Agricultural policy was generally seen as being an integral part on regional development. Photo by Odd Iglebaek from Akershus, Norway.
In addition, the Ministry for Regional Policy also has an important role especially in Norway and Sweden. In Denmark the Ministry for Social Welfare is responsible for non-EU related rural development policy.
In Finland the Rural Policy Committee is responsible for the formulation of rural development policy. It also plays an important role in implementation. The Committee has representatives from a number of ministries; national research institutes and various other organisations and associations. Denmark has a similar committee, however, only with an advisory role.
In addition a number of national agencies have also been allocated important roles in particular at the operational level. In Sweden the national 'growth agency' Tillväxtverket and in Norway the national innovation agency Innovasjon Norge provide good examples of such actors. Regional and municipal level authorities should also be included here.
Arguments: Historically, rural policies in the Nordic countries have always contributed to national self-sufficiency with food and other strategic products. Such goals are clearly formulated in the official Norwegian and Finnish policy programmes. The issue of national security, primarily in relation to securing the eastern part of the country against their large neighbour, has long been a concern for both Finland and Norway. The level of permanent population is an important element is such policies. In recent years moreover the discourse on national social cohesion and welfare has also become more intense e.g. in Denmark.
In the recent policy pronouncements of all four countries the arguments for sustaining rural areas have been, at best, implicit. In Norway however it is argued that maintaining a free choice over where to live and work represents a desirable value in and of itself.
Each of the Nordic countries acknowledges that rural areas contain important human and natural resources which contribute to strengthening growth and competitiveness across the entire country.
Challenges: The challenges addressed in the various national policy documents are quite similar across all four countries despite their huge geographical differences. All identify the ongoing processes of globalisation and climate change as key factors here.
In addition, the impact of the centralisation of both the population and of the economy is also questioned. In particular, shrinking populations, ageing populations, the lack of both private and public services, the small size of labour markets and the need for economic diversification are also highlighted as issues meriting further attention.
In Sweden the so-called 'media image' of life in the countryside is seen as a specific challenge while in Denmark, the existence of empty rundown houses dotted across the countryside are seen as being highly negative in respect of positive rural development.
Objectives and priorities: In general, the aim of the Nordic country's rural policies is to provide the possibility for a good living and working life. Norway specifically prioritises the maintenance of established settlement patterns. In Denmark it remains a priority to strive for balanced development across the entire country.
All four countries pay significant attention to encouraging entrepreneurial activity, innovation and a competitive environment for business in rural areas.
Finland introduced some years ago a distinction between broad and narrow rural development policy. The broad policy notion includes transport, the environment, social issues, industry and also labour market issues while the narrow notion refers more specifically to rural issues per se.
Perhaps the most important example of 'narrow' rural development policy is EU agricultural policy (Pillar 2) itself which applies to the three Nordic EU Member States. This policy is directly addressed to specific rural areas and aims at the implementation of specific objectives.
Another example of 'narrow' policy is the Norwegian MERKUR initiative where local shops in sparsely populated areas are supported. The Danish national fund for rural development, Landdsitrikspuljen, can also be seen to be in the same category.
All four Nordic countries practise two kinds of policies in parallel. Concerning 'broad' policy, Finland is often mentioned in relation to international best practice e.g. in the recent OECD review of Finnish rural policy. Broad policy is driven and coordinated here by the Rural Policy Committee.
The committee uses different kinds of instruments e.g. programmes and projects. An important part of the programmes is to formulate objectives and identify the actions and initiatives tasked with implementing the objectives. These actions and initiatives are often ongoing or are new initiatives which are carried out by different ministries and national agencies etc. The programmes function, effectively, as coordination tools. In addition, the programmes undoubtedly have an important informative function.
In the other Nordic countries national rural programmes with such a coordinating function also exist. One such example is the 2009 Swedish national strategy for rural development, En strategi för att stärka Sveriges landsbygder. The strategy lists a large number of national initiatives and actions carried out by various ministries and other national agencies.
A major difference with regard to Finland here is that responsibility for the implementation of such national programmes in Sweden rests with one ministry, or one specific national agency, which does not hold the power to coordinate the activities of other ministries.
Norway practices a specific variation of the 'narrow' and to some degree also the 'broad' policy. Here rural development policy is integrated into regional policy and regional policy is practiced in a different way such that the different kinds of policies are adapted to their specific regional or territorial settings. One such example of this is the payroll tax where the country is divided into a number of zones according to a set of pre-determined socio-economic indicators.
Other important instruments for the coordination of different rural development policies can be found at the regional level, in particular where such programmes have a coordinating function in respect of EU, national and regional policies.
At the local level the involvement of communities and local action groups plays an important role in national policy as well as in the implementation of EU policy. Growth has to be a 'bottom up' process as is stated in the Norwegian regional and district strategy.
Following a larger European trend the regional and local levels are to a varying degree strengthened in the design and implementation of rural development policies in the four countries. In comparison with other European states however the Nordic counties have a tradition of strong grassroots movements and of successfully carrying out local development initiatives.