Territorial potentials of and co-operation in rural regions – Case Eastern Europe Identifying the potential of rural regions: the role of visible and hidden knowledge Visvaldis Valtenbergs, Vidzeme University of Applied Sciences, Latvia TPG of PURR project “Potential of Rural Regions” ESPON Open Seminar “European Territorial Evidence for EU Cohesion Policy and Programming,” Aalborg, Denmark, June, 2012 NORBA NORDIC

Visible and hidden knowledge of rural areas Visible knowledge Based on assumption that rural areas are associated with handicaps in old and new economic paradigms About loss of jobs, services, outmigration of young and skilled Advantages: provides context, analysis and usable info for policy makers Problems: can lead to generalizations Hidden knowledge Based on: endogenous development potential About different rural development narratives and agendas (small town vs. rural development, making rural issues more visible etc.) Advantages: examines actual recipes behind “better coordination / better integration”? Problems: difficult to incorporate into policy architectures

Latvia GDP drop during crisis Austerity effect % of GDP GDP growth by +6,9% in first quarter ( ) Source: Life in Transition Survey (2011) 39% 22%

Taking a bus to school in rural Latvia Visible knowledge More cost- effective service delivery Example of good territorial cooperation between towns and remote rural areas Hidden knowledge Daily commute to towns undermines sense of belonging to a place for young people Schools important not only as places for education, but places for social gatherings

How can policy making support innovations in rural development in the context of austerity ? 1. Focus more on NATIONAL level policy responses. Dimension of Power –The role of public sector, market and development planners in policy implementation 2. In-depth research of territorial potential –Shifting the weight. How austerity actually empowers certain individuals and communities ? –How can approaches of development despite the state be better realized in rural development?

Territorial potentials of and co-operation in rural regions – Case Eastern Europe Identifying the potential of rural regions: the role of visible and hidden knowledge Visvaldis Valtenbergs, Vidzeme University of Applied Sciences, Latvia TPG of PURR project “Potential of Rural Regions” ESPON Open Seminar “European Territorial Evidence for EU Cohesion Policy and Programming,” Aalborg, Denmark, June, 2012 NORBA NORDIC

7 What kind of knowledge? Who has it? AdvantagesDisadvantages Local knowledge Endogenous. Tacit. Experiential. Deeply embedded in community. Often – aspatial. Mostly qualitative LocalsPlace based, contextual, detailed depiction of local rural reality Difficult to unlock. Loss of broader perspective Scientific knowledge Exogenous. Mostly quantitative. Based on accumulated data and/or existing theoretical generalizations Scholars. Scientific and statistical databases Standardized, quantifiable, can be reused and generalized Cannot provide accurate in-depth description of local rural realities and context External knowledge Exogenous. Based on previous work experience Experts, consultants Perspective of involved outsider Knowledge based on success stories from other instances that cannot always be transferred from place to place Source: PURR Draft Final Report