Exploring the ‘New Rural Paradigm’ in Europe: Eco-economic strategies as a counterforce to the global competitiveness agenda

Introduction: understanding pathways for sustainable rural regional development in Europe

Many rural regions in Europe are undergoing a dynamic transition. We can witness a continued scaling-up of functions such as agriculture spurred on by global forces, especially in areas where the rural and urban are interwoven, creating more monotonous landscapes and eroding physical variety. The influence of urbanisation and the intensification and up-scaling of agriculture make it more difficult for regions to remain distinctive and increase sustainability.

Places, and their range of goods and services, have become increasingly interchangeable. This is a result of three mutually reinforcing processes: (1) disconnecting of producers and suppliers of goods and services on the one hand and consumers and customers on the other; (2) disembedding – the place of production and supply has gradually lost its influence over the quality and nature of many products, meaning that the local or regional character has largely disappeared; and (3) disentwining, the disconnection of producers and suppliers of different goods and services from each other, which has created separate spheres of activity (Wiskerke, 2009: 370–371).

These processes are embedded in the wider processes of globalisation. As a result of ever more global inter-relatedness, many regions are facing severe ecological, social and economic vulnerabilities. The overarching objective for regional development policy-makers and practitioners seems to be the creation of economic advantage through superior productivity performance, innovation systems and the development of a creative class (Bristow, 2010). The dominant discourse of competitiveness displays a narrow focus on the growth of a region rather than the development of a region (Markusen, 1994). Not surprisingly, as a result, regional economic development strategies are littered with the language of ‘winning’, of gaining some form of competitive advantage over other regions, and of measuring competitive performance against ‘rivals’ in the form of indicators and league tables (Bristow, 2009). This competitiveness imperative mirrors the dominant thinking across many places and scales from cities and city-regions, to nations and even supranational powers, such as the European Union (EU), where competitiveness is deeply embedded. Indeed, the ‘conventional wisdom’ is that nations, regions and cities have to be more competitive to survive in the new marketplace that is being forged by globalisation and the rise of new information technologies (Buck et al., 2005). Competitiveness has effectively become a natural law for economic development and policy, and the resulting imperative is the pursuit of globally competitive firms. Furthermore, in the recent global economic recession, the economy has been prioritised over environmental and social aspects, partly transparently and partly behind the mask of balanced sustainable development (Jauhiainen and Moilanen, 2011).

As a response to the ‘place-less’ discourse of competitiveness and the three processes described above, new, more sustainable, place-based strategies have been developed, which embody multifunctional agriculture and the construction of identities or images around new rural goods and services. Territorial and place-based approaches have recently also become more important in the view of EU member states (EU, 2007), in European policies for territorial cohesion (EC, 2010a), in the development strategies and practices for the EU programming period after 2013, and in the Green Paper on research and innovation funding (EC, 2010b). The response of place-based development reflects a discourse of ‘reconnection’ (Ilbery and Maye, 2007: 507) and incorporates a shift from homogeneous agricultural commodity markets to more segmented markets (Winter, 2003: 506).

The reconnection between specific foods and specific places is a form of re-territorialisation, which attempts to reverse the intrinsically aspatial order of globalised production, as the heterogeneous properties of food become celebrated outcomes of different places and natures (Winter, 2005). Re-territorialisation emphasises the role of agriculture not only as an economic sector and food producer, but also in maintaining multifunctional green space and landscape quality.

Re-territoralisation is an important dimension of what major development agencies such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), as well as scholars (Van Der Ploeg and Marsden, 2008), postulate as the ‘New Rural Paradigm’ (NRP) in Europe. According to the OECD, this paradigm includes a new, multisector, place-based approach to rural development that claims a need for closer linkages between the rural and urban economy, and to see rural development as a close interplay with regional development more generally. Key elements are the valorisation of local assets, a shift from subsidy-driven development to more variable development through investments, the exploitation and valorisation of hitherto unused resources (OECD, 2006).

We can witness expressions of this new paradigm, especially in those places where the rural domain is no longer exclusively tied to food production but is being transformed into a ‘consumption landscape’ to meet wider urban consumer demands. Here the aesthetic–consumptive functions of places become as important as the utility and productive functions. These developments create opportunities for multifunctional agriculture to produce new products and services linked to local and regional assets and identities (Marsden and Sonnino, 2008).

The aim of this article is to critically investigate the ‘new rural development paradigm’ in a comparative regional context, by describing and analysing the various strategies in rural regional development. An important issue is how promising these strategies are in terms of eco-economic development (Kitchen and Marsden, 2009). Are some of them just short-term survival strategies of an agricultural sector that is doomed to fade away in urbanising regions? Or can they contribute to more viable, resilient and sustainable regions? This leads to the central question in this article: What types of strategies and pathways for eco-economic development can be witnessed in rural regions in Europe?

This question will be addressed using an analysis of 62 rural development cases, in which the analytical framework of the ‘rural web’ has been used to understand the dynamic interplay between different domains of rural development.

The first section of the paper deals with some of the key theoretical questions: What are the main driving forces of rural transformation? How can the complexity and dynamics of rural, regional development be understood? How can this complexity be analysed using the model of ‘the rural web’ as a heuristic device? The second section describes the methodology, after which pathways for sustainable rural regional development in Europe are identified. The final section reassesses and elaborates on the conceptual parameters for the NRP.

Understanding the complexity of sustainable rural regional development

The establishment of new markets is one of the building blocks of the OECD’s NRP. This can be regarded not only as a rural but also a new regional paradigm, which stems from a re-localisation or re-territorialisation process, resulting in new linkages among sectors, businesses, producers and consumers, and markets. But what are the driving forces involved in rural development that stimulate the search for new markets? Three main motors can be identified.

First, the continued cost–price squeeze in agriculture (as well as other land-based activities, such as forestry) requires new remedies. This refers to the ongoing rural debate where rural economies are described as being caught in the process of a continuous squeeze between the prices and costs associated with land-based production and the growing market and consumer expectations of high-quality or natural rural resource-based goods and services. Faced with these far-reaching concerns and issues, farmers and other land-holders are being encouraged towards more ‘value-adding’ and multifunctionality (see, for example, Marsden and Sonnino, 2008; Van Der Ploeg and Marsden, 2008). Some rural economies respond to this squeeze by attempting to raise their competitiveness in order to realise improvements in quality of life in rural areas.

A second driving force is the continued crises in agriculture, such as foot and mouth disease, swine flu, bovine spongiform encephalopathy and food scandals. These have set the momentum for transition. Environmental problems in agriculture, animal diseases and food scandals have influenced the image of agriculture such that the agricultural ‘licence to produce’ is no longer undisputed.

The third factor concerns the growing urban demands for rural goods and services with the entry of new (often ex-urban) actors now both demanding and providing these. New functions, inhabitants and practices are taking root in rural areas. While decreasing the power of rural actors, these changes are also diversifying and complicating the rural arena, raising questions about more traditional conceptions of rural space (Frouws, 1998). As a response to these challenges, there is no single, exclusive path for sustainable rural regional development. However, in the search for new models of sustainable development, different trajectories can be identified: the bio-economy and the eco-economy, each of which underpins alternative models for economic growth and sustainable development. ¹

Both models include different views on ‘green investments’, have their own sustainability claims and can be analysed in the context of the overarching development theory of ecological modernisation. ² We argue that the ecologically modernising agenda has been too narrowly interpreted as bio-economic development and should be based on a more diverse theoretical base (see Buttel, 2000; Gibbs, 2000; Horlings and Marsden, 2011a and 2011b; Mol, 2000; Murphy, 2000). ³

One consequence of a political choice for an eco-economic regional development path is a stronger institutional embeddedness of activities in specific contexts of space and place. The ‘place-based’ eco-economy does not result in a net depletion of resources, but instead can provide cumulative net benefits that add value to rural and regional spaces in both ecological and economic ways (Kitchen and Marsden, 2009; Marsden, 2010). Stimulating sustainability is this sense is not merely creating vertical linkages (agricultural or bio-energy chains), but combining horizontal and vertical innovation facilitated by new governance arrangements.

The choice of a bio- or eco-economic development trajectory is specifically urgent for those rural economies currently dealing with the challenges of continued peripherality, agricultural decline, low levels of economic activity and expectations, and volatile and variable consumer demand. The NRP referred to by the OECD incorporates what we identify here as both ‘bio-economic’ and ‘eco-economic’ features as a result of adopting either ‘weak’ or ‘strong’ notions of ecological sustainability.

The next section describes how different trajectories for rural eco-economic development can be analysed by using the model of a ‘rural web’ as a heuristic device. The rural web provides a way of harnessing diversity and ‘photographs’ the configuration of six dimensions in regional rural development (Van Der Ploeg et al., 2008). Rural development in this model is the unfolding of a rural ‘web’ in the regional context. Responding to the ‘squeeze on rural resources’; the model empirically describes rural resources, actors, activities, linkages, transactions, networks and positive externalities. Theoretically, the model captures the interrelations between six conceptual domains: endogeneity, novelty, production, social capital, market governance, new institutional arrangements and sustainability (Figure 1). In this model sustainability is territorially based. As such, rural development is viewed as a dynamic web of linkages that reshapes the rural whilst enlarging its competitiveness and enhancing the quality of life (Figure 2). This article attempts to develop the model further by conceptualising eco-economic strategies as regional pathways – which emerge through the different mobilisations of the rural web – and their influence on rural change.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Domains of rural development (Marsden, 2010).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

The rural web (Marsden, 2010).

Methodological aspects of the comparative case study analysis

The empirical material was gathered in the context of a large European research project, Enlarging theoretical understanding of rural development, (ETUDE), carried out by research institutes in six European countries (UK, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy, Latvia and Finland). ETUDE aimed to acquire a better understanding of the dynamics, scope and regional economic impact of rural development processes, whilst reflecting the large heterogeneity of rural areas and activities. ETUDE analysed 62 project cases and 12 in-depth case studies. This article is based on an analysis of the project cases, described by researchers of the six country teams. For the analysis of the 12 in-depth cases we refer to Milone and Ventura (2010). The rich empirical material shows a broad overview on strategies on rural, regional development in Europe and the emergence of new rural–urban linkages. We will describe here methodological aspects of the case study research, the selection and inventory of cases and the analysis (Marsden, 2007; Marsden and Sonnino, 2007).

The six country teams each selected 10 case studies of projects or initiatives from their previous published and unpublished research, many including detailed primary evidence. Each of the teams selected (at least) seven projects from their own country and three from other EU countries. The total of 62 project cases is an inventory of projects in 16 European countries. ⁴ Each team provided cases that reflected a large variety in rural domains; cases were selected where different aspects of the rural areas were dominant were dominant (e.g. endogeneity, social capital, novelty, production, etc.), without ignoring the other dimensions. The dominance of specific domains was based on primary and secondary data of the case.

Each case focused upon describing economic activities or initiatives in rural areas responding or attempting to respond to the squeeze on rural economies by raising their competitiveness. The cases were based on primary and secondary data regarding the actors involved in the rural development, the institutions involved and the social and economic impacts (direct or indirect) of the development. The inventory contained rural projects on agricultural production, tourism, education, energy, nature and landscape care and regional branding, but also included research projects, partnerships and grassroots movements.

The aim was to demonstrate in the separate cases the ways in which (1) to what extent each domain was related to the others and (2) how these domains were combined and created or did not create quality of life benefits for the rural areas. The projects were then analysed through the following steps. First, the primary domain within the rural web (see Figure 3) was identified in each project.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

The 62 ETUDE projects and dominating domains.

This inventory was followed by an analysis of the key domain inter-relations based on the interaction between the six conceptual domains of the rural web: governance of markets, sustainability, endogeneity, social capital, novelty and new institutional arrangements. The basis of the interaction, or absence of an interaction, as well as the assessment of the type and strength of impact was assessed. The links were scored (–, 0, +, ++) in a matrix (domain impact analysis), which provided 35 interactions to consider. This matrix was interpreted by the researchers of the different teams in terms of the effect of the links on the strength of the ‘web’ in total, and the influence of the domains on competitiveness and quality of life in the case. The analysis aimed to show the salient patterns and to develop a comparative typology, guided by the ETUDE conceptual model of the rural web.

The case studies were re-analysed by the authors in the context of exploring eco-economic regional strategies for regional development. The goal was to identify the variety of development pathways that emerged through the different mobilisations of the rural web.

Empirical analysis: pathways for sustainable rural regional development in Europe

Based on the analysis of the 62 cases, we have identified different eco-economic pathways in European rural regions. These findings deepen the insight in the interplay between the ‘governance of markets’ and the other domains of the rural web. They also reflect the ongoing diversification of agriculture as well as a shift to a broader, more integrative regional approach, including an increased role of non-agricultural actors. In the next sections we will describe the following three pathways:

(Niche-) innovation

(Niche-) innovation refers to the development of new product–market combinations, mostly in the area of food, based on novelties and linked to sustainability as a basis for eco-economical regional development. This strategy specifies the different ways in which the relations between ‘governance of markets’, ‘novelty’ and ‘sustainability’ take shape, often lubricated by social capital in the form of cooperation between producers and individual leadership. Innovation in itself does not lead to sustainability, but it can be linked to the sustainability domain by: (a) developing certification schemes (e.g. organic agriculture); (b) production and quality guidelines; (c) new and re-invented animal breeds/products or varieties, (d) European labels (such as PDO, PGI and TSG) ⁵ ; (e) environmental farm management; or (f) the use of renewable rural sources (such as wind energy or biomass). Four dimensions of sustainable (niche) innovation can be identified, along the two axes of products and markets (see Figure 4).

1. The improvement and marketing of existing products in existing food markets

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Dimensions of product–market innovation.

Examples include a large variety of initiatives and projects in Europe (see upper-left quadrant 1). This strategy seems to be dominant in alternative agri-food networks described in the cases. In terms of innovation, the focus is on developing, and in many cases ‘retro-innovating’, quality products and marketing tools as a response to the cost–price squeeze and crises in conventional agricultural markets. The main constraint concerns the competitiveness and regulation in already established markets, which often tend to be dominated by corporate retailers and well-known powerful industrial brands.

Organic production, especially, faces difficulties in the marketing of products. A clear example is the Preili organic farmers’ network in Latvia. The lack of economic, human and social capital, inadequate state support for small-scale cooperatives in this country, the lack of commitment and trust among cooperative members and the lack of appropriate management (institutional aspect) were among the most relevant limiting factors. In other cases regulation is a constraint, such as hygienic sanitary norms for food in direct selling, for example in Umbria in Italy. Farmers adapted in this region to the regulation by following a strategy of vertical integration, first by developing cooperatives through collective contractual integration with the distribution system and, second, by more autonomously internalising the slaughtering activity and marketing of beef.

Entrepreneurs often cope with the above difficulties by strengthening the domain of social capital. They form cooperatives or associations aimed at collective marketing, vertical integration in the production chain, new product branding, developing quality guidelines to distinguish the product from others, or by applying for and achieving European PDO and PGI labels. In some cases the initiative of ‘wilful individuals’ or ecological entrepreneurs plays a stimulating and key orchestrating role (for example, in the case of ham production, Jamon de Trevelz in Spain, and in several UK cases, such as Rodda Creamery, Graig farm producers’ group and Steve Turton Westaways sausages).

2. The production and marketing of new products for existing food markets

Here, innovation is focused on the production of new varieties or breeds, or the (re)introduction of agricultural products or non-food products (see upper-right quadrant 2). Most projects are initiated by private actors but sometimes also by public actors (e.g. production of rye bread in Switzerland, wine routes in Tuscany in Italy). The main constraints include the necessary investments for product and market development. A strategy to cope with these difficulties is collective action, up-scaling and networking, searching for support from governmental authorities or European programmes (such as LEADER) and non-governmental organisations (such as the ‘slow food’ movement). In some cases innovative new products have been developed with the initiative of visionary individuals (e.g. saffron production in Tuscany, the dairy group Rankas Piens in Latvia, the food producers organised in the Waddengroup in the north of the Netherlands and the food initiative Tegut/Rhongut in Germany).

3. The production and marketing of agricultural products for new markets

Here, innovation is focused more on finding new groups of consumers on the local or regional scale, which can contribute to local food sovereignty, the strengthening of producer–consumer relations or the decrease of the ‘ecological footprint’ (see the third, lower-left, quadrant). Some of the projects are initiated by women’s groups (Westhoek Hoeve products in Belgium, Ozveny food provision services in Hrachovo in Slovakia), whereas others are the result of policy initiatives (such as local school meals in Scotland) or European projects such as Interreg IIIB (e.g. the project Food for municipal kitchens in Finland).

Some innovative initiatives (e.g. city farms in the Netherlands) face the constraint of no institutional procedures for support or policy programmes available for their stimulation. Another problem for food producer initiatives is the search for new consumer groups such as schools and municipalities, which can create difficulties in networking and in breaking into established supplier networks.

4. The production and marketing of new products for new markets

The focus here is on finding completely new product–market combinations often by crossing the boundaries between different sectors (i.e. the fourth, lower-right, quadrant). This implies a more radical break with the past and establishes entirely new eco-economic practices. Most initiatives are focused on horizontal networks, started by private or public initiatives. An example are the 140 voluntary ‘Landschafts-pflegeverbände’ in Germany, which engage farmers in conservation work with a reliable source of additional income and help them market products that are typical of their respective regions. This fourth strategy is the most innovative but also the most risky and difficult, combining the constraints of the second and third strategies above.

With regard to these four subcategories we can see that most projects are focused on the first strategy: the renewed and remade marketing of existing food products for existing or new markets. An important challenge for the future is to strengthen also the other two strategies described below. The re-orientation on local assets, especially, can integrate different rural and urban interfaces and be linked to broader notions of quality of life.

New interfaces

As part of a process of eco-economic change new interfaces are established between (public and private) actors, between producers and consumers, within the production chain, between sectors, functions, city and countryside or between domains of regional development. These interfaces refer especially to the web domain of institutional arrangements in the sense that new institutions are formed that enable cooperation between actors. New interfaces as such do not contribute to sustainability automatically. However, linkages between the domains of the web strengthen the coherence of the rural web and create synergy and dynamics within the web, which can then create possibilities for sustainable regional development. Within this strategy different dimensions can be distinguished along the axes of individual and multi-actor and market versus public goods (Figure 5). We can witness:

individual and more direct interfacial market relations within the chain (shortening the chain) between producers and consumers, for example by direct selling of products (upper-left quadrant);

rural services in the form of public goods such as health, nature and landscape offered by individual farms, for clients, tourists or consumers (upper-right quadrant);

market products by multi-actor groups, cooperatives or communities (lower-left quadrant); and

public goods produced by associations, communities or cooperatives such as the agricultural nature and landscape associations in the Netherlands, the ‘Landschaftspflege verbände’ in Germany, educational activities by rural women’s groups in Latvia, multifunctional land use in Tynset (Norway) and the use of locally available commons (‘baldios’) in Tras-os-Montes in Portugal (lower-right quadrant).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 5.

New interfaces in rural regional development.

Especially interesting are interfaces that contribute to new rural–urban linkages. In Cardiff (Wales, UK), for example, a new model for local food production has been implemented (see Box 1).

Box 1.

Riverside Market Garden; local food production for the city of Cardiff (Wales)

Riverside Market Garden is a new ethical model for sustainable local food production, developed by RCMA Social Enterprise, to make more fresh food available to the local community. A new food production site has been located on 10 acres at St Hilary, 10 miles west of Cardiff, and work has already started – the first crops were produced in July 2010 and sold at the farmers’ markets in Cardiff. The garden will produce a wide range of organic vegetables; offer training, care placements and educational visits for schools; and contribute to landscape management. Citizens can become shareholders in the new farm, involve themselves as customers or volunteers or become co-investors for a minimum of £50 a year. The goal is to develop the Market Garden within five years as a self-financing community-owned business supplying high-quality seasonal vegetables to local people. ⁶

Re-orientation on territorial capital

This refers to the web domain of endogeneity in the sense that it is based on the valorisation of local/regional assets or rooted in social–cultural notions of regional identity. These strategies can (potentially) strengthen the link between governance of markets, endogeneity and sustainability. The aim here is not only to develop agriculture or agri-food networks but to integrate different sectors. Most projects are initiated by public actors or research projects.

This final category shows a gradual shift from agricultural diversification to a more integrative rural and regional development, including non-agricultural actors. This is especially interesting because of the potential for combining horizontal (in areas between sectors) and vertical (between actors in the production chain) linkages. Different dimensions can be distinguished along the axes of product versus culture (‘experience’) orientation and agriculture versus multisector/region orientation (Figure 6). We can make a distinction between:

the development of new/old breeds, food products, production guidelines or collective marketing action (upper-left quadrant);

culturally embedded agricultural products that aim to tell the ‘story of the region’ (upper-right quadrant);

new product–market combinations based on local and regional assets (lower-left quadrant); and

experience- and multisector-based branding of multiple sectors or entire regions (lower-right quadrant).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 6.

The degree of re-orientation on local/regional assets and identity.

Producer–consumer relations can be linked to cultural capital (examples are the regions of Lunigiana in Italy and Devon and Shetland in the UK), thereby using symbolic capital that functions as a cement to align people around the cultural storyline of the region. This strategy emphasises the role of place identity in development, ‘to evoke the meanings which are attached to particular places by different groups of people who experience places in different ways – as residents, business people, policy makers and tourists for example’ (Kneafsey, 2000: 36).

Part of this strategy is the production of culturally embedded products that reflect place identity and aim to tell the ‘story of the region’ and offer experiences to citizens. Many of these products have a European PGI status. An interesting example is the development process in Lunigiana in Italy (see Box 2).

Box 2.

Cultural capital in Lunigiana in Italy

Lunigiana is a historical region with rich cultural capital (churches, abbeys, pilgrimage route, book festivals, medieval rural villages). The inhabitants have a strong ‘sense of place’ and feel they are neither ‘Liguri’ (people from Liguria Region) nor ‘Toscani’ (people from Tuscany Region). In this region, since 1990 new informal, hybrid and locally controlled networks have been constructed that comprise a wide range of regional and local institutions. This has fostered new locally controlled markets for typical food products and rural tourism whereby the regional image is connected to the local agro-food products. As a result, there are, for example, now 72 local agro-food products, such as lamb of Zeri, bread of Caosola, the PDO honey of Lunigiana, some wines and the mushroom ‘fungo di Borgotaro’. However, the risk here is the symbolic overexposure and the consequent generation of conflict among lived, perceived and conceived ruralities (e.g. you can only find the onion of Treschietto during the specific period of the local ‘Festival of the onion of Treschietto’).

Attempts to link agriculture, landscape, biodiversity and identity partly stem from, and are aided by, branding-based activities (Ilbery and Maye, 2007: 508). Branding can (potentially) function as a vehicle to market regional products of different sectors. A brand can be described as ‘a consistent group of characters, images, or emotions that consumers recall or experience when they think of a specific symbol, product, service, organisation or location’ (Simeon, 2006: 464). It can, in general, refer to destinations, corporations, products and services (Balakrischan, 2009).

Place branding is the deliberate planning of the image and identity of a region. In some places a narrow definition of branding is used, limited to marketing of the existing situation. In this sense, referring to Pederson (2011), place branding is about strengthening the legibility of the region in a pragmatic way: it sees no potential of social development that is not marketable. Anything particular and authentic is an asset. Yet, Pederson also argues that place branding has a creative and affirmative potential with the literature on creative spaces bore witness to (Florida, 2002). It is driven by an explicit intention – in line with organisational branding – by suggesting organisational changes of the place in question. It is about constructing territorial ideas, signs and practices. It devises new ways for a local society to identify itself (Pederson, 2011: 78).

As a consequence, place branding concerns not only what a region is, but also what it aims and desires to be in the future. This can lead to new ideas, images, products, alliances, organisation forms and services. Based on a comparison of six European regions, Árnason et al. (2009) state that the process of branding in networks can be divided into three aspects: (1) increase visibility, (2) develop new products and (3) reorganise activities. We would add to this that increasing visibility can increase people’s awareness of the qualities of their places, which enhances new innovations. An interesting example of regional branding is the Regional Marke Eiffel (see Box 3).

Box 3.

Regional branding: the Regional Marke Eiffel

The Regionen Aktiv (RA) is a pilot programme in Germany and an example of an innovative support scheme that tries to generate new economic activities, linking them to the enhancement of environmental quality. A jury chose 10 ‘model regions’ out of more than 200 applications for regional plans. The Regional Marke Eiffel, a region with a high potential for tourism, was developed as the first regional brand in 2003 within this RA competition.  The brand stands for quality products and services from agriculture, forestry, crafts and tourism services originating in the Eiffel, such as a large variety of food products, spirits from traditionally managed orchards, wood, heating wood and furniture, as well as services in tourism. Brand users in tourism have to prove a minimum quality classification and are, amongst others, obliged to offer up to 30% of ‘Regionalmarke Eiffel’ products. The 165 brand users produce 180 products for the cities in the Rhine area. Target groups for the sale of Eiffel products are food retailers and the local gastronomy; some farms also do direct marketing.

An important question remains concerning the role of more ‘place-based’ types of governance and planning facilitating eco-economic development. Promising changes for an eco-economic development can be created by stimulating horizontal and vertical linkages, leading to new consumption chains and inter-sector networks. These networks can be strengthened by an overarching regional storyline based on territorial capital, which can mobilise networks of entrepreneurs as well as citizens. Governments can facilitate local agency and entrepreneurial networks and embed these in coherent regional development plans and European programmes.

Eco-economic clusters also require spatial planning mechanisms that include the facilitation of new rural–urban relations. This includes not only rural interfaces and arrangements but also creating space in cities themselves. An example is an integrated rural–urban food strategy developed by several city-regions that can encompass a range of activities such as home gardens, (specialised) food markets, city farming, children’s education, consumer supported agriculture and ‘experience-based’ activities such as food fairs.

Conclusions: exploring and qualifying the new rural development paradigm

The article has, through comparative empirical analysis, begun to unpack some of the key developmental processes involved in what has been termed the new rural development paradigm in Europe. More specifically, differentiated eco-economic strategies have been distinguished and shaped along different axes of products and markets that express the variable responses to the conventional cost squeeze in agriculture, agricultural crises and increasing urban demands. The three pathways of (niche-) innovation, new interfaces and re-orientation on territorial capital give more specific insight into the dynamic ways in which the governance of markets takes shape within the rural web. Although different strategies are expressed, the cases indicate a gradual shift from an agricultural-based development to a more integrative, place-based approach including a wider vector of non-agricultural actors. We can postulate the following parameters in understanding these transition processes.

First, regional strategies are rooted in different and competing trajectories, referring to and expressing weak and strong notions of ecological modernisation. These trajectories express themselves in dynamic bio- and eco-economic patterns of development and shape notions of time, space and place in different ways.

Most of the 62 cases create new social and economic spaces in which more sustainable actions and practices are given the capacity to develop. However, they continue to face the problem of competition within a market dominated by mass-produced, cheap products and the emergence of the bio-economy, and therefore their long-term sustainability is often in potential jeopardy. Yet, in terms of new, more eco-economically based forms of competitiveness, promising pathways of development can be created by combining horizontal and vertical linkages leading to new production–consumption chains and networks. The emerging pathways can potentially function as a counterforce, challenging the dominant but weaker form of ecological modernisation.

Second, the understanding of more integrative regional development requires the use of a dynamic analytical model that shows the inter-related domains of rural eco-economic development and the interactions between the domains (i.e. the rural web). However, we also have to realise that external factors such as counter-urbanisation and commuting, climate change and globalisation should be also accommodated as influential factors in rural development. One aspect that was not sufficiently built into the earlier rural web model was the influence of the specified driving forces of rural transformation on the domain inter-relations. The empirical analysis showed, however, how the continued cost squeeze in agriculture can lead to new eco-economic strategies, which, in turn, influence not only the domain ‘governance of markets’, but also change the relations between the web domains.

Third, an important parameter of a place-based integrative regional approach is the interconnectedness of cities and with their hinterlands. New urban–rural interfaces, once established, can function as lubricants and new drivers for eco-economic strategies, leading to more multifunctional forms of land use. For example, in regions in Germany and the UK, rural–urban relations in the form of new agricultural rural products and services for urban citizens have emerged, linked to other sectors such as leisure, energy and health. Furthermore, new networks and interfaces have been created, which can, in turn, reinforce the mobilisation of the web and its eco-economic development (see Horlings and Marsden, 2010.

Finally, we need to explore the contestations that underlie the NRP. The concept of NRP itself is not uncontested: it is situated in the context of weak and strong forms of ecological modernisation and the models of bio- and eco-economy. The scientific quest to understand the diversity, context dependency and complexity of its practical expressions and, more ambitiously, its conceptual dynamics, has only just begun. This article has attempted to define some consistent and comparative parameters for understanding this complexity, but it has done so by acknowledging that the development of the NRP has to be seen in a context in which bio-economic as well as eco-economic models are being actively progressed.

This raises the question about how control will be exercised over the bio- and eco-economy in different regional contexts as ecological modernisation continues to evolve and mutate. This last question is clearly not just a scholarly one, for it also has important implications for, as an example, the development of EU rural and regional policy. This is supposedly becoming more ‘place based’, and therefore spatially integrative, but it is unclear how it will align itself to the broader, post-carbon demands of EU policies on the one hand, and the relationships with wider regional innovation (largely urban- and polycentric-based) systems on the other. It is not clear, for instance, how many city regions’ ambitions to compete on the international competitiveness agenda will incorporate or contradict the eco-economic developments analysed in this article. It can be argued that these current discussions need to be informed by the concepts contained in this article, especially how a more vibrant eco-economy can be stimulated by forthcoming policies in Europe.