Rural regeneration strategies for declining regions: trade-off between novelty and practicability

References

• Bailey, N., & Pill, M. (2015). Can the state empower communities through localism? An evaluation of recent approaches to neighbourhood governance in England. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 33(2), 289–304. doi: 10.1068/c12331r
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balland, P.-A., Boschma, R., & Frenken, K. (2015). Proximity and innovation: From statics to dynamics. Regional Studies, 49(6), 907–920. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2014.883598
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banfield, E. C. (1973). Ends and means in planning. In A. Faludi (Ed.), A reader in planning theory (pp. 139–149). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
   Google Scholar
• Beetz, S., Huning, S., & Plieninger, T. (2008). Landscapes of peripherization in north-eastern Germany’s countryside: New challenges for planning theory and practice. International Planning Studies, 13(4), 295–310. doi: 10.1080/13563470802518909
   Google Scholar
• Benz, A. (2012). Yardstick competition and policy learning in multi-level systems. Regional & Federal Studies, 22(3), 251–267. doi: 10.1080/13597566.2012.688270
   Google Scholar
• Benz, A., & Fürst, D. (2002). Policy learning in regional networks. European Urban and Regional Studies, 9(1), 21–35. doi: 10.1177/096977640200900102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernt, M. (2009). Partnerships for demolition: The governance of urban renewal in east Germany’s shrinking cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(3), 754–769. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2009.00856.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74. doi: 10.1080/0034340052000320887
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. doi: 10.1111/soru.12089
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruckmeier, K. (2000). Leader in Germany and the discourse of autonomous regional development. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(2), 219–227. doi: 10.1111/1467-9523.00144
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bryson, J. M., & Roering, W. D. (1987). Applying private-sector strategic planning in the public sector. Journal of the American Planning Association, 53(1), 9–22. doi: 10.1080/01944368708976631
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dargan, L., & Shucksmith, M. (2008). LEADER and innovation. Sociologia Ruralis, 48(3), 274–291. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9523.2008.00463.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, J. S. (2002). The governance of urban regeneration: A critique of the ‘governing without government’ thesis. Public Administration, 80(2), 301–322. doi: 10.1111/1467-9299.00305
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, J. S. (2005). Local governance and the dialectics of hierarchy, market and network. Policy Studies, 26(3–4), 311–335. doi: 10.1080/01442870500198379
   Google Scholar
• Derkzen, P., Franklin, A., & Bock, B. (2008). Examining power struggles as a signifier of successful partnership working: A case study of partnership dynamics. Journal of Rural Studies, 24(4), 458–466. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.03.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken: John Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Dunsire, A., Hartley, K., Parker, D., & Dimitriou, B. (1988). Organizational status and performance: A conceptual framework for testing public choice theories. Public Administration, 66(4), 363–388. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.1988.tb00701.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, B., Goodwin, M., Pemberton, S., & Woods, M. (2001). Partnerships, power, and scale in rural governance. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19(2), 289–310. doi: 10.1068/c12m
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erdmann, G. (1993). Elemente einer evolutorischen innovationstheorie. Tübingen: Mohr.
   Google Scholar
• Esparcia, J. (2014). Innovation and networks in rural areas. An analysis from European innovative projects. Journal of Rural Studies, 34(2), 1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.12.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS: (and sex and drugs and rock ‘n’roll). Introducing statistical methods. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer-Tahir, A., & Naumann, M. (Eds.). (2013). Peripheralization: The making of spatial dependencies and social injustice. Wiesbaden: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Fürst, D. (2006). The role of experimental regionalism in rescaling the German state. European Planning Studies, 14(7), 923–938. doi: 10.1080/09654310500496313
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorlach, K., & Adamski, T. (2007). Neo-endogenous development and the revalidation of local knowledge. Polish Sociological Review, 4(160), 481–497. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41275036
   Google Scholar
• Grabher, G. (1993). The weakness of strong ties: The lock-In of regional development in the Ruhr area. In G. Grabher (Ed.), The embedded firm. On the socioeconomics of interfirm relations (pp. 255–277). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Groeneveld, S., & Van De Walle, S. (2011). Steering for outcomes: The role of public management. In S. Groeneveld & S. Van De Walle (Eds.), New steering concepts in public management (pp. 1–8). Bingley: Emerald.
   Google Scholar
• Gualini, E. (2004). Regionalization as ‘experimental regionalism’: The rescaling of territorial policy-making in Germany. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(2), 329–353. doi: 10.1111/j.0309-1317.2004.00522.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haase, A., Rink, D., Grossmann, K., Bernt, M., & Mykhnenko, V. (2014). Conceptualizing urban shrinkage. Environment and Planning A, 46(7), 1519–1534. doi: 10.1068/a46269
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hohn, U., Kemming, H., & Reimer, M. (2014). ‘Formate der innovation’ – innovation durch formate? In U. Hohn, H. Kemming, & M. Reimer (Eds.), Formate der innovation in der stadt- und regionalentwicklung. Reflexionen aus planungstheorie und -praxis (pp. 1–20). Detmold: Rohn.
   Google Scholar
• Hollander, J. B., & Németh, J. (2011). The bounds of smart decline: A foundational theory for planning shrinking cities. Housing Policy Debate, 21(3), 349–367. doi: 10.1080/10511482.2011.585164
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hospers, G. J., & Reverda, N. (2015). Managing population decline in Europe’s urban and rural areas. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Inkpen, A. C. (2000). Strategy absence. In J. Rabin, G. Miller, & W. B. Hildreth (Eds.), Handbook of strategic management (Vol. 2nd ed., rev. and expanded, pp. 273–288). New York, NY: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, O., & Little, J. (2000). Rural challenge(s): Partnership and new rural governance. Journal of Rural Studies, 16(2), 171–183. doi: 10.1016/S0743-0167(99)00058-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klijn, E.-H., Steijn, B., Edelenbos, J., & Vermeeren, B. (2011). Steering for social outcomes in governance networks: The effects of participation and network management. In S. Groeneveld & S. Van De Walle (Eds.), New steering concepts in public management (pp. 165–183). Bingley: Emerald.
   Google Scholar
• Kotilainen, J., Eisto, I., & Vatanen, E. (2015). Uncovering mechanisms for resilience: Strategies to counter shrinkage in a peripheral city in Finland. European Planning Studies, 23(1), 53–68. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2013.820086
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kühn, M. (2015). Peripheralization: Theoretical concepts explaining socio-spatial inequalities. European Planning Studies, 23(2), 367–378. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2013.862518
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kühn, M., Bernt, M., & Colini, L. (2016). Power, politics and peripheralization: Two Eastern German cities. European Urban and Regional Studies, 24(3), 258–273. doi: 10.1177/0969776416637207
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Küpper, P. (2011). Regionale Reaktionen auf den Demographischen Wandel in dünn besiedelten, peripheren Räumen. Berlin: Rhombos.
   Google Scholar
• Küpper, P. (2014). Darstellung und Begründung der Methodik zur Auswahl vom demografischen Wandel besonders betroffener Landkreise für das Modellvorhaben Land(auf)Schwung. Braunschweig: Thünen-Institut. Retrieved from http://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/Landwirtschaft/LaendlicheRaeume/las-thuenen-methodenpapier.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
   Google Scholar
• Küpper, P., Kundolf, S., & Margarian, A. (2014). Neue Beteiligungs- und Steuerungsprozesse in der ländlichen Entwicklung. Elektronische Ressource. Phase I der Begleitforschung zum Modellvorhaben LandZukunft. Braunschweig: Thünen-Institut.
   Google Scholar
• Küpper, P., Steinführer, A., Ortwein, S., & Kirchesch, M. (2013). Regionale Schrumpfung gestalten. Handlungsspielräume zur langfristigen Sicherung gesellschaftlicher Teilhabe schaffen und nutzen. Braunschweig: Thünen-Institut, BLE. doi: 10.3220/REP_18_2014
   Google Scholar
• Ladd, H. F. (1992). Population growth, density and the costs of providing public services. Urban Studies, 29(2), 273–295. doi: 10.1080/00420989220080321
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindblom, C. E. (1973). The science of ‘muddling through’. In A. Faludi (Ed.), A reader in planning theory (pp. 151–169). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
   Google Scholar
• Li, Y., Westlund, H., Zheng, X., & Liu, Y. (2016). Bottom-up initiatives and revival in the face of rural decline: Case studies from China and Sweden. Journal of Rural Studies, 47(B), 506–513. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.07.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowndes, V., & Skelcher, C. (1998). The dynamics of multi-organizational partnerships: An analysis of changing modes of governance. Public Administration, 76(2), 313–333. doi: 10.1111/1467-9299.00103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowndes, V., & Sullivan, H. (2004). Like a horse and carriage or a fish on a bicycle: How well do local partnerships and public participation go together? Local Government Studies, 30(1), 51–73. doi: 10.1080/0300393042000230920
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markey, S., Halseth, G., & Manson, D. (2008). Challenging the inevitability of rural decline: Advancing the policy of place in northern British Columbia. Journal of Rural Studies, 24(4), 409–421. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.03.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald, C., Kirk-Brown, A., Frost, L., Van Dijk, P., & Rainnie, A. (2013). Partnerships and integrated responses to rural decline: The role of collective efficacy and political capital in Northwest Tasmania, Australia. Journal of Rural Studies, 32, 346–356. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.08.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan, K. (2012). Path dependence and the state: The politics of novelty in old industrial regions. In P. Cooke (Ed.), Re-framing regional development: Evolution, innovation and transition (pp. 318–340). Abingdon: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, K., & Henderson, D. (2002). Regions as laboratories: The rise of regional experimentalism in Europe. In M. S. Gertler & D. A. Wolfe (Eds.), Innovation and social learning: Institutional adaptation in an era of technological change (pp. 204–226). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Moseley, M. J. (2000). Innovation and rural development: Some lessons from Britain and Western Europe. Planning Practice & Research, 15(1–2), 95–115. doi: 10.1080/713691880
   Google Scholar
• Moseley, M. J. (2003). Local partnerships for rural development: The European experience. Wallingford: CABI.
   Google Scholar
• Nemes, G., High, C., & Augustyn, A. (2015). Beyond the new rural paradigm. Project state and collective reflexive agency. In A. K. Copus & P. de Lima (Eds.), Territorial cohesion in rural Europe: The relational turn in rural development (pp. 212–235). Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Newman, J. (2001). Modernizing governance: New labour, policy and society. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2007). Linking regions and central governments. Contracts for regional development (pp. 21–70). Paris: OECD Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming government. Reading, MA: Adison Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Powell, M., & Exworthy, M. (2002). Partnerships, quasi-networks and social policy. In C. Glendinning, M. A. Powell, & K. Rummery (Eds.), Partnerships, new labour and the governance of welfare (pp. 15–32). Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rummery, K. (2002). Towards a theory of welfare partnerships. In C. Glendinning, M. A. Powell, & K. Rummery (Eds.), Partnerships, new labour and the governance of welfare (pp. 229–245). Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rust, E. (1975). No growth: Impacts on metropolitan areas. Lexington: Lexington Books.
   Google Scholar
• Sabel, C. F. (1996). Ireland: Local partnerships and social innovation. Paris: OECD.
   Google Scholar
• Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Games real actors play. Boulder: Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schlömer, C., Bucher, H., & Hoymann, J. (2015). Die Raumordnungsprognose 2035 nach dem Zensus.Bonn: BBSR.
   Google Scholar
• Schumpeter, J. A. (1912/2006). Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, A. (2012). Partnerships: Pandora’s box or panacea for rural development? Birmingham: Birmingham City University.
   Google Scholar
• Siebel, W., Ibert, O., & Mayer, H.-N. (2001). Staatliche Organisation von Innovation: Die Planung des Unplanbaren unter widrigen Umständen durch einen unbegabten Akteur. Leviathan, 29(4), 526–543. doi: 10.1007/s11578-001-0033-7
   Google Scholar
• Simmel, G. (1908). Soziologie. Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung (Vol. 1). Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.
   Google Scholar
• Smailes, P. J., Argent, N., & Griffin, T. L. (2002). Rural population density: Its impact on social and demographic aspects of rural communities. Journal of Rural Studies, 18(4), 385–404. doi: 10.1016/S0743-0167(02)00033-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, A., Stirling, A., & Berkhout, F. (2005). The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Research Policy, 34(10), 1491–1510. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2005.07.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sousa, S., & Pinho, P. (2015). Planning for shrinkage: Paradox or paradigm. European Planning Studies, 23(1), 12–32. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2013.820082
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Span, K. C. L., Luijkx, K. G., Schalk, R., & Schols, J. M. G. A. (2012). What governance roles do municipalities use in Dutch local social support networks? Public Management Review, 14(8), 1175–1194. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2012.664013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinführer, A., Küpper, P., & Tautz, A. (2014). Adapt and cope: Strategies for safeguarding the quality of life in a shrinking ageing region. Comparative Population Studies, 39(2), 345–370. doi:10.12765/CPoS-2014-07en.
   Google Scholar
• Sternberg, R. (2007). Entrepreneurship, proximity and regional innovation systems. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 98(5), 652–666. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9663.2007.00431.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teilmann, K. (2012). Measuring social capital accumulation in rural development. Journal of Rural Studies, 28(4), 458–465. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2012.10.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van De Walle, S., & Groeneveld, S. (2011). New steering instruments: Trends in public sector practice and scholarship. In S. Groeneveld & S. Van De Walle (Eds.), New steering concepts in public management (pp. 205–214). Bingley: Emerald.
   Google Scholar
• Weaver, R., & Holtkamp, C. (2015). Geographical approaches to understanding urban decline: From evolutionary theory to political economy … and back? Geography Compass, 9(5), 286–302. doi: 10.1111/gec3.12211
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weck, S., & Beißwenger, S. (2014). Coping with peripheralization: Governance response in two German small cities. European Planning Studies, 22(10), 2156–2171. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2013.819839
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiechmann, T. (2008). Errors expected – aligning urban strategy with demographic uncertainty in shrinking cities. International Planning Studies, 13(4), 431–446. doi: 10.1080/13563470802519097
   Google Scholar
• Wirth, P., Elis, V., Müller, B., & Yamamoto, K. (2016). Peripheralisation of small towns in Germany and Japan – dealing with economic decline and population loss. Journal of Rural Studies, 47, 62–75. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.07.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woods, M. (2006). Rural geography. Rural geography: Processes, responses and experiences in rural restructuring. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Woods, M., Edwards, B., Anderson, J., & Gardner, G. (2007). Leadership in place: Elites, institutions and agency in British rural community governance. In L. Cheshire, V. Higgins, & G. Lawrence (Eds.), Rural governance: International perspectives (pp. 211–225). Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Yurdugül, H. (2008). Minimum sample size for Cronbach’s coefficient alpha: A Monte-Carlo study. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 35, 397–405.
   Google Scholar