Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 248258

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

jo ur nal ho me pag e: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / landusepol

Applyin ralA case

Friederik ensa Faculty of Sus burg, b Stockholm Rec FuturES Resead Faculty of Sus

a r t i c l

Article history:Received 14 AReceived in reAccepted 29 O

Keywords:Rural developmentTrapsSustainable livelihoods approachCapitalsPost-communism

ve fain sinth th

Central Romania. Based on semi-structured interviews with rural inhabitants from 66 villages in 2012,we analyze the barriers creating and maintaining a lock-in situation characterized by an apparently sta-ble low-welfare equilibrium state. By clustering development barriers into livelihood capitals we ndthat barriers to rural development are multiple and interacting, and are strongly mediated by the institu-tional context. We show that while nancial, social, human, and built capitals are inadequately developed,the regions rich natural and cultural capitals stand the best chances to foster rural development. Yet,these capitals are likely to deteriorate, too, if all other capitals remain under-developed. Given this inter-connectedness of development barriers we argue that one-sided interventions cannot help unlock the

Introductio

In an incwith enormcomprise reand (social2010). Therels of formacompared tculture, andbackbone oDevelopmeened by a riand thus anliberalized often need t

CorresponE-mail add

http://dx.doi.o0264-8377/ trap-like situation of Central Romania. Instead, multiple barriers will need to be tackled simultaneously.The development of social, human and nancial capitals should be of priority concern because of theirpotentially positive spill-over effects across all other capitals.

2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

n

reasingly globalized world, rural areas are confrontedous development challenges. Rural areas, by denition,latively small and geographically dispersed settlements) infrastructure (Sarris et al., 1999; Iorio and Corsale,efore, rural inhabitants often possess relatively low lev-l skills, educational attainment, and nancial resourceso urban dwellers (Ashley and Maxwell, 2001). Agri-

in particular smallholder farming, often provides thef rural livelihoods (International Fund for Agriculturalnt, 2013), but the future viability of this sector is threat-sing integration of rural areas into the global economy,

increasing exposure of primary product markets totrade regimes (Rizov, 2006). As a result, rural residentso diversify their incomes, specialize, or shift away from

ding author. Tel. +49 41316772334.ress: mikulcak@leuphana.de (F. Mikulcak).

traditional farming activities a set of changes that is closely linkedwith the notion of rural development (Knickel and Renting, 2000).Several models of rural development have been proposed, but theydo not always adequately explain why development stagnates incertain regions. In this paper we provide a possible explanationfor such stagnation. Specically, we seek to demonstrate that ruraldevelopment research could benet by combining the concept oftraps with the sustainable livelihoods approach.

Although a comprehensive and agreed upon denition of theterm rural development is missing (Van der Ploeg et al., 2000), itcan generally be considered a sustained and sustainable processof economic, social, cultural and environmental change designedto enhance the long-term well-being of the whole [rural] com-munity (Moseley, 1996, p. 20). Several competing conceptualmodels and policy strategies have been put forward. The agrar-ian or farm-centric model centers on the belief that agricultureis the essence of rural development, with derived policies oftenfocusing on the improvement of agricultural productivity (Hubbardand Gorton, 2011). Recognizing that agriculture has multiple rolesbeyond the supply of food and ber, such as the contribution

rg/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.10.0242014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.g a capitals approach to understand rustudy from post-socialist Romania

e Mikulcaka,, Jamila L. Haiderb, David J. Absonc, Jtainability, Leuphana University Lueneburg, Scharnhorststr. 1, C 11.17, D-21335 Luenesilience Center, Stockholm University, SE-11419 Stockholm, Swedenrch Center, Leuphana University Lueneburg, D-21335 Lueneburg, Germanytainability, Leuphana University Lueneburg, D-21335 Lueneburg, Germany

e i n f o

ugust 2014vised form 24 October 2014ctober 2014

a b s t r a c t

Rural development models to date hatain regions, and have often focused oby combining the concept of traps wi development traps:

Newigd, Joern Fischerd

Germany

led to adequately explain why development stagnates in cer-gle policy areas. This paper proposes a more holistic approache sustainable livelihoods approach, applied to a case study in

F. Mikulcak et al. / Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 248258 249

to rural viability or the provision of public goods, the agrariandevelopment model has been amended to capture the multifunc-tionality of agriculture (Potter and Burney, 2002; Ward et al.,2005). In contrast to the agrarian model, the exogenous modelsees urban cies based ointo rural a(Hubbard agests that rulocal resoucultural valhowever, bas well as (Gorton, 19to a neo-endence of locapproach ucapacity, an2006).

While thdevelopmerural develoexplain whdespite exteity. One exaso than mocharacterizinfrastructuhaving recetural funds (Gorton et aspects of rversity attr(Fischer et ament and agarea thus aprural econoin the widethe conservto secure an2006).

The notibe useful insizes the roorganizatiothat are difand Brock, the theory ers social syand mutuaand Gordonused to desity traps reconnected traps are th(Sterman, 2being and emost commwhich are dcontrol thatet al., 2013sirable low-Enfors and 2006), thattiple social2012).

Because traps are systemic in nature, piecemeal change or largeinitial nancial investment, as advocated by some economic theo-rists (Sachs, 2005; Collier, 2008) may not sufce to unlock a trap.Rather, multiple interacting factors or barriers may need to be con-

andoods

muled ach

es aatio

stratrminnd sllis, ed cng tofrasttem al ca. bo

unitition

ng toransmggie

ces s998)

trapke thormn and

imw, 2trapeliho

andetri

wheed byes, 2ses b

ande of

his pppro

of caate b

sysn va

statovidt tha

aimpmemane thed t

ial dinto cing

instgh wch ccenters as the main drivers of rural development. Poli-n this model therefore seek to attract external capitalreas, which in turn offer low land and labor costsnd Gorton, 2011). Finally, the endogenous model sug-ral development strategies should focus on harnessing

rces specic to an area, such as natural resources orues (Ward et al., 2005). This view has been criticized,ecause it disregards questions of power and agency,the effects of the wider economy on local markets99). For this reason, the model has been extendeddogenous approach, which recognizes the interdepen-al resources and external factors. The neo-endogenousnderlines the importance of building local institutionald of focusing on the needs of local people (Rizov,

e farm-centric, exogenous or (neo-)endogenous ruralnt models provide different policy foci for managingpment, common to all of them is a lack of ability to

y development appears to stagnate in some rural areas,rnal nancial inputs or local endeavors to build capac-mple of such a region is Central Romania which, morest other parts of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), ised by high rates of rural poverty, outmigration and lowral development (Ghisa et al., 2011) despite Romaniaived considerable amounts of agricultural and struc-since its accession to the European Union (EU) in 2007al., 2009; Mikulcak et al., 2013). Contrary to the socialural development of this region, it boasts high biodi-ibutable largely to its traditional cultural landscapesl., 2012) that are vulnerable to both farmland abandon-ricultural intensication (Mller et al., 2009, 2013). Thepears trapped between the requirements to adjust itsmy to liberalized trading conditions and competitionr EU common market (Beckmann and Dissing, 2007),ation of its cultural and natural heritage, and the need

improved living standard for rural inhabitants (Rizov,

on of trapped social-ecological systems promises to the context of rural development because it empha-le of institutions as well as dynamics across spatial,nal, and temporal scales in creating undesirable statescult to overcome (Allison and Hobbs, 2004; Carpenter

2008; Maru et al., 2012). The traps concept builds onof complex systems (Barrett et al., 2011) and consid-stems and the natural environment as tightly coupledlly interdependent (Allison and Hobbs, 2004; Enfors, 2008; Maru et al., 2012). The traps concept has beencribe different forms of lock-in states. So-called rigid-fer to the inexibility of a system because of highlyand rigid institutions (Holling, 2001). Socialecologicale result of self-reinforcing or self-correcting feedbacks000) causing a persistent decline in both human well-cosystem services (Cinner, 2011; Dasgupta, 2011). Theonly used notion, however, is that of poverty traps,ened as self-reinforcing mechanisms beyond peoples

cause poverty to persist (Barrett et al., 2011; Chappell). Mechanisms keeping a system trapped in an unde-welfare equilibrium state (Carpenter and Brock, 2008;Gordon, 2008) can be fractal (Barrett and Swallow,

is, occurring and reinforcing one another across mul- or spatial scales (Cash et al., 2006; Vervoort et al.,

sideredlivelihtifying

Bas(Schumanalyzcombinhood is detetext, aand Eso-callreferri(e.g. inecosysnanciital (i.ecommThe noreferriedge tand Poresour(Ray, 1

Theties: lihas a n(Allisogoal toSwalloWhile the livvidualseconom2006),gather(Scoonprocessistentthe rolries.

In thood anotionferentiwhile abetweesystemmay propmen

Thedevelotral Roto movcombinpotenttants, reinforby theAlthouapproawide. tackled (Maru et al., 2012). To this end, the sustainable framework could be useful (see Scoones, 1998) for iden-tiple barriers that form traps.on the capability and entitlement approacheser, 1973; Sen, 1981), the livelihoods frameworkt the household or community level how differentns of livelihood assets correspond to alternative liveli-egies (Ellis, 1998; Scoones, 1998). Access to assetsed by individual capabilities, the institutional con-

ocial relations (Chambers and Conway, 1992; Allison2001). Central to the livelihoods framework is theapital pentagon (Scoones, 2009; Chen et al., 2013),

ve main asset categories. These are built capitalructure, machinery); natural capital (e.g. land, trees,services); human capital (e.g. education, health);pital (e.g. incomes, savings, credit); and social cap-nding and bridging ties within and between people,es, or organizations; Coleman, 1990; Putnam, 1993).

of cultural capital is sometimes used in addition; specic values, world views, and (ecological) knowl-itted within a community (Berkes et al., 2000; Dyer

, 2000; Cochrane, 2006), but also to local culturaluch as traditional food, folklore, and historical sites.s and livelihoods approach share many commonali-e notion of poverty traps, the livelihoods approach

ative emphasis on poverty alleviation and marginality Ellis, 2001). Common to both concepts is the applied

prove development policy and practice (Barrett and006; Scoones, 2009). We also note some differences.

conceptualizations tend to take a systems approach,ods approach centers on the capacity building of indi-

rural households. Traps literature largely relies onc measures and panel data (e.g. Barrett and Swallow,reas livelihoods data are mainly eld-based and often

means of participatory rural appraisal (PRA) methods009). While traps are the consequence of factors andeyond an individuals control, and thus considered per-

difcult to change, the livelihoods approach highlightsindividual capabilities to inuence livelihood trajecto-

aper, we argue that combining the traps and liveli-aches may have a series of useful advantages. With thepital assets, the livelihoods approach can serve to dif-etween different types of rural development barriers,tems approach is useful to highlight interdependenciesrious barriers, thereby potentially creating a trappede. Merging the livelihoods and traps approaches thuse new insights in understanding the lack of rural devel-t some areas experience.

of this paper is to understand the barriers to ruralnt of a specic social-ecological system, namely Cen-ia, and to suggest capital assets that could be leveragedis system into a more desirable state. To this end, wehe traps and livelihoods concepts by rst clusteringevelopment barriers, as identied by rural inhabi-different kinds of capitals. We then hypothesized that

feedbacks among various capital stocks, mediateditutional context, resulted in a trapped system state.e focus on Central Romania, we believe our generalould be usefully applied to many rural areas world-

250 F. Mikulcak et al. / Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 248258

Methods

Study area

Since Rotural changindependen2014). The de Statisticrelation to approximat30% of the duction, i.e.2012), and aet al., 2014and farms, employmenrelatively raing to high (Fraser andcollectivizaand Fritzscis strongly rural inhabholdings exrural smallhthey play ansmallholderesents a w2014). On tenvironmen(Davidova e

One rurasylvania, ouSibiu and BInstitutul Narea is charnatural heret al., 2012unique faunof Europe (Abiodiversityment and aet al., 2013ing, i.e. houto the maragriculturalnent migratHubbard etafter the ongrated in th1989 (FischHungariansgroups (Hamany cultudeterioratinties, and imrural develo

Data collect

Data on well as on 3 month pewithin a 50are the low

Table 1Key barriers to rural development in Central Romania based on interviews in 66villages, clustered into capitals.

Developmen

come of jobing anors, cotively f skille

quali of vo of meporal rationl inhauality

of se piped

of agipmenal clea

social of letive ro

of innf agroland ansicaf tradiwledgitionsay of cumened c

ally ngina colroadpmeews These two steps were designed to strategically build uponother. Information gathered during the rst round of inter-helped inform the second set of interviews. During both, potential development barriers were elicited. These wereuently grouped by the authors into capitals, following theable livelihoods approach (see Table 1). Semi-structuredews around a exible set of previously developed questions

useful because we could guarantee that the topics we wereted in were covered, without compromising the freedom oferviewees to express personal opinions, views, and experi-Willis, 2006).

rst set of short interviews was conducted with 347 peo-summer 2012. We interviewed ve to six people from each66 villages, asking about their perceptions of the develop-state of the study area. Questions were related to the sixof livelihood assets, but avoided technical capitals termi-. Specically, questions focused on the perceived economicfrastructural development of a given village (rather thanual households), employment and educational opportuni-s well as on land use in the area. In addition, we askedterviewee about what should improve in the future from

ge development perspective. Interviews lasted on averageimately 15 minutes. Within a given village, our samplingy involved both knowledge carriers (advised by Romanianues), namely priests, teachers, and town hall staff; and other,ly selected people living in the villages. We made sure to

e all demographic groups, namely Romanian, Hungarian andeople during this rst round of interviews. Many young ruralmanias accession to the European Union in 2007, struc-es have been relatively slow compared to other newlyt states (Alexandri and Luca, 2012; Hubbard et al.,country of 21 million inhabitants (Institutul Nationala, 2012) remains one of the economically poorest inthe 28 EU member states with a per-capita GDPely 45% below the EU average (Eurostat, 2014). Aroundworkforce is employed in agriculture or primary pro-

forestry and sheries (Institutul National de Statistica,bout half of the population lives in rural areas (Hubbard). As a result of the breakdown of communist industrycoupled with the transition toward a market economy,t opportunities in the secondary and tertiary sectors arere (Iorio and Corsale, 2010; Hubbard et al., 2014), lead-rates of rural poverty and vulnerable rural economies

Stringer, 2009; Kuemmerle et al., 2009). Due to de-tion and a lengthy land restitution process (Salasanh, 2009), among others, the countrys farm structurepolarized and fragmented with more than 70% ofitants farming on less than 2 hectares, and only 2% ofceeding 10 hectares (Alexandri and Luca, 2012). Thougholdings may be economically non-viable (Rizov, 2006),

important role in Romanian society. On the one hand,r farming is critical for household food security, and rep-ay of surviving for many rural dwellers (Hubbard et al.,he other hand, smallholding is vital for the provision oftal goods and cultural assets such as landscape amenityt al., 2012; Davidova and Bailey, 2014).l region within Romania is Central Romania or Tran-r study area. Apart from few urban centers such asrasov (147,250 and 253,200 inhabitants, respectively;ational de Statistica, 2011), this predominantly hillyacterized by dispersed villages and a rich cultural anditage. Traditional extensive land use practices (Fischer) led to the preservation of a cultural landscape with aa and ora that has long gone extinct in other regionskeroyd, 2007; Akeroyd and Page, 2011). Yet, farmland

in Central Romania is at risk from cropland abandon-gricultural intensication (Stoate et al., 2001; Mller). At present, semi-subsistence or subsistence farm-seholds producing for self-sufciency without recourseket (Davidova et al., 2012), the sale of homegrown

products at local markets, and seasonal or perma-ion are important livelihood strategies (Horvth, 2008;

al., 2014). The ethnic composition in the area changedce dominant demographic group of Saxons largely emi-e course of the breakdown of the Communist regime iner et al., 2012; Hartel et al., 2014), making Romanians,

and, increasingly, Roma people the main populationnspach et al., 2014). At the same time, the condition ofral goods created by Saxons, such as fortied churches, isg. To preserve the regions natural and cultural ameni-prove the well-being of rural households, sustainablepment of Central Romania is necessary.

ion and analysis of barriers to rural development

the state of our social-ecological system of interest, aspotential development barriers, were collected over ariod in 2012. We visited 66 villages in 17 communes

km radius around the town of Sighisoara. Communesest level of administrative subdivision in Romania, and

Low inLackfarmsectrela

Lack oLowLackLackTemmigrura

Low qLackandLackequ

EthnicandLackposiLack

Loss ocropinte

Loss oknotradDecmonforti

are ususize, ra

Dat(1) a bdevelointerviment. one anviews roundssubseqsustaininterviprovedinteresthe intences (

Theple in of the ment forms nologyand inindividties, aeach ina villaapproxstrategcolleagrandominvolvRoma pt barriers Capitals

levelss in both thed non-farmingmpared tohigh price levels

Financial(credit, incomes, savings)

d workersty of educationcational trainingdical careor seasonal

of mainly youngbitants

Human(skills, health, knowledge)

of roadswerage systems

waterriculturalt/machinery

Built(infrastructure, machinery)

vages, lack of trust cohesionadership andle modelsovation capacity

Social(bonding, bridging ties)

-biodiversity due tobandonment andtion

Natural(ecosystem services and benets)

tional ecologicale, values, and

ulturalts such as Saxonhurches

Cultural(rules, norms, traditions)

comprised of several villages. Villages vary in populationg from a few dozen up to 2000 inhabitants.lection was conducted in two subsequent steps, namely

set of short, semi-structured interviews on the state ofnt, followed by (2) a series of in-depth, semi-structuredwith people actively seeking to foster rural develop-

F. Mikulcak et al. / Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 248258 251

residents had migrated (often seasonally) from our study area dur-ing the study period, and we therefore conducted few interviewswith people below the age of 30. Hence, many interviewees wereunemployed or pensioners, which may not fully reect the socio-economic sinterviews.vided a usedevelopme

During tsionally refesought to imbarriers ideond round okey individcal assistanaverage apthe intervieabout theirfaced, to coing the rson topics thonly Romanthese intervEnglish or Ginto English

The dataentered intaccording tapproach win-depth indescriptive aggregated able rural dto some kinvalue with as cultural,ond step, wof the elevethe institutiidentied buseful to heour ndingsubsequentbarriers appways forwa

Findings

The state of

DemographAmong

sented almoccasional hall staff wfollowed bycommerce people). Thunemploye

Financial caAccordin

nomic activa companywhich exist(26%) had

tate oed in

ng thi

itionerednies

capbouta clo

peopmanyges r EU t hands or nurses. In more than two thirds of villages (70%),

stated that seasonal migration was practiced by many orajority of young people.

pitalile almost two thirds (65%) of the villages were reported toternet, only one tenth (10.6%) had running water (Fig. 1).

% of the villages possessed a sewage system. In 59% of the vil-he main road was asphalted, yet with side roads being in veryondition. More than two thirds of villages (69.7%) had a bustion to a bigger town. In most cases, however, buses werely owned and considered expensive, or they were factoryhat collected workers but did not transport other villagers.

improvementsples aspirations for the future development of their villagesiverse (Fig. 2). Out of 482 responses, most responses (192 or

related to the wish for more local jobs, and 129 responses) to improvements to built capital. Other desires ranged froms support mechanisms for farming (34 or 7%) to a higher levelest, information distribution and activity by local authoritiesswers or 5.4%). Another set of answers dealt with improvedal capital such as higher pensions or wages (18 or 3.7%). Aumber of answers related to respecting the rule of law by

al and economic elites as well as improved education (eachtructure of the villages. We used a translator for the This initial broad but shallow set of interviews pro-ful overview of the state of development, and potentialnt barriers, of our study area.he rst round of short interviews, interviewees occa-rred us to key individuals within the area that activelyprove rural development. Based on the development

ntied during the short interviews, we undertook a sec-f interviews in December 2012 with eleven suggested

uals. These comprised, among others, teachers, medi-ts, and farmers. The second-round interviews took onproximately 90 minutes and were recorded followingwees agreement. The interviewees were asked to talk

activities for rural development and the barriers theymment on each key development barrier elicited dur-t round of interviews, and were encouraged to focusey were most interested in. Seven interviewees spokeian or Hungarian, and we again used a translator foriews. The remaining four interviews were conducted inerman. All interviews were transcribed and translated

where needed. collected during the initial set of 347 interviews wereo a spreadsheet, pooled to the village level, and codedo the six capitals (see Introduction). The capitalsas also used as coding concept for the second round,terviews. Data analysis followed two steps. By means ofstatistics, quantiable data of the short interviews werein order to derive an overview of some readily observ-evelopment barriers. This captured current limitationsds of capital (e.g. infrastructure), but was of limited

regards to less readily quantiable capital stocks such social, and natural capitals. For this reason, in a sec-e used qualitative data analysis to analyze statementsn key individuals in relation to all six capitals, as well asonal context. Given the apparent interaction of barriersy the interviewees, we considered the concept of trapslp synthesize and interpret our ndings. For this reason,s are presented following the capitals approach. In the

Discussion we explain how the inter-connectedness ofears to lead to a trap-like state, and suggest practicalrd.

capital assets according to initial, short interviews

ic structure of intervieweesthe 347 interviewees, men and women were repre-ost equally (48.7% women; 51.3% men). People withjobs (2.9% or 10 people) and mayors and other townere the minority of interviewees (4.9% or 17 people),

priests and people working in a nearby factory or in(each 11% or 38 people). Teachers made up 12% (or 42e majority of interviewees were pensioners (28.3%) ord (29.4%).

pitalg to the interviewees, there was no substantial eco-ity in more than two thirds (68%) of villages, such as, factory, or a shop other than a small village shop ed in all villages except for two. One quarter of villageslittle economic activity, that is, one company or shop

Fig. 1. Sinterviewpossessi

in addconsidcompa

HumanIn a

ing in somelages, 66 villato otheharvespeoplethe m

Built caWh

have inOnly 6lages tpoor cconnecprivatebuses t

FuturePeo

were d39.8%)(26.8%variouof inter(26 annancismall npoliticf built capital in Central Romania according to 347 rural residents 66 villages. Numbers in parentheses indicate the amount of villagess service.

to the small village shop. Six percent of villages were as having much economic activity, that is, two or moreor shops in addition to the small village shop.

ital one fth (18%) of villages, nobody appeared to be work-se-by urban center. In the majority of villages (72.7%),le worked in town, while in approximately 9% of vil- or the majority of people worked in town. In 64 out of

(97%), young people were known to migrate seasonallycountries such as France or Germany, working mainly as

252 F. Mikulcak et al. / Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 248258

Fig. 2. Areas o ages oanswers relate

16 or 3.3%),or 4.4%).

Barriers to r

Low levels oInterview

the breakdoeratives aftresulted in the farminghere. The onSome villagas Sighisoarsome weremany ruralmanent wolevels of nple receivevery low. Aon averagebetween 80ts per mon200 lei (6Given that ble to Westrural inhabifor their liv

Low levels oThe edu

eral, was sacomplained

rs anause

natuen c

). In f improvement for rural development identied by 347 rural residents in 66 villd to each area of improvement (several answers were possible).

as well as aspiring to rural development (21 responses

ural development according to in-depth interviews

directo9). Becness tomay evwee 3f nancial capitalees targeted for in-depth interviews reported thatwn of large industries and state-owned farming coop-er the breakdown of the communist regime in 1989an overall scarcity of jobs in Central Romania, both in

and non-farming sectors: There are zero income optionsly option in our village is casual work (Interviewee 10).ers found employment in close-by urban centers sucha, mainly in the textile and manufacturing sectors, and

employed seasonally on bigger farms. Consequently, residents were elderly, unemployed or without per-rking contracts, and thus had disproportionately lowancial capital (Interviewees 2 and 4). The incomes peo-d, whether pensions, social benets or wages, wereccording to the interviewees, a factory worker earned

around 700 lei per month (210 USD), and a teacher0 and 1000 lei (240300 USD). Unemployment bene-th amounted to 400 lei (120 USD); social assistance to0 USD); and pensions to 350430 lei (105130 USD).commodity prices in local shops were often compara-ern Europe, and access to loans or credits was restricted,tants were highly dependent on subsistence agricultureelihoods (Interviewees 3 and 4).

f human capitalcation sector, both in the villages and Romania in gen-id to be a disaster (Interviewee 8). Many interviewees

about unqualied teachers and the selection of school

1989, and topportunitiBecause of options, temresidents tois that peopor Germanywork for littviewees repincreasinglto Western

Low levels oAs highl

or infrastruviewees relinterest frople from desaid dont leit otherwiselevels and maintainedwork: If yoonly pretendmake any p

Beside panother pro(Interviewenecting villf Central Romania. Numbers in parentheses indicate the amount of

d staff after political interests (Interviewees 2, 3, 8 and traditional values such as altruism, morality or close-re were rarely passed on anymore, the education sectorontribute to the withering away of rural life (Intervie-addition, vocational training almost disappeared after

he remaining institutions offered insufcient traininges, leading to a lack of qualied workers (Interviewee 8).the lack of jobs, low incomes and few local educationalporary or permanent migration of mainly young rural

urban centers or abroad was widespread: The problemle today have many options, and prefer moving to France

to work for higher salaries instead of staying here andle money (Interviewee 4). Ironically, even though inter-orted that farming and living in the countryside was

y unattractive to the young generation, rural migrants Europe often went to nd jobs in the farming sector.

f built capitalighted via the short interviews, the level of built capitalctural development was very low (Fig. 1), which inter-ated to poverty among the rural population and a lack ofm local authorities. Low incomes seemed to deter peo-manding village infrastructure projects: A local teachert them build the sewage system! We would need to pay for (Interviewee 5). Interviewees argued that low incomea lack of nancial incentives fostered illegal work and

a low work ethic, in particular regarding constructionu pay somebody properly, he will do a proper job. But if we

to pay the people, and people pretend to work, we wontrogress (Interviewee 4).oor quality roads and inadequate sewage systems,blem was a widespread lack of medical care facilitiese 1). Moreover, the public transport infrastructure con-ages and urban centers was largely based on privately

F. Mikulcak et al. / Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 248258 253

owned buses deemed too expensive for many rural dwellers inthe region. These high transportation costs meant that many par-ents could not afford sending their children to secondary schoolsin nearby towns, leading to high drop-out rates from school (Inter-viewee 5). Aappeared toucts on locaimpeded faThe lack ofimproving qeducation, bof tourism:be ashamed

Low levels oRural lif

informationmutual mission and top2, 3, 6 and nancial capeople, seemship: I thinalways someself-initiativcapital necea lack of leaSaxons befomodels any(IntervieweCentral Romvillage life, villages (IntRoma peopoften lackeda lack of staand 11). In ccapital in mthe communSaxons left ference andof petitions

EndangeredBecause

did not possagriculturaleign investoof the regioalso cultura8). Regardeding in Centrthe rural yotural valuesand more bThe increasand the negpast, top-doetal changewanted to svillages deponatural andgenerate inor tourism people wouwere prope

often worked in Western European farms was a silly drain of work-ers according to Interviewee 7. (Foreign) Investors should rathercreate local businesses and support local farms, instead of bringingRomanians by truck to Germany.

ional contextording to the interviewees, the lack (or low quality) of nan-umanbated

aboians,

(Inte for is a cog for ngle

partal lev

heads wprovernits of

fundare m15

lowts th

terizs, wh

capuread mt or terrentiieweone n

hosieweablyly nopmery it

foodternal aglatedeadyly for

the ema

suchR1 (I

sion

empltitu

angeur

on enor thet the same time, the low connectivity to urban centers deter many villagers from selling homegrown prod-l markets, while a lack of agricultural machinery oftenrming bigger patches of land (Interviewees 3 and 9).

built capital, then, not only seemed to be a barrier touality of life, incomes, health, and access to secondaryut also to attracting investment, for instance in terms

Our villages need to look better so that we dont have to if we receive visitors (Interviewee 9).

f social capitale in most villages appeared to be characterized by low

exchange, skepticism toward new developments, andtrust reportedly an aftereffect of systemic suppres--down control during the communist era (Interviewees9). Low social capital, combined with low human andpitals as well as high migration rates among younged to suppress innovative capacity and entrepreneur-

k people have been taught not to think, but instead theresbody to tell them what to do. This has eventually killed alle (Interviewee 3). Other barriers to building the socialssary for collective action were rising individualism anddership; the latter had supposedly been performed byre they emigrated out of the region: Saxons arent rolemore today. TV and computers are todays role modelse 8). After the exodus of the Saxon population fromania, former Saxon institutions that used to organizeso called neighborhoods, had disappeared in manyerviewees 2 and 7). At the same time, the number ofle was rapidly rising. The Roma population, however,

education and job skills due to societal prejudices, andte supplied educational opportunities (Interviewees 10ombination, the demographic shift and the lack of socialost villages was perceived to be further fragmentingity structure that has already been fragmented after the(Interviewee 7). Yet, individual actors could make a dif-

motivate villagers, for instance regarding the signature (Interviewees 5 and 6).

natural and cultural capitals the rural population was aging and Roma people ofteness land or a farming tradition (Interviewees 10 and 11),

land was increasingly abandoned or leased out to for-rs. This development would not only endanger aspectsns natural capital such as farmland biodiversity, butl capital such as traditional cuisine (Interviewees 3 and

most problematic for the future of (smallholder) farm-al Romania, however, were high migration rates amonguth, and a lack of appreciation of traditional and cul-

attached to agriculture in both the education sector,roadly in Romanian society (Interviewees 3, 8 and 9).ing detachment of young people from a rural lifestyleative image of farming were considered to result fromwn induced collective agriculture, and an overall soci-: People sent their kids away from the village as theypare the next generation this difcult life. Thats how thepulated (Interviewee 3). At the same time, the regions

cultural capitals arguably stood the best chances tocomes because they served as basis for organic farming(Interviewees 27). According to Interviewee 2, youngld be ne with staying in the village if local resourcesrly utilized. The fact that young villagers migrated and

InstitutAcc

cial, hexacerplainedpoliticof lawwee 5,and hanothinof entaalso ofnation1, thechangenot apthe govincidention ofThere 50 lei [

Theresidencharacmakerhumanels of bdeterreopmenThis decial inc(Intervtaxes, mate is(Interv

Nottypicaldevelocontrasidizedto Westhe locwas rethe alrto appsessedoften dmentsLEADE

Discus

Ourto a muor endover, o

1 Liaisactions f, physical and social capital resulted from, and was by the institutional context. Many interviewees com-ut a lack of interest in village development from locala lack of information transfer, and disrespect for the rulerviewees 15, 8, 10, 11). In the commune of Intervie-nstance, the mayor sells cars, gets cars from Germany,nstruction company of his own. . . He does everything, butthe community. Various interviewees reported casesment between local politicians and the economy, buty politics in the health and education sectors up to theel (Interviewees 1, 3 and 5). According to Interviewees of the institutions change as soon as the political colorith only few exceptions. Communal projects were oftened or nanced if the mayor was in a party other thanng party. Moreover, almost every interviewee reported

intimidation of political opponents, the misappropria-s or vote-buying, particularly among poorer villagers:any poor people. . .that elect the mayor if you give them

USD] (Interviewee 5). levels of nancial, social and human capitals of ruralus seemed to perpetuate an institutional environmented by corruption and nepotism among local decisionich in turn suppressed the development of social andital as well as entrepreneurship. Reportedly, high lev-ucracy and taxes as well as ineffective local governanceany individuals from actively working for rural devel-setting up a rural enterprise such as an organic farm.ent effect was further compounded by a lack of nan-ves for rural development interventions in the regiones 1, 4 and 8). To set up a business and circumvent higheeded to be inuential or wealthy: The investment cli-

tile if you dont know the culture and the right peoplee 7)., Romanias integration into the European Union wast considered a solution to overcome the barriers of

nt in Central Romania by the interviewees, but on thewas said to aggravate the situation. The import of sub-stuffs from, and the attraction of cheap human capital

European countries ran counter to the development ofricultural sector (Interviewee 4). Moreover, EU policy

to a lot of bureaucracy, which apparently undermined low efciency of local authorities, and set high burdens

EU funding. Reportedly, only few rural dwellers pos-nancial and human capitals because applications werending, and required co-nancing or preliminary pay-

as in the case of the EU rural development initiativenterviewees 1, 4 and 7).

: how interacting barriers cause a trap

irical ndings suggested that Central Romania is subjectde of rural development barriers, associated with a lackrment of various different types of capital assets. More-ndings indicated that development barriers are often

tre Actions de Dveloppement de lconomie Rurale [Links between development of the rural economy].

254 F. Mikulcak et al. / Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 248258

interacting and mutually reinforcing, with the effects of some bar-riers being the cause of others. For instance, low wages seemedto foster a low work ethic; and the fear of additional costs suchas for water or electricity hampered infrastructural development.In other wcause for loconsidered as tourism,cial capital;reportedly common, wcies of systwere consibetween vition in comHoward, 20quently commade rural authorities tices appeapositive or rthus suggesfeedbacks acause a trap

With Roarea has be(Piattoni, 2tion and inwas widelyDevelopmeferent levelsituation, thple scales (B

Unlocking thcapital

Central except for never, that tof traditionrating due villagers, anA recent regrowing Roaccess to suing a profoVarious autdonment anwith leasedtrialized mintensicatscapes and 2008; Kueming in termtraditional ferred (Matof mechanieffectively 1981) so thaincrease em

Our ndtals providetrap. Severaor the sale ogies to foste

Fischer et al., 2012). The characteristics of smallholder farming inthis region (high biodiversity, short supply chains) thus providea valuable asset for alternative rural enterprises of greater value(Davidova et al., 2012), and rural development, therefore, should

n bo on CRizoves by) knol dev

spirora, 2

suggturaapitding

to tral as i2006illingof huxes at resing avernh theregiooth al tiers (Mee SportiGorts of nts, ar duHubb

thents trouptionrd etour sd orstantd ruervieon thns. Ged fe pegenetivittailetia Aexcluuniti

this aolicytion

an agterisortonst colturaords, low nancial capital appeared to be one majorw built capital. Insufcient built capital, in turn, wasa barrier to the development of rural enterprises such

and thus to potential income opportunities (i.e. nan- see Baumgartner et al., 2013). Because local jobs werescarce and the quality of education low, migration washich fostered the loss of human capital. Historical lega-emic suppression, and a lack of positive role modelsdered the causes for reduced trust and cooperationllagers, leading to a lack of interest and participa-munity-level endeavors and local governance (see also02; Pascaru and Butiu, 2010). Low social capital subse-bined with low nancial and human capital apparently

residents vulnerable to bribery and corruption by local(see also Van Assche et al., 2011). Corrupt policy prac-red to reinforce the lack of these capitals, constituting aeinforcing feedback effect. In combination, our ndingst that Central Romania is prone to a variety of linkeds a consequence of interacting barriers which togetherped system state.manias integration into the European Union, our studycome embedded in a multi-level governance system009; Mikulcak et al., 2013), inuenced by EU legisla-ternational market forces. Curiously, however, the EU

considered as yet another barrier to rural development.nt barriers of Central Romania hence occur across dif-s and scales (Cash et al., 2006), creating a fractal trapat is, a series of simultaneous traps occurring at multi-arrett and Swallow, 2006).

e trap: the enabling role of natural and cultural

Romania appears to be relatively poor in all capitals,atural and cultural capital. Our ndings suggest, how-hese capitals are at risk. Cultural capital in the senseal values and regional-specic architecture is deterio-to an aging rural population, the migration of youngd the exodus of Saxons (see also Ghisa et al., 2011).port supports our nding that the onset of a rapidlyma population, often lacking a farming tradition orfcient agricultural land (World Bank 2014), is caus-und cultural and land-use change in many villages.hors further conrm our results that farmland aban-d land use intensication are common and increasing,

farmland often being converted into large-scale indus-onocultures (Bouniol, 2013; Dale-Harris, 2014). Thision-abandonment dynamic threatens the cultural land-farmland biodiversity of Central Romania (Henle et al.,merle et al., 2009). Besides, the benets of smallhold-s of household food security and the conservation offood preferences may be lost if land rights are trans-hijs and Noev, 2004; FAO, 2014). Moreover, high levelszation associated with agricultural intensication area substitute for human labor (Sinaga, 1978; Agarwal,t agricultural intensication is unlikely to substantiallyployment opportunities in the area.ings indicate that Romanias natural and cultural capi-

perhaps the best opportunity to break out of the currentl interviewees suggested that eco- and cultural tourismf handicrafts and specialty foods would be good strate-r rural development (see also Iorio and Corsale, 2010;

focus oization1998; incomlogicalof rurative orand Flmodelvert naother cOur naccessas welRizov, uals wterms high tacontex

TakEU gothrougto the that bseverandingture (sdispro2008; ings (apaymeper ye2012; requirepaymeducer gapplicaHubbaject to for lanto subreceivethe intrelied nizatioalienatmigraters in connecerful re(Fundaselves opport2014).

On tural Pproporlowedcharacand Gsocialiagricuth the diversication of rural economies and the special-entral Romanias cultural and natural capitals (see Ray,, 2006; Davidova and Bailey, 2014). A diversication of

specializing on regional products and traditional (eco-wledge would be in line with the endogenous modelelopment (Ward et al., 2005), and could have a posi-aling up effect on other (community) capitals (Emery006). Yet, as the neo-endogenous rural developmentests, rural residents will struggle to specialize and con-l and cultural capitals into nancial capital as long as allals are low (Shirley, 2005; Hubbard and Gorton, 2011).s suggest that most villagers lack the nancial means,ining, and (managerial) knowledge to set up a business,nnovation capacity due to low social capital (see also; Baumgartner et al., 2013). Moreover, those individ-

to set up a rural enterprise, and theoretically capable inman, social and nancial capitals, are often deterred bynd bureaucratic hurdles, or an unfavorable institutionalpectively.

broader perspective, Romania is embedded in a widerance framework, and rural development assistance

EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) could be centralns sustainable development. Yet, our results indicateccess and applicability of CAP funding are subject tos of barriers to rural residents, which conrms earlierikulcak et al., 2013). Because of Romanias farm struc-tudy area section above), so called direct paymentsonately benet a few, large-scale farmers (Cionga et al.,on et al., 2009). Out of 3.85 million Romanian hold-2010), only about one million were eligible for directwith 90% of beneciaries receiving less than 625 USDe to their small farmland areas (Alexandri and Luca,ard et al., 2014). Many EU rural development measures

possession of nancial capital (e.g. private, preliminaryo access EU Leader), social capital (e.g. setting up pro-s), and human capital (skills to access and write fundings or business plans; e.g. Alexandri and Luca, 2012;

al., 2014). Approximately one third of respondents sub-hort interviews received EU rural development funding

animals, but the amounts were reportedly too lowially support farming. Except for one interviewee whoral development funding for young farmers, none ofwed key individuals accessed EU funding, but insteade cooperation with (foreign) non-governmental orga-iven our nding that young people are increasingly

rom the countryside (see also Palang et al., 2006) orrmanently, rural development funds for young farm-ral may have little effect. Moreover, due to the lowy to (urban) markets, increasing competition with pow-rs (Dries et al., 2004), as well as EU hygiene regulationsDEPT et al., 2008), smallholder farmers often nd them-ded from dominant supply chains and direct marketinges for their locally produced foodstuffs (Gorton et al.,

ccount, many authors argue that the Common Agricul- was ill-designed for new member states where a largeof the farmers are smallholders, because it largely fol-rarian, farm-centric model, and disregarded the specialtics and needs of (semi-) subsistence farmers (Hubbard, 2011; Davidova et al., 2012). Notably, unlike post-untries, Western Europe had been subject to a graduall transition (Palang et al., 2006), and farmers from these

F. Mikulcak et al. / Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 248258 255

regions were able to inuence and shape the design of the CAP(Rizov, 2006). Consequently, investors from long-established EUmember states such as France or Germany possess the human,social, physical and nancial capitals to access CAP funding, to mod-ernize theircountries su(Murdoch, 2investmentciple. In parfor supportinfrastructuAgriculturement currenthe agricultlargely ignoative social(Mikulcak e

Why institu

Our ndnias develocontext. Intbusiness sereported vainformationopment or local authoBoth the trtutions. Accto livelihoosuch as rul1990; Allisoattributed ttures (Barre

Notably,changes an2013). To thnewly indecommunistmanaged toand the poliprocess, perremained. Adentedly raand structumismatch btralized inset al., 2013)decentralizparty strucinto local poto consolidademocracy law and goonance systerequired suAt the samboth to incrcredibility otrust in polpolitics are to low levelconsidered

The insnia trappe

development of interacting capitals is suppressed. Because manyrural residents are vulnerable to being corrupted by powerful play-ers due to low human, social and nancial endowments, a systemwith self-reinforcing (i.e. positive) feedback loops is created where

werf lowe po, and(Ristl contabil

that deci

aligns (Baian c

civil ed tol Rom

g mu

rder arguold aollie

nd ining al deGivetionholisl capordinrprornanitutioeoret fun

on thd coanizani

tive issio

othee of

EU, tional acted xistis, forise toMikud to

gove

wingineductuual td inre, rualstals, farming practices, and to establish their businesses inch as Romania where land is still comparatively cheap000; Bouniol, 2013). Our results suggest that (foreign)

in the study area is appreciated and benecial in prin-ticular, interviewees wish for the creation of jobs and

in terms of (vocational) training, capacity building, andre. Yet, according to ofcial statements (Ministry for

and Rural Development, 2008), the Romanian govern-tly seems to favor investments directed at modernizingural sector following a Western European model thusring the local context that might lead to potentially neg-

and environmental externalities of such an approacht al., 2013).

tions matter

ings demonstrated that the barriers to Central Roma-pment are strongly inuenced by their institutionalerviewees described how the health, education, andctors were inuenced by governmental authorities, andrious cases of bribery, cronyism and corruption. Useful, for instance regarding EU funding for rural devel-the inclusion of Roma, was often not passed on fromrities to rural residents (see Mikulcak et al., 2013).aps and capitals approach highlight the role of insti-ordingly, beside social relations, rural residents accessd assets is modied by formal and informal institutionses, cultural or religious norms, and customs (Ostrom,n and Ellis, 2001). Poverty and rigidity traps are ofteno dysfunctional institutions or weak governance struc-tt et al., 2011; Maru et al., 2012).

institutions are not static, but subject to continuousd path-dependencies (North, 1990; Van Assche et al.,is end, Altmann et al. (2010) argued that institutions inpendent states such as Romania were molded by their

past. Because members of the former Communist Party retain key positions in the economy, the civil service,tical establishment during the countrys transformationsistent weaknesses in the legal and governance systemst the same time, EU accession required an unprece-pid adoption and implementation of new legislationres (Spendzharova, 2003; Bache, 2010a), leading to aetween old hierarchical institutions and newly decen-titutions (Kluvnkov-Oravsk et al., 2009; Mikulcak. According to Sikor et al. (2009), the externally inducedation and reconstitution of decision-making powers andtures in post-socialist countries would often translatewer abuses and predatory practices (p. 177) in orderte governmental authority. Shirley (2005) argued thatis not always a guarantor for the respect of the rule ofd governance practices. Enduring changes of the gover-m were largely inuenced by informal institutions, andpportive norms, beliefs, and constitutional institutions.e time, trust and civic mindedness were fundamentalease the accountability of politicians, and to foster thef institutions (Letki, 2004). Our ndings suggest thatiticians, interpersonal trust, and civic participation invery low in Central Romania, which is commonly linkeds of social capital (Howarth, 2002; Letki, 2004), but alsothe consequence of corruption (Ristei, 2010).titutional context seems to keep Central Roma-d in an undesirable equilibrium state, where the

the podue tobecomvaluesnance mentaaccounsocietyparenti.e. thepolicieRoman2010),equippCentra

Tacklin

In owouldthresh2005; Ctiple aIncreasfor rurcome. interactake a as loca

Acccountea goveof instthat thopmendecitties, anEuropeing RomineffecComm2012),the rulby theInternaNationsupportime, erealitieexpert2011; reduceamong2010).

Draunderland strindivid29, citeliteratuindividto capiul maintain, or even enhance their power. For instance, government accountability, corrupt policy practicesssible, which undermine the rule of law and moral

erode public trust in institutions and democratic gover-ei, 2010). Consequently, civic participation and govern-trol or balancing feedbacks are hampered, leading to lowity. Self-correction could be fostered by an active civil

holds politicians accountable, and provides for trans-sion-making and fair elections. While Europeanization,ment of governance structures and processes with EUche, 2010b) has brought about improvements in theivil society sector (Parau, 2009; Brzel and Buzogny,society actors in the study area to date are apparently ill-

provide for necessary governance checks. So how canania break out of its current, undesirable trapped state?

ltiple capital decits simultaneously

to overcome a (poverty) trap, classical economic theorye for a big-push investment to pass a low economicnd move the system to a more desirable state (Sachs,r, 2008). Yet, we showed that existing barriers are mul-teracting, and mediated by the institutional context.nancial capital thus cannot be a sufcient instrument

velopment if other systemic barriers are not also over-n the complexity of development barriers and theirs in our study area, rural development endeavors shouldtic approach, and aim to foster all capital stocks as wellacity.g to Shirley (2005), cash inows alone can even be

ductive and undermine the sustainability of reforms ifce system is characterized by rent-seeking and a lackns keeping this behavior in check. Our results suggesttically available nances, for instance EU rural devel-ding, are not used effectively due to an informatione side of rural inhabitants, weak administrative capaci-rruption. As the previous discussion section has shown,ation to date has apparently not succeeded in overcom-as democratic decit (Rizov, 2006, p. 233). Instead ofconditionalities set by the European Union (Europeann, 2010; Gateva, 2010; Spendzharova and Vachudova,r means should be developed to foster the adherence tolaw. For instance, general nancial sanctions not onlybut also other international organizations such as theal Monetary Fund could be considered (Gateva, 2010).tors that are determined to curb corruption should betechnically and nancially (Ristei, 2010). At the sameng EU funding mechanisms need to be adjusted to rural

instance by providing additional capacity building and local authorities and rural residents (Wegener et al.,lcak et al., 2013). Bureaucratic complexities need to befoster the absorption of funding, and a greater cohesionrnmental levels (Altmann et al., 2010; Iorio and Corsale,

on the livelihoods approach, Davidova et al. (2012) that development does not only depend on nancesres, but also on agency dened as the capacity of theo plan and initiate action (Onyx and Bullen 2000, p.

Newman and Dale, 2005). According to the livelihoodsural development should strengthen the capacities of

and rural households to improve well-being and accessrather than targeting the state to provide ongoing cash

256 F. Mikulcak et al. / Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 248258

transfers (e.g. Allison and Ellis, 2001; Scoones, 2009). This reason-ing is in line with the neo-endogenous model of rural development,directing the focus of development on the needs and perspec-tives of locals, and the enhancement of local capacities (Rizov,2006; Hubbcapacities ito enable ngovernance(balancing)feedbacks (

Accordinequated witagency, socnetworks wreciprocity that social caccess to otinterviewedto increase distributingemploymendures. Howcapital and and the exptially beneorganizationescu Trustto external and act as m(Morgan an

Finally, isocial capitmigration fincomes reRomania wties, it is crvia approprstructure, iet al., 2009need to be aof human cschools; e.gsetup of enrespects the

Conclusion

With thidevelopmesustainablefruitful, newappropriateRomania, wan undesirathe same timbeen maintis at risk froOur analysiin situationrelated to cthe regionsfoster ruralother capitaalso develoturn, is stro

reportedly in need of improvement. Given the interconnectednessof barriers, it is highly doubtful that big-push economic interven-tions alone would successfully unlock the trap-like situation ofCentral Romania, and such measures could even be counterpro-

e. Inss capcks c

necevelo

wled

authl RompmeAlexa Awearch Re

il. Witful ful s

nces

, B., 1oach., J.R., sylvan, J.R., Pmed lri, C., ace ofE.H., Eries. MH.E., He We, F.-L.

Black SC., Ma425.

., 2010 Black., 2010pre-a.

C.B., SC.B., Trs. Procrtner, onal dirical nn, A.,entral., Coldaptiv.A., Bu

of non B.J., 2snatiohe Langgles er, S.RW., Ads-scal

11, 8.rs, R., he 21l, M.J.e, D., , I., 20biodiv., Zhu,evalu

Use PJ.E., 20358ard and Gorton, 2011). Enhancing agency and locals not only crucial to foster capital building, but alsoecessary governance checks. As the above explained

loop exemplied, this means strengthening negative feedback loops to slow down positive (reinforcing)Meadows, 1999).g to Newman and Dale (2005), agency must not beh social capital, but is one important component. Besideial capital consists of bonding and bridging ties orithin and outside a community, social norms, trust and(Coleman, 1990; Putnam, 1993). Our results suggestapital in the study area is very low, thereby restrictingher capitals. However, key individuals such as those we

possess agency and can serve as positive role modelscommunity capitals, for instance by attracting funding,

information, providing after-school teaching, creatingt, and assisting villagers with administrative proce-ever, these individuals often lack access to nancialsupporting networks of actors. Assistance with fundingansion of existing networks would therefore be poten-cial for rural development in Central Romania. Bridgingns such as the local Adept foundation or the Mihai Emi-

can play a key role as they do not only have accessinformation and expertise, but can also foster learningediators between local authorities and rural residents

d Murdoch, 2000; Olsson et al., 2007).t seems likely that strengthening nancial, human andals will have little effect on the current rate of rural out-rom Central Romania, as long as job opportunities andmain low. In 2013, the monthly net average wage inas 485 USD (Eurostat, 2014). To improve job opportuni-ucial that entrepreneurship in the region is supportediate policy settings and the development of rural infra-ncluding access to markets (Turnock, 2002; Davidova; Iorio and Corsale, 2010). At the same time, investorsttracted into the area, mainly with a view on the transferapital (e.g. technical trainings, support of professional. Rizov, 2006). Here, it is of crucial importance that theterprises actually creates jobs for rural residents, and

regions natural and cultural capitals.

s paper, we sought to contribute new insights as to whynt appears to stagnate in certain regions. Combining the

livelihoods approach with traps theory could offer a way to frame rural development research, and develop

policy strategies. Applying this approach to Centrale demonstrated that the region appears to be trapped inble state characterized by poverty and outmigration. Ate, the regions exceptionally rich biodiversity that has

ained over centuries by extensive smallholder farmingm land abandonment and agricultural intensication.s of the barriers creating and maintaining the locked-

of Central Romania showed that development barriersapital asset types are multiple and interacting. While

natural and cultural capitals stand the best chances to development, they are likely to deteriorate, too, unlessls nancial, social, human, and physical capitals areped at the same time. The development of capitals, inngly inuenced by the institutional context, which is

ductivvarioufeedbawill berural d

Ackno

TheCentradeveloby the evakajfor ResSwedisCouncfor fruinsight

Refere

Agarwalappr

AkeroydTran

Akeroyda far

Alexandthe f

Allison, she

Allison, of th

Altmannthe

Ashley, 395

Bache, IEur.

Bache, Iand 112

Barrett, Barrett,

trapBaumga

regiemp

Beckmain C

Berkes, Fas ad

Brzel, Trole

Bouniol,Tranoff tStru

CarpentCash, D.

crosSoc.

Chambefor t

ChappelJaffefectoand

Chen, Hand Land

Cinner, 21, 8tead, we recommend that policy interventions tackleitals at the same time, ideally leading to reinforcingonnecting multiple types of capitals. Further researchessary to specify the precise measures that a holisticpment strategy for Central Romania ought to entail.

gements

ors are grateful to the interviewed rural residents ofania who openly shared their perspectives on rural

nt barriers with the authors. The research was fundedander von Humboldt Foundation through a Sofja Koval-ard to Joern Fischer, nanced by the German Ministryh and Education. Jamila Haider was supported by thesearch Council FORMAS and the European Research

e thank Garry Peterson, Lucian Luca and David Collstediscussions. Two anonymous reviewers provided veryuggestions that helped strengthen our manuscript.

981. Agricultural mechanisation and labour use: a disaggregated Int. Labour Rev. 120, 115127.2007. The Historic Countryside of the Saxon Villages of Southeastia. Fundatia ADEPT, Saschiz, Romania.age, J.N., 2011. Conservation of high nature value (HNV) grassland inandscape in Transylvania, Romania. Contrib. Bot. XLVI, 5771.Luca, L., 2012. The role of small farms in Romania and their future in

challenges of the CAP post 2013. Probl. Small Agric. Holdings, 1330.llis, F., 2001. The livelihoods approach and management of small-scalear. Policy 25, 377388.obbs, R.J., 2004. Resilience, adaptive capacity, and the lock-in trap

stern Australian agricultural region. Ecol. Soc. 9, 3., Deimel, J., Schmidt, A.G., 2010. Democracy and good governance inea region. Southeast Eur. Black Sea Stud. 10, 303321.xwell, S., 2001. Rethinking rural development. Dev. Policy Rev. 19,

a. Building multi-level governance in Southeast Europe? Southeast Sea Stud. 10, 111122.b. Europeanization and multi-level governance: EU cohesion policyccession aid in Southeast Europe. Southeast Eur. Black Sea Stud. 10,

wallow, B.M., 2006. Fractal poverty traps. World Dev. 34, 115.avis, A.J., Dasgupta, P., 2011. On biodiversity conservation and poverty. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 108, 1390713912.D., Ptz, M., Seidl, I., 2013. What kind of entrepreneurship drivesevelopment in European non-core regions? A literature review onentrepreneurship research. Eur. Plann. Stud. 21, 10951127.

Dissing, H., 2007. EU enlargement and sustainable rural development and Eastern Europe. Env. Polit. 13, 135152.ing, J., Folke, C., 2000. Rediscovery of Traditional ecological knowledgee management. Ecol. Appl. 10, 12511262.zogny, A., 2010. Governing EU accession in transition countries: the-state actors. Acta Polit. 45, 158182.013. Scramble for land in Romania: iron st in a velvet glove. In:nal Institute (TNI) for European Coordination Via Campesina, Handsd Network (Eds.), Land Concentration, Land Grabbing and Peoples

in Europe. , pp. 132153.., Brock, W.A., 2008. Adaptive capacity and traps. Ecol. Soc 13, 40.ger, W.N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., 2006. Scale and

e dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecol.

Conway, G., 1992. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Conceptsst Century (No. 296), IDS Discussion Paper. Brighton., Wittman, H., Bacon, C.M., Ferguson, B.G., Barrios, L.G., Barrios, R.G.,Lima, J., Mndez, V.E., Morales, H., Soto-Pinto, L., Vandermeer, J., Per-13. Food sovereignty: an alternative paradigm for poverty reductionersity conservation in Latin America. F1000Research 2, 118.

T., Krott, M., Calvo, J.F., Ganesh, S.P., Makoto, I., 2013. Measurementation of livelihood assets in sustainable forest commons governance.olicy 30, 908914.11. Socialecological traps in reef sheries. Global Environ. Change39.

F. Mikulcak et al. / Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 248258 257

Cionga, C., Luca, L., Hubbard, C., 2008. The impacts of direct payments on Roma-nian farm income: who benets from the CAP? In: The CAP after the FischlerReform: National Implementations, Impact Assessment and the Agenda forFuture Reforms. Viterbo, Italy, pp. 116.

Cochrane, P., 2006. Exploring cultural capital and its importance in sustainabledevelopm

Coleman, J.S., 1sity Press,

Collier, P., 2008Can Be Do

Dale-Harris, L.making a l

Dasgupta, P., 2Conferenc

Davidova, S., BEuroChoic

Davidova, S., Fring in sele

Davidova, S., Ffarming, inEuropean

Dries, L., Reardand EasterDev. Policy

Dyer, C.L., Pogstudy from

Ellis, F., 1998. H35, 138.

Emery, M., Flocommunit

Enfors, E.I., Gosystem tec607616.

European Comliament anVericatio

Eurostat, 2014[WWW Doindex.php

FAO, 2014. UnThe Case o

Fischer, J., Hartlandscape

Fraser, E.D.G., micro-crisGlobal Env

Fundatia ADEPConditionsand Prospe

Gateva, E., 201Pressure? Europe. F

Ghisa, M., Gosight exerc1008.

Gorton, M., 1medium-s

Gorton, M., Hufer: why thEurope. Re

Gorton, M., Safood suppl

Hanspach, J., Hvon, KuemA holistic aSouthern T

Hartel, T., Fischtance of ecin Romani

Henle, K., AlaD., MoritzJ., 2008. Ibiodiversit6071.

Holling, C.S., 20systems. E

Horvth, I., 20Stud. 34, 7

Howard, M.M.157169.

Howarth, R., 2421429.

Hubbard, C., Gdence from

Hubbard, C., MRomania a

Institutul National de Statistica, 2011. Recensamntul populatiei s i al locuintelordin Romnia [WWW Document]. URL http://www.recensamantromania.ro/rezultate-2/

Institutul National de Statistica, 2012. Anuarul statistic 2012 [WWW Document].URL http://www.insse.ro/cms/ro/content/anuarul-statistic-2012

ional Fthe En., Corsl Studov-O. Froral an196.

K., Ry of 528.

erle, Tania a, 2004n in E

.T., Fleaps is arch. E

E., No Econ.s, D., k, F., Nent an137.

for Aelopm

K., Mer and, M.J.,ards aD., Kus of p129.., Leitent i7., J., 2074, L., Dent. Tron.: I.C., 1bridgeP., Folktive

ching 12, 28

E., 19ActionH., Pri. The 473.E., 20ania.

M., Bul gove. 36, 4, S., 20gr. 31,., Burtrade

, R.D., 1998. Clis, 38., 20ost-co

., 200ns ofn. Stu, 2005s, New

C., Friania (.H., Dern Eu

Agriccher, Ed. Blon, I., 19Workient. Ecol. Econ. 57, 318330.990. Foundations of Social Theory. Belknap Press of Harvard Univer-Cambridge, MA.. The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What

ne About It. Oxford University Press, Oxford., 2014. Romanias peasants: standing in the way of foreign investorsot of money. Guardian.011. Personal histories and poverty traps. In: Annual World Bank

e on Development Economics.ailey, A., 2014. Roles of small and semi-subsistence farms in the EU.es 13, 1013.edriksson, L., Bailey, A., 2009. Subsistence and semi-subsistence farm-cted EU new member states. Agric. Econ. 40, 733744.redriksson, L., Gorton, M., Mishev, P., Petrovici, D., 2012. Subsistencecomes, and agricultural livelihoods in the new member states of theUnion. Environ. Plann. C: Gov. Policy 30, 209227.on, T., Swinnen, J.F.M., 2004. The rapid rise of supermarkets in Centraln Europe: implications for the agrifood sector and rural development.

Rev. 22, 132.gie, J.J., 2000. The natural resource region and marine policy: a case

the New England ground sh shery. Mar. Policy 24, 245255.ousehold strategies and rural livelihood diversication. J. Dev. Stud.

ra, C., 2006. Spiraling-up: mapping community transformation withy capitals framework. Community Dev. 37, 1935.rdon, L.J., 2008. Dealing with drought: the challenge of using waterhnologies to break dryland poverty traps. Global Environ. Change 18,

mission, 2010. Report from the Commission to the European Par-d the Council on Progress in Romania under the Co-operation andn Mechanism. Brussels.. GDP per capita, consumption per capita and price level indicescument]. URL http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics explained/

/GDP per capita, consumption per capita and price level indicesderstanding Smallholder Farmer Attitudes to Commercialization f Maize in Kenya, Rome.el, T., Kuemmerle, T., 2012. Conservation policy in traditional farmings. Conserv. Lett. 5, 167175.Stringer, L.C., 2009. Explaining agricultural collapse: macro-forces,es and the emergence of land use vulnerability in southern Romania.iron. Change 19, 4553.T, WWF, Milvus Group, 2008. Minimum Food Hygiene and Food Safety

for Small Producers. How the Small Producer Can Continue to Workr within the Rules of the European Union. Saschiz, Romania.0. Post-Accession Conditionality. Support Instrument for Continuous(No. 18), Kolleg-Forschergruppe (KFG) The Transformative Power ofreie Universitt Berlin.ux-Baudiment, F., Allen Dator, J., Cole, S., 2011. Designing a fore-ise for the future of rural communities in Romania. Futures 43, 996

999. Spatial variations in markets served by UK-based small andized enterprises (SMEs). Entrep. Reg. Dev. 11, 3955.bbard, C., Hubbard, L., 2009. The folly of European union policy trans-e common agricultural policy (CAP) does not t Central and Easterng. Stud. 43, 13051317.lvioni, C., Hubbard, C., 2014. Semi-subsistence farms and alternativey chains. EuroChoices 13, 1519.artel, T., Milcu, A.I., Mikulcak, F., Dorresteijn, I., Loos, J., Wehrden, H.merle, T., Abson, D.J., Kovcs-Hostynszki, A., Bldi, A., Fischer, J., 2014.pproach to studying socialecological systems and its application toransylvania. Ecol. Soc.er, J., Cmpeanu, C., Milcu, A.I., Hanspach, J., Fazey, I., 2014. The impor-osystem services for rural inhabitants in a changing cultural landscapea. Ecol. Soc. 19, 42.rd, D., Clitherow, J., Cobb, P., Firbank, L., Kull, T., McCracken,, R.F.a., Niemel, J., Rebane, M., Wascher, D., Watt, A., Young,dentifying and managing the conicts between agriculture andy conservation in Europea review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 124,

01. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and socialcosystems 4, 390405.08. The culture of migration of rural Romanian youth. J. Ethn. Migr.71786., 2002. The weakness of postcommunist civil society. J. Democr. 13,

002. Accounting for the value of ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 41,

orton, M., 2011. Placing agriculture within rural development: evi- EU case studies. Environ. Plann. C: Gov. Policy 29, 8095.ishev, P., Ivanova, N., Luca, L., 2014. Semi-subsistence farming in

nd Bulgaria: a survival strategy? EuroChoices 13, 4651.

Internatand

Iorio, MRura

Kluvnk2009cent186

Knickel,stud512

KuemmRom

Letki, N.zatio

Maru, Yto trrese

Mathijs,Eur.

MeadowMikulca

opm129

MinistryDev

Morgan,pow

Moseleytow

Mller, nant109

Mller, Ddonm667

Murdoch16, 4

NewmanopmEnvi

North, DCam

Olsson, adapmatSoc.

Ostrom,tive

Palang, 200621, 3

Parau, CRom

Pascaru,locaStud

PiattoniInte

Potter, Cnon-

PutnamRay, C., 1

RuraRistei, M

in p362.

Rizov, McatioPlan

Sachs, J.Book

Salasan,Rom

Sarris, AeastRev.

Schumatere

ScoonesIDS und for Agricultural Development, 2013. Smallholders, Food Security,vironment.ale, A., 2010. Rural tourism and livelihood strategies in Romania. J.. 26, 152162.ravsk, T., Chobotov, V., Banaszak, I., Slavikova, L., Trifunovova, S.,m government to governance for biodiversity: the perspective ofd Eastern European transition countries. Environ. Policy Gov. 19,

enting, H., 2000. Methodological and conceptual issues in themultifunctionality and rural development. Sociol. Ruralis 40,

., Mller, D., Grifths, P., Rusu, M., 2009. Land use change in Southernfter the collapse of socialism. Reg. Environ. Change 9, 112.. Socialization for participation? Trust, membership, and democrati-ast-Central Europe. Polit. Res. Q. 57, 665679.tcher, C.S., Chewings, V.H., 2012. A synthesis of current approachesuseful but needs rethinking for indigenous disadvantage and povertycol. Soc. 17, 7.ev, N., 2004. Subsistence farming in Central and Eastern Europe. East.

42, 7289.1999. Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System. Hartland, VT.ewig, J., Milcu, A.I., Hartel, T., Fischer, J., 2013. Integrating rural devel-d biodiversity conservation in Central Romania. Environ. Conserv. 40,

griculture and Rural Development (MADR), 2008. National Ruralent Programme 20072013, Bucharest.urdoch, J., 2000. Organic vs. conventional agriculture: knowledge,

innovation in the food chain. Geoforum 31, 159173. 1996. Baseline studies for local rural development programmes:

methodology. Plann. Pract. Res. 11, 1936.emmerle, T., Rusu, M., Grifths, P., 2009. Lost in transition: determi-ost-socialist cropland abandonment in Romania. J. Land Use Sci. 4,

o, P.J., Sikor, T., 2013. Comparing the determinants of cropland aban-n Albania and Romania using boosted regression trees. Agric. Syst. 117,

000. Networksa new paradigm of rural development? J. Rural Stud.19.ale, A., 2005. Local environment: the international community devel-he role of agency in sustainable local community development. Localnt. J. Justice Sustain. 10, 477486.990. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance.

University Press, New York.e, C., Galaz, V., Hahn, T., Schultz, L., 2007. Enhancing the t through

co-management: creating and maintaining bridging functions forscales in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve, Sweden. Ecol..90. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collec-. Cambridge University Press, New York.ntsmann, A., Gyur, .K., Urbanc, M., Skowronek, E., Woloszyn, W.,forgotten rural landscapes of Central and Eastern Europe. Landsc. Ecol.57.09. Impaling dracula: how EU accession empowered civil society inWest Eur. Polit. 32, 119141.tiu, C.A., 2010. Psycho-sociological barriers to citizen participation inrnance. The case of some rural communities in Romania. Local Gov.93509.09. Multi-level governance: a historical and conceptual analysis. J. Eur.

163180.ney, J., 2002. Agricultural multifunctionality in the WTOlegitimate

concern or disguised protectionism? J. Rural Stud. 18, 3547.993. Making Democracy Work. Princeton University Press, Princeton.ulture, intellectual property and territorial rural development. Sociol..10. The politics of corruption: political will and the rule of lawmmunist Romania. J. Communist Stud. Transit. Polit. 26, 341

6. Rural development perspectives in enlarging Europe: the impli- CAP reforms and agricultural transition in accession countries. Eur.d. 14, 219238.. The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for our Time. Penguin

York.tzsch, J., 2009. The role of agriculture for overcoming rural poverty inNo. 121), Discussion Paper.oucha, T., Mathijs, E., 1999. Agricultural restructuring in central andrope: implications for competitiveness and rural development. Eur.. Econ. 26, 305329..F., 1973. Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mat-d and Briggs, London.98. Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis (No. 72),ng Paper. Sussex.

258 F. Mikulcak et al. / Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 248258

Scoones, I., 2009. Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. J. Peasant Stud.36, 171196.

Sen, A., 1981. Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.

Shirley, M.M., 2005. Institutions and development. In: Menard, C., Shirley,M.M. (Eds.), Handbook of New Institutional Economics. Springer, Dordrecht,Netherlands, pp. 611638.

Sikor, T., Mller, D., Stahl, J., 2009. Land fragmentation and cropland abandonmentin Albania: implications for the roles of state and community in post-socialistland consolidation. World Dev. 37, 14111423.

Sinaga, R.S., 1978. Implications of agricultural mechanisation for employment andincome distribution: a case study from Indramayu, West Java. Bull. Indones.Econ. Stud. 14, 102111.

Spendzharova, A.B., 2003. Bringing Europe in? The impact of EU conditionality onBulgarian and Romanian politics University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.Southeast Eur. Polit. IV, 141156.

Spendzharova, A.B., Vachudova, M.A., 2012. Catching up? Consolidating liberaldemocracy in Bulgaria and Romania after EU accession catching up? Consoli-dating liberal democracy in Bulgaria and Romania after EU accession. West Eur.Polit. 35, 3958.

Sterman, J.D., 2000. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Com-plex World. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.

Stoate, C., Boatman, N., Borralho, R., Carvalho, C.R., Snoo, G.R.d., Eden, P., 2001.Ecological impacts of arable intensication in Europe. J. Environ. Manage. 63,337365.

Turnock, D., 2002. Prospects for sustainable rural cultural tourism in Maramures,Romania. Tour. Geogr. 4, 6294.

Van Assche, K., Duineveld, M., Beunen, R., Teampau, P., 2011. Delineating locals:transformations of knowledge/power and the governance of the Danube Delta.J. Environ. Policy Plann. 13, 121.

Van Assche, K., Shtaltovna, A., Hornidge, A.-K., 2013. Visible and invisible infor-malities and institutional transformation in the transition countries of Georgia,Romania, and Uzbekistan. In: Hayoz, N., Giordano, C. (Eds.), Informality in East-ern Europe: Structures, Political Cultures and Social Practices. Peter Lang, Bern,pp. 89118.

Van der Ploeg, J.D., Renting, H., Brunori, G., Knickel, K., Mannion, J., Marsden, T.,de Roest, K., Sevilla-Guzman, E., Ventura, F., 2000. Rural development: frompractices and policies towards theory. Sociol. Ruralis 40, 391408.

Vervoort, J.M., Rutting, L., Kok, K., Hermans, F.L.P., Veldkamp, T., Bregt, A.K., Van, R.,2012. Exploring dimensions, scales, and cross-scale dynamics from the perspec-tives of change agents in socialecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 17, 24.

Ward, N., Atterton, J., Kim, T.-Y., Lowe, P., Phillipson, J., Thompson, N., 2005. Univer-sities, the Knowledge Economy and the Neo-Endogenous Rural Development(No. 1). Centre for Rural Economy Discussion Paper Series. Newcastle, UK.

Wegener, S., Labar, K., Petrick, M., Marquardt, D., Theesfeld, I., Buchenrieder, G.,2011. Administering the common agricultural policy in Bulgaria and Romania:obstacles to accountability and administrative capacity. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 77,583608.

Willis, K., 2006. Interviewing. In: Desai, V., Potter, R.B. (Eds.), Doing DevelopmentResearch. Sage, London, pp. 144152.

Applying a capitals approach to understand rural development traps: A case study from post-socialist RomaniaIntroductionMethodsStudy areaData collection and analysis of barriers to rural development

FindingsThe state of capital assets according to initial, short interviewsDemographic structure of intervieweesFinancial capitalHuman capitalBuilt capitalFuture improvements

Barriers to rural development according to in-depth interviewsLow levels of financial capitalLow levels of human capitalLow levels of built capitalLow levels of social capitalEndangered natural and cultural capitalsInstitutional context

Discussion: how interacting barriers cause a trapUnlocking the trap: the enabling role of natural and cultural capitalWhy institutions matterTackling multiple capital deficits simultaneously

ConclusionAcknowledgementsReferences