Journals / Kapadokya Akademik Bakış / 2026 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1

RURAL DEVELOPMENT MODELS: THEORETICAL APPROACHES

KIRSAL KALKINMA MODELLERİ: TEORİK YAKLAŞIMLAR

Şerife Koç(NECMETTİN ERBAKAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SOSYAL BİLİMLER ENSTİTÜSÜ)0000-0002-5012-3186
Pages
77–91
Publication Date
2026-06-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The study concluded that the success of rural development models hinges on improving the management and innovation skills of local stakeholders, promoting income-generating activities beyond agriculture, and fostering horizontal and vertical interactions between the public, private, and civil society sectors.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Throughout history, rural areas have evolved from static spaces dedicated solely to agricultural production into multifaceted environments where economic, social, and environmental factors are intertwined.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Against this backdrop, this study aims to examine the fundamental theoretical approaches informing literature in a systematic way.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The study concluded that the success of rural development models hinges on improving the management and innovation skills of local stakeholders, promoting income-generating activities beyond agriculture, and fostering horizontal and vertical interactions between the public, private, and civil society sectors.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Kırsal Kalkınma · Dışsal Kırsal Kalkınma · İçsel Kırsal Kalkınma

Abstract

Throughout history, rural areas have evolved from static spaces dedicated solely to agricultural production into multifaceted environments where economic, social, and environmental factors are intertwined. Against this backdrop, this study aims to examine the fundamental theoretical approaches informing literature in a systematic way. Indeed, the changing nature of rural areas has made it imperative to move away from one-dimensional models in rural development literature towards more complex, holistic theories that consider local dynamics and global networks. In this context, the definition of rural areas and rural development indicators is explained in detail. Within a theoretical framework, the following approaches have been examined: the exogenous approach, which argues that development is achieved through top-down and external interventions; the endogenous approach, which emphasises the importance of local resources and social participation; and the neo-endogenous approach, which synthesises these two approaches. The study concluded that the success of rural development models hinges on improving the management and innovation skills of local stakeholders, promoting income-generating activities beyond agriculture, and fostering horizontal and vertical interactions between the public, private, and civil society sectors.

Özet

Tarih boyunca kırsal alanlar, yalnızca tarımsal üretime adanmış statik mekanlardan, ekonomik, sosyal ve çevresel faktörlerin iç içe geçtiği çok yönlü ortamlara dönüşmüştür. Bu bağlamda, bu çalışma, literatüre yön veren temel teorik yaklaşımları sistematik bir şekilde incelemek amacıyla hazırlanmıştır. Nitekim, kırsal alanların değişen doğası, kırsal kalkınma literatüründe tek boyutlu modellerden uzaklaşarak, yerel dinamikleri ve küresel ağları dikkate alan daha karmaşık ve bütüncül teorilere yönelmeyi zorunlu hale getirmiştir. Bu bağlamda, kırsal alanların tanımı ve kırsal kalkınma göstergeleri ayrıntılı olarak açıklanmaktadır. Teorik bir çerçeve içinde kalkınmanın yukarıdan aşağıya ve dış müdahalelerle sağlandığını savunan dışsal yaklaşım; yerel kaynakların ve toplumsal katılımın önemini vurgulayan içsel yaklaşım; ve bu iki yaklaşımı sentezleyen neo-içsel yaklaşım incelenmiştir. Çalışmada kırsal kalkınma modellerinin başarısının, yerel paydaşların yönetim ve inovasyon becerilerinin geliştirilmesine, tarım dışındaki gelir getirici faaliyetlerin teşvik edilmesine ve kamu, özel ve sivil toplum sektörleri arasındaki yatay ve dikey etkileşimlerin güçlendirilmesine bağlı olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Koç, Ş. (2026). RURAL DEVELOPMENT MODELS: THEORETICAL APPROACHES. Kapadokya Akademik Bakış, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1, 77–91. https://doi.org/10.69851/car.1934734

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (36)

  1. Ata, A. Y., & Dallı, T. (2024). Kırsal kalkınma üzerine bir literatür araştırması. Journal of Economics and Research, 5(1), 1-19.
  2. Avcu, N., & Yayla, N. (2021). Türkiye’de kırsal kalkınma ve göç ilişkisi: bir panel veri analizi. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, (32), 67-86.
  3. Balestrieri, M. (2014). Rurality and competitiveness. Some observations on the local area: The case of the Sardinian Region. International Journal of Rural Management, 10(2), 173-197.
  4. Bosworth, G., & Atterton, J. (2012). Entrepreneurial in-migration and neoendogenous rural development. Rural Sociology, 77(2), 254-279.
  5. Bosworth, G., Annibal, I., Carroll, T., Price, L., Sellick, J., & Shepherd, J. (2016). Empowering Local Action through neo-endogenous development; The Case of LEADER in E ngland. Sociologia ruralis, 56(3), 427-449.
  6. Cloke, P. J. (1977). An index of rurality for England and Wales. Regional studies, 11(1), 31-46.
  7. Cloke, P., & Edwards, G. (1986). Rurality in England and Wales 1981: A replication of the 1971 index. Regional Studies, 20(4), 289-306.
  8. Çubukçu, Ö. Ş. (2024). Construction of the neoliberal subject through rural development planning in Turkey. Erzurum Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (18), 1-17.
  9. Esparcia, J. (2014). Innovation and networks in rural areas. An analysis from European innovative projects. Journal of rural studies, 34, 1-14.
  10. Frouws, J. (1998). The contested redefinition of the countryside. An analysis of rural discourses in the Netherlands. Sociologia ruralis, 38(1), 54-68.
  11. Galdeano-Gómez, E., Aznar-Sánchez, J. A., & Pérez-Mesa, J. C. (2011). The complexity of theories on rural development in Europe: An analysis of the paradigmatic case of Almería (South-east Spain). Sociologia ruralis, 51(1), 54-78.
  12. Georgios, C., Nikolaos, N., & Michalis, P. (2021). Neo-endogenous rural development: a path toward reviving rural Europe. Rural Sociology, 86(4), 911-937.
  13. Gkartzios, M., & Lowe, P. (2019). Revisiting neo-endogenous rural development. In The Routledge companion to rural planning (pp. 159-169). Routledge.
  14. Gkartzios, M., & Scott, M. (2014). Placing housing in rural development: exogenous, endogenous and neo-endogenous approaches. Sociologia ruralis, 54(3), 241-265.
  15. Gupta, R. (2022). Identification of suitable rural development indicators. Dev Sanskriti Interdisciplinary International Journal, 19, 11-22.
  16. Günay, Ü., Çay, T., & Dursun, Ş. (2022). Kırsal kalkınma politikalarına ve çevresel etkilerine genel bir bakış. Ulusal Çevre Bilimleri Araştırma Dergisi, 5(1), 1-10.
  17. Li, Y. (2011). Urban-rural interaction in China: historic scenario and assessment. China Agricultural Economic Review, 3(3), 335-349.
  18. Li, Y., Long, H., & Liu, Y. (2015). Spatio-temporal pattern of China's rural development: A rurality index perspective. Journal of Rural Studies, 38, 12-26.
  19. Li, Y., Westlund, H., & Liu, Y. (2019). Why some rural areas decline while some others not: An overview of rural evolution in the world. Journal of rural studies, 68, 135-143.
  20. Liu, D., Li, F., Qiu, M., Zhang, Y., Zhao, X., & He, J. (2024). An integrated framework for measuring sustainable rural development towards the SDGs. Land Use Policy, 147, 107339.
  21. López-i-Gelats, F., Tàbara, J. D., & Bartolomé, J. (2009). The rural in dispute: Discourses of rurality in the Pyrenees. Geoforum, 40(4), 602-612.
  22. Lowe, P., Phillipson, J., Proctor, A., & Gkartzios, M. (2019). Expertise in rural development: A conceptual and empirical analysis. World development, 116, 28-37.
  23. Lowe, P., Ray, C., Ward, N., Wood, D., & Woodward, R. (1998). Participation in rural development: a review of European experience. CRE Research Reports.
  24. Merenkova, I., Smyslova, O., & Kokoreva, A. (2019, October). Development models of rural areas: theoretical approaches and formation specificity. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 341, No. 1, p. 012017). IOP Publishing.
  25. Mikos, P. (2001). The European Commission Perspective on Rural Development: Integrating New Trends into Multi-sectoral Approaches. Development Policy Review, 19(4), 545-552.
  26. Morozova, I. A., Akimova, O. E., & Khryseva, A. A. (2023). Analysis of Existing Systems of Indicators Used to Assess the Potential of Economic Growth of Rural Areas in the World Practice. In E. N. Makarenko, E. N. Tishchenko, & N. G. Vovchenko (Eds.), Technological Trends in the AI Economy (pp. 71–80).
  27. OECD. (1994). Tourism Strategies and Rural Development. 1-94.
  28. Olmedo, L., & O’Shaughnessy, M. (2023). A substantive view of social enterprises as neo-endogenous rural development actors. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 34(2), 209-221.
  29. Prieto-Lara, E., & Ocaña-Riola, R. (2010). Updating rurality index for small areas in Spain. Social indicators research, 95(2), 267-280.
  30. Shucksmith, M. (2000). Endogenous development, social capital and social inclusion: Perspectives from LEADER in the UK. Sociologia ruralis, 40(2), 208-218.
  31. Van Der Ploeg, J. D., Renting, H., Brunori, G., Knickel, K., Mannion, J., Marsden, T., De Roest, K., Sevilla-Guzmán, E., & Ventura, F. (2000). Rural development: From practices and policies towards theory. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(4), 391-408. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00156.
  32. Vermeire, B., Gellynck, X., De Steur, H., & Viaene, J. (2008, July). The role of social capital assets in reconciling endogenous and exogenous drivers of rural renewal. In 8th European IFSA Symposium (Vol. 6, No. 10).
  33. Waldorf, B. S. (2006). A continuous multi-dimensional measure of rurality: Moving beyond threshold measures. In 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA (No. 21383). American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  34. Wubayehu, Tadele Zemede. (2020). Conceptualizing rural development in the twenty-first century. International Journal of Agriculture Extension and Social Development (IJAESD). 4(1).
  35. Yenigül, S. B. (2017). Kırsal kalkınma politikalarında yeni yaklaşımlar ve bu yaklaşımların Türkiye’nin kırsal kalkınma politikalarına etkisi. Planlama Dergisi, 27(1), 16-25.
  36. Yenigül, S., & Temiz, H. K. (2021). Yaşam kalitesi çalışmalarının kırsal kalkınma ile ilişkisi üzerine bir değerlendirme. İdealkent, 12(34), 1337-1357.