Tensions, Limits and Potentials

The establishment of the EU’s Rural Development Regulation (EC 1257/99) reflects the continuing efforts of policymakers to develop integrated policy initiatives for the pursuit of sustainable rural development.The resulting changes have been given added impetus in UK regions by the emergence of new forms of rural governance under devolution. This process is also highlighting the need for governments to respond flexibly to distinctive ruralities, as well as the scope for developing greater ‘joined-up’ policy making at the point of implementation. These agendas also present a considerable challenge to the management and evaluation of public policy: objectives have multiplied, become more nuanced, yet may not always be straightforwardly compatible. Thus, policymakers and evaluators alike are being compelled to find new ways of deliberating trade-offs, as well as constructing coherence in policy-making and delivery processes among different policy actors and sectors. Policy evaluation is playing an important, yet problematic role in this search for coherence, and this paper reports on the application of a policy appraisal methodology (the ‘Cardiff Methodology’) to two complex sets of issues facing rural Scotland: the scope for making schemes of public assistance to rural land uses more streamlined, more participative and conditional on compliance with other regulatory requirements; the compatibility of current and emerging transport policies with rural development objectives. The methodology seeks to support the deliberation of issues lying at the interface between sectoral policy objectives, and focuses on identifying the scope for action at the Scottish level in respect of these issues. The paper concludes with some interim findings about the utility and application of the policy evaluation methodology, and considers some wider implications for this new ‘evaluation paradigm’ in rural governance.

[1]  Terry Marsden,et al.  Progressing Integrated Rural Development: A Framework for Assessing the Integrative Potential of Sectoral Policies , 2000 .

[2]  G. Bristow Structure, Strategy and Space , 2000 .

[3]  J. Murdoch,et al.  Land Use and the Limits to (Regional) Governance: Some Lessons from Planning for Housing and Minerals in England , 1999 .

[4]  B. Flyvbjerg RATIONALITY AND POWER: DEMOCRACY IN PRACTICE , 1999 .

[5]  Robert V. Bartlett,et al.  The Theory of Environmental Impact Assessment: Implicit models of policy making , 1999 .

[6]  I. Sanderson Beyond performance measurement? Assessing ‘value’ in local government , 1998 .

[7]  M. Whitby,et al.  Environmental indicators for a reformed CAP : monitoring and evaluating policies in agriculture , 1998 .

[8]  P. Midmore Rural Policy Reform and Local Development Programmes: Appropriate Evaluation Procedures , 1998 .

[9]  D. Gibbs,et al.  ‘Struggling with Sustainability’: Weak and Strong Interpretations of Sustainable Development within Local Authority Policy , 1998 .

[10]  N. Ward,et al.  Regional policy, cap reform and rural development in Britain: The challenge for new labour , 1998 .

[11]  M. Shucksmith,et al.  Integrated rural development: Issues arising from the Scottish experience , 1998 .

[12]  John Farrington,et al.  CAR DEPENDENCE IN RURAL SCOTLAND , 1998 .

[13]  T. Marsden New rural territories: Regulating the differentiated rural spaces , 1998 .

[14]  M. Goodwin The governance of rural areas: Some emerging research issues and agendas , 1998 .

[15]  J. Bachtler,et al.  The Interim Evaluation of EU Regional Development Programmes: Experiences from Objective 2 Regions , 1997 .

[16]  Peter Hardi,et al.  Assessing sustainable development : principles in practice , 1997 .

[17]  J. Steele,et al.  UK REGULATORY REFORM AND THE PURSUIT OF ‘SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT’: THE ENVIRONMENT ACT 1995 , 1996 .

[18]  P. Degeling THE SIGNIFICANCE OF 'SECTORS' IN CALLS FOR URBAN PUBLIC HEALTH INTERSECTORALISM: an Australian perspective , 1995 .

[19]  Peter Roberts,et al.  Sustainable Regional Planning , 1994 .

[20]  H. Schrader Impact assessment of the EU structural funds to support regional economic development in rural areas of Germany , 1994 .

[21]  P. Healey,et al.  Changing Meanings of 'Environment' in the British Planning System , 1994 .

[22]  Alvin M. Weinberg,et al.  Science and trans-science , 1972, Nature.

[23]  I. Turok Evaluation and accountability in spatial economic policy: A review of alternative approaches , 1990 .

[24]  Ralph W. Tyler,et al.  Recommendations for Action , 1971 .

[25]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .