Search

The LEADER Program, introduced in 1991 as part of EU rural development policy, is a mainstay for local action in Europe. Based on local partnerships bringing together entrepreneurs, elected representatives and associations on a voluntary basis, it exemplifies the principles of cooperation and subsidiarity, and thus helps strengthen local democracy. Researchers and development practitioners agree on its innovativeness and potential for "transferability", since each member state enjoys a degree of freedom in applying it. Not only may each EU country arrange the program's objectives in line with its own priorities, it also has wide room for using the financial means granted to it and determining how to implement the program. This article focuses on the conditions for transferring the Leader approach (2007-2013) to all 27 EU member states. How have the latter interpreted and transposed this European model? Do the regulations for forming "project territories" and thawing up local development strategies lead to practices in compliance with the view that the EU is trying to promote? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction to the issue is presented which discusses the implementation of the European Union's Leader program for rural development, its implications for local government in post-communist member states, and how it fosters the latter's "bottom-up" Europeanization and democratization.

The transfer of the local development model in the framework of the Common Agricultural Policy (2007-20 13) implies learning a new form of public action based on initiatives borne by local stakeholders. One of the objectives of the LEADER Program is to improve the governance of rural areas through a bottom-up approach to local development. Are the conditions for carrying it out it in each country's institutional context capable of boosting citizen participation in collective actions and consolidating local democracy? Defined and formulated at the EU level, the Leader approach has been transposed by member states in different ways and incorporated in each country's system of local government in line with political strategies for establishing "action areas" that differ in their territorial coverage and articulation with institutional units. Empirical research sheds light on how local action groups have been shaped through the formation of partnerships and networks. The positions adopted by a few mayors on the local scene provide evidence of the emergence of a genuine political leadership. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]