COLLABORATION IN LOCAL DEVELOPMENT: A SOCIOLOGICAL VIEW

1. European Conference on Paths and Crossroads of Regional Development in the European Union Craiova, Romania 20 – 21 April 2012 COLLABORATION IN LOCAL DEVELOPMENT:A SOCIOLOGICAL VIEW Jukka OKSA Lammasoja Research Service Lahti, Finland jukka.oksa@lammasoja.net

2. Personal Background Professional history Karelian Institute, University of Joensuu, 1972 – 2010 Docent of Rural Sociology, Faculty of Soc.Sciences, Univ. of Joensuu 2001 Free lance researcher (part-time), Lammasoja Research Service Education M. Pol.Sc, University of Helsinki 1969 Lic. Soc.Sc. University of Tampere 1979 Dr. Soc. Sc. University of Joensuu 1998 Research History Village research 1973, 1983-85, 1988, 1994-96, 2008 Forest interest conflicts 1983, 1985, 1991 New activities in rural areas 1991-94 Changing Rural Policies 1992 - Transborder research cooperation, Russian Karelia 1992-2000 Studies of Information Society projects 1991-94, 2000-2004, 2006-2010 Comparative studies and projects in the North of EU: Rural Transfer Network, Restrim, Deserve (2000-2009)

3. Informa-tion Society Mecha-nisation of agriculture Mecha-nisation of forestry Well-fare State Waves of development in rural Finland Settle-ment policies Local planning Regional policy EU Family farms Services Manufacturing Forest work & small farms 1950 1970 1990

4. The key question of local development • How to mobilise the limited local resources in such a way that the locality is connected to a growing wave of general development?

5. The sub tasks of local development • To recognize the rising wave of society • To understand the local resources • To develop a proposal for local action • To motivate local actors to co-operate and to contribute into the joint action • To start and maintain a shared process of learning.

6. Four alternative concepts of local agency • Traditional Local Community • Local Development Bloc • Network for Development • New Community of Local Development

7. Local Community

8. Local Development Bloc • Why some places had many ICT projects, while most of the municipalities had none? • New political coalition of • a) local development activists (officials and politicians) • b) local entrepreneurs needing better and faster communication in the running of their business • c) rural professionals with good education, who need information services both in professional development and every-day life (recreation, consumption, education).

9. Local Development Bloc • Each one of the three groups had their own interest to have better communication infrastructure. • Together they had • different resources and skills complementing each other. • ability to recognise the new possibilities in the ICT-wave of development, an ability to formulate a new vision. • wide enough political support to challenge the hegemonic concept of the older local elites (older enterprises, administration).

10. Development Networks

11. New Community of Local Development Three factors of success in the Upper Karelia Community Network “If they can’t solve a problem, they work and study for the answer. One person doesn’t know everything but together we can learn anything.”

12. Construction of Social Capital, Falk & Kilpatrick 2000

13. New Community of Local Development Networks are too loose, projects are too short. • Commitment to the process. • Trust between the participants, trust in the process to achieve its targets. • Emotional attachment and a shared identity. These are qualities of a community united by common objective. Networks are run by communities!

14. Contact informationJukka OksaLammasoja Research ServiceLahti, FinlandPhone +358-(0)400-261 701www.lammasoja.net jukka.oksa@lammasoja.net