Abstract
The LEADER approach can be considered the most successful rural development programme ever implemented by the European Union. However, there are various obstacles that have limited its successful application. These include, among others, programme bureaucracy, a low level of finance, delays in the payment of the grant, limited programming periods, top-down controls, and a lack of training and experience amongst promoters. However, the most worrying issue is the regression in many of the essential principles of the LEADER approach, which is causing local people to disengage from it and lose interest. Within this context, it is important to understand the difficulties faced by promoters and Local Action Groups (LAGs) when trying to obtain support for their projects from public funds. This chapter deals with the “lost projects”, the ones that never got off the ground, and the fundamental underlying reasons for the failure of these projects, according to the LAGs. Insufficient attention has been paid to the causes of project failure in the planning of subsequent rural development policies or even in academic research. Promoters have to skillfully manoeuvre through a long and complicated obstacle course. Projects can be rejected or abandoned at different times in the application process. The methodology followed in this chapter is based on qualitative research through semi-structured interviews held during 2021, in which interviewees were asked the following main questions: obstacles when applying for LEADER grants; causes of failure; if these projects were finally implemented without LEADER or similar support; and finally, specific emblematic cases. To this end, we interviewed technical staff from twelve LAGs in Andalusia, Spain. Failure was attributed to a highly diverse, complex set of causes, of which the most important were: insufficient initial finance; the complexity of the bureaucratic requirements, the slowness of the process; and poorly prepared projects. Our results suggest that the causes of failed projects would be relatively easy to correct, so transforming hostile “giants” into “windmills”. This would make it easier for promoters to complete the process successfully, so encouraging them to reengage in neo-endogenous rural development practices. In some cases, it is also necessary to convert “quixotes” into “sanchos”, to bring naïve businesspeople with overly ambitious, poorly prepared proposals down to earth.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barke, M., & Newton, M. (1997). The EU LEADER initiative and endogenous rural development: The application of the programme in two rural areas of Andalusia, Southern Spain. Journal of Rural Studies, 13(3), 319–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(97)00027-2
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12119
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 England. Sociologia Ruralis, 56(3), 427–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12089
Cañete Pérez, J. A., Navarro Valverde, F. A., & Cejudo García, E. (2018). Territorially unequal rural development: the cases of the LEADER initiative and the PRODER Programme in Andalusia (Spain). European Planning Studies, 26(4), 726–744. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1424118
Cejudo-García, E., Navarro-Valverde, F., Cañete-Pérez, J. A., & Ruiz-Moya, N. (2021). The third sector: the “other” actors of rural development, Andalusia 2000–2015. Sustainability, 13(24). https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413976
Cejudo-García, E., Navarro-Valverde, F., & Cañete-Pérez, J. A. (2022). Who decides and who invests? the role of the public, private and third sectors in rural development according to geographical contexts: the LEADER approach in Andalusia, 2007–2015. Sustainability, 14(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073853
Commission of the European Communities. (1988). The future of rural society, Vol. 4. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Dargan, L., & Shucksmith, M. (2008). LEADER and innovation. Sociologia Ruralis, 48(3), 274–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2008.00463.x
Engelmo Moriche, Á., Nieto Masot, A., & Mora Aliseda, J. (2021). Economic sustainability of touristic offer funded by public initiatives in Spanish Rural areas. Sustainability, 13(9), 4922. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094922
Esparcia Pérez, J. (2000). The leader programme and the rise of rural development in Spain. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(2), 200–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00142
Farrel, G., & Thiriton, S. (2001) La competitividad de los territorios rurales a escala global. Construir una estrategia de desarrollo territorial con base en la experiencia de LEADER. Cuaderno de Innovación, 6.
Furmankiewicz, M., Thompson, N., & Zielińska, M. (2010). Area-based partnerships in Rural Poland: the post-accession experience. Journal of Rural Studies, 26, 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2009.05.001
Midmore, P. (1998). Rural policy reform and local development programmes: Appropriate evaluation procedures. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 49(3), 409–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1998.tb01281.x
Navarro, F. A., Woods, M., & Cejudo, E. (2016) The LEADER initiative has been a victim of its own success. The decline of the bottom-up approach in rural development programmes. The cases of Wales and Andalusia. Sociologia Ruralis, 56(2):270–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12079
Navarro Valverde, F. A., Cejudo García, E., & Cañete Pérez, J. A. (2018) Emprendedores y proyectos fallidos de LEADER y PRODER en Andalucía en el periodo 2000–2006. Perfil y motivos de desistimiento. Estudios Geográficos, 79(284):141–166. https://doi.org/10.3989/estgeogr.201806
Navarro Valverde, F. A., Nieto Masot, A., Cejudo García, E., Cardenas Alonso, G., & Cañete Pérez, J. A. (2020). Tentativas e iniciativas de desarrollo neoendógeno para áreas rurales en el sur de España. In: España, puente entre continentes: Aportación Española al 34. o Congreso de la Unión Geográfica Internacional. Centro Nacional de Información Geográfica, pp. 410–422.
Navarro, F., Cañete, J. A., & Cejudo, E. (2020). Failed projects. Initiatives that did not receive funding from the LEADER programme. In E. Cejudo & F. Navarro (Eds.), Neoendogenous development in European Rural areas: results and lessons (pp. 283–297). Springer International Publishing.
Navarro-Valverde, F., Labianca, 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(11), 6439. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116439
Nemes, G. (2005). Integrated rural development—the concept and its operation. IEHAS Discussion Papers
Neumeier, S. (2012). Why do social innovations in rural development matter and should they be considered more seriously in rural development research?—Proposal for a stronger focus on social innovations in rural development research. Sociologia Ruralis, 52(1), 48–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2011.00553.x
Nicolás Martínez, C., García Pina, C., Manzanares Gutiérrez, Á., & Riquelme Perea, P. J. (2001). LEADER una política para la dinamización del emprendimiento rural femenino en Murcia. Convergencia Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 28.
Nieto Masot, A., & Alonso, G. C. (2017). 25 Years of the leader initiative as European rural development policy: The case of Extremadura (SW Spain). European Countryside, 9(2), 302–316. https://doi.org/10.1515/euco-2017-0019
Ramos, E., & del Delgado, M. (2003). European rural development programmes as a mean of strengthening democracy in rural areas. In F. Hendricks (Ed.), Bell MM (pp. 135–157). Democratization in rural life. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Ray, C. (1998). Culture, intellectual property and territorial rural development. Sociologia Ruralis, 38(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00060
Ray, C. (2000). The EU LEADER Programme: Rural development laboratory. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(2), 163–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00138
Shortall, S. (2008). Are rural development programmes socially inclusive? Social inclusion, civic engagement, participation, and social capital: Exploring the differences. Journal of Rural Studies, 24(4), 450–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.01.001
Shucksmith, M. (2000). Endogenous development, social capital and social inclusion: Perspectives from leader in the UK. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(2), 208–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00143
Van Der Ploeg, J. D., & Renting, H. (2000). Impact and potential: A comparative review of European rural development practices. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(4), 529–543. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00165
Vercher, N., Bosworth, G., & Esparcia, J. (2023). Developing a framework for radical and incremental social innovation in rural areas. Journal of Rural Studies, 99, 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.01.007
Woods, M., & McDonagh, J. (2011). Rural Europe and the world: Globalization and rural development (Editorial). European Countryside, 3(3), 153–163. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10091-012-0001-z
Acknowledgements
This work has been supported by the following research projects: “Successes and failures in the practice of neo-endogenous rural development in the European Union (1991–2014). RURALWIN” funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness within its Excellence Programme, CSO2014-56 223-P; and “Tackling depopulation and ageing in rural areas of Andalusia: challenges and opportunities” funded by the ERDF Operational Programme for the Andalusia Region 2014–2020, B-HUM-460-UGR20.
We would first like to thank all the LAG managers and technicians (from the Alfanevada, Alpujarra-Sierra Nevada de Granada, Altiplano de Granada, Guadix, Los Vélez, Montes de Granada, Los Pedroches, Poniente Granadino, Sierra Mágina, Subbética Cordobesa, Valle de Lecrín-Temple-Costa, and Vega-Sierra Elvira LAGs) for their invaluable support and their insightful answers and comments. We are also very grateful to the professional association to which all the LAGs belong, the Asociación Rural de Andalucía (ARA).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Navarro-Valverde, F., Cejudo-García, E., Cañete-Pérez, J. (2024). The Projects that Might Have Been. Exploring the Reasons Behind the Failure of LEADER Projects. Reflections from the Local Action Groups in Andalusia (Spain). In: Cejudo-García, E., Navarro-Valverde, F.A., Cañete-Pérez, J.A. (eds) Win or Lose in Rural Development. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48675-3_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48675-3_19
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-48674-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-48675-3
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)