When something new comes to the countryside. About the development, implementation and diffusion of innovative and digital solutions for rural basic service provision

Authors

  • Tobias Mettenberger Thünen Insitute of Rural Studies
  • Julia Zscherneck Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg
  • Patrick Küpper Thünen Insitute of Rural Studies

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.90

Keywords:

Basic services, Digitalisation, Rural areas, Policy mobilities, Innovations

Abstract

For maintaining basic service provision in shrinking rural areas, great potential is attributed to digital solutions. At the same time, however, disadvantageous conditions for innovations are attested to such spaces, so that the realisation of novel approaches seems to be difficult, compared to agglomerations. In this context, a growing body of research examines the practice of those actors, who are responsible for local projects. In contrast, a much weaker focus lays on relationships with supra-regional key institutions and service providers, as well as on the related power structures. Given that need for research, we go further into the question which factors are influencing the development, implementation and diffusion of innovative and digital solutions for rural basic service provision. Our research is based on three regional case studies, two of them in the field of public health and one in the field of schooling. Our problem-centred interviews and documentary research show key drivers in the dimensions of power, knowledge and space. Furthermore, we demonstrate a varying importance of key drivers and actor relations, dependent on the project phase. Besides the support of key institutions and mayor suppliers, the acceptance through local basic service providers is a decisive factor for effective implementation, everyday usage and potential special diffusion of the analysed digital solutions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Beetz, S.; Huning, S.; Plieninger, T. (2008): Landscapes of Peripherization in North-Eastern Germany’s Countryside: New Challenges for Planning Theory and Practice. In: International Planning Studies 13, 4, 295–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563470802518909

Benz, A. (2012): Yardstick Competition and Policy Learning in Multi-level Systems. In: Regional and Federal Studies 22, 3, 251–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2012.688270

Bonfiglio, A.; Camaioni, B.; Coderoni, S.; Esposti, R.; Pagliacci, F.; Sotte, F. (2017): Are rural regions prioritizing knowledge transfer and innovation? Evidence from Rural Development Policy expenditure across the EU space. In: Journal of Rural Studies 53, 78–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.05.005

Bosworth, G.; Rizzo, F.; Marquardt, D.; Strijker, D.; Haartsen, T.; Thuesen, A. A. (2016): Identifying social innovations in European local rural development initiatives. In: Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 29, 4, 442–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2016.1176555

Burt, R. S. (2004): Structural Holes and Good Ideas. In: The American Journal of Sociology 110, 2, 349–399. https://doi.org/10.1086/421787

Christmann, G. B. (2014): Social Entrepreneurs on the Periphery: Uncovering Emerging Pioneers of Regional Development. In: disP – The Planning Review 50, 1, 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2014.926725

Christmann, G. B.; Büttner, K. (2011). Raumpioniere, Raumwissen, Kommunikation – zum Konzept kommunikativer Raumkonstruktion. In: Berichte zur deutschen Landeskunde 85, 4, 361–378.

Christmann, G. B.; Ibert, O.; Jessen, J.; Walther, U.-J. (2020): Innovations in Spatial Planning as a Social Process – Phases, Actors, Conflicts. In: European Planning Studies 28, 3, 496–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1639399

Dargan, L.; Shucksmith, M. (2008): LEADER and innovation. In: Sociologia Ruralis 48, 3, 274–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2008.00463.x

Dolowitz, D. P.; Marsh, D. (2000): Learning from abroad. The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy-making. In: Governance 13, 1, 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/0952-1895.00121

Fürst, D. (2006): The role of experimental regionalism in rescaling the German state. In: European Planning Studies 14, 7, 923–938. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310500496313

Gillwald, K. (2000): Konzepte sozialer Innovation. Berlin. = WZB Papers P00-519.

Gilroy, P.; Krimmer, H.; Priemer, J.; Kononykhina, O.; Pereira Robledo, M.; Stratenwerth-Neunzig, F. (2018): Vereinssterben in ländlichen Regionen: Digitalisierung als Chance. Berlin.

Grabher, G. (1993): The Weakness of Strong Ties: The Lock-In of Regional Development in the Ruhr Area. In: Grabher, G. (Hrsg.): The Embedded Firm. On the Socioeconomics of Industrial Networks. London, 255–277.

Granovetter, M. (1973): The Strength of Weak Ties. In: American Journal of Sociology 78, 6, 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469

Gust-Bardon, N. I. (2012): Regional development in the context of an innovation process. Karlsruhe. = Fraunhofer ISI Working Papers Firms and Region R5/2012.

Hartley, J.; Sorensen, E.; Torfing, J. (2013): Collaborative Innovation. A viable alternative to market competition and organizational entrepreneurship. In: Public Administration Review 73, 6, 821–830. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12136

Hildner, A.; Stutz, D.; Teuteberg, F. (2018): Sorgenetzwerk: Digitalisierung unterstützt rurale Versorgung. In: Pflegezeitschrift 71, 11, 44–47.

Holz-Rau, C.; Günther, S.; Krummheuer, F. (2010): Daseinsvorsorge ist keine Dortseinsvorsorge. Hinweise zur Planung dünn besiedelter Räume. In: Informationen zur Raumentwicklung 7, 489–504.

Janacek, E.; Margarian, A. (2020): Digitalisierung sozialer Dienstleistungen in ländlichen Regionen: Eine Analyse feldkonfigurierender Diskurse. Braunschweig. = Thünen Working Paper 157.

Kleiner, T. M.; Klärner, A. (2019): Bürgerschaftliches Engagement in ländlichen Räumen: Politische Hoffnungen, empirische Befunde und Forschungsbedarf. Braunschweig. = Thünen Working Paper 129.

Kühn, M.; Bernt, M.; Colini, L. (2017): Power, politics and peripheralization: Two Eastern German cities. In: European Urban and Regional Studies 24, 3, 258–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776416637207

Küpper, P. (2016): Abgrenzung und Typisierung ländlicher Räume. Braunschweig. = Thünen Working Paper 68.

Küpper, P.; Kundolf, S.; Mettenberger, T.; Tuitjer, G. (2018): Rural regeneration strategies for declining regions: trade-off between novelty and practicability. In: European Planning Studies 26, 2, 229–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2017.1361583

Küpper, P.; Steinführer, A. (2017): Daseinsvorsorge in ländlichen Räumen zwischen Ausdünnung und Erweiterung: ein Beitrag zu Peripherisierungsdebatte. In: Europa Regional 23, 4, 44–60.

Läpple, D. (1991): Essay über den Raum. In: Häußermann, H.; Ipsen, D.; Krämer-Badoni, T.; Läpple D.; Rodenstein, M.; Siebel, W. (Hrsg.): Stadt und Raum. Soziologische Analysen. Pfaffenweiler, 157–207.

Lagendijk, A.; Cornford, J. (2000): Regional institutions and knowledge – tracking new forms of regional development policy. In: Geoforum 31, 2, 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7185(99)00031‑7

Larsen, L.; Harlan, S. L.; Bolin, B.; Hackett, E. J.; Hope, D.; Kirby, A.; Nelson, A.; Rex, T. R.; Wolf, S. (2004): Bonding and Bridging: Understanding the Relationship between Social Capital and Civic Action. In: Journal of Planning Education and Research 24, 1, 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X04267181

Löw, M. (2001): Raumsoziologie. Frankfurt am Main.

Malecki, E. J. (1993): Entrepreneurship in Regional and Local Development. In: International Regional Science Review 16, 1‑2, 119–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/016001769401600107

McCann, E. (2011): Urban policy mobilities and global circuits of knowledge: Towards a research agenda. In: Annals of the Association of American Geographers 101, 1, 107–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2010.520219

McCann, E.; Ward, K. (2013): A multi-disciplinary approach to policy transfer research: geographies, assemblages, mobilities and mutations. In: Policy Studies 34, 1, 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2012.748563

Mettenberger, T.; Küpper, P. (2019): Potential and impediments to senior citizens’ volunteering to maintain basic services in shrinking regions. In: Sociologia Ruralis 59, 4, 739–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12254

Murray, M.; Dunn, L. (1995): Capacity building for rural development in the United States In: Journal of Rural Studies 11, 1, 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/0743-0167(94)00056‑F

Muschwitz, C.; Schuler, D.; Monheim, H. (2002): Forschungsexpertise Infrastrukturanpassung bei Bevölkerungsrückgängen. Abschlußbericht an das Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung. Trier.

Naumann, M.; Reichert-Schick, A. (2012): Infrastrukturelle Peripherisierung: Das Beispiel Uecker-Randow (Deutschland). In: disP – The Planning Review 48, 1, 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2012.702961

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. In: Sociologia Ruralis 52, 1, 48–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2011.00553.x

Noack, A.; Federwisch, T. (2019): Social innovation in rural regions: Urban impulses and cross-border constellations of actors. In: Sociologia Ruralis 59, 1, 92–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12216

Pato, M. L.; Texeira, A. A. C. (2014): Twenty Years of Rural Entrepreneurship. A Bibliometric Survey. In: Sociologia Ruralis 56, 1, 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12058

Patton, M. (1990): Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Beverly Hills.

Peck, J.; Theodore, N. (2001): Exporting Workfare/Importing Welfare-to-Work: Exploring the Politics of Third Way Policy Transfer. In: Political Geography 20, 4, 427–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-6298(00)00069‑X

Rhodes, R. A. W. (1999): Control and power in central-local government relations. Aldershot.

Richter, R. (2019): Rural Social Enterprises as Embedded Intermediaries: The Innovative Power of Connecting Rural Communities with Supra-Regional Networks. In: Journal of Rural Studies 70, 179–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.12.005

Rogers, E. M. (1962): Diffusion of Innovations. New York.

Schumpeter, J. A. (2006 [1912]): Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Berlin.

Shucksmith, M.; Cameron, S.; Merridew, T.; Pichler, F. (2009): Urban-rural differences in quality of life across the European Union. In: Regional Studies 43, 10, 1275–1289. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400802378750

Siebel, W.; Ibert, O.; Mayer, H.-N. (2001): Staatliche Organisation von Innovation: Die Planung des Unplanbaren unter widrigen Umständen durch einen unbegabten Akteur. In: Leviathan 29, 4, 526–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11578-001-0033-7

Simon, R.; Garthaus, M.; Koppenburger, A.; Remmers, H. (2018): Dorfgemeinschaft 2.0: Altern und Digitalisierung im ländlichen Raum. Zur Entwicklung eines Instruments zur ethischen Fallbesprechung in der ambulanten Gesundheitsversorgung. In: Pfannstiel, M. A.; Krammer, S.; Swoboda, W. (Hrsg.): Digitale Transformation von Dienstleistungen im Gesundheitswesen IV: Impulse für die Pflegeorganisation. Wiesbaden, 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-13644-4_18

Sotarauta, M.; Mustikkamäki, N. (2015): Institutional Entrepreneurship, Power and Knowledge in Innovation Systems: Institutionalization of Regenerative Medicine in Tampere, Finland. In: Environment and Planning C 33, 2, 342–357. https://doi.org/10.1068/c12297r

Steinführer, A. (2015): Bürger in der Verantwortung. Veränderte Akteursrollen in der Bereitstellung ländlicher Daseinsvorsorge. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 73, 1, 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13147-014-0318-3

Steinrück, B.; Küpper, P. (2010): Mobilität in ländlichen Räumen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung bedarfsgesteuerter Bedienformen des ÖPNV. Braunschweig. = Arbeitsberichte aus der vTI-Agrarökonomie 02/2010.

Stielike, J. M. (2018): Sozialstaatliche Verpflichtungen und raumordnerische Möglichkeiten zur Sicherung der Daseinsvorsorge. Baden-Baden. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845293301

Stone, C. N. (1989): Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta 1946–1988. Lawrence.

Tödtling, F.; Trippl, M. (2005): One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. In: Research Policy 34, 8, 1203–1219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.018

von Krogh, G.; Köhne, M. (1998): Der Wissenstransfer in Unternehmen: Phasen des Wissenstransfers und wichtige Einflußfaktoren. In: Die Unternehmung 52, 5/6, 235–252.

Williger, A.; Wojtech, B. (2018): Digitalisierung im ländlichen Raum. Status Quo und Chancen für Gemeinden. Nürnberg.

Witzel, A. (1989): Das problemzierte Interview. In: Jüttemann, G. (Hrsg.): Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie. Grundfragen, Verfahrensweisen, Anwendungsfelder. Heidelberg, 227–256.

Woolcock, M. (2001): The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes. https://www.oecd.org/innovation/research/1824913.pdf (26.02.2021).

Zerrer, N.; Sept, A. (2020): Smart Villagers as Actors of Digital Social Innovation in Rural Areas. In: Urban Planning 5, 4, 78–88. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v5i4.3183

Zirbes, L.; Rietmann, C. (2021): Hidden Champions als zentrales Element der Stabilisierung ländlicher Regionen in Zeiten der Digitalisierung. Vorstellung eines Bundesforschungsvorhabens. In: HAL-Mitteilungen 60, 19–22.

Zscherneck, J. (2020): Mobile Daseinsvorsorge in ländlichen Räumen. Aktuelle Ansätze, Strategien und Beispiele. Unveröffentlichte Masterarbeit an der Universität Greifswald.

Published

Issue publication date 2021-12-30 (version 2)
Published online first 2021-09-10 (version 1)

Versions

Issue

Section

Research Article

How to Cite

1.
Mettenberger T, Zscherneck J, Küpper P. When something new comes to the countryside. About the development, implementation and diffusion of innovative and digital solutions for rural basic service provision. RuR [Internet]. 2021 Dec. 30 [cited 2024 Jul. 22];79(6):543-56. Available from: https://rur.oekom.de/index.php/rur/article/view/90

Share