Rural policy between exploration and exploitation
Comparing Italy's SNAI and France's Agenda Rural
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 24237299 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Marco Del Fiore (0009-0002-8219-0217), Tommaso Vitale (0000-0003-0901-5754), Loris Antonio Servillo (0000-0001-5819-4555) |
| Year | 2027 |
| Volume | 129 |
| Pages | 104480 |
| Publication date | 2027-01-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Rural Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0743-0167 • E-ISSN: 1873-1392 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2026.104480 |
| OpenAlex | W7223152507 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 24 |
Rural territories in Europe face challenges of access to services, depopulation, and limited administrative capacity. Governments respond with national policies driven by a strong push for institutional innovation, redefining which territories count as marginal and rural and how the State organises its support. This article compares two policy responses: Italy's National Strategy for Inner Areas (SNAI) and France's Agenda Rural. Both policies address the same problem, rural marginality, but treat it differently: for SNAI, it is a constitutive criterion for selecting target territories, while for Agenda Rural, it is an unequal condition within a broader rural population. Building on Hartley's (2005) typology of innovation and March's (1991) exploration-exploitation dilemma, we analyse how five dimensions of innovation, in each policy, combine into a cognitive-symbolic component, which produces discursive recognition of marginality or rurality, and an operative-technical component, which organises the support needed to translate that recognition into capacity for action. The analysis draws on policy documents, evaluation reports, semi-structured interviews, and observation of thematic forums. The research shows that SNAI is predominantly exploratory, introducing criteria, bodies, and methods that are largely unprecedented, amid implementation frictions. Agenda Rural, by contrast, is hybrid on the cognitive-symbolic component and exploitative on the operative-technical one, relying on pre-existing administrative networks. The article contributes to rural studies and to the comparative analysis of rural policies, examining on one hand the concepts of rurality and marginality, and on the other how exploration and exploitation combine in forms of institutional innovation.
Agricultural Economics and Policy · Rural Development and Agriculture · Rural development and sustainability
The Case for Regional Development Intervention
A Collective Action Model of Institutional Innovation
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
Place-based development and spatial justice
The concept of spatial justice and the European Union’s territorial cohesion
The revenge of the places that don’t matter (and what to do about it)
Planning, liberty and the rule of law
Social innovation in rural governance
Rural governance, community empowerment and the new institutionalism
Evolving Institutions
Can institutional innovation change the city? Theoretical landmarks and research perspectives
Tales From the Crypt
Perceptions of regional inequality and the geography of discontent
Left behind places’
The Clash of the Policies
The Treatment of Space and Place in the New Strategic Spatial Planning in Europe
Mobility Demands and Participation in Remote Rural Areas
Rural Development
The Transformative Potential of Institutions
| Highly cited | No |
|---|