The New Paradigm of Neo_Endogenous Rural Development: A Thematic Analysis

Document Type : Thesis Article

Authors

1 PhD Student, Department of Geography and Planning, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Associate Professor, Department of Geography and Planning, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Professor, Department of Geography and Planning, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

The endogenous rural development paradigm is one of the newest philosophical ideas that has occupied an essential part of rural studies. However, there is still no deep understanding of the different aspects of this new paradigm. This study aims to investigate the different paradigmatic aspects of Neo-Endogenous rural development. This article completes the existing narratives about the emerging paradigm in such a way that it This study has done a systematic review and thematic analysis of 47 texts using PRISMA guidelines. Examining these texts led to the identification of four main themes and 18 sub-themes. The results show that a significant part of the Endogenous endogenous rural development literature has been produced in Europe. The main focus of the studies covers the topics of structural ontology and relational epistemology, and fewer studies have dealt with ethics and process-communicative praxis. Subjective results show that the Neo_Endogenous rural development paradigm has surpassed the previous two paradigms of exogenous development and endogenous development regarding paradigmatic characteristics. The most important lesson of this paradigm is to consider the interaction between local actors, institutions, and external forces within the networks in forming rural development policies, which can give us a deeper understanding of the rural development process. However, applying this new paradigm requires careful examination of each rural area's unique characteristics and dynamics.

Keywords

Main Subjects


Aarts, N., & Leeuwis, C. (2010). Participation and power: reflections on the role of government in land use planning and rural development. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 16(2), 131-145. 
Aggarwal, A. K. (2018). Rural entrepreneurship development ecosystem–an emerging paradigm of rural socio-economic development. Available at SSRN 3184127.
Arksey, H., O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005; 8:19–32.
Biczkowski, M. (2020). LEADER as a mechanism of neo-endogenous development of rural areas: the case of Poland. Miscellanea Geographica, 24(4), 232-244.
Bock, B. B. (2016). Rural marginalisation and the role of social innovation; a turn towards nexogenous development and rural reconnection. Sociologia Ruralis, 56(4), 552-573.
Bosworth, G., Annibal, I., Carroll, T., Price, L., Sellick, J., & Shepherd, J. (2016). Empowering Local Action through Neo-Endogenous Development; The Case of LEADER in E ngland. Sociologia Ruralis, 56(3), 427-449. 
Bosworth, G., Farrell, H. (2011). Tourism entrepreneurs in Northumberland: the role of in-migrants. Ann Tour Res 38(4):1474–1494
Bosworth, G., Price, L., Hakulinen, V., & Marango, S. (2020). Rural social innovation and neo-endogenous rural development. In Neoendogenous development in European rural areas (pp. 21-32): Springer.
Braun, V., Victoria, C. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006; 3:83.
Cazorla, A., De Los Ríos, I., & Salvo, M. (2013). Working With People (WWP) in rural development projects: A proposal from social learning. Cuadernos de desarrollo rural, 10(SPE70), 131-157. 
Castellano-Álvarez, F. J., Álvarez-García, J., Durán-Sánchez, A., & Río-Rama, M. d. l. C. d. (2021). Ethics and Rural Development: Case Study of Tajo-Salor (Extremadura, Spain). In Progress in Ethical Practices of Businesses (pp. 297-311): Springer.
Cejudo, E., & Navarro, F. (2020). Neoendogenous development in European rural areas: Springer.
Cejudo, E., Navarro, F., & Cañete, J. A. (2020). Young and Women Entrepreneurs in Neo-endogenous Development. In E. Cejudo & F. Navarro (Eds.), Neoendogenous Development in European Rural Areas: Results and Lessons (pp. 209-234). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Cheng, C., Cushman, S. A., Ho, H.-C., & Gao, P. (2022). Geographic Complexity: Concepts, Theories, and Practices. In (Vol. 11, pp. 308): MDPI.
Colquhoun, HL., Levac, D., O’Brien, KK., et al. (2014). Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol 2014; 67:1291–4.
Cooke, P., & Morgan, K. (1993). The network paradigm: new departures in corporate and regional development. Environment and planning D: Society and space, 11(5), 543-564. 
Dahlman, C. (2016). A new paradigm for rural development.
Dicken, P., & Thrift, N. (1992). The organization of production and the production of organization: why business enterprises matter in the study of geographical industrialization. Transactions of the Institute of British geographers, 279-291. 
Elden, S. (2009). Terror and territory: The spatial extent of sovereignty. U of Minnesota Press.
Esparcia, J., & Abbasi, F. (2020). Territorial governance and rural development: challenge or reality? In Neoendogenous Development in European Rural Areas (pp. 33-60): Springer.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2002). Bringing power to planning research: One researcher’s praxis story. Journal of planning education and research, 21(4), 353-366. 
Galdeano-Gómez, E., Aznar-Sánchez, J. A., & Pérez-Mesa, J. C. (2011). The complexity of theories on rural development in Europe: An analysis of the paradigmatic case of Almería (South-east Spain). Sociologia Ruralis, 51(1), 54-78. 
Gkartzios, M., & Lowe, P. (2019). Revisiting neo-endogenous rural development. In The Routledge companion to rural planning (pp. 159-169): Routledge.
Gkartzios, M., & Scott, M. (2014). Placing housing in rural development: exogenous, endogenous and neo-endogenous approaches. Sociologia Ruralis, 54(3), 241-265. 
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of qualitative research, 2(163-194), 105. 
Guinjoan, E., Badia, A., & Tulla, A. F. (2016). The new paradigm of rural development. Theoretical considerations and reconceptualization using the rural web. Boletín de la Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles, 71, 495-500.
Gusmanov, R. U., Kuznetsova, A. R., Stovba, E. V., & Avzalov, M. R. (2019). Newparadigm of the economic development of the regional rural territories. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences.
Georgios, C., Nikolaos, N., & Michalis, P. (2021). Neo-Endogenous Rural Development: A Path Toward Reviving Rural Europe. Rural Sociology, 86(4), 911-937.
Healey, P. (2003). Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning theory, 2(2), 101-123. 
High, C., & Nemes, G. (2007). Social learning in LEADER: Exogenous, endogenous and hybrid evaluation in rural development. Sociologia Ruralis, 47(2), 103-119. 
Kirkham, J. J., Dwan, K. M., Altman, D. G., Gamble, C., Dodd, S., Smyth, R., & Williamson, P. R. (2010). The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. Bmj, 340. 
Landini, F., Brites, W., & y Rebolé, M. I. M. (2017). Towards a new paradigm for rural extensionists’ in-service training. Journal of rural studies, 51, 158-167. 
Leavy, P. (2014). The Oxford handbook of qualitative research: Oxford University Press, USA.
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P., Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 62(10), e1-e34. 
Lowe, P., Murdoch, J., & Ward, N. (1995). Networks in rural development: beyond exogenous and endogenous models. Beyond modernisation, 87-105. 
Lowe, P., Phillipson, J., Proctor, A., & Gkartzios, M. (2019). Expertise in rural development: A conceptual and empirical analysis. World development, 116, 28-37.
Magel, H., & Chigbu, U. E. (2022). Territorial Justice and Equivalent Living Conditions: Insights from the New Paradigm of Territorial Development in Germany. Land matters-Taking Stock and Looking Ahead: Selected experiences in memory of Rafael Crecente, 73-100.
Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., . . Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic reviews, 4(1), 1-9.
Mokhtari karchegani, A., Tavakoli, M., & Ahmadipour, Z. (2020). Epistemological analysis of spatial planning plan in Iran's. The Journal of Spatial Planning, 24(3), 27-63. Retrieved from http://hsmsp.modares.ac.ir/article-21-36446-en.html (In Persian)
Mokhtari Karchgani, A., Tavakoli, M., & Ahmadipour, Z. (2019). Comparison of epistemological devices with methodological criteria in spatial planning. Journal of Geography and Development, 18(59), 185-210. doi: 10.22111/gdij.2020.5470. (In Persian)
Murdoch, J. (2000). Networks—a new paradigm of rural development? Journal of rural studies, 16(4), 407-419. 
Murdoch, J. (2003). Co-constructing the countryside: hybrid networks and the extensive self. Country visions, 263-282. 
Navarro-Valverde, F., Labiancaf, M., Cejudo-García, E., & De Rubertis, S. (2022). Social Innovation in Rural Areas of the European Union Learnings from Neo-Endogenous Development Projects in Italy and Spain. Sustainability 14. 
O'Sullivan, D., Manson, S. M., Messina, J. P., & Crawford, T. W. (2006). Space, place, and complexity science. In (Vol. 38, pp. 611-617): SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England.
Olmedo, L., & O’Shaughnessy, M. (2023). A Substantive View of Social Enterprises as Neo-endogenous Rural Development Actors. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 1-13. 
Page, M. J., Moher, D., & McKenzie, J. E. (2022). Introduction to PRISMA 2020 and implications for research synthesis methodologists. Research synthesis methods, 13(2), 156-163.
Petrick, M. (2015). Between Individual Autonomy and Centralized Control: Outlining an Evolutionary Model of Neo-endogenous Rural Development. In R. Beunen, K. Van Assche, & M. Duineveld (Eds.), Evolutionary Governance Theory: Theory and Applications (pp. 247-265). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Qu, M., & Zollet, S. (2023). Neo-endogenous revitalisation: Enhancing community resilience through art tourism and rural entrepreneurship. Journal of Rural Studies, 97, 105-114.
Pokhylenko, N. (2023). Overview of conceptual basis and models of rural development. Economic Synergy, 2023, Issue 1, (1), 246-269.
Ray, C. (1997) Towards a theory of the dialectic of local rural development within the EuropeanUnion. Sociologia Ruralis 37 (3) pp. 345–362.
Ray, C. (2000) The EU LEADER programme: rural development laboratory. Sociologia Ruralis40 (2) pp. 163–171
Ray, C. (2001). Culture economies: Centre for Rural Economy Newcastle.
Ray, C. (2006). Neo-endogenous rural development in the EU. Handbook of rural studies, 1, 278-291. 
Scott, M. (2019). Spatial planning and the rural economy. In The Routledge companion to rural planning (pp. 219-236): Routledge.
Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., . . . Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. Bmj, 349. 
Shucksmith, M. (2010). Disintegrated rural development? Neo-endogenous rural development, planning and place-shaping in diffused power contexts. Sociologia Ruralis, 50(1), 1-14. 
Shucksmith, M. (2002). Endogenous Development, Social Capital and Social Inclusion: Perspectives from LEADER in the UK. Sociologia Ruralis. 40. 208 - 218. 10.1111/1467-9523.00143.
Steiner, A., Farmer, J., Bosworth, G. (2019). Rural social enterprise—evidence to date, and a research agenda. J Rural Studies.
Thrift, N. (1999). The place of complexity. Theory, Culture & Society, 16(3), 31-69. 
van der Ploeg, J.D., & Renting, H. (2000). Impact and potential: a comparative review ofEuropean Rural Development practices. Sociologia Ruralis, 40, 4, 529-543. 
Van der Ploeg, J. D., Renting, H., Brunori, G., Knickei, K., Mannion, J., Marsden, T., Ventura, F. (2017). Rural development: from practices and policies towards theory. In The Rural (pp. 201-218): Routledge.
van der Ploeg, J. D., & van Dijk, G. (Eds.) (1995). Beyond modernization. The impact of endogenous rural development. Van Gorcum.
Ward, N., Atterton, J., Kim, T.-Y., Lowe, P., Phillipson, J., & Thompson, N. (2005a). Universities, the knowledge economy and'neo-endogenous rural development'. CRE Discussion Paper. 
Ward, N., Atterton, J., Kim, T. H., Lowe, P. D., Phillipson, J., & Thompson, N. E. (2005b). Universities, the Knowledge Economy and 'Neo-Endogenous Rural Development'.
Woods, M. (2007). Engaging the global countryside: globalization, hybridity and the reconstitution of rural place. Progress in Human Geography, 31(4), 485-507. doi:10.1177/0309132507079503
Woods, M., & McDonagh, J. (2011). Rural Europe and the world: Globalization and rural development. European Countryside, 3(3), 153. 
Zhao, L., & Zhang, X. (2017, September). Jiao Zhou Yangko during the New Rural Construction. In 2017 3rd International Conference on Social Science and Higher Education (pp. 321-323). Atlantis Press.