changing Governance In Rural Englandmentioning

confidence: 97%

The Disempowerment of Empowerment: How Stakeholding Clogs Up Rural Decision-making

Curry

2009

Space and Polity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Changing Governance In Rural Englandmentioning

confidence: 97%

The Disempowerment of Empowerment: How Stakeholding Clogs Up Rural Decision-making

Curry

2009

Space and Polity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Conversely, planning processes implicitly situate farming as a largely settled and ahistorical ideal for rural areas (Curry & Owen, 2009;Lapping, 2006), although the distinctive challenges of dynamic agricultural systems present new and different forms of land use as well as categories of farming. Such primacy does not diminish the considerable significance placed on planning for landscape protection, vegetation retention, or water resource management.…”

Section: Planning and The Perils Of Consensusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Smells like politics: planning and the inconvenient politics of intensive peri‐urban agriculture

Butt

Taylor

2017

Geographical Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intensive farming is an increasing part of Australian agriculture, including in the multi‐functional landscapes at the edges of Australian cities. The example of intensive “broiler” poultry production reveals the tensions that arise when sites of hyper‐productivity conflict with social change in rural areas. Planning processes for intensive farming in the Australian state of Victoria are predicated on stability and consensus: on assumed static and uncontroversial ideas of agriculture, its place, and the primacy of agricultural productivity. Yet concerns about the industrialisation of agriculture are live political issues at the local level, especially in dynamic peri‐urban locations. This paper explores the emergence of a politics of place outside the bounds of planning consensus through an analysis of planning appeals and associated media relating to planning permits for intensive poultry developments in Victoria over 2011–2016. We highlight tensions that exist in relation to technical planning assessments and categorisations used to assert farming as the orthodox use of rural land, especially when new forms of farming look and feel demonstrably different. Using Mouffe's problematising of the negation of antagonism and Rancière's notion of the risks of a false consensus democracy, we argue that planning processes for intensive farming illustrate critical issues in participatory planning. While ostensibly post‐political decision‐making narrows the politics of place and food systems to decisions about policing the boundaries and buffer distances placed around intensive poultry developments, alternative representations of rural life persist. The certainty offered by code‐based planning does not negate the ongoing (if inconvenient) politics of intensive peri‐urban agriculture.

show abstract

“…The majority of the funds was directed towards the modernisation of agricultural production, only a small portion could be used for non-agricultural purposes e.g. modernisation of rural infrastructure (11-15%) or economic activities providing alternative income (15-17%) between and 2006(Kovács 2001.…”

Section: Policies On Regional Development and Rural Areas In Hungary mentioning

confidence: 99%

Development policies on rural peripheral areas in Visegrad countries: a comparative policy analysis

Kovács¹,

Csachová²,

Ferenc³

et al. 2015

Stud. Obsz. Wiej.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The main aim of this paper is to provide a comparative analysis of regional policies dealing with peripheral rural areas in the Visegrad countries from a historical perspective. As it is demonstrated in the paper despite the common political and ideological framework the goals and means of regional policy remained rather different in these countries during state-socialism. The systemic changes demanded the re-conceptualisation of regional development policy and the reconfiguration of the institutional background. As the comparative policy analysis showed in the early 1990s there was a lack of coherent regional policy that would efficiently mitigate growing regional disparities or foster regional competitiveness. The conceptual, legal and institutional foundation of the new regional policy took place in the second half of the 1990s, with some time lag among the countries. In the formulation of strategic documents regarding regional policy the foreseen EU accession played a very important role. The preparation of national development plans were based on the EU's standardized development handbooks, therefore a considerable similarity among the new member states' regional policy documents can be observed. One can say that earlier differences in regional development priorities were gradually eliminated by the European integration among the new member states. However, rural areas were considered in regional economic development policies only in the context of agriculture and tourism development. In addition to local infrastructural development, preservation of natural and cultural heritage, job creation only agriculture and tourism were defined for EU and national subsidies.

show abstract

Rural Policy and Planning

Cited by 20 publications

References 0 publications

The Disempowerment of Empowerment: How Stakeholding Clogs Up Rural Decision-making

The Disempowerment of Empowerment: How Stakeholding Clogs Up Rural Decision-making

Smells like politics: planning and the inconvenient politics of intensive peri‐urban agriculture

Development policies on rural peripheral areas in Visegrad countries: a comparative policy analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About