8.3 SOUTH TYROL: THE ALTERNATIVE DISCOURSE AND REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
In respect to the main aim of this study, in South Tyrol rural development and agriculture (as well as their co‐evolution) have never been separated; rather, they mutually support each other and they are grounded on an alternative discourse based on regional autonomy. In the European Union context, South Tyrol represents a unique case for a simple reason: the countryside is yet able to live an autonomous life separate from the urban center of Bolzano/Bozen.
Although the apparent reason for this success has been the strong political regionalization started in the 1970s, this dichotomy between the countryside and the urban has been chiefly the result of an event of social chance: in a historically German‐speaking region, its annexation by Italy after the First World War clearly altered the ethnic equilibria within the region. While the Italian people are mostly located in the urban centers, particularly in the city of Bolzano, the German‐speaking group lives its ‘autonomous’ life in the countryside. Since the provincial government is mostly the expression of the German‐speaking group, this factor has inevitably brought relevant attention to the rural areas of the region. The result is therefore the ‘two culture theory’: urban and the rural compete for power; rural areas have not yet experienced a loss of identity and uprooting, and the binomial culture‐nature is able to produce wealth for the province.
At the onset of the 21st century, farmers are still relevant agents from a political, cultural, and social point of view. Society, politics, and policies have approached agriculture not only from a mere economic point of view, but also and above all, emphasizing its high social and cultural relevance. On the basis of Hubbard & Gorton’s (2011) research, South Tyrol is an example of agrarian model in which the roots of rural development come from agriculture, in particular the multi‐functionality of agriculture. Farming includes the economic point view and, above all, influences society and culture, which in turn are key contributions to the vitality of rural areas. The LEADER+ Programme (2000–
2006) created development possibilities for a variety of economic sectors, including agriculture. However, in the current LEADER 2007–2013, this EU method, because of the overarching and powerful structure of agriculture, has led to the exclusion of the other economic sectors. Funding is given to innovative ideas in the agricultural sector, and to other sectors which may have a link with agriculture, such as tourism.
The strength of agriculture has historically revolved around the figure of the Bauer. Starting from the fifteenth cenury, South Tyrolese farmers, initially humble people who were exploited and forced merely to survive, became a social class or “state”, holders of rights and not just be subjected to the supremacy of the aristocracy. This early practice of self‐government gave farmers both a strong consciousness of their own class and a strong link to the territory, which was perceived in their own and not only the property of the earl. This bond contributed to the culture of the Heimat, which was at that time still unknown to the majority of European people. The strong bond to the territory has materialized through the implementation of the closed farm, a key social structure which still survives in the contemporary South Tyrolese countryside.
The tripartite structure farmer‐territory‐Heimat is reflected at the political and policy level; present‐day South Tyrolese political life, characterized by a relative degree of stability and conservativeness, reflects the family‐oriented structure of
the farming sector. If, on the one hand, the emphasis on the agricultural sector (along with its multi‐dimensionality) has avoided the human desertification that has characterized most Italian rural alpine contexts (typical examples are the nearby autonomous province of Trentino, as well as the autonomous region of Valle D’ Aosta, located on the northwest of the Italian peninsula), on the other hand, this emphasis may undermine the development of other sectors of the local economy, such as the category of artisans. Moreover, the existence of the unique cultural landscape which characterizes the South Tyrolese valleys is highly dependent on generous farming subsidies; it is clear that this substancial financial help will still be in place in this province until the position of farmers is strong in the local cultural, social, and political life.
As a result of these considerations, rural policy‐setting in South Tyrol resembles the ‘old’ paradigm, where the agricultural lobby and interests prevail over the formal arrangements required for the functioning of the LEADER Programme. The South Tyrol “old regionalism” background – pre‐established administrative structures, vertical hierarchies, strong regional autonomy – has not favoured the introduction of the LEADER instrument; the sub‐politics of the project class cannot compete with the old political class. Similarly to the Italian context (see Ciapetti 2010), negotiated programming is interpreted in two different ways: on the one hand, it is criticized for its bureaucratic burden, and, on the other, it is viewed as a useful laboratory to re‐launch a new local dimension of economic policies, centered on making the local ruling class responsible.
On the basis of Östhol & Svensson (2002) classification of partnerships, in South Tyrol partnerships are not characterized by a high degree of horizontal coordination among different actors as in North Karelia; in contrast, they lie between institutional partnerships, since the province endeavours to support such an instrument, and project partnerships, which are short‐term organizations that upon fulfilling certain tasks are in the end terminated.
Similarly to the Italian context, participatory approaches in South Tyrol do not have solid roots in the public administration, political parties, executive bodies and councils, and they are linked to the personal initiative of representatives of the politico‐institutional world, including, in this case, the Landeshauptmann and the LEADER coordinator, who represent two very powerful agents.
South Tyrol is an example of a centralized rural governance model where the responsibility for LEADER clearly lies with the provincial authorities; power is mainly exerted by politics, which plays a crucial role not only in the animation of this programme, but also in its coordination and implementation. Thus, representative democracy dominates LEADER, not only concerning the key role of municipalities, but also because of the involvement of the most important and
‘representative’ private sector organizations, whose responsibility is to channel information about LEADER to its members. Unlike North Karelia, in South Tyrol the vertical concentration of power within the “old” government
structures leads to an inhibition of endogenous and grass‐roots level development processes. Because of the overarching structures of politics, direct democracy has for the most part been by‐passed in the implementation of LEADER. However, the introduction of new governing structures has led to some embryonic cooperation among rural agents, representing a concrete institutional innovation in the rigid South Tyrolean administrative system.
Furthermore, the local action groups in the current period 2007–2013 are on their way to having a relevant role at the local level, since the province has supported the idea of transforming them in centers of expertise which handle different types of funding, not just LEADER, but also INTERREG, and Social Fund, for instance.
The empirical data of this study have contributed to bringing new vitality to the theoretical frameworks of contemporary rural and agricultural geography, on the one hand, and the debate concerning the relation between agency, structure, and social chance on the other. The study can be replicated with the same methodological steps in other case studies; even though the practical outcomes will inevitably differ from South Tyrol and North Karelia due to geographical and temporal variability, the application of substantive theory to the formulation and generation of grounded formal theory leads in one way or another to dominant social structures, which result in the ascendency of specific socio‐cultural groups to power. The rurality frameworks employed in this study (post‐productivist/modernist, on the one hand, and the alternative discourse based on regional autonomy and terroir, on the other) inevitably produce a one‐
culture theory (in most cases), and rarely, a two‐culture one, as in South Tyrol.
References
Agnew, J. (2001): The new global economy: time‐space compression, geopolitics, and global uneven development. Journal of World‐Systems Research 7:2, 133–154.
Alapuro, R. (1980): Finland: an interface periphery. Helsingin Yliopisto, Helsinki.
Alcock, A. (1970): The History of the South Tyrol question. Michael Joseph, London.
Alpine Convention (2010): Convenzione delle Alpi. Innsbruck. http://www.alpconv.org/
documents/Permanent_Secretariat/web/AS1/AS1_Auflage2_IT.pdf
Alpine Convention (2008): Overview map perimeter Alpine Convention. http://www.
alpconv.org/soia/soia08_en.htm
Altika Database (2009): http://tilastokeskus.fi/tup/altika/index.html Alto Adige (2011): Agricoltori privilegiati. È polemica. 9 July 2011.
Alto Adige (2010a): Provincia: aiuti ai comuni che si spopolano. 19 November 2010.
Alto Adige (2010b): Volkspartei, avanza la periferia. 7 October 2010.
Alto Adige (2010c): A Bolzano gli italiani sono in crisi. Manca rappresentanza politica. 25 January 2010.
Astat (2011): 6o Censimento generale dell’ agricoltura 2010. Risultati provvisori.
http://www.provinz.bz.it/astat/it/agricoltura‐ambiente‐territorio/agricoltura‐
foreste.asp
Astat (2010): Rapporto sull’ economia dell’ Alto Adige. http://www.provinz.bz.it/astat /it/conto‐economico‐finanze‐pubbliche/595.asp
Astat (2007): Attività e dimensione delle imprese 2007. Bolzano. http://www.provinz.bz.it /astat/it/industria‐servizi/608.asp
Baldock, D., Dwyer, J., Lowe, P., Petersen, J., & Ward, N. (2001): The nature of rural development: towards a sustainable integrated rural policy in Europe. A ten‐
nation scoping study for WWF and the GB Countryside Agencies (Countryside Agency, Countryside Council for Wales, English Nature and Scottish Natural Heritage). Institute for European Environmental Policy, London.
http://www.lupg. org.uk/pdf/pubs_Nature_of_Rural_Development.pdf
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.
Barnett, C. (1998): The cultural turn: fashion or progress in human geography? Antipode 30:4, 379–394.
Bauer, M. (2001): the EU ‘Partnership Principle’ revisited: a critical appraisal of its integrationist potential as a governance device interconnecting multiple administrative arenas. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=296376 Bauman, Z. (1992): Intimations of Postmodernity. Routledge, London.
Beck, U. (1996): World risk society as cosmopolitan society? Ecological questions in a framework of manufactured uncertainties. Theory, Culture & Society 13:4, 1–32.