Hungary and the United States take different approaches to support rural communities. Hungary relies on a government-supported network to fund rural community development through various grants, while the U.S. is almost entirely dependent on grants from foundations, and individual donations to specific organizations. This research focuses on the effect funding support for rural communities has on rural social innovation in Hungary and the United States. Examining how rural communities are faring under these policies can provide insight into how the available funding streams affect social innovation in rural communities.
Case studies of a local marketing campaign from each country illustrate how the scope of financial support affects innovation and possible outcomes. Cases were chosen in regions heavily dependent on tourism and with a diversity of locally produced products. Each region is valued for natural beauty, and the products from the regions are valued partially because they evoke the rural countryside. Research methods include semi-structured interviews with local producers and participants, observations, and evaluations of data available from the campaigns and other sources. Additional data sources for Hungary include the Hungarian State Treasury, The Hungarian Central Statistics Office, The National Regional Development and Spatial Planning System, OECD Better Life and national statistics, and European Union Country Statistics. In the U.S., data sources include the U.S. Census data and American Community Survey, USDA Economic Research Service, OECD, locally and regionally produced socio-economic data from nonprofits, and county statistics. These case studies point to differences in the ability of each program to use social innovation to support rural development, based on the original focus of the programs and the support of government.
Initial findings indicate similarities in the scope and design of the campaigns, the quantity and quality of funding available, differences in how the campaigns support the participants, and the nature of the investments required of the participants. At this point in the research many differences are apparent in the funding streams. It appears, due to the nature of the funding stream, that social innovation is given more weight in the preparation of the campaign, and that the external emphasis from the Hungarian government and the EU on social innovation supports planning to focus on relationships, rather than an emphasis on economic benefits. In addition, the marketing campaign in Hungary covers a broader network of businesses, which further allows for greater collaboration across sectors.
We expect the results to be useful for policy makers, funding sources, and community leaders to build rural development plans. The results from this research could be generalized for use in both the U.S. and in Europe where similar funding streams and rural communities exist, and the search for successful rural innovations is ongoing.
