INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL
INSTITUTIONS (IDARI) IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEAN
COUNTRIES
PROJECT UNDER THE EU 5TH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME
Contract number: QLK5-CT-2002-02718
Case study analysis within IDARI
Workpackage 3
“Bieszczady’s Local Product” initiative
Michal Korczynski
Institute of Sociology – Adam Mickiewicz University
Poznan, October 2005
1
Contents:
1.
Introduction and problem statement ............................................................ 3
2.
Objectives of the case study and case study hypotheses ............................... 5
3.
Unit of analysis – Presentation of the initiative............................................ 12
4.
Methodology and Analytical Framework...................................................... 24
5.
Visual presentation of the actors and their interactions................................ 28
6.
Determinants, Effects and Processes of Cooperation and Rural Institutional
Innovations........................................................................................................ 32
6.1.
Role of trust/mistrust and opportunism (social and institutional)........... 32
6.2.
Role of communication and learning ................................................... 41
6.3.
Role of transaction costs and governance structures of cooperation...... 49
6.4.
Role of the State – National, regional, EU laws – and the formal
institutional environment on cooperation......................................................... 54
6.5.
Role of communities, social networks and informal institutions on
cooperation ................................................................................................... 61
6.6.
Role of the market and competition in fostering/hindering cooperation . 66
7.
Conclusions .............................................................................................. 79
8.
References ............................................................................................... 83
9.
Annexes ................................................................................................... 85
2
1. Introduction and problem statement
The following case study analysis will be devoted to the Bieszczady’s Local
Product (BLP) initiative. Mentioned project, which started in October 2003 after
receiving funding from The Carpathian Foundation – Poland, is located in microregion
which main parts are two administrative districts of Podkarpackie voivodship in
south-eastern part of Poland: Bieszczadzki (with capital in Ustrzyki Dolne) and Leski
(with capital in Lesko). Within reach of this initiative are 8 communes: Baligrod,
Cisna, Czarna, Lesko, Olszanica, Lutowiska, Solina, Ustrzyki Dolne (additionally some
actions within this initiative were undertaken in administrative district Sanocki, but
because of its different administrative status it will be excluded from the group of
analyzed communes). The BLP Project involves local producers from this area who
work in one of the three fields: food products, hand-made objects and working of
wood.
The most specific aspect of the BLP project is the fact it was not invented and
initiated by its participants (local producers) but local leaders working in both selfgovernment institutions and non-governmental organizations who have created
formal structures (firstly – in the form of 2-year lasting project, secondly – in the
establishment of local producers association called “Bies”) for increasing cooperation
between producers. Above-mentioned specificity has also resulted in specific key
issues which this case study analysis is focused on. The main question is not “If and
how participants of the project cooperate and what is the role of cooperation for
project establishment”. It should be rather expressed in following way: “Is
cooperation actually needed in the BLP project and if yes – in what aspects
of this initiative effective cooperation might be observed?”. Addressing the
second question has became crucial for this case after initial research within this
initiative where relative lack of cooperation (or rather – relative low importance of
cooperation as the “success factor”) was identified. It was reason for asking further
questions where the most important was: “If the BLP project is example of
failure because of difficulties with cooperation or rather it is successful
initiative in the spite of weak ties between participants”. These questions
were addressed during the research process but also symptoms of more intense
cooperation between some particular individuals or groups have occurred (which will
be discussed in more detailed way in other part of this report). Third question
formulated after first stage of the empirical investigation (but before making
conclusions for whole research) was: “What makes BLP project valuable for
local producers, in what way they define it and what arguments they use
for expressing their motivations for joining the initiative”. These three
questions should not be interpreted as research questions (which will be presented in
next section). They are rather some kind of pillars of conceptual and analytical
framework what means that they structure “the way of thinking” about empirical
findings and presenting main conclusion for this research.
Before structuring “the way of thinking” about BLP project (which was very
important for further actions undertaken during fieldwork research and – in some
extent – has influenced structuring research results and conclusions) decision about
unit of analysis was made. In background paper where first concept of BLP project
research was delivered unit of analysis was defined in compliance with IDARI
Workpackage 3 requirements as “system of observable action based around a
3
community/communities cooperating in an area to develop” local/regional product
initiative (Korczynski 2004: 5; see also: Annex 1 – Terms…: 4). There was also
decided that within this research unit of analysis will be BLP project as structured
form of collective action in the field of creating and/or distributing local/regional
product (with focusing on food products). But finally unit of analysis within this case
study was limited to the group of local producers who live in one of the eight
communes which are part of the BLP project (“food products’ condition” was still
maintained here). Changing unit of analysis was justifiable because of two reasons:
(1) number of participants in whole project was relatively high (over 180 local
producers) – such number is more appropriate for quantitative survey research and it
was needed to reduce number of interviewees in accordance with selected criterions
(2) other case studies within this pillar of IDARI Workpackage are focused on small
communities (as it was agreed during “Workshop on Research Methods, Berlin, 14-15
March 2005) and to make all of them comparable similar unit of analysis has to be
chosen. Taking above-mentioned into account decision about choosing unit of
analysis was made within three steps:
1)
Restriction to local producers who are involved in BLP project
(formally – in local producers association “Bies” or informally – in
“Bieszczady’s Local Product” promotional and training activities)
2)
Restriction to BLP project participants who work in the field of food
products - focusing on food producers was justifiable because of two
reasons: 1) EU institutions activity in the field of regional or traditional
products is mainly related to food products, 2) BLP project participants who
work in fields of production different than food products not always might be
described as “farmers”, e.g. there were groups of artists who migrated to
Bieszczady from cities and continue activities from their previous places of
living. As further investigation has shown this group was identified as most
specific and relatively isolated. Including it to unit of analysis will not be in
compliance with general IDARI framework which is focused mainly on
agricultural activities and specific rural issues.
3)
Restriction to food producers from one commune - selected commune
was Baligrod because of the highest number of food producers (12) but with
conducting initial interviews it has became evident that for achieving
objectives of this research unit of analysis has to be extended: it was not
possible to make interviews will all Baligrod food producers. After making
attempts of contact with all food producers in Baligrod and conducting all
possible interviews following procedure of interviewees selection was used: all
food producers within BLP project were identified and interviews were made
with those who live in communes which are in the area nearest to the Baligrod
commune. This selection procedure was used until number of 20 interviews
was reached (which was planned number of interviews in chosen unit of
analysis as sufficient and comparable with other case studies within second
pillar of IDARI Workpackage 3). In consequence, interviews were conducted
with local producers in five communes: Baligrod, Lesko, Olszanica, Czarna,
Lutowiska (in the above sequence).
4
2. Objectives of the case study and case study hypotheses
On the base of above described problem statement objectives of the case
study will be presented in detailed way with strong emphasis to research questions
addressed in further research and hypothesis tested during empirical investigation.
Objectives of the case study (and analytical framework) are constructed in
compliance with general framework or IDARI Workpackage 3 which is presented
below.
Figure 1. Framework for analysing cooperation and communication
COLLECTIVE ACTION
Initial Position
PROBLEM
STATE
Communication
Process/Triangle
SOCIAL INNOVATION
&
INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE
COMMUNITY
MARKET
COOPERATION
NON COOPERATION
Alternative Outcomes
Source: Murray, Beckmann 2004: 7
Adaptation this general framework to BLP project specificity was presented in
previous paper devoted to this case study (Korczynski 2004: 19-20). With new data
added1 it is needed to make some corrections in then constructed model to make it
more appropriate for data collected with interviews analysis. By using term “more
1
By „new data added” we do not mean data collected in the fieldwork stage of this research but data
for “desk research analysis” which was collected after preparing first report but before start of
conducting interviews. Of course, after interviews and on the base of the data collected with this
method some further corrections seemed to be desirable but it is not allowed (because of
methodological rigours) to change analytical framework after phase of collecting data.
5
appropriate” we mean that clarification presented below will help in taking into
account all important and specific aspects of the BLP project in stage of analyzing
empirical findings. Mentioned corrections will be stated in a way structured similarly
to the above model (see Figure 1):
1)
Collective action problem – as we stated in previous paper, on general
level “collective action problem is related to the local/regional products issue”
(Ibidem: 19). It actually means that we will focus on these actions which are
undertaken by local producers in the field of their economic activity along with
project coordinators actions which might increase or limit efficiency of actions
undertaken by producers. Project inventors and coordinators role is crucial in
this case because of the fact that without their actions problem of collective
action would not appear (or rather – probability of occurring collective action
would be relatively less). In other words, collective action was, to some
extent, created by “external impetus”, by which we mean project initiators
activity leading to develop initiative which target group were local producers in
the local area. What is needed to add in this part is clarifying meaning of term
“collective” – for this report by collective we mean such actions which involve
group of individuals for gaining declared purpose and generate outcomes
which affect behaviour of the same as above-mentioned or different group of
individuals. In this case of collective action cooperation might occur but it is
not needed (if there is no cooperation or failed cooperation is observed it still
might be described as collective action if group of individuals is involved).
2)
State – as in the above paragraph we have mentioned that BLP project
inventors and coordinators actions were “external impetus” for local producers
in the region, now me might use the same term to describe role of State in
analyzed process. In this case, State activity was some kind of “external
impetus” for local leaders, civil servants and non-governmental organizations
activists to develop BLP project which is oriented on supporting farmers
working in the field of local products. What does “external impetus” mean
here? It is simply influence of State institutions on actions of individuals, such
as: development institutional framework (by formal regulations, new legal
acts), creating new policy priorities, supporting initiatives which are consistent
with institutional framework and policy priorities. In more general perspective,
by “external impetus” we might even interpret political decisions on Poland’s
accession to EU and all operational actions which led to that. All these factors
have to be taken into account when we try to fully identify role of State in
developing BLP project. But as we will see in section 6 where research
findings will be presented this role in BLP project is rather general and on
more detailed level it’s more potential than actual.
After describing and clarifying importance of “State actor” for our analysis
(and before clarifying role of community and market) we should express that
it is needed to adapt “analytical triangle” (see: Figure 1) by adding one
additional element which is non-governmental organizations along with selfgovernment institutions (which role is very similar in this case). Function of
NGOs and self-government for the BLP project is – to some extent – the same
as the State institutions but they also have their specificity what justifies
including them to analytical framework as distinct actor. In consequence we
6
will have an “analytical quadrant” with State, NGOs, self-government
institutions (these two will be interpreted as one collective actor), community
and market who all influence process of social innovation & institutional
change and interact with each other.
3)
Community – without any doubt we might say that community is most
important element in above-presented “analytical quadrant”. With both types
of analysis proposed in background paper (Ibidem: 7): process-oriented
analysis (“How the process of development, conducting and coordination BLP
project is taking place?”) and actor-oriented analysis (“How do actors behave
and interpret process of development, conducting and coordination BLP
project?”) community is main collective actor. By community we mean not
only local producers who are involved within the project but all inhabitants
who live in the communes participating in this initiative. It is justifiable by the
fact that potentially all members of the community might affect or become
beneficiaries of this initiative2. This assumption was confirmed in further
research when respondents were asked to say what does following statement
mean for them: “BLP project made positive change for my local community (it
refers to the inhabitants of your nearest area)”. In their answers they have
identified process of extending benefits of BLP project for all community. On
the other hand when they were asked with following question “Do you think
there are some people living within the community who would help the project
but are not part of the group currently?” some of interviewees have indicated
such persons what means that they see – out of the project participants –
some individuals who might contribute to BLP project. Because of that it is not
allowed to exclude any of inhabitants of five analyzed communes from
“community” category.
4)
Market – for this pillar of IDARI Workpackage 3 most important issue is
cooperation or non-cooperation, but in this particular case study role of
market is highly important. Firstly, it is result of the BLP project specificity – its
purpose was to increase local producers potential in their economic activity (in
some cases objective was even more basic – it was about supporting
producers in becoming active actor in the market as producer and seller).
Secondly, successful functioning of BLP project participants in the market
might be some form of verification if this initiative was successful. Thirdly,
which is rather empirical observation than research assumption, market
orientation was very strongly emphasized by local producers and motivation to
be more efficient in marketing, distribution and sales activities was most often
declared motivation by interviewees who participate within this project.
2
In this paragraph we do not indicate our unit of analysis but rather try to reconstruct existing
context which might – positively or negatively – affect the BLP project functioning. That is why nonparticipants of the BLP project (although they are important component of existing identified context)
were not included in this research which was focused mainly on the BLP project (its purposes and
outcomes, participants’ perspectives, motivations and expectations etc.). But we should emphasize
that some of the interviewees who have participated in this research should be interpreted rather as
past than present project participants (their involvement is highly limited now and their attitude –
passive).
7
5)
6)
Social innovation & Institutional change – these two elements are result
of actions of (and interactions between) following actors or factors: State,
NGOs, self-government institutions, community and market. At the same time,
it is “starting point” and field of eventual cooperation or non-cooperation. The
context which is “product” of social innovation and institutional change might
be also described as institutional environment for all actions which are
undertaken within the BLP project. More specifically, we would say that by
two above terms we mean: a) Social innovation – collective action in which
actors create new objectives, new ways of achieving hitherto existing
objectives or new ways of solving conflicts which are important part of “social
reality” of the community. Social innovation within community does not
demand involvement only its members, it might be result of actions
undertaken by actors who are out of the community (“external impetus”
phenomenon), b) Institutional change - it is both source and result of
social innovation. In first case, institutional change (interpreted as reconfiguration of social norms and values) creates demand for change in
individual and group behaviour – actors have to behave in a way which is
consistent with new institutional context (otherwise, system of negative
sanctions will be started – in the BLP project it would mean e.g. that those
local producers who did not became part of the initiative are not invited to
particular promotional activities or they are not included in the sales network;
of course, it does not mean that these actors are excluded from other project
benefits such as general promotion of local products). In second case, change
in individuals or group behaviour create modification of system of norms and
values to make it more adequate to new activities, attitudes or preferred and
dominating ways of action.
Cooperation & Non-cooperation – cooperation or non-cooperation are
possible outcomes of individual or group actions which are undertaken within
new institutional context. In other words, institutional context (in its formal
and informal dimension) might be interpreted as supporting or disturbing
actions which lead to cooperation between actors. In compliance with general
framework for IDARI Workpackage 3 cooperation or non-cooperation is main
process which should be analyzed through research and role of particular
factors in successful (or failed) cooperation should be identified. These issues
will be fully explored in section 6 but here we will only add that two types of
cooperation might be distinguished for the needs of this case study analysis
(Ibidem: 5): 1) Internal cooperation – cooperation between members of
community which objective is to create local product initiative and make it
successful one, 2) External cooperation – cooperation between members
of community and other (external) actors whose actions strongly affect BLP
project participants behaviour and benefits. The above distinction is important
because of the fact that it is possible to identify symptoms of successful
cooperation only in its one form (e.g. in the case of “closed communities”
where strong internal ties create some benefits for community members but
8
at the same time reduce their chance for benefits which are result of
cooperation with individuals or groups who are not part of the community3).
Analysis which will be presented in section 6 will be structured in standardized
way to make its results comparable with other case studies. This structure is
presented below along with 1) research questions and 2) research hypotheses.
Research questions and hypotheses are based on the IDARI Workpackage 3
framework and case study analysis requirements but to take specificity of the BLP
project into account some corrections were made and some questions or hypotheses
were added (including those who were presented in background paper related to this
case study analysis) or reduced.
1)
Role of trust/mistrust and opportunism (social and institutional)
RQ1.1: How important is trust in the development of cooperation?
RQ1.2: Are high levels of trust an effective means of reducing transaction costs
within BLP project?
RH1.1: Trust is much more important for the development of internal cooperation
than external cooperation where importance of pragmatism and rational choice
becomes evident.
RH1.2: Where trust in formal institutions is low, high transaction costs are
experienced in dealing with State (formal institutions) and actors will rely on informal
institutions to solve their problems of collective action.
In this part, research questions and hypotheses are related to the issue of trust/trust.
The general question refers to the importance of trust in the process of cooperation
development. Such question is direct result of assumption that crucial factor (or
resource) for developing cooperation is trust between actors participating in the
process of cooperation. But it is clear that other “trust-friendly” factors should be
taken into accont. Because of that, we distinguish two dimensions of cooperation:
inernal and external and high importance of trust we identify especially in relation to
first one. In the second case, as some kind of trust substitute pragmatism and
rational choice might be interpreted.
2)
Role of communication and learning
RQ2.1: Is there a process of inclusive collective learning amongst all actors (social
learning and sharing mental models)?
RQ2.2: In what aspects of collective action process of social learning is most distinct?
RQ2.3: What are the main communication disruptions between key actors of
analyzed initiative?
RH2.2: The more frequent and complete communication between actors occurs, the
greater the cooperation is.
From desk research analysis related to the BLP project it has became clear that one
of the most important objectives of this initiative declared by its conductors was to
3
The above described situation is an example of „negative social capital” which is form of social
capital reducing individuals chances for gaining some benefits which are accessible outside the group
(Portes 1998).
9
increase level of knowledge and market qualifications among local producers.
Because of that, the question is if such collective learning actually occured and might
we speak about shared definition of situation in the group of project participants. As
needed component of mentioned effective collective learning process of
communication will be identified. That is why “communication issue” will be
analyzed. Analysis in this aspect will be focused mainly on communication disruptions
because of the specific situation in the “starting point” of the project. This specificity
refers to following issues: 1) relative lack of communication between local producers
in the region before the BLP project, 2) relatively poor development of
technologically advanced forms of communication (internet) in the region, 3)
remoteness of the area in which the project was developed.
3)
Role of transaction costs and governance structures of cooperation
RQ3.1: How do transaction costs affect the choice and changes of governance
structures?
RQ3.2: What is the role of governance structures of cooperation in making BLP
project successful for its participants?
RH3.1: Governance structures of the BLP project which were developed by initiators
and coordinators of this initiative were oriented on reducing most important
transaction costs related to economic activities of local producers.
RH3.2: Within BLP project role of governance structures is crucial factor for creating
benefits for participants of this initiative.
In part of the report related to the transaction costs issue there will be an attempt to
“reconstruct” process of decision-making on the both producers’ and initiators’ side
related to the involvement within the project and the project development
respectively. In this case the question is how this process was affected by identified
(actual and potential) transaction costs.
Important aspect of analysis will be role of governance structures. We assume high
importance of this factor mainly because of the fact that the BLP project was
established as formal initiative by external actors (partnership of local government
and NGOs) and in its most advanced form (Local Producers Association “Bies”) it
works in legal form of association. By importance of governance structures we will
also mean importance of the BLP project leaders who will be interpreted as crucial
element of existing governance structures.
There is also hypothesis related to the one of the most important governance
structures function – reduction of transaction costs in the field of local producers’
economic activity. As the probably most significant transaction cost would be in this
case actions of local producers which are oriented on promotion not only their
products but generally – local products. In situation of isolated promotional actions
(which were also not very professional and efficient) each actor had to use his/her
resources to convince potential customer not only about value of the specific product
but also about general – cultural and environmental – colour of the region and value
of Bieszczady’s local products. Thanks to the BLP project (and its governance
structures, which are in some part “centralized”) such transaction cost was reduced
and problem of multitude of similar actions undertaken by different actors was – at
least partially – solved. It has caused that particular actors might have focus on their
products development and promotion.
10
4)
Role of the State – National, regional, EU laws – and the formal
institutional environment on cooperation
RQ4.1: To what extent can the State and its formal institutions enhance cooperation?
RQ4.2: Do participants of the initiative differ in the level of knowledge and
interpretation of institutional context?
RH4.1: Cooperation within BLP project is not strongly influenced by formal
institutional environment related to local and regional products in Poland.
RH4.2: Cooperation within BLP project is strongly influenced by low levels of social
capital in Poland, due to the actions of formal institutions in socialist times.
Local and regional products are included as specific kind of products in legal acts
which were adapted in the process of Poland’s accession to EU. Because of that, it
seems to be justifiable to assume that high importance of legal environment should
be observed in relation to the initiatives working in the field of local products. But in
undertaken research we have rather assumed that mentioned importance would be
low which is result of choosing other “path” of local products development by the
project initiators. The BLP project is focused rather on “soft” context of economic
operating, not “hard” context such as legal environment. Besides, in relation to e.g.
certification which is most important opportunity offered by present law to local
products we should notice that within the BLP project there is no plan to use this
opportunity, but rather (at least in the beginning) to create own system of
certification. This is another reason for hypothesis saying that importance of legal
environment in relation to the BLP project is relatively low.
5)
Role of communities, social networks and informal institutions on
cooperation
RQ5.1: What are dominant motivations for participating in the initiative for particular
groups of actors?
RH5.1: Cultural capital of the community is interpreted by the BLP project
participants as important result of their social embeddedness which creates
competitive advantage in relation to other groups out of the region.
As most important element of the triangle of informal institutional environment
(communities – social networks – informal institutions) which role is crucial for the
process of cooperation we identify cultural capital (along with the “social
embeddedness” which is the link between individual and cultural heritage of the
community). Cultural capital would be then analyzed as the source of competitive
advantage for communities involved within the project.
Including “social networks” category to our analytical framework would not mean
that we will analyze whole group of project participants only as one social network,
but also as an aggregate of different social networks which members might have
different interests and motivations. Especially the second element will be analyzed to
distinguished particular categories (groups) of actors.
6)
Role of the market and competition in fostering/hindering
cooperation
RQ6.1: How does the market environment affect cooperation?
11
RQ6.2: What are the main fields of innovation in the economic activity of BLP project
participants?
RH6.1: Most of actors involved within BLP project are strongly market-oriented and
interpret this initiative as increasing potential of local producers in the market.
RH6.2: Most of innovations might be observed in the field of promotion, distribution
and sales. Innovations related to the products are limited.
The BLP project is strongly market-oriented which is result of the fact that 1) it has
been created for individuals operating on the market and also, 2) it has been created
in order to increase local producers’ ability to effectively operate on the market. The
question is do the BLP project participants actually interpret this initiative as helpful
and productive for them in the field of developing their market skills.
We will include to this part of the report analysis referred to the process of
innovation because of the fact that such analysis will be devoted mainly to the
market-related fields of innovation such as: promotion, distribution and sales. We
assume that within the BLP project innovation might be observed in these fields
rather than in the product itself (which would not be functional and reasonable in
relation to the local producers which are strongly based on traditional way of
producing).
3. Unit of analysis – Presentation of the initiative
As we stated before unit of analysis in this case study analysis means “system
of observable action based around a community/communities cooperating in an area
to develop” local/regional product initiative”. More specifically we are focused on
local producers who are involved within “Bieszczady’s Local Product” project and live
in one of the five communes who were under investigation during research. To
clarify specificity of this unit of analysis more detailed description of this initiative will
be presented below.
Selected initiative is located in the Podkarpackie voivodship4 (see below map
and territory marked with red colour).
4
All statistical information about Podkarpackie voivodship is taken from the web-site of Office of the
Marshall of the Podkarpackie Voivodship: www.podkarpackie.pl or Central Statistical Office:
www.stat.gov.pl.
12
Map 1. Location of the Podkarpackie voivodship
Source: http://www.podkarpackie.pl/?l=5
Mentioned voivodship was formed after reform of administrative system in
Poland in 1999 from three following voivodships: Krosnienskie, Rzeszowskie along
with some small parts of two other voivodships: Tarnobrzeskie and Tarnowskie.
There are 21 administrative districts within this voivodship and four cities with the
same status as administrative districts. Area of this region is 17 926 km2 which is
5,7% of whole Poland’s territory. The number of voivodship inhabitants is 2,1 million
which is 5,8% of whole Poland’s population. Registered unemployment rate in 2003
was 16,6%. In the spite of the fact that it is low than Poland’s average rate (which
was 18% in 2003) it does not mean that situation on the labour market in the
Podkarpackie voivodship is relatively good. It is rather result of relatively big scale of
“hidden unemployment” in rural areas (rural areas were 30,3% of total voivodship
area in 2003 and this percent is still decreasing in last years). This region is relatively
less-developed than other parts of Poland in both economy and infrastructure. In
relation to first aspect we might say that gross domestic products per capita in the
13
Podkarpackie voivodship in 2003 was only 71,3% of average GDP per capita for all
voivodships. One of the symptoms of weak infrastructure is number of fixed main
phone lines per 1000 population: in the Podkarpackie voivodship it is 248,8 and
average number for whole Poland is 321,4. Relatively poor economy and weak
infrastructure might be one of the reasons for intensity of migration which is higher
than in different parts of Poland: internal and international net migration for
permanent residence per 1000 population was –1,2 in relation to 0,4 which is
average for Poland.
As it might be seen on the above map the Podkarpackie voivodship is located
in the south-eastern part of Poland. It is borderland with border lines with Ukraine
(on the East side) and Slovakia (on the South side). The fact that the Podkarpackie
voivodship abuts different states and ethnic groups had important consequences in
history of this region and still influences its specificity. In previous centuries this area
was part of different states and was inhabited by many ethnic groups as Ukrainians
and “Lemkowie” were most numerous ones. After II World War mass people
expulsions have taken place and for last fifty years there is small ethnic
differentiation with evident dominance of Poles. But former ethnic differentiation still
might be observed in the form of differentiation of cultural remainders such old
cemeteries, churches, wayside shrines etc. All these material dimension of culture
strongly enriches cultural heritage of this region which creates specific “colour” of
local culture.
Other aspect of specificity (and at the same time – advantage) of this region is
clear environment, great number and variety of fauna and flora and beautiful area
with mountains (Bieszczady which is used as the name for the local products brand is
taken from name of mountain range in the Polish part of Carpathian), green hills,
woods and mountain rivers. Awareness of this environmental specificity results in
actions which lead to protection of some particular parts of the region. One of the
most spectacular projects in this field is International Biosphere Reservation – The
East Carpathian Mountains (two administrative districts which are involved within BLP
project are also part of this reservation). It is example of cross-border cooperation –
“The East Carpathian Mountains” reservation was first reservation in the world which
was established by three States.
These two types of region’s resources: cultural and environmental in market
economy become specific forms of capital which might be used as a source of
competitive advantage for the Podkarpackie voivodship. Because of that, one of the
priorities for this voivodship development is tourism, especially agro-tourism. Local or
regional products development is strongly linked with this as additional element
which might attract visitors.
Two administrative districts are involved within BLP project – Bieszczadzki and
Leski and they are indicated on the below map.
14
Map 2. Location of two administrative districts involved within the BLP project
(Bieszczadzki and Leski)
Source:
http://www.zpp.pl/index.php?path=main/danetel&level=2&wojew=podkarpackie
As it might be seen mentioned administrative districts: Bieszczadzki (with
capital in Ustrzyki Dolne) and Leski (with capital in Lesko) are on the edge of the
Podkarpackie voivodship. It actually means that they are in the most picturesque, but
at the same time – inaccessible, part of the region. Comparing these two
administrative districts (AD) and describing them as a part of whole voivodship we
might say as follows:
1)
Area: Area of Bieszczadzki AD is 6,4% of total area of the Podkarpackie
voivodship, in Leski AD case it is 4,7%. Bieszczadzki AD is one of the biggest
ones in the region, Leski AD is medium-sized.
2)
Population: Population of Bieszczadzki AD is 1,1% of total population of the
Podkarpackie voivodship, in Leski AD case it is 1,3%. In these two
administrative districts number of inhabitants is the lowest among all
administrative districts within the region.
3)
Forests: Forest area in Bieszczadzki AD is 12% of total forest area of the
Podkarpackie voivodship (which is the highest percent in whole region), in
Leski AD case it is 8,6% (which is the third highest percent in whole region).
15
4)
It means that in these two administrative districts is relatively high potential
in eco-tourism.
Economic activity: Number of entities of the national economy in
Bieszczadzki AD is 1,5% of total number of entities of the national economy in
the Podkarpackie voivodship, in Leski AD case it is 1,8%. In these two
administrative districts number of entities of the national economy is the
lowest within whole region which means that officially registered economic
activity is relatively rare form of creating income by individuals.
As we stated in section 1 research was conducted in five communes: Baligrod,
Lesko, Olszanica, Czarna, Lutowiska. Their location is presented on the below maps.
Map 3. Location of selected communes within two administrative districts
Leski administrative district
Bieszczadzki administrative district
Source:
http://www.zpp.pl/index.php?path=main/danetel&level=3&id_woj=15&id=378
http://www.zpp.pl/index.php?path=main/danetel&level=3&id_woj=15&id=190
Specificity of selected communes might be observed in the below table where
data about area and number of inhabitants is presented.
16
Table 1. Area and number of inhabitants in selected communes
Area and number of inhabitants in selected communes
Area (km2)
Number of inhabitants
Baligrod
158
3201
Czarna
185
2378
Lesko
112
11506
Olszanica
94
5112
Lutowiska
476
2261
Commune
Source: Central Statistical Office
As we might see in the above table there are big differences between
communes in number of inhabitants and area. Lutowiska is the biggest commune
when we take area into account (this commune is even on of the biggest in
comparison with all communes in Poland), when Olszanica is the smallest one.
Comparing number of inhabitants and area of particular communes very low density
of population might be observed, above-mentioned Lutowiska has got the biggest
area and – at the same time – the lowest number of inhabitants. Low density of
population should be interpreted as important factor for relative difficulties in
communication process and limited contacts between inhabitants not only from
different communes, but even from the same one.
The “Bieszczady’s Local Product” project was initiated by one the participants
of the Partnership Group “Green Bieszczady” - Community Centre in Lutowiska. The
Partnership Group “Green Bieszczady” is the coalition of the non-governmental
organizations, private enterprises, public institutions and other institutions and
individuals who collectively work for Bieszczady’s development5. It is one of the
Partnership Groups from the network of such coalitions coordinated by the
Foundation “Partnership for Environment”. In Bieszczady initiator of the Partnership
Group establishment was, along with the Foundation “Partnership for Environment”
which launched project “The Partnership Groups for Sustainable Development”,
Bieszczady’s Tourist Information Centre in Lesko. In the Partnership Group “Green
Bieszczady” over 50 entities were already involved and most important projects,
except BLP project, were “Green Bike – Greenways of The East Carpathian”, “Schools
for Eco-Development” and “Bieszczady’s Unit of Architecture and Environment”. The
“value added” of such initiative is synergy of actions which are undertaken by group
members. General objective declared by its participants is to “integrate actions of
non-governmental organizations and self-government institutions which were diffuse
up to date include in the cooperation process local entrepreneurs, increasing quality
of inhabitants life and creating programme for sustainable development of the
5
All information related to Partnership Group „Green Bieszczady” was taken from following web-sites:
http://www.bieszczadyonline.pl/index.php?strona=deklaracja&right=index/menu_greenway.php,
http://www.bieszczady.info.pl/0,525,0,48,echo.html,
17
region”. The Partnership Group “Green Bieszczady” is not legal entity, it is informal
platform for stakeholders cooperation and its base is voluntary work of all members.
It is not involved in any political actions, does not have political orientation and there
is open access to this group for all who want to collectively work in order to achieve
general objective of this project.
As we have stated before, Community’s Cultural Centre in Lutowiska (which is
one of the institutions participating within the Partnership Group) was initiator of the
“Bieszczady’s Local Product” project6. Above-mentioned institution is supervised by
self-government on commune tier. In 2002 Community’s Cultural Centre in Lutowiska
has applied for funds from “The East Carpathian Foundation – Polska”7 within the
“Integrated Development of Rural Areas” programme for establishment of
“Bieszczady’s Centre for Promotion and Certification of Local Product” (BCPiCPL). It
has received 76 522$ for conducting two-year long project8 which has started in
October 2003. Main declared objective of the BLP project was to: create and promote
specific brand of local product in Bieszczady which is called “Made in Bieszczady” and
increasing competitiveness of such product in the Polish and foreign market along
with supporting economic activity of small- and medium-size enterprises” (BCPiCPL
2004: 8).
First step which was undertaken within the BLP project was organization of
the office in the building given by local branch of Agricultural Property Agency
of the State Treasury (which is central government supervised institution managing
State-owned property in rural areas). Launched office was equipped with all needed
office and computer devices and three persons were hired to work on this project
(one coordinator and two assistants). After these initial actions local products
stocktaking in two administrative districts (Bieszczadzki and Leski) was started. BLP
project representatives interviewed local producers in relation to the following issues:
1) profile of production – product or offer type, names of offered products or
services, 2) contact details, 3) qualifications of the producer (courses, trainings,
certifications, diplomas etc.), 4) membership in organizations, 5) type and
origination of the material which is used in the production process, 6) additional
actions – participation in fair and exhibitions, forms of product distribution, 7) forms
of cooperation with partners within or outside the branch, 8) promotional activity, 9)
demand for trainings and advisory. Besides this information, photo data was
collected in order to make possible visual presentation of the regional products in
printed materials or web-site catalogue. The result of the above-described data
collection was launching the BLP project web-site (www.bieszczady.pl/produkt) with
information about 183 producers who participate in the project. Number of them is
6
On the base of data collected through interviews we should rather say the Community’s Cultural
Centre in Lutowiska was formal initiator of the project, but informally it was supported by other
participants of the Partnership Group “Green Bieszczady”.
7
“The East Carpathian Foundation – Polska” is foundation launched in 1994 by Institute for East-West
Studies and Charles Steward Mott Foundation. It works in rural areas in the mountain regions of
Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Ukraine. Foundation by distributing funds and giving
technical assistance within the projects, supports social stability and economic development of
borderlands in mentioned countries.
8
The research was conducted in 2004 and 2005 what means that it was during second stage of the
project and also after the period of the project which was funded by „The East Carpathian Foundation
– Polska”.
18
still growing but at the same time some of the producers become its “passive”
members (which means that their only form of involvement is publishing their
contact details on project web-site). In consequence, web-site base of local
producers includes some of the producers who actually do not already participate in
the project and on the other hand there is no information about project newcomers.
Regarding the fact that one of the priorities for this project is promotion it is
relatively weakly developed aspect of the project9. The products which are
catalogued were divided in three main categories (in some cases, the same producer
offers different product categories):
Food products
Hand-made objects
Working of wood
First category includes, among others, honey and its derivatives, goat’s
cheese, bread-stuffs, Bieszczady’s trout. Second type of products includes: sculpture,
bas-relief, artistic and applied fabric, pottery, basketry, leather goods, blotting-paper
wares, smith’s goods, artistic work in metal, cross-shaped embroidery, crocheting,
icons. Third category of products includes: designing and production of furniture,
rafter crafting and shingles manufacture, construction and artistic woodwork, toys
and applied goods, charcoal burning.
After the “stocktaking stage” project coordinators initiated educational and
training activities. Trainings were offered to producers who have responded in the
first stage of the project and proposed educational activities were undertaken in
topics such as: marketing and promotion, gaining funds, formalizing economic
activity, forming producer groups / associations and creating rules for local products
certification. Such „transfer of knowledge” was important for local producers mainly
because of relative lack of basic knowledge in the field of marketing and adequate
skills needed to manage a business. The other important problem among local
producers within the region is weak communication between them. As we have
stated in previous paper: “Some profiles of production are complementary, but in the
presence of no exchange of information and cooperation producer’s actions are
isolated” (Korczynski 2004: 12). Because of that, important – in the coordinators
perspective – result of organized trainings was “creating methods for cooperation
and integration of local producers who were diffuse in the extensive area of
Bieszczady’s region and did not have opportunity to cooperate and common
promotion their, often very unique, products” (BCPiCPL 2004: 8). In series of
trainings over 200 producers have participated.
Additional form of actions which were undertaken during second stage of the
BLP project (“training stage”) were workshops for unemployed people from the
region. They were introduced to such fields of production as: pottery, making
wooden toys, making candles and wax souvenirs, bee-keeping, lace-making,
ceramics. Although it seems to be valuable and productive form of human capital of
the region development project initiator and coordinator has stated that is was not
very efficient:
9
Regular web-site updates are very important because – as local producers have declared in the
interviews – information which is presented on the web-site is very often only form of their products
promotion.
19
Professional workshops should be more focused and limited number of persons
should participate in them. There were no satisfying effects from hitherto existing
series of workshop. (Coordinator1)
Along with training activities during second stage of the project promotional
actions were undertaken. Of course, previous launching of the BLP project web-site
was also form of promotion but quiet passive. In next actions project participants,
under coordinators supervision, have extended scope of their promotional activity.
Most important part of this was participating in the promotional events. Firstly, on
local level – in near cities such as Przemysl, Krasiyczyn, Ustrzyki Dolne, Solina,
Olszanica. Further actions were more geographically diverse and most important
events in which local producers involved within the BLP project have participated
were: “Bieszczady in a small scale” in Gdansk, “Days of Well Neighbourhood” in
Ukraine, “Local Products Fair” in Krakow, “International Poznan Fair – Polagra”
(which is the biggest food and agricultural products’ fair in Poland) in Poznan and
international promotional activities in Athens and Saloniki in Greece. Participating in
fair and exhibitions is sometimes linked with other ways of promotion, where
competitions seem to be most fruitful (e.g. for last competition organized by Polish
Tourist Organization BLP project has sent five products and two of them were
awarded which allows its producers to exhibit them in polish embassies and
consulates). But such events are not only form of promotion for the BLP project,
actually its participants are mostly proud of appearance in national media, e.g. in
morning TV broadcast “Coffee or Tea?”. The final of the promotional activities in the
second stage of the project was publishing catalogue with information about the BLP
project, all involved producers and their offer. The catalogue is edited in very
sophisticated way, with beautiful and high-quality photos and it is distributed by
producers, BLP project office and other institutions supporting the initiative.
Third stage of the BLP project development might be described as the
“certification and distribution stage”.
Introduction to first aspect was registering
logo of the BLP project as trademark in The
Patent Office. This trademark (which might
be seen on the right side) is reserved for
these products offered within the BLP
project which are certificated by the
Chamber in accordance with established
rules of certification. Members of the
competition Chamber are regional leaders
and external experts and rules of
certification are mainly based on the local
product definition proposed by the Foundation “Partnership for Environment”:
Product or service which is recognized as specific for the region, produced in nonmass and environment-friendly way from materials which are locally accessible. Local
product is showcase of the region because it represents regionally specific features
(BCPiCPL 2004: 12). Awarded producers might use logo “Made in Bieszczady” for
one year since signing agreement on product certification, after this period they
might apply for extension of certification period which is considered along with
20
checking quality of the product and compliance with established rules of certification.
There are already 10 products certificated.
Other aspect of second stage of the BLP project is creating new ways of
distribution local products in which launching network of “Bieszczady’s Shops”
offering these products seems to be most important. At this moment local products
might be bought directly from producers or store in BLP project office. There are
plans to open next shops in different parts of the region to make local products more
accessible for tourists and increase sale extent. There are also attempts to distribute
BLP project participants products with using web-based tools.
Above-described “trajectory” of BLP project development where three stages
might be distinguished does not mean that after planned period of this initiative
(2003-2005) the project is ended. Permanent effect of this initiative is Bieszczady’s
Local Producers Association “Bies” which chairwoman is co-author and coordinator of
the BLP project Izabela Cicha. At this moment over 50 producers are members of this
association10 which main purposes are: 1) working for multi-dimensional and
sustainable development of the Bieszczady region in its economic, social,
educational, cultural and scientific sense, 2) creating and co-organizing regional and
economic policy, 3) working for building civic society, supporting democratic values,
tolerance and equation of the opportunities, 4) popularization and supporting
regional initiatives which purpose is international cooperation, 5) working for
enterprise development within the region, with focus on entities which start
autonomous economic activity and small- and medium-size enterprises.
Among further plans for actions undertaken within the BLP project the most
important seems to be international cooperation, especially with Ukraine, in order to
exchange experiences in the field of handicraft and traditional agricultural and food
products.
Concluding the above description of the selected unit of analysis (initiative
launched within the community) we would like to add that, quoting previous paper
on this project (Korczynski 2004: 12): “Important assumption was that activization of
region’s dwellers will not be based on direct financing and investments but rather on
existing potential of individuals and communities. Intention was to release this
potential by integration of individual’s actions and common looking for problems’
solutions in the region. (…) Idea for this cooperation is to develop the region in
sustainable way and encourage to establish partnerships in the field of launching and
promoting local products”. If we interpret this initiative in terms of “transfer of
knowledge” we would say that most important knowledge “input” was related to
general economic skills of the project participants. It was not needed to create new
products because they have already existed as the objectified “incarnation” of
community’s cultural capital. What had to be done was to increase producers ability
to effectively promote and distribute their products. Such profile will have specific
consequences for the process of cooperation (non-cooperation) within BLP project.
10
As we have stated before, in the first stage of the project (“training stage”) over 200 producers
were involved. Comparing this number with number of “Bies” association members continuous
decrease of number of participants might be observed along with increasing formalization of this
initiative.
21
Different categories of actors are (or were) involved within this initiative: local
producers, local officials (Community Center which was the initiator of the project is
institution supervised by local government), non-governmental institutions (direct
funding from NGO was the factor which make project possible, but besides this there
are other forms of contacts and more long-term relations with NGOs). Below main
actors involved are presented in systemized way (detailed identification of all actors
will be presented in section “Visual presentation of the actors and their
interactions”):
1)
Producers – Individuals who produce local/regional goods in the area of the
project. In the previous paper related to this project (Ibidem: 16-17) this
group was divided in two main categories: producers who participate in the
BLP project and those who do not participate in it. The first group was
described in following way: “[it is] main and direct beneficiary of the project,
but also their actions and attitudes are condition of possible success or failure
of the initiative” and the second one was called as the “litmus-paper” of the
initiative’s efficiency. In the research procedure it was decided to exclude nonparticipants from the outset of the research process because of two reasons:
a) it would be very difficult (if not impossible) to identify local producers who
do not participate within this initiative in any way – stocktaking of local
producers within the region which was made as the one of the actions within
BLP project was very accurate and it would be very hard to find any
“outsiders” in this area who might be described as local producers, b) within
group of project participants were producers who might be described as
“passive participants” – whose activity and participation is highly limited. They
were interviewed and, as we think, they might interpreted as abovementioned “litmus-paper” which indicate barriers and disadvantages of the
project.
2)
Initiators and coordinators of the initiative – Actors who represent:
Partnership Group “Green Bieszczady” (where idea of the initiative has
appeared), Community’s Cultural Centre in Lutowiska (fundraiser and formal
coordinator of the project) and Bieszczady’s Centre for Promotion and
Certification of Local Product (institution established in order to undertake
main tasks within the BLP project). In relation to this category of actors we
might say about individuals “fluctuations” what means that some of the actors
who are involved within one of above-mentioned institutions or organizations
is, at the same time, member of different groups, e.g. Izabela Cichy who is
main coordinator and co-author of this project is: a) member of the
Partnership Group, b) chairwoman of Community’s Cultural Centre in
Lutowiska and c) chairwoman of BCPiCPL.
Within this group, two additional categories of actors should be distinguished:
a) formal initiators and coordinators of the initiative – these actors who
represent formal institutions involved within the BLP project (such as
Community’s Cultural Centre in Lutowiska) and are formally responsible for
actions undertaken in relation to this initiative, b) informal initiators and
coordinators of the project – these actors who are involved within the BLP
project initiation or coordination through informal cooperation and advisory.
Representatives of these both categories were interviewed during fieldwork
research.
22
3)
Local leaders and coordinators of the project – in previous paper we
have identified such category of actors involved within the BLP project.
Including this category as key actors was justifiable by the structure of project
coordination which was planned. Coordinators have planned to conduct this
initiative on the base of network of coordinators who are local leaders of their
communities. Their suggested role was to: a) establish and maintain
productive relations between producers and project coordinators, b) facilitate
internal communication and cooperation in the local subgroups of the project
in the participating communes.
Eventually, this group could not be identified in the research process. The
reason for that was suggested by one of the interviewees who coordinates the
BLP project:
There are problems, in terms of number of people involved, with creating local
leadership centers. Our aim should be reinforce human capital on the local
level. (Coordinator2)
4)
Local officials – Actions undertaken by this category of actors create
institutional context on local level for regional products initiative. Including this
category of actors to the analysis was planned to make possible answering
two following questions: a) what is the perspective of public institutions
representatives in appreciation of the initiative, 2) how they define their role
in this. The specificity of the BLP project is that local government
representatives who might be identify as involved in this initiative and
influencing its functioning are actually its formal participants. It might be
described as the delegation of some employees of local government
institutions to coordinate the BLP project. Two persons who meet this criterion
were identified and interviewed (chairwoman of Community’s Cultural Centre
which is local government supervised institution and one of the employees of
it).
5)
Civil servants on the State level – one of the main assumptions for this
research presented in previous paper (Korczynski 2003) was to conduct case
study analysis but also include institutional context analysis. It was justified by
the assumption about strong influence of institutional context (legal acts,
formal regulations and rules for regional products protection etc.) on the BLP
project. But after desk research analysis and initial interviews with both
producers and coordinators this assumption had to be rejected. At least at the
current stage of the BLP project development existing (and still changing)
legal framework related to regional products in Poland did not affected this
initiative in viewable extent. Analyzed project is not oriented on registering
products and certification them with legal categories of regional products.
Instead of this, own system of certification was created along with training
and promotional activities. Because of this reason, general analytical
framework was changed in order to focus mainly on selected initiative (which
is consistent with other case studies within second pillar of IDARI
Workpackage 3) not legal or formal environment on the State level (see also:
Murray 2004: 20).
23
But it would be also not reasonable to totally exclude civil servants on the
State level from this research. That is why interview with Ministry of
Agriculture and Rural Development representative (Chairman of Bureau of
Geographical Indications and Promotion) was conducted and was related
mainly to legal aspects of regional products development in Poland.
4. Methodology and Analytical Framework
As we have stated before general change in analytical framework was made
along with changing unit of analysis. It has particular consequences in methodology
of the research related to the “Bieszczady’s Local Product” project. We will be more
focused on the level of selected initiative what means that main part of this research
will be conducted in the form of case study analysis11.
To make this research results comparable with other research outcomes within
second pillar of IDARI Workpackage 3 general research framework proposed by
C. Murray (2004: 20) where main assumption was as follows: “Although the macro
structures within a country or region affect levels of social capital – such as
legislation, types of regimes, level of decentralization and level of participation in
policy making - the behavioural attributes of individuals requires further exposition,
and will be the focus of IDARI research”. Because of that we will focus on the
behavioural aspect and conduct research with exploring participants perspective
(actors-oriented analysis) with some elements of process-oriented analysis (which
lets to overcome problem of incorporating time within research). With such approach
general analytical framework for identification of factors affecting cooperation might
be adapted.
11
In accordance with requirements of preparing research report it will not be justified why case study
approach was chosen as the most suitable and adequate research method within this research.
24
Figure 2. Factors affecting cooperative behaviour amongst individuals
Number of
Stakeholders/Actors
Nature of the problem
facing individuals
Bounded Rationality &
Opportunism
Norms
Values
Cooperative Behaviour
Social Learning
amongst Individuals
Inverse
Relationship
Social Capital - including trust,
mistrust, reciprocity & reputation
Communication Structures
Dependent
relationship
Source: Murray 2004: 15
The above analytical framework was base for structuring research process
with thematic modules (which were part of the interviews). Structure similar to that
used in the research will be also used in the stage of analysis and interpretation of
empirical findings. Those elements of the above model which will not be used as the
distinguished parts of this report (as e.g. bounded rationality & opportunism) will be
used as the categories of analysis within particular six cross-cutting themes of this
research. General idea, which is in compliance with the above model was to indicate
factors affecting cooperation within the BLP project and identify way and results of
this influence.
As we have stated in previous section following actors were included in this
research: local producers, initiators and coordinators of the project, local officials,
civil servants on the State level. Their particular description is provided below (with
indicating existing differences within one category of actors):
1)
Local producers – within this group following sub-categories of actors were
included in the research: a) active participants – producers who actively
participate in the BLP project activities and are members of “Bies” association,
b) passive participants – producers who were invited to the project and who
provided information about their offer to the project base but who do not
actively participate in this initiative, c) food producers – as we have stated
before, in accepted unit of analysis only food producers are included but there
are different profiles of food production which are represented among
interviewees: bee-keeping, trout breeding, bakery, mutton, regional alcohol
and offering different food producers under general name “regional food”.
Besides some of respondents are simultaneously work in different fields, e.g.
25
2)
3)
agro-tourism, d) producers from different communes – producers from five
communes are represented (Baligrod, Czarna, Lesko, Olszanica, Lutowiska)
but most of the interviewees come from the first mentioned commune (which
originally was planned as the only commune within unit of analysis), e)
producers associated in different groups – the BLP project participants are not
only involved in this initiative, they also members of other groups or
associations (which are sometimes even more important for them than
initiative related to regional products). Within this research one specific group
of local producers associated in other organization is represented. It is group
of “Rural Home-mistress Club” which members are only women who offer
“regional food” for social events such weddings, funerals etc. Five interviews
were conducted with representatives of this specific group within the BLP
project.
Initiators and Coordinators of the project; local officials – these group
are presented together because two individuals who were interviewed have
represented the above two categories of actors: they were involved (formally)
within the BLP project and at the same time have represented institutions
supervised by local government12. Other interviewees who might be described
as the “initiators and coordinators of the project” have represented nongovernmental organizations involved within the BLP project.
Civil servants on the State level – because analysis of institutional context
was highly reduced there was no reason to conduct previously planned
number of interviews with this category of actors. Interviewee within this
category was Chairman of Bureau of Geographical Indications and Promotion
who represents Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development which is, in
accordance with new legal framework related to regional products, institution
responsible for process of application and registration legally protected
categories of regional products.
During the research process following methodology was used in order to
address all research questions and test research hypotheses:
1)
Desk research – it was mainly used in the first stage of research when
institutional context was identified and general data about “Bieszczady’s Local
Product” was collected. Data collected at this stage was used as the point of
reference for further research on the BLP project. Desk research was mainly
devoted to legal documents which are formal base for regional products
development in Poland at the current stage. Also, documents and materials
from institutions working in the field of regional products in Poland (PolishAmerican Project of Local Products’ Development, Polish Chamber of Local
and Regional Product, The Foundation “Partnership for Environment etc.)
were analyzed.
Important source of information analyzed during desk research stage were
internet resources. In some cases, this is only platform for dissemination
information about the initiatives and their participants and it was needed to
12
The specific case is interviewee described as Coordinator1 who was at the same time coordinator
of the project working in Community’s Cultural Centre in Lutowiska and beneficiary of the project as
the local producer of the “Sauterowka” (kind of alcohol).
26
2)
3)
use this source of information for identifying different than the BLP project
Polish initiatives which are oriented on regional products development.
In-depth interviews – with this technique most of empirical data was
collected. Reason for using this technique is that its semi-structured character
allows respondent to partially modify structure of interview and to touch
subjects which weren’t included initially. Because of that, some important
issues but specific for particular and limited number of actors might appear
during interview. Two separate guidelines for interviews were prepared – one
for local producers and other one for initiators and coordinators of the project
/ local officials (they are included in the section “Annexes”). Interview with
civil servant on the State level was specific because he was asked to comment
some empirical findings, identify existing legal environment in relation to the
regional products issue and make his observations on regional products
general development. Total number of conducted IDIs: 25 (20 interviews
with local producers; 4 interviews with initiators and coordinators of the
project / local officials; 1 interview with civil servant on the State level)13.
Observation – in every stage of fieldwork research elements of observation
were included. During visits in local producers’ farms elements of observation
were used in order to identify material outcomes of the BLP project: products’
design, labeling, forms of promotion and distribution etc.
Regarding the fact that collected data will be mostly qualitative analysis should
be based mainly on qualitative methods. Because of that quantitative (statistical)
techniques of analysis will not be used. Second reason for such approach is relatively
low number of observations (25) – it will not be possible to conduct statistical
operations and techniques of verification with such number of cases. For the needs
of this report following procedure of analyzing collected data will be used. In first
step analysis will be grouped in sections identifying role of particular factor in the
process of cooperation and well functioning of the initiative. In second step, in each
section research questions will be answered and hypotheses will be tested. In each
case adequate data will be presented as the empirical material which is needed to
answer research questions and test hypotheses. Data will be presented in the form
of quotations from conducted interviews. In qualitative way of analysis it is justified
to present not only conclusions from research but also to present data – it gives
more accurate and – at the same time – broader picture of analyzed phenomenon. If
statements of interviewees are quiet similar only some of them are presented to give
an example on observed ways of argumentation (presenting all interviewees
statements would significantly exceed suggested volume of this report). Each
quotation will be made with additional information of the interviewee (category of
interviewee: producer, coordinator, State official) and number of interviewed person
(which help to find additional information about interviewee in annex).
13
Detailed list of interviews is included in the section „Annexes”. On interview was conducted with
person who is at the same time participant and coordinator of the project (Coordinator1).
27
5. Visual presentation of the actors and their interactions
On the below chart all involved actors are presented along with indicating
interactions between them. Actors which positions are marked with grey colour
should be interpreted as “key actors” of the process. Vectors of the arrows represent
direction of influence. Dashed line was used to present two different categories of
local producers.
28
Inhabitants of
Tourists
the region
„Passive” local
producers
International
Biosphere
Local producers
Reservation
„Active” local
producers
Community’s Cultural
„Bies” Association
Centre in Lutowiska
Bieszczady’s Centre for
Promotion and Certification of
Local Product
Local officials
Non-governmental
Polish Chamber
organizations
of Local and
Regional Product
Ministry of
Agriculture and
Rural
Development
29
In this section of the case study analysis interactions between actors will be
identified and described:
1)
Local producers – it is key actor of the process because of the fact that it is
direct beneficiary of the project. Two different categories might be
distinguished which are: a) active participants – producers who actively
participate in the BLP project activities and are members of “BieS” association,
b) passive participants – producers who were invited to the project and who
provided information about their offer to the project base but who do not
actively participate in this initiative. Crucial interactions with local producers
which might be identified are related to formal institutions which are part of
the BLP project (i.e. Community’s Cultural Centre in Lutowiska, Bieszczady’s
Centre for Promotion and Certification of Local Product, “Bies” Association).
Interactions between local producers and first two institutions are quiet similar
– mentioned institutions undertake actions which direct beneficiaries are local
producers. But there is also reversed influence – forms and objectives of
undertaken actions cannot ignore local producers motivations, preferences
and expectations.
Interaction between local producers and “Bies” association is different because
they are not only beneficiaries but also contributors and co-initiators of this
initiative. This is probably the aspect of the BLP project in which local
producers are most active and participating (but at the same time it involves
relatively small number of local producers).
Local producers also interact with inhabitants of the region and tourists. First
case is quiet obvious – local producers are also members of the local
community. What is specific, successful economic activity of local producers
might “inspire” rest of inhabitants to initiate such way of generating income.
In second case (local producers and tourists) the latter ones are target group
for economic activity of the local producers. But, what is interesting and
counterintuitive, very often tourists initiate the contact, not local producers. It
happens in relation to those producers whose promotional activity is highly
limited.
2)
Community’s Cultural Centre in Lutowiska – as we have stated above
this institution interacts with local producers. It also cooperates with
Bieszczady’s Centre for Promotion and Certification of Local Product, “Bies”
Association – these three institutions objectives, ways of functioning and even
members are very similar what makes interaction necessary.
Functioning of this institution is strongly influenced by two other key actors:
local officials (representatives of local government) and non-governmental
organizations. In first case, the interaction is affected by the fact that
Community’s Cultural Centre is institution under supervision of local
government on the commune tier. But there is also interaction between centre
and non-governmental organizations such as The Partnership Group “Green
Bieszczady” and The Foundation “East Carpathian – Poland”. Their influence
was crucial for initiating the BLP project – as we have mentioned before, idea
of promoting regional products has appeared within Partnership Group, and
mentioned foundation was fund-giver for the initiative.
3)
Bieszczady’s Centre for Promotion and Certification of Local Product
– we have already described interactions of this institution with local
30
4)
5)
6)
producers, Community’s Cultural Centre in Lutowiska and “Bies” Association.
But there are also two other important partners of interaction for this
institution: Polish Chamber of Local and Regional Product and Ministry of
Agriculture and Rural Development. These two institutions affect actions
which are undertaken by centre. Polish Chamber of Local and Regional
Product is very similar organization to the Bieszczady’s Centre for Promotion
and Certification of Local Product but the latter one operates on territory of
whole Poland. Without any doubt we might say that some actions of the
Chamber might be positive pattern for Bieszczady’s institution. Besides,
Izabela Cicha – project coordinator – confirmed in the interview that chairman
of the Chamber supports the BLP project.
In relation to interaction between Bieszczady’s Centre for Promotion and
Certification of Local Product and Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development we might say that Ministry as the institution of central
government affects every initiative which is conducted in the field of regional
products in Poland, mainly through creating legal context for such actions.
“Bies” Association – “Bies” association position in the map of interactions
within the BLP project is almost the same as previously described Bieszczady’s
Centre for Promotion and Certification of Local Product. The main difference is
that by the fact that its initiators and members are local producers interactions
with Polish Chamber of Local and Regional Product and Ministry of Agriculture
and Rural Development directly influence producers activities. In other words,
there is no institutional “buffer” such as Bieszczady’s Centre for Promotion and
Certification of Local Product who represents interests of local producers from
the region. Analyzing process of “Bies” Association establishment
chronologically we might say that the organization’s main function is to take
over these activities which were in the field of competence of project
coordinators (who were not local producers but rather “social activists”).
Analyzing “Bies” Association from other perspective we might say that thanks
to its formal character (it is legally registered non-governmental organization)
it increases probability of making the BLP project long-term initiative. Last but
not least, as form of community organization (organization which works for
the community benefits through actions undertaken by beneficiaries) it
involves local producers who – in the first stages of the project – were rather
passive as “support receivers”.
Polish Chamber of Local and Regional Product – besides already
described interactions in which this institution is involved it also affects (and is
affected by) actions which are undertaken by Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development. This interaction is needed because of the fact that these two
institutions actually work in the same field (supporting regional products
development), only difference is that Polish Chamber of Local and Regional
Product is non-governmental organization.
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development – all interactions in
which this actor is involved are already described. It is only needed to add
that by Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development we actually mean
Bureau of Geographical Indications and Promotion which realizes Ministry’s
duties in the field of protection regional products and promoting general idea
of such way of economic activity in rural areas.
31
7)
8)
9)
Tourists – we have already identified interaction between tourists and local
producers. But tourists also interact with all inhabitants of the region.
“Tourism industry” is the most significant field of economic activity in this
region and it would probably be difficult to find family where there is no
member who is not, at least indirectly, involved in work for tourists. That is
why tourists strongly affect economic condition of most of the households in
Bieszczady region.
Inhabitants of the region – all interactions in which these actors are
involved are already described.
International Biosphere Reservation – there is interaction between
reservation and tourists. It actually means that International Biosphere
Reservation might be interpreted as form of attraction for tourists. By this, we
might say that this reservation indirectly affect functioning of local producers
(by causing increase in number of tourists) but it is difficult to confirm it
empirically.
In this section we have described actual (not potential) interactions between
all actors involved within the BLP project. It might be interpreted as the introduction
to presenting empirical findings from conducted research.
6. Determinants, Effects and Processes of Cooperation and
Rural Institutional Innovations
Analysis within this section will be structured as follows: 1) role of particular
factors on the cooperation and rural institutional innovations will be identified, 2) in
parts devoted to particular factors research questions will be answered and
hypotheses tested.
6.1. Role
of trust/mistrust and opportunism (social and
institutional)
RQ1.1: How important is trust in the development of cooperation?
RH1.1: Trust is much more important for the development of internal cooperation
than external cooperation where importance of pragmatism and rational choice
becomes evident.
Making an attempt to answer first research question it is needed to start from
identification of actors perspective in relation to importance of trust. Answers
received through interviews might be divided in three groups. In first, interviewees
declared relatively low importance of trust or low level of knowledge on trust issues:
I am only interested in my bee-keeping and promotion, that is all, it is hard to say
[do I trust other participants of the BLP project] (Producer1)
I don’t know. I don’t have any contact with others (Producer13)
This attitude was not specific for those producers who might be described as
“passive” ones (whose knowledge in relation to the project would be generally low).
First quoted producer is highly involved in actions undertaken within the BLP project
(he was also involved in other social activities in his commune such as Union of BeeKeepers and Union of Hunters). How such argumentation might be interpreted? It is
32
probably caused by dominance of pragmatism and interpreting the BLP project as
the form of collective action where individuals’ benefits cannot be (positively or
negatively affected) by other participants. Of course, if such attitude would be
dominant it might threaten whole project efficiency and its participants involvement.
But what is significant – difficulties with identifying if interviewee trust other people
(the BLP project participants) does not mean that his or her opinion about the BLP
project and its outcomes is negative (it has occurred only in one case).
In second case, the BLP project participants declared that they trust other
producers (or project organizers) but it is difficult for them to more deeply explore
this issue or find any arguments for such opinion.
It is difficult to say – rather yes. People usually aren’t suspicious. (Producer11)
Yes, people should be trusted. (Producer20)
In such interpretation people use their general opinions on interpersonal trust
and cannot refer it to functioning of the BLP project. They also cannot interpret their
experience within the project in terms of trust or mistrust. For eventual cooperation
it is not needed to base motivations on experience, if stereotypes strengthen
orientation on cooperation14. But the above quoted argumentation might be
symptom of relatively rare contacts between participants who cannot say if other
producers (particular individuals, not people in general) might be trusted.
The third group of answers (number of them was relatively low) has proved
that at least for some of the participants trust is important resource for efficient
functioning of the BLP project:
I might say I trust other [producers]. There were group travels, TV interviews, fair in
Solina, exhibitions – there was enough time to meet each other very well. Besides,
other producers have invited me to their farms (Producer3)
Maybe before there were some doubts, but now only those who are OK stayed
(Producer4)
In above statements interviewees point some specific circumstances in which
trust might occur or recall their previous experience which is the base for trust other
participants of the project. In relation to the first opinion it seems to be clear that the
BLP project participants are aware that to increase level of trust some investments
are necessary as meetings or collective activities within the project. Such investments
demand from the participants time, self-initiative or money but they are also helpful
in verifying if other persons are trust-worthy and if the producer might rely on
partners from the BLP project. On the other hand (Producer4), level of trust might
increase mainly by the fact of passing time and changing population of the project
participants (by “changing” we actually mean decline in number of participants, but
at the same time increase in intensity of involvement of remained producers), such
14
In this case by “stereotypes” we mean simplificated opinions or convictions which come from
particular experience (or observation) and are referred to wider spectrum of social phenomena. In
relation to the cooperation issue within the BLP project we might say that willingness to cooperation
(at least declared) is conditioned by generalized attitude to the cooperation with other people (e.g. if
individuals state that “people should be trusted”, their will to cooperate will be relatively high and
detailed calculation related to the decision-making process on cooperation will not be needed).
33
process might be described as “crystallization” of the project membership structure.
Besides, it is needed to emphasize that in comparison with beginning of the project
(about 200 producers involved), at this moment (where we have over 50 producers
being members of the “Bies” association) it is much “easier” to trust each other
because relations seem to be closer and direct.
The fact that most of interviewees did not declare high importance (and high
level) of trust between project participants or declared such importance but it was
difficult for them to present concrete arguments or examples which would prove this
opinion, should be compared with direct answer on question “How would you justify
importance of high level of trust for functioning of the BLP project?”. Absolute
majority of interviewees declared that such factor is very or somewhat important.
How it might be explained? Firstly, it might be symptom of general difficulty with
analyzing actions made by producers or other actors in terms of trust along with
belief that trust is generally important. Such interpretation is justifiable also because
of observed difficulty with answering some questions by interviewees and limitations
of linguistic and cognitive competence. Second interpretation is that the participants
of the BLP project are convinced that trust is generally important element of social
life and valuable resource in relations between individuals but they do not see if the
BLP project is specific case where importance of trust is relatively higher/lower and –
at the same time – they do not interpret trust as important “regulator” of their
relations with other local producers (in other words – they do not think that there are
reasons or requirements for trusting other participants of the BLP project in a
different way that people in general). Confirmation of such conclusion might be
interviewees’ answers for question: “Would you agree with following statement: “I
am sure that no other BLP project participant would treat me unfairly”?:
One cannot be sure. You never know what is in the person beneath? (Producer3)
Oh no. I am not sure. Today different things might happen. (Producer9)
I cannot say that – we are human-beings and it might goes in different ways.
(Producer12)
I cannot say that – people are different and always there might be someone who will
do “something”. I cannot guarantee this… (Producer14)
It is hard to say. Sometimes, close family might cheat, and with people who you
work it is even more probable. (Producer17)
I cannot say that. I do not know what other people do (Producer19)
As we can see, in answering the above-mentioned question local producers
used logic applicable to their general relations will people. They have mentioned
generalized opinions about people and contemporary times where people usually do
not trust each other. Such argumentation should be interpreted as the symptom of
no presence of specific relations with the project participants or reason for treating
them in specific, extensional way which might proclaims opinion that it would be
difficult to affect one producer’s economic performance by other participant.
Confirmation of such hypothesis are answers for question related to consequence of
situation when other participants would broke trust or cheat interviewee:
34
(I would do) nothing. I would continue my work. But there were no such situations.
(Producer9)
I would interpret it as “stupid joke” and that is all. (Producer12)
Above-stated kind of calm reactions suggests that in situation of mistrust
between project participants there actually will be not affection of economic
performance by such behaviour. Of course, these are selected and single opinions
but in all interviews there were no answer suggesting that producer’s activity will be
negatively affected or disturbed by mistrust appearing. That might be result of belief
that other factors or assets more significantly influence functioning of the BLP project
participants than trust which cannot give advantage but also its lack does not
generate problems for, what is most important for producers, operating on the
market, producing and selling products etc.
In very few cases producers declared that they might trust other project
participants without any exceptions and doubts:
I am sure [that no other BLP project participants would treat me unfairly]. We are
together, we were growing up together, we live in the neighbourhood.
(Producer15)
Source of unexceptional trust in this case is fact that producers know each
other well which results from living together in the same place for a long period of
time. But it should be noticed that in such argumentation there is also no specific
attitude or trust towards other participants of the initiative. Producers are not trusted
because they are participants of the BLP project, but rather participants of the BLP
project are trusted because they are long-term inhabitants of the area. In other
words, within the BLP project no “new” trust has originated but initiative rather uses
social resources (such trust) which are in wide community in parts of the region
where the project is conducted.
Much more concrete were project coordinators and local officials answers
related to importance and observed level of trust:
I think that level of trust is high – creating “Bies” association proves that, it is
association with the highest number of members in Bieszczady. (Coordinator3)
The result [of trust between project participants) was creating association
“Bieszczady’s Wood” (Coordinator4)
For coordinators of the project high level of trust is present within this
initiative through formalized forms of cooperation. In other words, interviewees from
this group state that if people undertake actions in order to cooperate in long-term
perspective by creating formal organizations there must be interpersonal trust
between them. Of course, such opinion is based on the experience of the project
coordinators who know specificity of the BLP project best, but – on the other hand –
mentioned examples do not have to prove importance of trust and high level of trust
between local producers. As we will see in further parts of this report dominant
participants’ attitude within the project was rather passive and oriented on gaining
benefits through actions which are initiated by the coordinators. One might suppose
that similar situation will be observed within formal organizations which members are
35
local producers (leaders of these organizations are the same persons who initiated
and coordinate the BLP project). Because of that it is difficult to interpret these forms
of activity as unequivocal symptom of high level of trust.
RQ1.2: Are high levels of trust an effective means of reducing transaction costs
within BLP project?
As we have stated before, it is difficult to unequivocally identify importance of
trust and its level on the base of answers which are directly related to the issue of
trust. But it does not mean that any positive outcomes of trust appearing cannot be
observed. In this section it will be investigated if there are some of symptoms or
displays of trust as a mean of reducing transaction costs within the BLP project. The
aspect of transaction costs will be more deeply investigated in the section 6.3 which
will refer to transaction costs and governance structures issue. In this part analysis
will be devoted only to these transaction costs which are reduced by trust.
Main objective of the BLP project was to increase participants potential in the
field of market. One of the results of such strategy is participating in promotional
activities (e.g. fair, exhibitions, events promoting traditional or regional culture). And
in this aspect role of trust as factor reducing transaction costs might be observed.
Participation in such events generates expenditures from which travel costs are most
significant. With this, other transaction costs are connected, e.g. necessity of leaving
the farm for the time spent on the event, arrangement of products transportation
etc. and in such cases cooperation and trust seems to be needed as factors which
might reduce these costs. Of course, the BLP project offers its participants some
financial support in order to let local producers offer their products in regional,
national and international events but it is never possible to organize financial
resources which will be sufficient for all willing to participate in mentioned
promotional activities. Solution established by initiative participants is to “equip”
those who are going to promotional event with products which are produced and
offered by other participants who cannot participate in fair or exhibition. In this case
trust is necessary asset to make such form of cooperation work. It is not only matter
of offering transportation (then it would not be justifiable to talk about trust), much
more important aspect is that producers who do not go to the event have to trust
those who go that they not only take the products of the first group to the event, but
also will promote them and offer customers with the same intensification as their
own products.
It is difficult to identify other ways in which trust between participants in the
BLP project reduces transaction costs which are related to being involved in this
initiative. Two reasons for such situation might be presented. The first one strongly
refers to the previous remarks on trust – trust cannot be important “regulator” if
many of the participants have difficulty with saying if they trust each other or when
issue of trust within the project does not to differ in relation to general interpersonal
trust. The second argumentation will be fully and more deeply characterized in
section where direct referring to transaction costs will be presented. As we will see in
that section there are no high transaction costs for the project participants which
would be related to the involvement within the project. They involve within this
project to gain some benefits but they do not “invest” much of their resources in
such participation and they do not risk much (risk was referred in most of interviews
36
to the nature and environment, not the project itself). Sometimes, they also do not
expect high influence of this project for their economic performance which was
expressed in answers for question in which interviewees were asked to imagine how
their enterprise would be function if they would not involve within the project:
There would not be big difference. The BLP is side project for me. (Producer1)
It would be the same. (Producer2)
It would not change because my product would be still the best in the aspect of its
quality. (Producer7)
In such situation most often presented scenario was as follows: 1) local
producer was informed about the project by its coordinator or local official who was
asked by the project coordinators to disseminate information about the initiative
among inhabitants of the commune, 2) local producer has decided to involve within
the project and has participated in its first promotional and training activities because
this form of involvement did not require “investments” on the side of producer, 3)
with further development of the project where demand for active behaviour on the
side of local producers (e.g. membership in the “Bies” association) was increasing
local producers were withdrawing from the project (or we should rather say – that
they have stayed within the BLP project but switched from “active” to “passive”
category of participants). Generally, we might say that with increasing level of
transaction costs most of the participants have limited their involvement. One might
suppose that in the case of high importance and efficiency of trust as a factor which
reduces transaction costs related to the project percent of producers who actually
left the project would be lower. Moreover, one might suppose that if transaction
costs have increased those who remain participants of this initiative had to have
resources which let them to reduce transaction costs or did not interpret increasing
transaction costs as significant disadvantage.
RH1.2: Where trust in formal institutions is low, high transaction costs are
experienced in dealing with State (formal institutions) and actors will rely on informal
institutions to solve their problems of collective action.
To test the above hypothesis it is firstly needed to identify if trust in formal
institutions is actually low (or, in what aspects and institutions is it low). Then we
might search symptoms or confirmations that in these aspects (situations) or
institutions local producers try to reduce high transaction costs which are
experienced in dealing with State through relying of informal institutions. That is why
we will analyze answers for these questions which might be helpful in identifying
level of trust in formal State / formal institutions.
The interviewees were asked if they trust State institutions now more than in
the socialist times. Below some statements in relation to this issue are presented:
Then I was young but it was the same, State officials were the same as now. It all
depends on the particular Office. Maybe now they try to make their best because
they know that they might loose their job. (Producer3)
There is no change. (Producer5)
37
It is different in different situations. It depends on institutions and problems.
(Producer7)
It is difficult to say, in the communism they were cheating us less. As it was stateowned there was more justice than now when there is lot of private entrepreneurs.
(Producer8)
Then we did not trust and now we also do not trust. (Producer9)
It depends on institutions. Today you do not know if you can trust anybody.
(Producer10)
Institutions nowadays and those from socialism are the same. (…) it is enough if you
observe a little bit and it is even worse now. Level of trust [in State institutions] has
decreased about 70%. (Producer12)
There is lack of trust in everything and everybody. The authorities give people “a
crushing blow”. They still promote that they will be better but there is getting worse.
(Producer17)
Now you do not know who to trust. Then there was more taking care of poor people.
Now everybody thinks about his own benefits. (Producer20)
From the above group of producers’ statements following conclusions might
be made. First, relatively high number of interviewees declare that there is actually
no change in their level of trust in State institutions. If assumption about low level of
social capital in CEE countries (which is result of socialist times) would be true, such
answers would be symptom that there is actually no change in trust-related aspect of
negative “heritage” of communism. Of course, it is problem that people do not see
positive change in State institutions thanks to the transformation from socialistic to
democratic State. But much more dysfunctional is that some of them express opinion
that now the situation in this sphere is even worse. One of the participants of the
BLP project even said that now State officials “cheat” more – such diagnosis for sure
makes distance between people and State representatives bigger and more difficult
to overcome. Where above-quoted attitudes dominate then it is very probable that
tested hypothesis would be true – people generally do not trust State institutions and
they will try to achieve their goals and gain benefits “in the spite” of State institutions
(or “out of them”), not with their support.
But are there any symptoms that State institutions are interpreted by
researched group of citizens as functional and helpful ones? The positive is that – at
the least some of – the interviewees said that their trust in State institutions differs in
relation to different institutions. It testifies to the fact that they these people do not
generalize or base their opinions on their own experience which is not always bad.
Besides, one of the interviewees has stated as follows:
It is different with trust. Now I trust self-government more than before because now
I choose self-government and in the past it was imposed. (Producer13)
It would mean that in the lowest tier of government situation is better now
than in socialist times. The fact that self-government institutions are generally more
trusted than central government institutions was confirmed in the answers for
question: “How much do you trust the following…?”. In presented categories of
38
institutions there was distinction between local and central government officials. Of
course, the answers were highly differentiated, but there was one regularity:
absolute majority of interviewees have estimated their trust in central government
officials lower than trust in local government officials (e.g. if interviewee has declared
that he/she trusts local government officials to a very great extent, then trust in
central government officials was estimated as “to great extent” or lower; the same
situation has occurred when interviewees have declared relatively low level of trust in
local government officials what means that they trust in them to a small extent, then
they have stated that they trust central government officials to a very small extent).
Higher level of trust in local government institutions might be explained by the fact
that the BLP project participants’ relations with the local government officials are
more frequent than those with central government (State) officials) and in the first
case judges are based more on the personal experience than on the base of
stereotypes and generalized conviction. Besides, for the BLP project participants it
was much easier things that local officials have done for them directly than to
identify it in relation to central government officials (for some of the producers local
officials were those who informed them about the project, invited and assisted them
in its first stage).
As we have stated before: 1) trust in formal institutions is relatively low; 2)
there are differences in level of trust in central government institutions and local
government institutions – local government institutions (officials) are more trusted;
3) trust in local government officials is based rather on personal experience than
stereotypes and generalizations. Now we might make an attempt to verify if
identified low level trust results in actors’ actions which rely on informal institutions.
The most distinctive field in which such dominance of informal relations occurs was
entering the project by its participants. In this stage of the project development local
producers were informed that such initiative is established in the region and they
were encouraged to participate in this (possible ways for participation were posting
information about the offer on the project web-site and participation in trainings
organized within the project). Although some of the local government institutions
were involved within the BLP project since its beginning they actually were not active
in promoting this initiative. But it does not mean that people who work in local
government institutions did not play important role in the process of “recruitment”
local producers to this initiative. Some of them had direct contact with inhabitants
who might have been interested joining the project and they were encouraging them
to participate. In mentioned activity they actually did not represent local government
(and they did not base their actions on trust in formal institutions) but worked as
individuals who live in the area, have good contact with people and – what is crucial
– these people trust in their competence and knowledge. Because of that, at least
some of, local officials might be described as “local experts” who are trusted by
inhabitants and who might influence their actions. What is specific is that mentioned
local officials are trusted rather as “people from neighbourhood”, not representatives
from formal institutions. For many of the BLP project participants this group’s activity
in promoting the initiative was most important factor which decided of their
involvement within this project:
39
At the beginning Mr. “X” has contacted with us has proposed us to enter this
programme. Me and my wife had different opinions on this but we have decided to
join this project. (Producer7)
From him [local official]. He suggested that it is worth to develop and that it would
be rather for our sons. (Producer9)
Mr. “X” has came, there was short interview, they made some photos. About my
fears… I had a long conversation with him – he has convinced me. (Producer10)
It was very difficult at the beginning. The village administrator has introduced us
because he knows Mr. Oldakowski (…). (Producer14)
The village administrator helped us to organize. He came to us and said that we
know each other and should develop this [working in the field of local products]
(Producer19)
Specific example of importance of informal relations which helped to
overcome relatively low trust in formal institutions was the case of the project
participant who also works in the institution coordinating the initiative:
I work in the Commune’s Cultural Centre. When Mrs. Iza was working on the
project’s application I was observing this. After this, I have agreed to be researcher
in the Lutowiska commune, I have made 22 interviews with local producers. I was
very happy that I will have opportunity to promote for myself. (Producer12)
In the above quoted statements we might see that in the stage of entering
the project the role of informal relations between local producers and local officials
was very important15. The secondly mentioned group was active in the field of
encouraging people to involve within the BLP project. But although local officials
represent formal institutions of local government to be efficient in the process of
promoting this initiative they had to use (and base on) not trust in formal institutions
but interpersonal trust. In other words, they were trusted by local producers in the
spite of the fact that they represent formal institutions (which, as we said before, are
poorly trusted by participants of the BLP project). Such conclusion also confirms that
strategy of promoting the project which was used by the project coordinators (in
which local producers were not encouraged to participate in this through formal
institutions of local government but by individuals who work in these institutions but
also who are interpreted by inhabitants as those who might be trusted) was
adequate. On the other hand, identifying such phenomenon suggests that even if the
formal institutions (on both local or State level) are poorly trusted it does not have to
mean that they will be inefficient in their relations with society. It actually depends
on interpersonal trust between local (or State) officials and all stakeholders. It is
especially important in local tier of government where people know each other well
and they do not interpret local officials as local government representatives but
15
At the same time it has to be emphasized that in the first stage of the project “word-of-mouth”
phenomenon did not actually appear. It is not only result of relatively rare contacts between local
producers but it is also consequence of accepted form of dissemination information about the project
(project coordinators or their representatives have contacted with absolute majority of producers in
local area). Besides, “word-of-mouth” works best in the case of high trustworthiness of person who
delivers information – in relation to the BLP project such trustworthiness was much higher between
local producers and project coordinators (or more generally – “local experts”) than within the group of
local producers.
40
rather as “people from neighbourhood” who are “familiar” with inhabitants of the
local area.
6.2. Role of communication and learning
RQ2.1: Is there a process of inclusive collective learning amongst all actors (social
learning and sharing mental models)?
RQ2.2: In what aspects of collective action process of social learning is most distinct?
Before we try to make an attempt to identify eventual process of inclusive
learning amongst all actors of the process we would like to emphasize that one of
the main purposes of this project was to increase level of participants’ competence
and knowledge in relation to market skills and qualifications. That is why such
important aspect of this initiative were trainings in marketing, sales and
entrepreneurial skills etc. And in relation to this it might be said the process of
collective learning has appeared (for some of the participants it was even the most
valuable result of their involvement within this project). But in this section we are
rather interested in these “lessons” who were received by the participants from other
participants. In other words, this part of report will be devoted to things which were
learned by local producer not through formally organized trainings but rather through
observation, talks and all informal relations with other project participants. Only in
relation to this we might say about actual “social learning” which is based on social
and mainly informal interactions (in relation to organized trainings it would be rather
“education process” than “social learning” process). Analysis in this part will refer to
two particular aspects: 1) What interviewees have learnt about other participants of
the BLP project through involvement within this initiative? 2) What is the most
important thing that participants have learnt through participation within the BLP
project?
In relation to the first issue most often stated opinion was that participants
have learnt that in their nearest area are so many interesting people who work in the
field of local products or people:
We learn new things which are happening in the Bieszczady region, e.g. “The Bread
Fest”. They introduce their customers to us and we do the same thing. I am also a
teacher and these people might be invited to school – we might hand down the
tradition to posterity. Although we live here for a long time we learn new things.
(Producer3)
[I have learnt] many interesting things… One does not know that there is something
like that [local production] (Producer4)
That there are people who are resourceful… (Producer5)
I did know about many people who busy themselves producing local products.
(Producer7)
[I have learnt about] people. Different things: good and bad ones. (Producer8)
Some of the producers were changing their qualifications in order to offer product for
which there will be demand. (Producer11)
41
That there are such enthusiasts, jut as us, who do different things and they want to
act. And they appear in different cities and on different meetings. (Producer14)
That there are so many people who are talented, who can do something. Sometimes
it is surprising. (Producer15)
From the above statements two main conclusions might be stated. Firstly,
thanks to the participation in the BLP project many of the region’s inhabitants have
learnt about people who also live in this area and do very similar thing in the field of
their economic activity. Through participation in local producers’ initiative it has
became clear for interviewees that: 1) there is big diversity of local products’ kinds in
their region, 2) there are many individuals who work in the field of local products, 3)
there is particular “profile of personality” among, at least some of, the local
producers in the Bieszczady. In relation to first aspect, we might say about
educational influence of the BLP project on their participants. Cultural diversity is one
of the biggest advantages of the region but it actually creates benefits if people are
aware of it. That is why the BLP project is very valuable in this field - it shows the
richness of the cultural heritage of the region not only to the tourists (or generally –
people from outside of the region), but also to these who live here but their
knowledge related to local/regional culture is quiet limited. Besides, one might notice
that in this educational aspect the BLP project creates opportunities for more
formalized and wider activities, such as school events where local products from the
region might be introduced to the children. But the BLP project helped its
participants not only in learning about their region’s cultural heritage but it has also
proved that this heritage is very vital – some of the interviewees stated that they did
not know that so many people in this region producer and offer local products. Such
observation is also important in terms of psychological support” – “if many people do
things which is similar to my work it proves that such work does make sense” (it also
means that “if there are so many people work in similar field, I know to whom I
should go if I had some problems or difficulties in my economic activity”). But
besides getting knowledge about diversity of profiles of production it is very
important that the BLP project participants have learnt a lot about the people: their
attitudes and personal attributes. It might be very fruitful for further cooperation and
relations between inhabitants of the region. The most often declared observations
might be justified as the positive ones and they compose general profile of local
producer who is resourceful, talented, active and enthusiastic persons. Of course,
such picture might be idealistic but let us notice there was also the element of
realistic judge of the local producers – one of he interviewees has declared that he
has learnt both good and bad things about his colleagues.
The above conclusion lets us interpret the BLP project as the functional and
favourable initiative which helped local producers to know each other better. But on
the other hand – and this is second conclusion made on the base of quoted opinions
– it proves lack of interpersonal contacts between local producers before the project.
Most of the project participants did know about other local producers before (or –
more specifically – did know that there are so many local producers in their region).
It shows how such initiative was needed but of course it does not mean that more
intense relations and cooperation follow knowledge about people who work in similar
fields.
42
As the supplement to the above analysis it should be emphasized that in two
cases interviewees have declared that they have not learn anything or very little:
There were not any “revelations”. (Producer1)
I have not learnt anything – there were no meetings, nothing at all. (Producer10)
These answers were made by those who might be described as the “passive”
participants of the project. And because of their passiveness it was difficult for them
to gain any knowledge about other participants. The above-quoted producers were
not well-informed about the project and the second quotation proves this – the
interviewee declares that there were no meetings which is not true statement but it
proves that his knowledge about functioning of the project was highly limited16.
In relation to RQ2.1 and RH2.1 the perspective of the project coordinators
should be also investigated (the process of “social learning” includes all participating
actors). In some part their declarations related to question “What they have learnt
about other participants of the project” were similar to those who were presented by
local producers:
I have learnt the technology of honey production and handicraft techniques.
(Coordinator2)
It was like contact with my imagination about these people and then with reality –
that there are so many products, and these people were hiding until now, they were
in “trenches”. And now we are able to see them. (Coordinator3)
But for one of the coordinators participation within the project was
opportunity to make more specified observations:
[I have learnt about] their problems, that not all of them are ready for taking a risk.
People have to be versatile, from such local production it is difficult to live. Now it is
rather domestic handicraft but it might be on the bigger scale. (Coordinator4)
From this statement it is clear that “social learning” which has occurred within
the BLP project might be “starting point” for further supporting local producers in this
region. Even for the project coordinators the local products were some kind of “terra
incognita” before the project initiation but through involvement in this they have
learnt better what is the stage of present development of local products in the
Bieszczady and what are the desired directions of its further development.
The second question related to the process of collective “social learning”
within the BLP project was as follows: “What is the most important thing that
participants have learnt through participation within the BLP project?”.
The young people should rather learn something (…). Everyone is working
individually. (Producer1)
[I have learnt] the cooperation in wider group of people. (Producer4)
16
We do not judge in this place if mentioned relative lack of information about the project was caused
by the producer and limited willingness to involve within the project or rather coordinators inefficiency
in keeping him informed.
43
[I have learnt] to share products with others. (Producer7)
I have learnt that my honey is very good – some people sent it to analysis and
proved that it is not-polluted. (Producer8)
I have met interesting people. I have learned how to live in such community. New
experiences. In some moments I was feeling that I am starting to live in full sense of
this word. My husband as he saw me he did not believe that it is me. (Producer12)
[I have learnt] cooperation with higher number of people, in the group and the
involvement in all of this and responsibility – it is necessary to do my best to be as it
should be. (Producer14)
Good cooperation between people. (Producer18)
Man is learning for whole life. I try to take many things in – I go somewhere, look
how it is made or prepared. It gives me lot of satisfaction. (Producer19)
If someone does not learn, he died. (Producer20)
Answers for mentioned question are much more diversified than it was
observed in previous case and they might be divided in two groups. First one
contains answers which are actually some kind of “mottos” which refer to the
process of learning. In their statements, interviewees have declared importance of
learning and gaining knowledge about new things. It is hard to disagree with most of
the presented “mottos” but we should be aware that it does not mean that all of
them are really used in interviewees actions. In other words, if there were no specific
examples of actual learning given one might suppose that local producers are
convinced that it is important to permanently learn new things but not necessarily
proofs for such actions would be found in their economic activity.
But there were also answers who identify things which were learnt by the BLP
project participants. From the group of these answers most of them have referred to
the issue of cooperation – the interviewees have declared that they have learnt, in
general sense, “how to cooperate”. It might seem to be strange if we refer these
answers to our conclusion from previous section that it is difficult to find convincing
examples of actual cooperation between participants. How it might be explained?
Some explanation is that interviewees mistake “cooperation” for “collective action”.
In the second case where individuals do something within the group they affect
other individuals’ actions but it does not have to mean that they plan, and actually do
something together with taking others’ interests and attitudes into account. To make
it more viewable – if someone was participating in the BLP project which is form of
collective action it does not mean that he/she was cooperating with other
participants (e.g. if producers go to the fair to promote their products it does not
have to be example for cooperation if they go there because they were invited by the
coordinators and the coordinators have organized the travel but it will be example for
cooperation if the producers have communicated and agreed that they will go by one
car or that one producer will take all the products to his/her car). Because of that it
would be probably more appropriate to say that the BLP project participants have
learnt how to behave in the case of “collective action” which involves other
individuals, or even – how to behave in public situations where other people judge
someone’s behaviour. Such element of learning is very important and valuable but it
44
should not be identified as referring to the cooperation issue (it should be rather
identified as the necessary “starting point” for further learning on “how to
cooperate?).
The above conclusion does not mean that all statements which are related to
the process of learning on “how to cooperate?” should be corrected. It rather limits
the process of cooperation’s learning to these participants between whom actual
cooperation has appeared, such group is e.g. the members of “Bies” association. On
the other hand, some interviewees have declared that they did not learn anything.
From their argumentation we might suppose that such answers were made mostly by
these producers whore are production-oriented. They focus on their production, they
have broad experience in their field of production and, in their opinion, it would be
difficult for them to learn something new. It is probably true that after 20 or 30 years
of working in particular field of production it is difficult to “surprise” the producer
with something new (which refers to the production process) but, at the same time,
there are probably other things which might be learned by these producers (e.g. in
relation to promotion or distribution). That is why the fact that their lack of learning
should be interpreted as the failure of the initiative (without judging if the reasons of
this failure might be reduced by the project initiators and coordinators).
Similar question was asked to the project coordinators. Their answers were
not diversified so much:
[I have learnt] humility, I also have opened on different things. I had problems with
contacts with other people. Now I know that people expect something from me and I
try to cope with this. (Coordinator2)
[I have learnt] the ability to cooperate with people, ability to compromise, humility.
(Coordinator3)
It is important that this project is also interpreted by the coordinators as the
fruitful for them. Maybe this is the reason of the fact that even after completing the
project in its planned time frames (2003-2005) some actions are still undertaken by
the coordinators and they did not give up this initiative.
Concluding our analysis related to the RQ2.1 and RQ2.2 we might say that the
process of inclusive collective learning (in which both producers and coordinators of
the project were involved) has appeared. Much more intense “social learning” was
identified in relation to learning “about other participants of the BLP project” than
other issues. The most often declared result of such collective learning was gaining
knowledge about local producers who live in the region. Because of that, the BLP
project might be interpreted as the initiative who let its participants to “detect” each
other. The question is if identified process of learning was actually “collective” or
rather all participants have learned some new things separately. Actually, in most of
the observed cases the second interpretation might be applicable, but there ar also
some symptoms or displays of actual “collective learning”. It refers mainly to the
situations or initiatives who have participatory component. Generally, from the
project coordinators’ perspective very important aspect of generating process of
learning was to involve participants in undertaken actions and encourage them to
active participation. In the project initiatives such as: group meetings, workshops,
courses and trainings (along with collective participation within promotional
45
activities) collective learning might be interpreted as the result of the physical
presence during mentioned meetings and interactions between actors. Because of
that, one might say that “collective learning” would mean “learning which apper
within and through the groups and interations between project participants”.
RQ2.3: What are the main communication disruptions between key actors of
analyzed initiative?
The first potential disruption which should be indicated is the remoteness of
the area where the BLP project is located (it was mentioned and fully described in
the section 3). The interviewees were asked how they judge importance of this fact
(geographical distance between participants) and does it influence (more specifically
– limit) the process of cooperation. At the same time, answering the question local
producers mentioned that the problem might be that the project headquarters
(where the coordinators operate) is located in Lutowiska:
The location [of the project headquarters] is not very good, it is far from here to
Lutowiska, but there is contact by phone. (Producer1)
The more far the distance is, the cooperation is less intense. (Producer2)
If it would be closer, the meetings will be more often. (Producer14)
For the above-quoted interviewees the long geographical distance is important
in a way that it negatively influences contacts between participants. The problem of
communication disruption in this case is twofold. Firstly, it is difficult to contact
between participants if they live in remote areas (not only in the same city/village,
but even not in the same commune). Secondly, for some of the participants the
problem is that they have limited access to the project coordinators by the fact that
their office is located in Lutowiska. Analyzing geographical location of the
coordinators’ office this problem will be most significant for those producers who live
in western communes of the Podkarpackie voivodship (e.g. Baligrod).
The problem of long distance as the communication process disruption was
also indicated by the project coordinators:
This is problem, not everyone is mobile. (Coordinator2)
Such disruptions are being reduced. (…) Internet – it would make communication
better and save time. It is not the access only because it is getting better but the
lack of skills and habit of using Internet. It is also the fear of computer.
(Coordinator3)
It is actually disruption. That is why at the beginning of the project there was an idea
to establish two locations [of the project headquarters] (Coordinator4)
The interviewees not only identified the long distance between them as the
problem, some of them also mentioned some ways which are used in order to limit
the eventual problems which are caused by long geographical distance.
If we plan to meet somewhere it is not very big problem – people give a ride to the
other ones, but the roads are very bad. (Producer3)
The meetings are in different cities in order to limit the “distance barrier”.
(Producer4)
46
It is limitation but if I go to the Communal Office in Lutowiska I always go to them
[project coordinators] or they come to me to know something new. (Producer8)
It is different now – there are mobile phones, internet. The office has got access to
the internet, some of the participants also has got it. What is most important is
phone – the distance does not influence contact. (Producer12)
It is not very important – if it is needed we call people together. (Producer15)
As we can see ways for reducing problems which are result of the
geographical distance are established by both participants and coordinators. In first
case – we mentioned it before – people communicate each other in order to
collectively organize travel for project meetings and trainings. It is example not only
of cooperation which purpose is to limit communication disruptions but it also proves
economic rationality of the producers – if people travel together it is more rational
economically than if each individual would go separately. Besides, some of the
producers (Producer8) search contact and information by themselves. We might
suppose that such activities are limited to those participants who are most active
within this project. Some of the interviewees also mentioned that existing
geographical communication barriers might be reduced by technological innovations.
But the project coordinators also undertake actions which lead to limit
negative influence of long geographical distance. The meetings of the project
participants are organized not only where the headquarters is located (Lutowiska)
but in different cities each time. It allows high number of local producers
participating in these meetings – even if they avoid one or two meetings because it is
organized far from their city or village, they will attend one of the subsequent
meetings organized in their area.
But among opinions in which long distance between project participants is
interpreted as the communication disruption there were also statements in which this
fact was interpreted as neutral for functioning of the project:
Of course the distance in Bieszczady was, is and will be long but people got used to
this and it should not be barrier in interpersonal contacts. (Producer7)
I have never thought about this… No it rather does not limit cooperation.
(Producer10)
But the long distance between participants and between participants and
project coordinators is not the only one disruption in contacts and communication.
The others which were mentioned by interviewees were forms of disseminating
information:
There should be written information. (Producer6)
or frequency of organized meetings:
To rare meetings, but I think that it will be better. (Producer7)
The coordinators have emphasized additional problem in communication
within the BLP project – it is relatively rare use of technologically advanced channels
of communication, especially Internet and e-mail. The usefulness of this
communication tool is most significant in relation to all information updates which
47
appear between direct meetings which are organized in the two- or three-month
period. The limitation of this communication disruption is very difficult and it cannot
be overcame by the local producers by themselves, it rather depends on
technological development of the region and creating of culture of using Internet. At
this moment, Internet infrastructure is very poorly developed in the Bieszczady and
we also have to remember that many of the BLP project participants are elder people
for whom it is very difficult to become familiar with Internet (or computer, generally).
The interviewees were also asked about particular kind of communication
disruption which is linked with specific attitude of some of the project participants.
The question was related to the participants who intentionally withhold the
information. Absolute majority of the producers does not see such problem within
the project. It proves that within this initiative participants do not create competitive
advantage on the base of such resource as information – if they gain some
information which is useful and valuable for other participants they share it. One of
the interviewees also indicated one of the reasons what makes withholding the
information non-profitable:
If we work together the costs are distributed. What I will gain if I did not pass the
invitation [for the event] to other persons (…), if I went I look for the people in order
to distribute the costs… and the company is great then. (Producer12)
Concluding this section which was related to the communication disruptions
we might say that the most important problem seems to be geographical distance
between the project participants and coordinators. There was some group of the
interviewees who stated that this problem does not very negatively influence
contacts and information transfer but, on the other hand, such disruption is very
difficult to reduce, especially in the case of Bieszczady where technologically
advanced enhancements of the communication process are poorly developed.
To the above paragraphs one additional observation should be made which
refers to the role of project coordinators in the process of communication – their
dominant position within the project might be also observed in this aspect. The
project coordinators are main (and in some dimensions) one and only sources of
information for the project participants. It is not related only to the “content” of
educational and training activities where central position of the project leaders is
relatively obvious. It also refers to the interpreting coordinators as the “key
informers” for project participants in different dimensions of operating on the market
e.g. gaining EU funds. From such perspective project coordinators are not only
“leaders” in the meaning of conducting the initiative but also having certain level of
authority.
Certain position of project coordinators in the communication structure is the
result of other two reasons. Firstly, project leaders have needed resources to
disseminate information related to the initiative. These resources are highly
differentiated: from technologically advanced devices to dense social networks of
contacts which allow to disseminate information among many different actors.
Secondly, governance structures of the project are designed in a way which prefers
coordinators as some kind of “sociometric stars” which role is crucial for “information
flows” between local producers. But in the phase of the project framework planning
there was an intention to develop network of local leaders who would be “link”
48
between project coordinators and local producers. As one of the interviewed
coordinators mentioned it has became failure because of the lack of such individuals
in the local area. In this situation central position of project coordinators should be
identified as functional and reducing existing “structural holes” in the communication
structure of the project.
But besides mentioned symptoms of central position of project coordinators in
the communication structure and one direction of “information flows” (from
coordinators to participants) we should also express that there are also some
situations in which communication between local producers has appeared without
intervention from leaders. It always refers to actions on operational level such as
finding shared transport for going to the exhibitions or meetings. In these situations
dissemination of information does not involve project coordinators and it limits to the
local producers. But we should be aware that the above-mentioned form of
communication would be be always highly-limited as the number of communication
“nodes” of social networks of the project participants is limited and the scope of
them is very “local”.
6.3. Role of transaction costs and governance structures of
cooperation17
RQ3.1: How does transaction costs affect the choice and changes of governance
structures?
RQ3.2: What is the role of governance structures of cooperation in making BLP
project successful for its participants?
RH3.1: Governance structures of the BLP project which were developed by initiators
and coordinators of this initiative were oriented on reducing most important
transaction costs related to economic activities of local producers.
RH3.2: Within BLP project role of governance structures is crucial factor for creating
benefits for participants of this initiative.
Transaction costs related to economic activities are usually very difficult to
identify. In this case we were actually interested in two dimensions of transaction
costs. The first one was referred to the general economic activity, the second one –
to the involvement within the BLP project. In relation to the second one we might
say that most of the interviewees have declared that they did not have to “sacrifice”
or resign anything in order to become part of this project (it might be indirect
symptom of relatively passive involvement within this project). From these
interviewees who declared some “investments” which they had to make the most
often was time – the local producers have declared that such activities as
participation in internal meetings of the project, trainings but also in external events
such as fair, exhibitions or media appearance is very time-consuming. Probably this
is one of the reasons which makes that some of the participants who were within this
initiative since its beginning do no involve in all activities – we have to remember
17
By the fact of difficulty with empirical investigation of transaction costs we do not divide empirical
questions and hypotheses in this section and make general analysis in relation to all four questions
and hypotheses discussed in this part. The objective is to make general picture of role of transaction
costs in the BLP project development and describing dominant ways of reducing them.
49
that most of the producers live in rural areas where there is no clear distinction
between time of work and leisure time and sometimes it is very difficult to leave the
farm even for few hours. On the other hand, the fact that only time (not money) has
to be invested in order to gain some concrete benefits should not be actually
interpreted as transaction cost but rather as a “little price” for relatively valuable
advantages.
Other transaction cost which was related to involvement within the project
(and also is connected with time-consuming form of this initiative) is problem of
disturbing “family life” by participating within activities such as trainings or
promotional travels. But even in this case this cost seems to be ambiguous. As one
of the interviewees said:
The family was hurt a little bit. But besides this, it gave me lot of satisfaction, I have
taken rest from work and family life. (Producer12)
Such transaction cost was most important in the case of women who
participate within this project (most often declarations similar to the above-quoted
were made by women who are members of the “Rural Home-mistress Club”). Let us
notice that active participation within this project was difficult for women because of
the fact that it was not consistent with traditional role assigned for woman in this
region. But for some of them transaction cost which is related to sacrificing home
duties was also the advantage of the initiative because it has helped them to become
more autonomous and let them to be fulfilled (this issue will be also discussed in
section 6.5).
In relation to the transaction costs of conducting economic activity for local
producers in the region we might identify as the most important the costs of
individual involvement in actions which are needed to effective economic
performance: promotion and distribution18. In relation to promotional aspect we
might say that producers had to promote their products separately in situation where
there was no common brand or image which might be used in the process of
promotion. Of course such individual and isolated actions were expensive and, very
often, inefficient. Because of that, one of the most important objectives of the BLP
project was to integrate promotional activities and increase efficiency of these
actions which are undertaken individually.
In relation to the distribution issue the idea of the project coordinators was to
create distributional network where group of local products would be offered. The
objective was to convert existing form of distribution (where producer offers the
products directly to the customers who come to the farm) in more efficient and wider
way where the profitability is also higher.
The question is if these objectives related to the reducing most important
transaction costs have influenced governance structures of this initiative. Analyzing
the governance structures of the BLP project we might say that its two forms might
be distinguished: formal and informal (these two forms have often intermingled each
other). In first form formal governance structures are result of such regulations as
18
Only in case of production individual actions are more beneficiary than collective ones – this is
specificity of local products where non-mass production is preferred.
50
the rules for products certification or the statute of the “Bies” association. The
problem is that in both cases formal governance structures have got limited influence
on the project participants – there is relatively low number of producers whose
products are certified and there is only over 50 producers who are members of the
“Bies” association19. But informal governance structures are related to all project
participants in all stages of its development. That is why we will focus on these
informal governance structures which objective was to limit most important
transaction costs.
Informal governance structures of the BLP project were based on (and caused
by) the role of the leaders within this initiative. In different parts of this report we
emphasize importance of the project coordinators for success of this project (in its
different aspects). Unless the interviewees were asked about the role of leaders only
in one question, perceiving their role as crucial for creating benefits for the producers
has appeared in answers for many questions. What is interesting in the mentioned
question relatively high number of participants has declared that there is no “leader”
of the initiative. Such contradictory might be explained by different interpreting terms
“coordinator” and “leader” by the participants. The leader might be interpreted as
someone whose leadership is based on the authority and coordinator builds his/her
position on competence, knowledge and organizational skills. But in the case of the
BLP project these two categories actually intermingle each other, especially in
relation to the Mrs. Izabela Cicha who is the director of the “Commune’s Cultural
Centre” in Lutowiska and supervisor and coordinator of the BLP project – she might
be described as both leader and coordinator in full meaning of these words (similar
situation is with Mr. Przemyslaw Oldakowski from Foundation “Partnership for
Environment”).
Important role of leaders (whose actions are interpreted as the form of
governance structures) was identified in relation to different aspects of the project:
entering the project by participants, functioning within the project, involving in the
activities which are undertaken in this initiative. Specific example of crucial role of
the project coordinators is solving conflicts between local producers. Generally, the
interviewees have declared that there are rather no conflicts within the initiative20
but they were also asked what would they do in hypothetic situation of conflict, to
whom they would go first. Most of the BLP project participants have indicated project
coordinators or the “board” (of the “Bies” association) – they interpreted these
categories as the most appropriate for solving conflicts within the initiative:
The board. (Producer3)
I would start from the “chief”. (Producer5)
19
The „Bies” Association was created by the group of most active local producers along with project
coordinators. Main purpose was to ensure long-term character of the project and make its results
more sustained. There are no particular conditions related to becoming member of this association (as
in the procedure of certification where specified requirements were designed), but at the same time it
is part of the BLP project which involves relatively small number of participants.
20
It should be interpreted as the functional but, on the other hand, it also might be symptom of
relative lack of cooperation between participants and strong relations between them – conflicts occur
only in situation of identifying difference in interpersonal contacts or in situation when one’s
performance is negatively affected by actions of other individuals.
51
Firstly I would call Mr. “X” and he would inform me [what should I do]. He knows a
lot about this. (Producer9)
To the people who have started this programme, to the organizers. (Producer11)
“The board”, “the chief”, “the organizers” might be interpreted as the most
trusted and most resourceful persons within the project and aspect of solving
conflicts is only one example of this. The other example might be: a) communication
process within the initiative – the project coordinators were identified as “sociometric
stars” and also they were most often described as the communication “initiators”, b)
the fact that most of the interviewees were not able to identify formal rules of
functioning the project – they were actually focused on the coordinators ability to
solve problems than on using existing formal ways, such as the organization statute,
for problems solutions). Crucial role of the project leaders in the governance
structures of the project is based on their two characteristics: 1) they are perceived
as the people with knowledge and competence, 2) they are perceived as people who
want to do “something” productive for the region and community and who are trustworthy. In relation to this it is interesting that relatively high number of participants
said that the BLP project does not have the leader – it is difficult to explain such
phenomenon but it might be caused by fact that project coordinators are perceived
by local producers not as those who “lead” them, but rather those who “help” them.
If we agree that role of leaders (as the basic element of the project
governance structures) is definitely crucial for the project functioning we also have to
agree with following conclusions made on the base of collected data. Firstly, leaders
are responsible for creating benefits for the participants in high extent. It might be
explained on general level – the group of project “leaders” has started this initiative
and make it profitable for its participants. To be more specific – the project initiators
and coordinators have designed it in a way which helps to reduce most important
problems in economic performance (it will be proved in our further analysis of
producers’ motivations for participation within the BLP project). They have focused
on these aspects and spheres which might be indicated as the most important
reasons for relatively poor performance of local producers in this area up to date.
The fact that most of participants declare that the project has made their individual
(but also community’s or region’s) situation better is the most significant proof of
this.
The second conclusion is related to the fact that important role of the project
coordinators (as the element or aspect of governance structures) results in rather
passive attitudes of the local producers – the dominant attitude is “reacting” on
coordinators’ encouragements or suggestions than active working on the problem
solutions21. In other words, we might say that – at least in some part – the reason
which caused the launching of the BLP project (passiveness of the local producers in
the region) is sustained by the accepted form of functioning of this initiative and its
governance structures. The participants still are more “beneficiaries” than “activists”
of the BLP project.
21
From the opinions of one of the project coordinators we might say that only in the “Bies”
association which members are the most active participants of the project the local producers take
responsibility in projecting ways of further development of the initiative.
52
Above-described aspect of the governance structures seems to be ambiguous
for further functioning of the project. Thanks to the actions undertaken by group of
the project initiators and coordinators the concrete benefits for local producers might
be observed. Without any doubt we might say that most important transaction costs
related to working in this field and barriers of development of economic activity were
or are being reduced. But on the other hand, such significant basing the initiative on
its “leaders” is relatively risky because it actually means that eventual leaving the
project by the coordinators (for any reasons) would result in its end – it is very
difficult to imagine at this moment that local producers would be able to
autonomously coordinate and manage the BLP project. Because of that desired
direction of further project development should be converting its form from typical
non-governmental organization (with formal structures, hierarchy and “external
leaders” who work for the community benefits) to community-based organization
(where the community tries to create benefits by itself with using resources which
are in disposal of the community members). The “Bies” association where the
governance structures are, in some extent, changed in comparison with the first
forms of functioning the BLP project proves that more active and self-reliant actions
of local producers is possible but still has to be supported.
High importance of project coordinators for well functioning of the project was
proved in the above paragraphs but one should reverse the question of project
coordinators role for the initiative ans ask: “What is the personal gain for the project
initiatiors from their involvement within the initiative?”. From their statements we
might conclude that dominant motivation was related to the will of working for
general benefits of the community. Such motivation comes mainly from their
involvement within different social activities in the region and “third sector”
organizations which are focused on development of the Bieszczady mountains in the
spheres of culture, economy and environment. For the group of the – as we might
say – “social activists” initiating the BLP project was some kind of the continuation of
their previous actions undertaken within different non-governmental organizations.
Besides such motivation which is part of general orientation on involvement
within community-profitable initiatives we might also identify some specific benefits
for project coordinators which are recognized by themselves as non-intentional. The
most important one is similar to other project participants perspective (many of them
expressed that thanks to the participation within the project they have became
aware that in their local area are many people who work in the field of local
production of food or hand-made objects): through becoming part of the BLP project
it has became evident for initiative coordinators how many inhabitants from the
region might be described as “local producers” because of the specificity of their field
of work. Such phenomenon which might be called as “awareness effect” is probably
one of the most important benefits for project coordinators (but mentioned benefit –
as we have stated before – should not be interpreted as limited only to project
initiators: it refers also to local producers who have seen – thanks to the project –
how differentiated is cultural heritage of their region and how “lively” it is).
Concluding part of the report related to the role of project coordinators it is
needed to focus on eventual measurable benefits for them which were created by
the BLP project. We should emphasize that – on the base of information collected
through undertaken research – as opposed to the local producers the coordinators
53
are not beneficiaries of the initiative in terms of calculable benefits. As the exception,
the case of main coordinator and co-author of the project from Commune’s Cultural
Centre in Lutowiska should be indicated but here we say not about personal benefits
but something which might be called as “institutional benefits” (benefits related not
to the individual but to the mother institution of one of the project coordinators).
The question is if benefits identified in relation to the project coordinators
might be sufficient attraction for this group in next years of the project functioning.
At this moment there are “soft” kinds of attraction for them rather than calculable
ones. But it does not mean that they would totally leave the project soon – they have
decided to initiate the project as the form of realizing their passion not in order to
gain financial profits – such motivation should be interpreted as provision for leaving
the BLP project (even if they would not be involved formally, they probably will be in
touch with local producers and support their actions).
6.4. Role of the State – National, regional, EU laws – and the
formal institutional environment on cooperation
RQ4.1: To what extent can the State and its formal institutions enhance cooperation?
RH4.1: Cooperation within BLP project is not strongly influenced by formal
institutional environment related to local and regional products in Poland.
Formal institutional context seems to be very important for development of
local products in Poland. Unless local produces are strongly embedded in the
tradition supporting institutional environment which has made their development
more intense has appeared in last years along with the process of Poland’s accession
to the European Union and law harmonization. By accepting EU law in relation to the
local products Polish government has created favourable institutional environment for
local products development. This environment might be briefly described as follows:
In relation to the legal context, there are two key legal acts. In the EU law the key
legal act is Council of European Union’s decree nr 2081/92. The decree introduces
two categories: “protected designation of origin” and “protection of geographical
indication”, which guarantee the products including them in the protected products
register. One has to be remember that by this decree we protect the name, not the
product itself.
Second legal act is the „Registration and Protection of Names and Indications of
Agricultural Food Products and Traditional Products Act”. This act is mainly regulation
of competencies identifying Polish institutions which are responsible for realization of
the legacies of the EU decree. In this case it is Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development which is responsible for accepting and judge of the applications for
regional products registration. In compliance with general rule of relations between
State and EU law, Polish law is supplement of the EU law. (State)
The interviewee from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development has
not only identified legal context of local products “market” in Poland but also has
interpreted it as favourable and supporting further development of such kind of
production in rural areas:
54
Currently the law decidedly favours development of regional products. It is not only
the guarantee of registered products and those which are included in the register.
The law clearly defines sanctions for those producers who “cheat”. It is the legacy
which the producers wanted to include in the act. Moreover, current law not only
favours development of regional products, but also encourages to expand such
activity (…). (State)
The question arises if the legal environment in the above-described shape also
favours and supports the BLP project. There is one important difference between
products defined in legal acts and local products which are offered by the
participants of this initiative – for the most of the local producers there is no
intention for registering their products in accordance with rules established by Polish
and EU law. Besides, in relation to the certification system which is created by legal
acts one might say that there is also “weak connection” between this and the BLP
functioning because the latter one has established its own system certification (in
order not to protect the products but to promote them more effectively).
The role of State in the BLP project and the process of cooperation within this
initiative was also not very important in relation to financing the project. The funds
for the project were gained not from State institutions or EU funds but from the nongovernmental organization programme (The East Carpathian Foundation) which aim
was to support initiatives in the Bieszczady region.
But of course, by talking about role of the State on the EU, national or
regional level we do not only mean creating legal environment or financing the
initiative but also other ways of support (or, on the other hand – disturbance). The
Role of State institutions might be also described in terms of applied policy which
might: 1) support, 2) disturb, 3) does not significantly influence the BLP project
functioning. The third category is most adequate to the State influence on the BLP
project. But as we will see in further part of this report Ministry of Agriculture and
Rural Development plans to initiate actions which will support such initiatives as the
BLP project.
RQ4.2: Do participants of the initiative differ in the level of knowledge and
interpretation of institutional context?
In relation to the issue of difference between project participants in their
knowledge and interpretation of institutional context the aspect of knowledge might
be analyzed only indirectly because during interviews there was no direct
investigation related to the level of knowledge about particular elements of the
institutional context of local products development in Poland. On the base of
collected data we might say that absolute majority of interviewees did not mention
any aspects of existing institutional context in Poland in this sphere although there
were some questions in which such reference to such issues would be adequate. But
much more significant symptom that their knowledge in this area is limited was
confusing different institutional contexts and interpreting the BLP project as a form of
EU support within the framework of structural funds. In that situation some
consequences might be identified from which the most important were unjustifiable
expectations related to the BLP project coordinators, e.g. financial support – demand
for such support was declared (in relation to the BLP project) with argumentation
55
suggesting that interviewee interpret this initiative as EU initiative or initiative
functioning within the structural funds or agricultural subsidies “logic”.
We might state that the BLP project participants’ knowledge on institutional
context specific for local products is highly limited if we interpret “specific context” as
the context which is designed by two above-mentioned legal acts regulating local
products development and protection in Poland. Two consequences of such situation
might be indicated. Firstly, as we have stated in other parts of this report dominant
position of the project initiators and coordinators as the “sources of knowledge” and
experts was observed. In other words it is not necessary for individual producer to
know specific legal context for local products in Poland if his/her economic activity,
undertaken actions or made decisions are strongly influenced by knowledge and
authority of project coordinators. But on the other hand – and this is second
potential reason for relative lack of knowledge related to institutional and legal
context – observing ways of conducting economic activity by the BLP project
participants suggests that such knowledge is not only unnecessary but even
inadequate. Making comparisons between institutional context in which local
producers from the BLP project operate and legal environment which was mentioned
by State official as crucial for successful local products development in Poland it
becomes clear that there are separate contexts. More important for this initiative
participants are general rules for conducting economic activity in Poland or
bureaucracy which occurs in gaining EU funds than specific regulations in the field of
local products. It is result of relatively small scale of production of individuals
involved within this initiative – legal opportunities offered by State or EU institutions
are designed rather for large-scale producers for whom protection of their product in
all EU countries is important because of their offensive entering foreign markets. For
the BLP producers much more useful is “soft support”22 in increasing marketing skills
or effective distribution network, but in these areas it is difficult to receive any help
from State institutions (in some part this relative passivity of State institutions in this
field was reason for initiating the BLP project).
But the fact that participants’ level of knowledge about institutional context is
limited it does not mean that local producers do not have their personal opinions in
relation to this. They just base their opinions on fragmentary information and
because of that their opinions, judges and expectations might be interpreted as
weakly linked with actual competencies and abilities of State institutions. The issue of
mentioned expectations was especially investigated during the interviews – reason
for such approach was to collect data which would allow to compare local producers’
expectations with actual actions undertaken by State institutions (on the local or
central level). For some of the interviewees the State institutions are interpreted
mainly as financial donor:
Of course, [I expect] subsidies to my field. If there was no support, there is no
chance… (Producer4)
It should support but it does not because it does not have money. (Producer15)
22
By “soft support” we mean mainly transfer of knowledge which is opposite to creating favourable
legal environment or direct financial support.
56
We all wanted them [the State institutions] to support us and help us – if there is no
money, it is very difficult. (Producer17)
The above expectations are justifiable as a reaction for poor economic
condition of many local producers. In some extent, it is also result of former
privileges which were established for some groups during socialist times. Good
example are honey producers who were receiving financial support from the State for
sugar purchases (it is needed substance for honey production). In last years such
support was ended what made operating in this field of production less profitable. On
the other hand, these expectations even if they are justifiable in some extent they
cannot be realized by the State institutions. First reason is related to limited financial
assets of the State which is not able to financially support all categories of local
producers. The second reason refers to the fact that direct financial support very
often petrifies passive attitudes of beneficiaries – there is no pressure on them to
make some innovations, reduce costs, find new ways of sale and distribution etc.
That is why the BLP project coordinators have decided not to support financially the
local producers but rather offer them some intangible resources which would help
them in making their economic condition and performance better than before23.
But it should be clearly emphasized that expectations related to financial
support are not only the “heritage” of the communism years and State policy from
those times. Similar logic of expectations is offered by EU policy and its institutions.
One might suppose that currently local producers will address their financial
expectations to the EU, but such phenomenon was not confirmed by research
results. In expectations related to the EU and judges of Poland’s accession to EU the
interviewees were much more “mature” and did not limit only to financial forms of
support:
[I expect] more good things. It will be possible to export and travel without any
limitations24. (Producer3)
There is big influence [of EU]. There is increasing demand for such products, but it
will not happen in short period of time. I rather expect from myself than from
institutions. (Producer11)
In the EU everything is in the right place, they know what they want and where they
go. (…) Since the beginning of the EU there are some rules, some principles, we do
not have this in Poland. (Producer12)
Regardless of the specific opinions presented above the more general and
much more important conclusion is that Poland’s accession to EU is judged as factor
which positively affects local producers’ activities. The interviewees are also aware
that such kind of product as local product which is relatively new in Poland is
something on which is relatively high demand in countries of EU. On the base of this
observation the BLP project expect similar “trajectory” of local products market
development in Poland.
23
As we know from other parts of this report such approach and way of support does not have result
in absolute increase of producers’ activeness.
24
In this case the interviewee was not talking about tourist travels but opportunity to go abroad in
order to participate in international promotional events.
57
Very important opinion related to the EU institutional environment was
presented by interviewee “Producer12” – it takes into account the fact of functioning
of EU which is based on specific set of rules. By saying that in Poland the institutional
environment is not as much well-ordered as in EU, this interviewee actually
expresses the expectation that in near future Poland will get closer to the EU model.
The question is if formal regulations regulating local products protection and
promotion which were mentioned in this section before will be interpreted by local
producers as clarifying this situation or making it even more obscure.
But with Poland’s accession to EU some risks are connected. This issue was
mentioned not by local producers but by one of the project coordinators
(Coordinator4) who has stated that there is competition within EU between
producers from different countries and supporting such initiative as the BLP project
would not be favorable for other countries. What might be added to this opinion is
that in order to limit this kind of risk support of State institutions is needed. It does
not have to be (or even it should not be) direct financial support but rather actions
leading to increasing potential of local producers and their competitive advantage.
And such expectations and preference were also declared by the interviewees:
There is no direct ways of support and because of that every form of promotion is
needed. (Producer1)
Some years ago Commune’s Offices organized Agro-Bieszczady (in cooperation with
Agricultural Advisory Offices). It was fantastic event lasting few days, there were
presentations, exhibitions, concerts. Now it is lacking of such events, even foreign
tourists were coming. There were also speeches and trainings. (Producer3)
They should promote Bieszczady more intensively in order to develop agro-tourism.
(Producer6)
In these opinions the interviewees declare that they expect support in the
field of promotion their activity. Let us notice that such expectations are very similar
to the profile of the BLP project what might be interpreted, in some part, as the
result of involvement within this project – local producers have became aware how
important for successful economic performance is intense and effective promotion.
The presented expectations are related to the actions which should be undertaken by
the State institutions on local level, but one might suppose that similar expectations
will be addressed to central government institutions and officials. In relation to this,
it should be emphasized that Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development plans to
launch campaign which will promote “regional products” in general meaning of this
word, but also by “List of traditional products” and with support of Marshall Offices in
all voivodships plans to support development of these products which are not
registered and protected by law (it is the situation in which the BLP project
participants are at this moment)25. After undertaking these actions by the State it is
very probable that above-quoted opinions will change into positive judges of State
institutions activities in the field of local products.
As we have seen, two main kinds of expectations were presented by local
producers involved within the BLP project: financial and promotional. But we should
25
It will be more deeply characterized in section 6.6.
58
also express that besides the group of interviewees who were able to identify and
state their specified expectations there was also high number of the BLP project
participants who are convinced that State institutions should support local producers
but they did not have idea what kind of support it should be. By summarizing all
these opinions we might say that absolute majority of the BLP project sees in the
State institutions partner which should support local producers regardless of the form
of this support.
RH4.2: Cooperation within BLP project is strongly influenced by low levels of social
capital in Poland, due to the actions of formal institutions in socialist times.
One of the major assumptions of theoretical framework of the whole IDARI
research is that State actions in socialist times have resulted in low levels of social
capital and that such situation strongly affects the process of cooperation. Analyzing
the process of cooperation within the BLP project we have made an attempt to
identify if local producers actually agree with the statement that in socialist times the
cooperation was disturbed or even not possible because of the State actions. To
answer this question the interviewees were asked if they think that such initiative as
the BLP project could have been possible in socialist times. The opinions of the
interviewees were ambiguous, most of them thinks that now is much better time and
conditions for such projects and general cooperation between people:
It would be much more difficult to conduct it, the State was managing everything.
(Producer3)
I do not think if it would be possible [launching such initiative]. The police would be
here very soon. (Producer5)
The people’s attitude has changed – now it is easier to come to an understanding.
(Producer9)
The political situation is different – now people are more inclined to cooperation.
(Producer10)
Now people are more open, they trust each other more. (Producer11)
We have been waiting then if someone told us something, that it is inappropriate…
The most important was that our will to do something better was limited.
(Producer12)
I think that it was not possible – everyone was doing own things at own home.
(Producer17)
As we might see, the interviewees share the opinion that cooperation was
much more difficult in socialist times and, in consequence, it was limited. Let us
notice that State actions leading to decrease levels of social capital are only one of
the, but it has to be admitted – the most often, presented reason (e.g. police
actions, invigilation, dominant role of the State). But of course, presented reasons
which were focused on people’s attitudes should be also interpreted in terms of State
activities. General problems in individuals’ attitudes which were identified by the
interviewees were as follows: fear of involvement in activities which were not
coordinated by the State and passiveness which was result of the State dominance.
59
The question is if there was actual change in individuals’ attitudes which were
mentioned as the specific for socialist times. In relation to first aspect (fear) one
might confirm that this problem is not present anymore in Poland – the situation
where people are afraid to undertake their actions in community because they are
afraid of State response is specific for “police States”, as Poland was in socialist
times. At this moment, it cannot be taken into account as a barrier of cooperation or
factor which negatively affects this process.
Much more influencing and still affecting individuals’ attitudes and behaviour is
second element of socialism “heritage” – passiveness. For some people passiveness
was not problem or their personal autonomy limitation, but rather as their “privilege”
and advantage which makes their life easier. In socialist times such attitude was very
often and it was even supported and intensified by the State (it was favourable
situation for communist State to make people rely mainly on State institutions and
their decisions). Unfortunately, in some groups (and farmers or individuals living in
rural areas are one of these) mentioned attitude is still present – individuals still
expect from the State not only support but even guarantee of some benefits and
their strategy of “survive” is to address their needs to the State institutions. The
problem is that after political and economic transformation in Poland State’s
competencies and abilities (especially the latter ones) were highly limited and State
cannot response for all individuals’ expectations. In such situation the “attitude of
expectation” is sometimes directed to other institutions or organizations, e.g. nongovernmental organizations. The BLP project is good example of how individuals
rather “react” than “act” and rather try to gain some benefits from the initiative in
which they are involved than create such opportunities for their own benefit. The
question is if such attitude should be interpreted as dysfunctional or accepted as
temporary phenomenon which will be less significant in next years together with
progressing development of market economy in Poland which, at this moment, is
institutionalized in formal institutions but its principles are not always present in
people’s actions and attitudes. In relation to the BLP project we might say that form
of this project which was designed by project initiators in some part enforces
individual attitudes, but on the other hand it was designed with taking existing
situation in the region into account. And after two years of the project functioning
some positive changes might be observed – in its beginning number of the
participants was the highest (about 200 local producers), now it is much lower but,
at the same time, local producers who are members of the “Bies” association (about
50 local producers) might be described as the most active, who participate not only
in activities conducted by the BLP project coordinators but also formulate goals,
discuss preferred directions and character of further actions, make suggestions on
the project improvements etc. In relation to this group of local producers the BLP
project is not only success by the fact that it supports their economic performance
(such conclusion refers to most of the project participants), but also because of
change in their actions and converting their attitudes from passive to relatively active
and constructive. Such positive evolution, at least some, of the local producers
should be identified as one of the most significant outcomes of the project which also
makes more probable that results of this initiative will not be short-lived.
Among the interviewees’ declarations about possibility of conducting the BLP
project in socialist times there were also some opinions in which local producers have
60
stated that there is actually no relation between specificity of those times and
chances for projects like this one:
Of course, why not. Political system does have limited influence on such “unions”. If
people want to call together and do something for the others’ well-being they would
do it even if authorities oppose. (Producer7)
There are some women who work in the “Rural Home-mistress Club” since
communism times and they tell the stories that in those times there was no phones,
but by “gossiping” everyone knew what to do. Many people were active then.
(Producer19)
From these two opinions the second one is especially interesting and
informative. In this statement the interviewee actually refutes our hypothesis about
low levels of social capital in socialist times suggesting that social capital was crucial
resource in those times (we interpret mentioned “gossiping” as a form of
communication in which social capital, along with its component – trust, is
demanded). In this case, necessity of social capital was justified not by political
conditions but relative lack of technological advancement, but it might be also
explained as the demand created by political and economic system. In such
interpretation high level of social capital was form of reducing “irrationality” of social
system (along with its sub-systems: political, economic, legal etc.) by individual or
collective actions. At this moment, social system has became much more “rational”
(especially in the sphere of economy) and much more important has became ability
to adaptation to new institutional framework.
6.5. Role
of communities, social
institutions on cooperation
networks and informal
In this section of research report we will focus on the BLP project participants’
dominant motivations for participating in this initiative. But we will also investigate
problem of crucial resource for this project success, which is cultural capital.
RQ5.1: What are dominant motivations for participating in the initiative for particular
groups of actors?
We have already reconstructed main objectives of the BLP project – it is
increase of local producers’ skills and potential related to successful operating on
market. Such increase demands mainly training but also creating opportunities for
more effective sale of local products. That is why the project activities are focused on
such issues as: effective marketing, wide distribution, recognizable “brand” of
Bieszczady’s local products etc. In this part we will investigate if participants’
motivations were similar to the project main objectives.
The participants’ motivations were identified through their answers for
question “What was the main reason for you to become participant of BLP project?”.
Absolutely dominant answer is similar to general project objectives and emphasizing
importance of strictly economic advantages related to the involvement within this
initiative:
Products promotion, meeting other producers and thinking how to sell our products.
(Producer3)
61
Financial profits. (Producer8)
I hope that this project will help us in this [enterprise development]. I hope that
there will be some advertisements, photos. (Producer9)
Because of wider advertisement. One might gain certificate and today tourists come
and look for something specific. (Producer11)
It is one and only way for promotion of thins which I do. Thanks to the BLP project I
came into being on Bieszczady’s market but only here. My drink has created a
sensation on fair in Poznan. Without this project I would not be able to go anywhere,
promote [products] and know other people. (Producer12)
To popularise and promote Bieszczady. Most important is to inform tourists what kind
of food they might find here, what we offer them. (Producer15)
That is how we started to promote our food. First travel was to Warsaw, then we
were in Rzeszow in the Marshall’s Office. That is how have promote ourselves. We
were even in Germany. (Producer17)
Such significant dominance of market-oriented motivations might be identified
as functional in relation to the project objectives. This market-oriented attitude will
be investigated and analysed in more detailed way in next section, in this part we will
present two possible explanations of participants’ focusing on economic profits from
involvement within the BLP project. Firstly, it might prove high adequacy of
established initiative to existing needs of local producers of the Bieszczady region. In
this interpretation awareness of importance improvements in economic performance
would be something on which the BLP project has answered with its components
such as trainings or promotional support. But there is also other interpretation which
makes influence of the BLP project on individual attitudes much more significant.
Strong market-orientation might not be reason for establishment of the BLP initiative
but its result. By this we mean that thanks to the participation in activities conducted
within the BLP project local producers have became aware that for economic success
they have to make some important improvements in their performance (and these
improvements have became possible because of gaining new skills and knowledge
through involvement within the initiative). It is difficult to decide what interpretation
is more appropriate and better explains actual influence of the BLP project on local
producers’ attitudes and actions (to decide it two surveys will be needed – before
and after the BLP project initiation). But on the base of opinions of the project
coordinators second interpretation seems to be more probable. As the project
initiators have stated main motivation for their decision about the project
establishment was relative lack of local producers’ basic skills which are demanded in
the market.
Besides motivations strongly related to economic performance and benefits
there was also other kind of reasons which induced people to participate within the
BLP project:
Thanks to this project I have developed myself not only as a producer, but also as a
human. (Producer12)
62
I like such activity. I like social activity. One might know other people or learn new
things. (…) It is some kind of entertainment and meeting new people. (…) I can go
out from home and be with other people (Producer14)
[If I did not involved within this project] I would be as a “homebody”.
(Producer18)
I like it, I love it and until I feel equal to doing this I will do this. There are no
benefits I do it from my good intentions and will of cooperation… Maybe satisfaction.
(Producer19)
I carry on welfare work since I was young person. (Producer20)
From the above quotations two kinds of motivations might be identified –
social and psychological, but similar in them is their non-economic character. By
social motivations we mean individual’s inclinations for doing something for public
benefit and involve in activities where cooperation is demanded. The BLP project
offers opportunity for such actions without any doubt. Declarations of willingness to
work for community, at least in some cases, are confirmed by local producers’
actions. “Producer20”, besides participating in all project activities, offers her farm
(she also works in agro-tourism field) for meetings organized within the project. If
we interpret the BLP project as opportunity for “social activists” to realize their
motivations for working oriented on public benefits it would actually mean that BLP
project (besides its economic favours for local producers) also creates intangible
advantages for community members. Of course, it has to be strongly emphasized
that such motivation was declared by limited number of the interviewees.
Some of indicated motivations might be described as “psychological” ones
which means that participants who declare them have found the BLP project as a
way for their personal development or even “changing their live”. What is interesting
and specific, such motivations were presented only by women who participate within
the project (especially those who are also members of “Rural Home-mistress Club”,
but not only). It would mean that, besides other the BLP project outcomes, it might
be interpreted as the initiative which makes possible for women to change their
traditional role which is dominant in the community. Women, who are usually not
responsible for securing household’s welfare find “niche” for their activities. The
distinctive feature of the local producers who identify such psychological motivation
as the most importantis that they have stated that they did not gain any benefits
from this initiative (in terms of economic benefits).
RH5.1: Cultural capital of the community is interpreted by the BLP project
participants as important result of their social embeddedness which creates
competitive advantage in relation to other groups out of the region.
The above mentioned hypothesis will be actually investigated in next section
where we will analyse different sources of competitive advantage which were
declared by the interviewees. In this part we would like to emphasize importance of
such resource as cultural capital for the BLP project success (and, in general,
successful local products’ initiatives). By presenting general analytical framework
based on “cultural capital” term we would like suggest that BLP project is initiative in
63
which existing community’s resource (cultural capital) is commodified through
individuals’ reflexivity which is stimulated by external agents (project coordinators)26.
For operationalisation of “cultural capital” term Pierre Bourdieu’s (1986, pp.
243-248) approach will be called. For Bourdieu cultural capital might exist in its three
forms:
a) embodied – long-lasting dispositions of the mind and body,
b) objectified – cultural goods,
c) institutionalized – form of cultural capital which is guaranteed and certified
by particular institutions (mainly from system of education).
For our analysis first two forms of cultural capital are most adequate. In the
first one, cultural capital will be individual’s disposition to act in particular way, e.g.
to take care of traditional way of producing goods. Second form (objectified) of
cultural capital is, in some part, result of active using embodied form of cultural
capital, but also should be interpreted as point of reference for “cultivating” cultural
capital in its embodied form.
In Bourdieu’s definition important is that cultural capital is in individuals’ or
group’s disposal but value of specific components of cultural capital is determined by
socio-economic institutional context. But analyzing cultural capital does not only
relate to its value but also to the way of its using. Three main strategies of groups
and individuals’ “cultural capital management” might be distinguished:
a) abandoning cultural capital
b) “passive using” cultural capital
c) “active using” cultural capital
For our further analysis third strategy is crucial. One of the form of “active
using” cultural heritage is the commodification of cultural capital. Cultural capital
does not always is used for economic purposes, sometimes it gives non-economic
advantage for the community (e.g. more integration of the group). Cultural capital
commodification should be interpreted as the process in which object, idea, symbol
etc. (all of them might be “emanation” of cultural capital) becomes “commodity” with
specified exchange value. But why we should think about commodification as an
“active using” cultural capital? Mainly because of the fact that people in order to
commodify their cultural capital actively (re)interpret it and make it “active” object of
their reflexivity. They count, calculate, try to sell or buy components of cultural
capital and – in consequence – they think about it, analyze, look for some of its
specific features etc. Cultural capital changes then its main function: from mainly
ceremonial and rather passive to daily experience and object of active interpretation.
The result is that cultural capital is not only social and cultural environment for
individuals, but it’s rather situation where people “interact” with their cultural capital
or use it for their own purposes (in this case - economic purposes). Above described
process is presented below.
26
This part of research report is mainly based on excerpts from paper on relations between cultural
capital and sustainable development (Korczynski 2005).
64
Figure 3. Commodification of cultural capital – conceptual framework
Institutional context
Social capital / socio-cultural capital
Economic
capital
Individuals
Reflexivity
Market
Cultural capital >> Commodification of cultural capital
Groups / Society
Reflexivity
In order to apply the above model to our case study analysis we might say as
follows:
a) Cultural capital is crucial resource for creating local products – most of
commodities which are offered by the BLP project participants is form of
“objectified” form of the community’s cultural capital. Cultural capital,
interpreted in this way, is in disposal of both individuals and community
(groups/society).
b) Cultural capital was commodified in the form of local products before the BLP
project establishment what means that individuals’ reflexivity which converts
cultural capital in commodities (local products) has started before. The problem
was that process of commodification was not completed – local products were
put on the market (were offered to potential customers) but it was not effective
in terms of creating economic profits.
c) Because of the above mentioned situation second stage of reflexivity has
appeared. This reflexivity was caused by external agents through the BLP
project – local producers were informed and trained in the field of basic
economic skills what make their economic performance potentially more
effective and profitable.
d) With using owned cultural capital and new resource (human capital: new skills
and knowledge) local producers involved within the BLP project might have
successfully completed process of their cultural capital commodification. By this
we mean that they put their products in the market in an innovative way and
effectively converted their cultural capital in economic capital.
The above four-stage process was prepared on theoretical, not empirical,
base. But if we take our research findings into account we see that for, at least some
of, the BLP project participants such process has been successfully completed.
Confirmations fur such observation might be found in participants’ answers for
65
question on the meaning of sentence “BLP project has made positive change for
me”. Most of the interviewees have declared that thanks to the participation within
the project their economic performance has became more effective and profitgenerating. And even if the local producers did not present in their answers
significant economic benefits they have declared that this project has increased their
potential to be more competitive on the local products’ market.
6.6. Role of the market and competition in fostering/hindering
cooperation
RQ6.1: How does the market environment affect cooperation?
RH6.1: Most of actors involved within BLP project are strongly market-oriented and
interpret this initiative as increasing potential of local producers in the market.
The specificity of the BLP project mainly refers to the fact that it is oriented on
increasing market potential of local producers. As we have stated before, the main
purpose of the project financed from the grant received from The Carpathian
Foundation for years 2003-2005 was to make local producers in the region more
competitive and support them in the field of adaptation to market economy and
institutional context in which local products are important aspect of rural areas
development. The confirmation of such market-oriented profile of the project are
declarations of the BLP project coordinators:
The main motivation was fact that Bieszczady are “local products basin” and
advantage of the project is promotion which local producers could not afford. Yes, it
would be opportunity to promote. (Coordinator2)
We were aware that here in Bieszczady many people live who are talented which
create something and they have huge potential. In this region agriculture rather does
not have chance to develop: the soil is very weak and many people are not landowners but former employees of state companies. And because of that local product
and eco-tourism are two appropriate ways to well-being. All the more because we
have noticed that our assumptions are consistent with communes development
strategies which we analyzed. (Coordinator3)
It was about non-agricultural activity, here such economy does not work – farms are
fragmented and less remunerative. [Such project] might be economic support for
talented people who are doing something. The are some people who are very well
qualified but produce only occasionally. It was an attempt to call their attention to
the fact that if the product is good it might be offered. (Coordinator4)
As we see from these statements “starting point” for the project was
observation that: 1) the region is poorly developed in the field of economy, 2) the
region is mostly rural but because of the objective limitations (such as “weak soil”)
focusing on the development of agriculture would not be reasonable, 3) there is
human potential in the form of talented and creative producers who produce but
rarely offer and sell their products, 4) to some extent focusing on local products
development is consistent with local governments policy. The conclusion was that
what should be done is to generate “transfer of knowledge” which is needed for
effective economic activity, but also establish institutional form of support for local
producers and integrate isolate actions, e.g. promotional or distributional. In other
66
words, in the beginning of the BLP project there were “local producers” who had
offer but this offer was not actually placed on the market and was not effectively
sold to potential customers. It was quiet obvious for the project initiators that
without support which comes from “external agents” it is rather improbable that local
producers will be able to change their situation. It is also interesting that from its
beginning the BLP project was not focused on searching totally new ways for region
development and its inhabitants economic activity but rather for searching ways of
development in respect with existing cultural specificity of the region and individuals
human capital (their qualifications, skills and knowledge). Additionally with taking
care of environmental aspect of production such strategy might be described as
supporting sustainable development of the Bieszczady region. It is also quiet
instructive for general Polish transformation from “socialist” to “market” times – very
often discourse related to this transformation was strongly focused on the fact that
individuals (or whole groups) skills and attitudes which were adequate and needed in
former context now are mostly useless. In some cases, it has resulted in people’s
helplessness and inactivity, the BLP project proves that it is possible to convert
“potential weaknesses” in “actual strengths”, not only in economic sense, but also in
psychological way (which was more deeply elaborated in section related to the
participants motivations, mainly in relation to the members of “Rural Home-mistress
Club”).
Two additional conclusions should be made in relation to above-quoted
statements and both refer to opinion of Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development representative. Firstly, as one of the coordinators said – “our
assumptions are consistent with communes development strategies which we
analyzed”. It proves consistency uniformity of project coordinators and local civil
servants and officials views in relation to the direction of economic development of
rural areas in the region and sources of such development which lay in the region’s
cultural and environmental specificity. But such approach is also consistent with
perspective presented by Ministry representative. In below statement he has
indicated reasons for competitive advantage of these voivodships who are – in his
opinion - leaders in Poland in the field of local products development27:
Firstly, there is tradition in these regions, more specifically – cultivating of this
tradition […]. Secondly, such reason is for sure level of technological development of
agriculture. Where farms are big-landed, there tradition falls. On the other hand,
where farms are small and less-remunerative, there tradition is sustained. And, as we
know, in mentioned voivodships [Malopolskie, Podlaskie, Podkarpackie, WarminskoMazurskie] there are small and strongly fragmented farms. (State)
This opinion confirms other opinion expressed by the BLP project coordinators
that local development based on local products (as in the BLP project) supports
process of converting regional limitations of big-scale and technologically-advanced
agriculture development into sources of increasing local potential of small-scale and
based on traditional technology production in non-agricultural fields. That is why
such profile of production might be especially recommended by those regions where
27
In interviewee’s opinion leading voivodships in Poland are: Malopolskie and Podlaskie. The
Podkarpackie voivodship (in which the BLP project is located) was mentioned as third one.
67
is relative lack of advanced technology, financial capital and conditions for effective
development of agricultural production. But what is needed – and this aspect is also
emphasized by the interviewee – is to have tradition and cultural specificity in the
region on which local products are based and from which they originate. Without
such “asset” it would be impossible to successfully establish local products because
specificity of these commodities actually lies in their traditional value.
Besides the BLP project coordinators declarations confirming importance of
market’s role in this initiative similar confirmation might be found in statements of
producers who participate within the project. Such similarity is important because of
the fact that it means that there is general uniformity of preferred directions of
project development and its purposes between coordinators and participants28. It
allows us to confirm hypothesis 6.1 – additional reasons for this hypothesis
confirmation might be found in previous section of this report where main
motivations of the actors were discussed: these motivations were also strongly
market-oriented. But in hypothesis 6.1 there is also part related to the interpreting
this initiative as “increasing potential of local producers in the market”. It is actually
question of influence of the BLP project on economic performance of its participants
and that is why it partially refers to the research question 6.1. Most of the project
participants declare that they gain economic favours from participating within this
initiative and these favours might be grouped in following categories: 1) training, 2)
broader and more effective promotion using different promotional channels 3)
creating opportunities for wider distribution. These favours were analyzed in previous
section on participants motivations – there we identified all motivations for both
becoming and remaining participant of the BLP project. Motivations which referred to
economic performance were most often (with exception to the “Rural Home-Mistress
Club” members). It confirms that for most of the participants the BLP project might
be interpreted as the initiative which increases their potential. It actually means not
only that their actions are more efficient thanks to the involving within the project
but it also means that through participating within it they started to undertake
actions which were new in their economic activity conducted before (Internet
promotion, selling products to foreign customers etc.). In the below analysis we will
focus on particular aspects of relation between market environment (with different
aspects of functioning on the market) and cooperation (by which we mean
participating within the BLP project as the form of collective action). These relations
and ways in which market environment affects cooperation will be divided in three
parts: 1) scope of the market that local producers involved in the project operate on,
2) competitiveness of offered product and its sources, 3) promotional activity, 4)
risk related to economic activity.
In relation to the first issue, on the base of collected data we might state that
most of the BLP project declare that they operate on local market. For some
producers such situation (which might be interpreted as the limitation of further
development) seems to be functional:
It is most economical for me to sell in my apiary (Producer1)
28
In this project where its success strongly depends on the initiative coordinators such uniformity is
crucial for efficient achieving common goals.
68
Of course, although most of producers operate only on local or regional
market, there are some examples of operating on national or even international
market29. It is mainly result of coming into contact with customers during fair or
exhibition, but also it is effect of promotion in Internet which is possible (in most of
the cases) by participating within the BLP project. But even for those who operate on
international market it is not dominant way of their products distribution:
Occasionally foreign tourists buy my products but it is not intentional and systematic
action which I undertake. (Producer2)
In cases such as the above one it is rather local selling products to foreign
customers than operating on international market. Actual and fully developed
operating on international market demands “offensive” searching for national or
international customers. That is why in situation of selling products to tourists who
come to the village where producer lives will be rather form of operating on local, not
national or international market. But at the same time producers which are involved
in the BLP project are aware that thanks to the Poland’s accession to the EU there is
real opportunity to wide scope of the market which they operate on (it was discussed
in the section related to the role of formal institutional environment). It means that
participants see potential in developing their economic performance in order to offer
their products to wider group of customers.
In relation to the affecting scope of the market that local producers operate
on by the participation within the BLP project most of interviewees declared that
there was no change or the observed change was not very significant:
I had some phone-calls from people who found information about my product on the
web-site. (Producer11)
It should not be interpreted as the failure of the project because it is not
always possible for some producers to operate on national or international market
where distributional network is needed. That is why for some producers there was
rather change in scale of production not sale:
Scope [of the market] did not change, but my production has increased.
(Producer10)
It is probable that change in the scope of the market that local producers
operate on will change after establishment of the BLP project own distributional
network but this is task for the next stage of this project. We also have to be aware
that for some of the BLP project participants working in the field of producing and
selling local products is their additional way of gaining income and they are not
interested in making scope of the market that they operate on wider or increasing
their production – they are satisfied with current scale of their economic performance
even if it is only local and the number of products is relatively small. Besides, there
29
By national or international scope of the market we mean not only offering products to customers
who come from different parts of Poland or other countries but only undertaking actions which are
form of “offensive” searching for national or international customers. That is why in situation of selling
products to tourists who come to the village where producer lives will be form of operating on local,
not national or international market.
69
are some formal limitations related to the scope of market that local producers
operate on:
In further perspective there is also “western” market but there are still limitations
such as certificates and licenses. (Coordinator1)
The above statement was one of the very few where formal institutional
context influence was mentioned – in this case it is interpreted as the obstacle for
entering new markets by producers who are involved within the BLP project.
Generally the coordinators’ opinion in relation to the scope of the market that the
BLP project participants operate on is similar to producers’ perspective – it is usually
local market but there are some examples of operating on national or international
market:
There are two ladies who regularly go to France [with their products]. In some part it
is result of the project. (Coordinator2)
The “brand” is noticeable in the voivodship and in some points also on the national
level (Coordinator3)
Individual producers operate on the national market (Coordinator4)
In the first statement it was expressed by the interviewee that entering
international market by local producers is the result of the actions undertaken within
the BLP project. Such relation was also stated by the same interviewee in other part
of the interview:
Thanks to the Poznan [All-Polish Agricultural Fair “Polagra” in Poznan] we were able
to emerge. (Coordinator2)
Second dimension of relations between market and cooperation within the BLP
project is competitiveness of offered product and sources of eventual
competitiveness. The first aspect is the opinion of the producers on the
competitiveness of their products – most of the interviewees declared that they find
their offer as the competitive in relation to similar products which are on the market.
Only in some individual cases interviewees said that their product is not competitive
and two ways of argumentation might be observed in such answers. The first one
refers to the fact there are “many” similar products or producers in similar field of
production (e.g. bakery) and high number of similar products on the market makes
difficult to gain success. But on the other hand, some producers who identified their
products as not competitive have stated that the reason for this situation is fact that
there are not many products of similar kind in the market which might be symptom
of relatively low demand on such products. Concluding these observations we might
say that in first case particular product is not competitive in relation to many similar
products placed in the market and in second case it is not competitive in relation to
the general market offer where different kinds of products (more specifically – food
products) might be found by customers.
But as we have stated before, in the majority of the producers opinions one
might find declarations of competitiveness of offered products. The question is what
are the main sources of this competitiveness. Most of the reasons for
competitiveness expressed by interviewees were related rather to the specificity of
the region than specificity of the particular product:
70
Clear environment (Producer1)
Taste and good quality of the water (Producer2)
Specific climate - clear and not-polluted, specific flora. Climate which favours making
the best honey-dew. (Producer4)
My product is unusual because my pond is located near to the forest and it is the
clearest pond “on earth” (Producer7)
Our advantage is good trout from water which comes from the forest. (…) healthy
fishes. (Producer9)
Its advantage is that it comes from Bieszczady’s area. (Producer11)
These products are “ours”. They are produced to the country, typical “country food”.
They are tasteful and people are delighted. (Producer14)
When producers identifiy the source of product’s originality and
competitiveness in specificity of the region or not-polluted environment then it is
difficult to increase mentioned competitiveness. What might be done is to intensify
promotional activity to effectively communicate such advantages of the product. It is
another argument for focusing on promotion activities to make situation of local
producers in Bieszczady better. At the same time, it is worth of notice that
inhabitants of the area where the BLP project is established in very mature way
identify what is their advantage and strength in the market and they also follow in
appropriate way the process of Polish (but it actually refers to all Europeans)
customer’s “maturation” – in previous decades the main or even only criterion for
buyers was price but now – with increasing ecological and cultural awareness – the
are people who could even pay high price for products which are usually defined as
local, regional or traditional. It is consistent with remark made by representative of
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development:
There is group of customers which is willing to pay more for better quality of the
product. And it does not refer to better quality in terms of complying with norms but
traditional character of the product. (State)
There were very few of other argumentations from which the most significant
was the following:
This is “homely” food, we come back to what our mother and grandmothers were
doing and it is popular. (Producer18)
It comes from the country. Our parents and grandparents did this way and now it
comes back to us. (Producer19)
Two above identified sources of “competitive advantage”: environmental /
cultural specificity of the region and embeddeness of local producers in community’s
tradition are similar in one aspect – possibility to influence them is limited. What
might be done is to accept it or adapt to it and use it in appropriate way in economic
performance. But it would very difficult (if not impossible) to radically increase
“competitive advantage” which originates from such sources. It means that
competitiveness of local products in Bieszczady would increase only if other of its
sources would be found and used (e.g. better promotion, combining products with
services such as agro-tourism etc.). Maybe because of that interviewees had
difficulties to identify in what particular aspects participation in the BLP project
increased competitiveness of their products in viewable way unless most of them
71
declared such increase. Also, the collective aspect of “competitive advantage” occurs
here – if the competitiveness of the products comes from culture or environment
(not from unique skills of producers or their creative ideas for new products) then all
of the producers have the same opportunity to use such defined competitiveness.
Using such arguments enables to create common “brand” (as the BLP “brand” and
label) for all products and reduces costs for promotion – the advantage or each
product does not have to be presented, it is enough if belonging to specific group of
Bieszczady’s products is indicated (then not only producers and their offer are
promoted but also whole region with its cultural and environmental specificity). But it
has to be emphasized that common “brand” as the source of competitive advantage
is quiet ambigous issue. On the one hand, it – without any doubt – increases ability
of local producers to compete with other producers from different parts of Poland
who did not establish collective forms of operating on the market. Besides
advantages in relation to “cost cutting” in the field of marketing participants for the
BLP project build credibility of their products which are offered under common
“brand”. But on on the other hand, there is – at least potentially – important problem
which might be consequence of accepted form of products internal certification.
Products offered by local producers who participate within the initiative might be
certified through system of certification established only for regional producers. The
problem is that such form of certification and products labelling which refers to
regional level might not be well recognized on national or international level. Another
problem is that at this moment in Poland national promotional campaign has started
which purpose is to promote EU legal system of local and traditional products
registration. The question is how people who will be aware of these regulations will
respond to non-EU and non-State systems of certification.
Just in one case interviewee expressed that quality of the product and, in
consequence, its competitiveness depends mainly on work of the producer:
Product is well-prepared because if I make something I try to make it good.
(Producer15)
Third dimension of market’s role in the BLP project is related to the
promotional activity of its participants. Local producers were asked what ways and
channels of promotion they most often use. On the base of collected data we might
distinguish two “strategies” of promotion: active and passive. Active strategy of
promotion means that producer not only informs about the product those who are
interested but also tries to find potential customers on his/her own and arouse their
interest in his/her offer:
I live next to country road and I have put there information board. Now, some
people call and order products. (Producer1)
Mainly internet, this is where people now look for information (Producer2)
Leaflets, direct sale. (Producer3)
Advertisements in newspaper (12 advertisements in a row) (…). (Producer6)
Cards, spoons for single use, little samples – if someone tasted always came back.
Even when the price was higher [in relation to other products] they always came
back and said – “Your honey is more expensive a little bit but it tastes good.
(Producer8)
72
There are some periods when I reduce the price, so called “promotions”.
(Producer10)
Label on the jar and information board next to the road. (Producer13)
During every event we talk about what we do. (…) We have web-site.
(Producer14)
If there is some event and we are invited then we go there… or if there is some
picnic. (Producer19)
As we can see, many different ways and channels of promotion are used by
the BLP project participants. It proves awareness of importance of being active in the
field of promotion. Some of mentioned actions which already are undertaken by the
BLP project participants might be interpreted as the result of their involvement within
this initiative (e.g. internet promotion, participation in many kinds of promotional
events). It is valuable that these producers effectively use such opportunity as
participation in project which allows them to increase their promotional potential and
promote as the group of local producers which offer products under common brand.
But much more valuable is that at least some of the participants try to individually
promote their products. On one hand, it might be interpreted as the failure of the
cooperation within the project because some of its participants initiate separate
actions in order to increase their outcomes. But on the other hand, such activity
means that these producers are personally well-adapted to operate on free market
and they will handle even after the end of the project30.
Specific form of active promoting products (for some producers it is even most
effective way of promotion) is recommendation of the products by other producers or
customers:
Talk with customers is also very important because they pass information about the
products to other people. (Producer3)
The best way of promotion is when one passes information to the other – if one
checked the products he would recommend it to the other one. (…) Other colleagues
helped us a lot – they were giving our address to the tourists. (Producer6)
The best advertisement is that one man will tell the other one about our product as
the good product. (Producer7)
I have got permanent customers and they recommend my products to their friends.
(Producer11)
Such ways of promotion is strongly based on social capital which owners
(disposers) are either producers or its customers - the wider their social network is,
the promotion is more efficient. Promotion which uses “word of mouth” does not
seem to be very innovative but it helps to establish group of customers who are
permanent (not “accidental”) and who are convinced about the product advantage.
For local producers who cannot afford expensive ways of promotion it is also very
adequate form of dissemination information about their products because it does not
demand high expenditures. It is also very interesting how some of the producers are
able to use their customers social network to promote products (we have to
30
To some extent it also might be interpreted as the positive result of the BLP project which made
local producers aware of importance of effective promotion and trained them how to promote
effectively.
73
remember that basic condition for such recommendation is satisfying quality of
offered products, in other case it is less probable that people would recommend their
friends buying particular product). In this way of promotion wide social network is
crucial factor for success but trust between someone who recommends and the other
who is “receiver” of such recommendation is also very important. By successful
promotion we do not mean only passing the information from one person to another,
but passing information which convinces to buy recommended product and process
of convincing is strongly trust-dependent.
Besides active ways of promotion, some its passive ways are also used and
they might be described as “waiting for customer and giving him all needed
information”. If we take fact of the remoteness of the area into account it is evident
that such promotion is relatively inefficient. But on the other hand it is enough for
some producers who do not plan to increase their sale extent. Specific form of
passive way of promotion is participation in promotional activities within the project
from which web-site and the catalogue seem to be most significant. In addition to all
these ways of local products promotion we should add promotional support from
State institutions which will come in this year. Representative of the Ministry of
Agriculture and Rural Development stated that:
When I think about creating regional brand it seems to me that it should go in two
ways. On one hand brand is specified name which is under protection. But just as
important as this is creating EU logo [of regional products] (…). That is why we
decided to initiative in August-September campaign which promotes this logo and
informs about regional products. (State)
Mentioned campaign will be devoted to regional products which are registered
in compliance with EU law but without any doubt it will support general development
of local products in Poland. Besides, Ministry plans actions related particularly to
these products which are not formally protected by law. For these products “List of
Traditional Products” was established:
Placing product on such list does not give right to its protection, but in this case the
objective is to identification of existing products and promotion of them. That is why
there are no restrict requirements. “List of Traditional Products” is perfect tool of
identification and promotion of the products on the national and regional level. On
the regional level there is crucial role for Marshall Offices which take care of
identification of the products in the voivodship. The Marshall Offices will edit
catalogues of such products in the region. The catalogue on national level will be
edited by Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. In addition, we plan to
establish internet portal with information about products from the list. (State)
Of course, actions which are undertaken by the Ministry will not promote the
BLP project but by promoting general idea of “regional products” and presenting
their value and importance for rural development it will support promotional activities
of both local producers involved within the BLP project and its coordinators.
At the end of analyzing two ways of local products promotion (active and
passive) we should clearly identify the first one as dominant in the group of
producers who were interviewed. It might be described as one of the examples of
the BLP project success and at the same time it gives an answer for research
question 6.1 showing that awareness of promotion necessity might intensify
74
willingness to cooperate (in order to reduce costs of promotion) and establish
collective ways of promotion. But at the same time it should be expressed that some
of the “active” forms of promotion which were identified in this research are actually
its passive forms. It refers mainly to participation in fairs and exhibitions – during
these events producers “actively” promote their products, but in most cases they
only “react” for invitation from the organizers and coordinators of the BLP project
who find such events and are responsible for all logistic and organizational aspects of
participation. The producers role is limited to decide to go, “be there” and convince
guests or viewers that their products are worth of buy.
Last aspect of market’s role in the BLP project which analyzed in this report is
related to the risk in economic performance conducted by local producers. Risk in
natural element of all economic activities and it is impossible to totally avoid it, the
question is how risk is defined and where it is located by actors.
First group of “risk factors” is general and actually might be applied to all
fields of economic activity:
There is no guarantee of income. (Producer1)
We are afraid of import of Chinese honey. (Producer3)
The health might become impaired. (Producer4)
Everyone incurs risk. I am afraid that companies do not pay on time and I do not pay
on time too. (Producer10)
These types of risk are difficult to reduce – the only fully effective way of
reducing them would be giving up economic activity. By deciding to operate on the
market and becoming its active actor local producers become liable to suffer from
such threats. It is functional that, at least some of them, are aware of risk
inseparably linked with economic performance. Mentioned “risk factors” do not make
group of local producers specific in any way - they are shared by most of Polish
entrepreneurs, but there are also some of the factors which refer mainly to this
group, or even to some particular groups among local producers:
Lack of water (Producer2)
We are afraid of bees disease. (Producer3)
There might be few tourists. (…) Weather (Producer6)
Other people’s actions, undesirable actions of thieves – they steal fishes. And the
otters also filch some fishes. (Producer7)
We are most afraid of drought, because it results in crisis – fishes are not sufficiently
oxidized. (Producer9)
In relation to kinds of risk which are identified above high vulnerability of local
producers might be observed – they actually cannot avoid these threads as they
depend on nature, environment or other people’s actions (thieves, tourists etc.). The
case of environmental risk is especially interesting in this case. As we have stated
before, one of the most important sources of “competitive advantage” of the
Bieszczady’s local products is environmental specificity of the region, now it seems
that it is also one of the main risks. In both cases local producers are rather not able
to increase (competitiveness) or limit (risk) influence of the environment and nature.
Such dependence on nature and its positive and negative influence is another
symptom of traditional character of the production within the BLP project – such
75
vulnerability is specific for traditional ways of production where control on natural
factors is quiet limited.
Some of mentioned risks are difficult to reduce by single producer or even
group of the producers and the question is if participation in the BLP project might
be effective way for reduction of any risks. Some remarks in relation to this issue
were made by interviewees:
There is always some risk – someone from outside might enter but because of the
fact that we are in this project we might collectively act in such situation.
(Producer11)
It is actually only case where analyzed initiative is identified as helpful in
reducing risk related to economic activity. In some extent, it is result of the fact the
mentioned “risk factors” are generally difficult to control or reduce.
For some of the participants there is no risk in conducting economic activity –
they could not identify even one “risk factor”. What is interesting, absolute majority
of such answers was made by members of “Rural Home-Mistress Club” who declared
that they do not see any risk in their economic performance in the field of local
products. At the same time (as we have stated in part devoted to the BLP project
participants motivations), these producers’ main motivation was not economic but
rather social or psychological. The fact that that they are not profit-oriented and
working in the field of local products is not their dominant source of income makes
their attitude quiet different from the rest of participants. It does not mean that the
are not any “risk factors” in this group actions, it rather means that its members
define their involvement with different categories such as joy, satisfaction or selfachievement (not profit, competitiveness or efficiency) which are usually not justified
in terms of risk.
RQ6.2: What are the main fields of innovation in the economic activity of BLP project
participants?
RH6.2: Most of innovations might be observed in the field of promotion, distribution
and sales. Innovations related to the products are limited.
Second aspect of analysis in this section refers to the element of innovation in
economic performance of the BLP project participants. The main investigated issue in
this part is field of eventual innovations which are undertaken by local producers. On
the base of collected data hypothesis 6.2 will be tested. This hypothesis was
constructed with taking specificity of the local products into account. As we supposed
in designing methodological framework (and confirmed in the research) local
products might be interpreted as the objectified form of community’s cultural capital
and tradition. Because of that, to sustain value of these products it is needed to limit
innovations in the products (or its components) and ways of its production. But on
the other hand, to make economic activity in the field of local products more
effective in relation to the previous actions it is needed to innovate in such aspects
as promotion, distribution, sale.
In hypothesis 6.2 two elements might be distinguished: 1) dominant fields of
innovation (it is also strongly related to answer for research question 6.2), 2)
limitation of innovation related to the products. Regarding the first aspect of
76
mentioned hypothesis we might say that for group of producers who declared some
innovations absolute majority was related to the promotion, distribution, container
design etc. It means that above-mentioned fields of innovation might be identified as
dominant among the BLP project participants:
The container and leaflets we are changing. (Producer3)
The container – I paint bottles by myself. I also make stoppers on my own.
(Producer12)
Innovations in such sphere are next dimension of the increase of marketing
(and generally – economic) awareness of the project participants – they start to
know that elements which are not aspect of the product itself but rather relate to its
visual presentation and promotion are very important and sometimes might be even
crucial for efficient sale. The positive is that for some of the producers (Producer12)
limited financial resources are not obstacle for making innovations, they try to
overcome them by their creativity and own work. In the local products market where
hand-made elements are consistent with general “image” of the products (where
there is no mass production and technological advancement of the production
process) such creativity is even more valuable.
In relation to the second aspect of hypothesis 6.2 we might say that some of
the producers confirmed that specificity of their products does not allow to make
innovations in the products, its features or components:
Improvements? In honey [production] it is impossible. (Producer1)
There are no changes. We traditionally produce our trout. (Producer2)
It is impossible to change anything. (…) Components must be traditional.
(Producer3)
We cannot influence on our products – everything depends on bees and
environment. (Producer4)
The above statements prove rationality of the local producers – they are
aware that one their biggest advantages is traditional way of production and
constant character of the product. But at the same time we should clearly distinguish
no innovation in the product specificity from taking care of increasing quality of the
offered products. Unless among interviewed producers there were no declarations of
innovations in relation to the products quality, such opinions appeared in interviews
with the project coordinators where two groups (bee-keepers and potters) were
mentioned as those where improvements of products quality might be observed. In
next stages of the local products market development in the Bieszczady’s region (not
only within the BLP project) it will be important to increase producers awareness in
relation to the products quality and convince that “traditional” does not always has to
mean “low quality”.
The one and only example of declared innovation related to the product refers
to the producer of mutton who said that he makes some “crossings” between
different races (Producer5). But we have to emphasize that mentioned producer was
generally specific and different in his opinions and attitudes than other project
participants. It might be result of the fact that his field of production is very specific
77
(there are no other mutton producers within the project) and, at the same time, his
product is actually not typically local or traditional kind of product.
If we say about product innovations it is rather offering new products (or new
categories of products) than making improvements in already offered ones:
Some time ago we were only selling honey, now we also sell “propolis” or “honey
pollen”. We also offer candles made of honey which are health-friendly.
(Producer8)
There are still some innovations, new assortment. (Producer10)
Although above interviewees were talking about products and innovations
related to them it is more adequate to interpret such innovations as the form
marketing innovations because innovation in these cases was not result of reflection
on the product but rather on the offer. Undertaking some innovate actions was
behavioural “answer” not for the question “How can (should) I change the product?”
but rather “How can (should) I change my offer?”. The answer usually meant adding
new products to the producer’s assortment. But always in such case, new offered
products were somehow related to the primary produced commodity what makes
offer coherent but, at the same time, diversified.
Specific case was family of trout-breeders who also work in the field of agrotourism. They declared only making innovations in relation to the second aspect of
their economic activity not in the sphere of local producers:
People are more interested in better conditions (…), more people come and check
directly what are the conditions [in the farm]. That is why it is needed to
permanently develop – I have just built summer-house, roundabout, swing. It is
needed to take care and you cannot move back. To be competitive you have to make
the conditions better. (Producer6)
Similar strategy was presented by other trout-breeder:
I conduct my activity for 5 years and I did not change anything, but I think about
some restaurant or place where I would fry fishes. (Producer7)
Probably it is not justified to look for specific reasons which caused occurring
such opinions among trout-breeders. But in the above statements it is quiet clear
that innovation is interpreted as a way of developing enterprise and increasing
economic potential. These producers who present such attitude should be identified
as those who are most “offensive” in operating on the market and, in consequence,
who have chance to make their work most successful. Such direction, where
innovation is interpreted as the needed element of further development and
increasing competitiveness is very desirable for all local producers. It is also symptom
of mature market attitude where the primary goal is not to “survive” but develop and
improve.
At the end of analyzing aspect of innovations undertaken by the BLP project
participants specific “paradox of innovation” will be presented:
If some lady will remembers something from “old times”, how she cooked, then we
try to do this. (Producer14)
78
In this case term „paradox” means that innovative element is taken from the
past – traditional knowledge which is transferred by some of the community elder
members to the younger ones. Without any doubt, such innovation is very valuable
because sometimes it is only way to sustain traditional culture of the community or
make it vital – by incorporating them to the market and economic activity.
The above-mentioned fields of innovation are strongly related to economic
field. It is very difficult to indicate symptoms of social innovation which would not
refer to strictly economic aspects of actors actions. On the base of collected data one
might say that such situation is caused mainly by the fact of focusing the project on
the activities increasing market potential of local producers. Besides, as we have
stated before – governance structures of the project were designed in a way which
does not support innovation from the project participants but rather identifies them
as passive receivers of different kinds of support (mainly – training and advisory). In
other words, there was no pressure on project participants to undertake actions
which might be described as “social innovation”.
But it will be interesting to observe and analyze eventual process of social
innovations origination in near future of the project where main actor would be
“Bies” Association. In this organization role of local producers will be (or should be)
much more significant what means that they will not only respond to external actions
or initiatives dedicated to them, but also will design and establish their own ideas. It
means that probability or social innovation origination will be much higher. Of
course, the fact that it will be more probable does not have to mean that such
innovation will be observed – it depends on next actions of producers who are part
of the “Bies” Association. We might say that – at least in some extent – it will be
form of verification of hitherto existing forms of support and it will help in answering
the question if the BLP project participants are ready to work not only as
“participants” but also “coordinators” or “social innovators”.
7. Conclusions
In presented case study analysis the “Bieszczady’s Local Product” initiative
was investigated. We have focused on particular factors’ role on eventual
cooperation and well functioning of the project (by which we mean that it creates
benefits for its participants). In order to identify and present specificity of this project
in relation to mentioned aspects we used data collected through in-depth interviews
with local producers, project coordinators (from both local government institutions
and non-governmental organizations) and State official representing Ministry of
Agriculture and Rural Development. Additionally we have used information gained
through desk research analysis.
In the above considerations we have answered research questions and tested
research hypotheses. But in introduction section of this report we also asked
additional questions which structured our analysis within this report:
1. Is cooperation actually needed in the BLP project and if yes – in what aspects
of this initiative effective cooperation might be observed?
2. If the BLP project is example of failure because of difficulties with cooperation
or rather it is successful initiative in the spite of weak ties between
participants?
79
3. What makes BLP project valuable for local producers, in what way they define
it and what arguments they use for expressing their motivations for joining
the initiative?
These questions will also structure closing section of this report in which main
conclusions are presented.
Ad. 1
On the base of collected data we have emphasized that cooperation within the
BLP project is rather limited which is one of the most significant features of this
initiative. What does it actually mean? The form of this project and its governance
structures which were designed by project coordinators before its establishment
were focused not on increasing local producers’ willingness and ability to cooperate
but on supporting them in their economic actions. And in this way it was interpreted
by local producers – they mainly interpreted it as a situation in which someone (or
some institution / organization) wants to support them, not to convince them to
involve in process of cooperation between local producers in the Bieszczady region.
Observing different forms of activities conducted within the project it is
difficult to identify actions undertaken by local producers, most of them are initiated
(and managed) by project coordinators – local producers actually “participate” not
create them. Such passive attitude should not be unequivocally interpreted as local
producers’ disadvantage, it is rather form of their adaptation to existing form of the
BLP project and its governance structures. On the other hand, project coordinators in
designing of its framework have based on their knowledge and experience in the
field of work and cooperation with inhabitants of this area. That is why designed and
implemented shape of the project is probably highly adequate to social context of
this region and dominant people’s attitudes.
The above mentioned empirical findings do not mean that within the BLP
project any displays or symptoms of cooperation cannot be identified. It woud rather
mean that cooperation – if appears – refers to limited number of actors (such as in
the initiative of “Bies” association where cooperation is most evident and intensive
but – at the same time – it involves relatively small number of participants). We
should also add that analyzing development of this project in last two years on one
hand it might be stated that intensity of cooperation is still increasing but on the
other hand decrease in number of project participants and change in the structure of
this project (from highly informal initiative which gathered individuals only for
training or promotional events to association “Bies” which is formal nongovernmental organization) might be observed. Such evolution proves that at least
some of the local producers from the region might take leadership over project
initiators and effectively manage this in next years.
Ad. 2
To fully and accurately answer this question it is needed to clearly indicate
criterions used to decide if the BLP project was success or failure. If we assume that
it would be success only in situation of cooperation occurring that we would have to
interpret this initiative as failure. But if measurement of success would be actual
improvement of individuals economic condition and increasing their abilities to be
active and effective actor on the market then the BLP project is success without any
80
doubt. It was confirmed by interviewees opinions related to eventual change caused
by participation within this project – economic performance has became, in most of
the cases, more profitable thanks to the actions which were result of being part of
the BLP project.
Such conclusion also shows where symptoms of innovation caused by the BLP
project have appeared – in new ways of promotion, distribution and sale of local
products offered by the BLP project participants. Local products, which competitive
advantage is strongly based on cultural on environmental capital, not only does not
require innovation but also eventual innovation might reduce their value. That is why
the BLP project was focused on innovations leading to effective sale of, tradition- and
environment-friendly products. To resource which was already owned by local
producers (cultural capital) other form of resource was added by which we mean
human capital with such components as: knowledge, skills and qualifications.
The above mentioned empirical findings also explain why most of the
participants interpret their involvement within the BLP project as profitable even if
ties between local producers are rather weak. The benefits which they were looking
for were economic and strongly related to operating on the market and such aspects
as trust or cooperation were not considered as important both conditions and
objectives of joining the initiative.
Ad. 3
Answer for this question was actually made in previous paragraph –
motivations of actors involved within the BLP project are strongly market-oriented.
Such orientation refers to both project coordinators (who planned to increase
economic potential of local producers in order to make their economic performance
more profitable) and local producers (who became aware that without some basic
improvements their economic activity will be less competitive). But to such
conclusion one remark should be added – way of generating economic profits which
is supported by the BLP project is also functional for cultural and environmental
specificity of the region. Local products, to be attractive for customers (which are
mainly tourists) have to be deeply rooted in such specificity and take care of it by its
cultivating and making vital. That is why supporting economic activities which are
focused on local products might be strategy for locally initiated sustainable
development of the region of Bieszczady mountains.
At the end of this conclusion let us notice that for some of the participants the
BLP project was found valuable because of other than market-oriented reasons. The
most specific motivation was presented by group of women who are local producers
working within the “Rural Home-mistress Club”. They have declared that they
actually did not gain any economic (financial) benefits but it does not mean that they
see no profits gained through involvement within the BLP project. For them being
part of this initiative was opportunity to develop personally and work with other
people. They have suggested that involvement within this initiative has allowed them
to change their hitherto existing social role (“homebodies”) for active and selfrealizing working within the group. At the same time, the interviewees from this
group were most optimistic in justification of the project functioning. It means that
BLP project has influenced the community in more diverse way that only economic
and market-oriented.
81
Of course, there is general and – at the same time – significant question
related to the future of the initiative. In this report an attempt to present the BLP
project in dynamic way was made. We have distinguished different stages of the
initiative development. In the last one crucial element is “Bies” association which
members are most active local producers along with some project coordinators. The
process of origination of this organization coincide with coming end of the planned
stage of the project (which was financed by The Carpathian Foundation). At this
moment we might identify following opportunities and threats for the BLP project.
The most important opportunity is that we might observe gradual delivery of
the project management from coordinators to – at least some of the – producers.
General logic and structure of “Bies” association is significantly different from
previous structure of governance present within the initiative (local producers are
involved in more intensive way). One might say that mentioned “delivery” might be
interpreted as disadvantage because it does not involve all project participants. But
for such interpretation it should be emphasized that even limited number of active
project participants still might generate productive outcomes for the rest of local
producers. These outcomes would especially refer to the field of promotion – if
general promotion of the project and local kind of products would be successful than
it would positively affect all local producers within the region.
But there is also important thread for the nearest future of the BLP project – it
refers to limited resources such as knowledge, experience and financial means. In
relation to knowledge and experience there is question of the sufficiency of
competencies and qualifications of project participants to continue well functioning of
the initiative even after previous coordinators’ resign. Until now, all organizational
aspects of the project functioning were in the hands of highly limited number of
project coordinators and it might be difficult to take over from them (but such “take
over” is needed in order to make the BLP project more “community-involving”). As
the limitation of this threat social ties between producers and coordinators might be
identified – it is very difficult to imagine that past coordinators would totally leave the
project without any support and advice for local producers). Much more difficult to
overcome might be problem of limited financial resources (which would be result of
the end of the period of financing the project from The Carpathian Foundation
funds). Without sufficient financial capital some of the project functions would not be
fullfilled (such as: promotional activities, trips to exhibitions, development of sales
network etc.). If these functions would not be fullfilled, the process of leaving the
project would start (participants would not see even potential profits coming from
the initiative) and it would probably result in the end of the project. Because of that,
the most important task for the nearest future should be active fundraising (involving
local producers and project coordinators) in order to gain funds needed for fullfilling
at least basic functions of this initiative. The funds should come from external
sources because neither local producers nor local governments are not able to collect
all needed money. Durability of the project and its results depends on ability to
collect mentioned financial capital – without successfull gaining funds it will be
impossible not only to create stable organization supporting local producers witihin
the region but even some of the already created positive outcomes might become
slipped opportunities.
82
8. References
Annex 1: Terms of reference – guidelines for IDARI Workpackage 3 (Pillar 2) –
Contract 1 (2004) Berlin: Humboldt University
BCPiCPL (2004) Made in Bieszczady – Bieszczady’s Local Product Anthology.
Presentation of regional products and its creators. Lutowiska
Bourdieu, Pierre (1986) The forms of capital. In: J. G. Richardson (Editor), The
Handbook of Theory: Research for the Sociology of Education. Greenwood
Press, New York, Chapter 9, pp. 241-258
Korczynski, Michal (2004) Cooperation in and between communities – creating a local
or regional product in Poland for example “Bieszczady’s Local Product”
initiative. Background paper on research project within IDARI Workpackage 3,
Poznan-Berlin: IDARI-Humboldt University
Korczynski, Michal (2005) Cultural capital as a source and result of sustainable
development: the case of local products' initiative in Poland. „Conference
Proceedings – 6th International Conference of European Society of Ecological
Economics „Science and Governance. The Ecological Economics Prespective”,
14-17.06 2005 (CD-ROM)
Murray, Catherine (2004) Social Capital and Cooperation in Central and Eastern
Europe - A Theoretical Perspective. Berlin: Humboldt University
Murray, Catherine; Volker, Beckmann (2004) Description of Workpackage 3: social
capital, governance and rural institutional innovations - an elaboration of
concepts. Discussion paper, Berlin: Humboldt University
Portes, Alejandro (1998) Social capital: its origins and applications in modern
sociology, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 24, pp. 1-24
83
9. Annexes
Annex 1
List of interviews
ID
Symbol
Field of production
Institution represented
1 Producer1
Honey, Bee-keeping
N/A
2 Producer2
Trout breeding
N/A
3 Producer3
Honey, Bee-keeping
N/A
4 Producer4
Honey, Bee-keeping
N/A
5 Producer5
Mutton
N/A
6 Producer6
Trout breeding/Agro-tourism
N/A
7 Producer7
Trout breeding
N/A
8 Producer8
Honey, Bee-keeping
N/A
9 Producer9
Trout breeding
N/A
10 Producer10 Bread-stuffs
N/A
11 Producer11 Bee-keeping
N/A
12 Producer12 Infusion of fruits steeped in alcohol
N/A
13 Producer13 Honey, Bee-keeping
N/A
85
14 Producer14 Regional food
N/A
15 Producer15 Regional food
N/A
16 Producer16 Regional food
N/A
17 Producer17 "Proziaki"
N/A
18 Producer18 Regional food
N/A
19 Producer19 Regional food
N/A
20 Producer20 Regional food/Agro-tourism
N/A
21 Coordinator1 N/A
Local government – Community's Cultural Centre in Lutowiska
- Local government – Community's Cultural Centre in Lutowiska
22 Coordinator2 N/A
- NGO – Partnership Group “Green Bieszczady”
- NGO – Foundation "Partnership for Environment"
- NGO – Partnership Group “Green Bieszczady”
- NGO – Bieszczady’s Wood Association
23 Coordinator3 N/A
- NGO – “For Kids of Bieszczady’s School” Association
- NGO – "Partnership for Environment" Foundation
24 Coordinator4 N/A
- NGO – Partnership Group “Green Bieszczady”
25 State
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
N/A
86
Annex 2
Interview guidelines (version for interviews with local producers)
INTRODUCTION
The following research is conducted by Adam Mickiewicz University’s Institute
of Sociology within international research project funded by European Commission.
This project is titled IDARI and refers to different kinds of initiatives which are
undertaken in rural areas in CEE countries. One of the selected initiatives in Poland is
„Bieszczady’s Local Product” (BLP) project. In this case research is mainly based on
in-depth interviews with local producers who participate in the project. The objective
of these interviews is to get to know opinions and attitudes of participants in relation
to BLP project. The research is conducted in cooperation with Community’s Cultural
Centre in Lutowiska which is institution coordinating the project. Research findings
will be presented at international level (publications and scientific conferences) which
undoubtedly will help in popularizing activities undertaken by local producers from
Podkarpackie voivodship.
We would like to thank you for your help in conducting this research and
assure you that research results will be presented in overall way and remain all
interviewees anonymously.
INTERPERSONAL TRUST
1. What was the main reason for you to become participant of BLP
project? What main benefits does activity within BLP Project gives you?
2. Did you know other participants prior to becoming involved with the
activities of the BLP project? How many participants did you know before?
How long did you know these people? In what capacity did you know them?
3. Do you think that other participants of BLP Project can be trusted? Why
do you think this way? Can you identify goodwill amongst the group, or are some
people suspicious of each other?
4. What would be your reaction if participants within the project broke
your trust or cheated you? Did this happen in the past? If yes, could you
briefly describe that situation?
5. Have you had any problems in dealing with any project participants in
the past? If so, please explain. How do you judge these problems with
cooperation at this moment? How does this affect your behaviour toward them?
Have you heard of any similar problems between other participants of the
project?
6. Are you satisfied with working with other members of their community
for this initiative? If yes, what are the main reasons for your satisfaction? If
not, why do you remain within this project?
7. What expectations do you have of people within the project? Do your
expectations differ for different participants of the project? What do you think
others within the project expect of you?
8. Would you like new people join BLP project? Will you be inclined to
cooperate with them?
87
9. How do you judge importance of geographical distance between
participants of the project? Does it limit process of cooperation?
TRUST IN STATE INSTITUTIONS
10. Do you expect support for BLP project from public and state institutions
(government, self-government)? Should government or self-government
support local producers? If yes, in what way? Do you think that present activity of
public and state institutions favour further development of BLP project?
11. How do you judge influence of Poland’s accession in EU for further
Development of BLP project? Would you expect – in relation to your
economic activity – more appropriate actions from Polish or EU institutions?
12. What experience have you personally had with dealing with state
agencies and institutions? How do you judge eventual cooperation?
SOLVING CONFLICTS WITHIN THE PROJECT
13. Did you observe any conflicts within BLP project between participants
of the project or between participants of the project and project
initiators/coordinators to date? If yes, what was the field of this conflict and
how it was solved? If not, what potential fields of conflict would you indicate what are the most common differences between people that cause
conflict/problems within the group? Do you think that BLP project participants
would handle solving this conflict?
14. Are there any formal mechanisms of solving problems, potential
conflicts or arguable issues within BLP project? If yes, what are these
mechanisms? If not, do you think that establishment of such formal ways of
solving conflicts is desirable? Which ways do you find as most appropriate
(establishment of set of formal rules, deciding arguable issues by voting,
excluding people who break formal rules etc.)? Why did you choose these ways?
15. Who would you go to first if you experienced a problem within the
project, situation that you would not satisfied with or feel harmed?
Would you consider going to someone outside the project to find assistance in
relation to this situation? If yes, who would it be? Why did you choose this person
or institution?
BLP PROJECT PARTICIPANTS’ MOTIVATIONS
16. Could you briefly describe how did you become involved with the
project? What were your main sources of information about BLP project? Did
you have any fears related to the BLP project at the beginning of your
involvement in this initiative? If yes, what kind of fears did you have? Did you
have any hopes related to the BLP project at the beginning of your involvement in
this initiative? If yes, what kind of hopes did you have?
17. Could you identify most important problems associated with your
involvement in this initiative which occurred at the beginning? How did
you overcome these problems? Would you say that these problems were specific
or typical also for other participants?
18. Is there something that you had to resign or sacrifice in order to
become part of BLP project? If yes, could you briefly describe it? Do you think
that it was worth to resign or sacrifice this for becoming part of BLP project?
88
19. Could you say how would your economic activity look if you weren’t
involved within this project?
20. Would you join BLP project again if you were asked for making such
decision after some time of being part of this initiative? Could you
substantiate your answer?
21. Do you think that some people within the group are benefiting disproportionally from their involvement in actions which purpose is to
make BLP project functioning better? If yes, why does this happen? Do you
think that all people involved in the group are equally committed to the objectives
of the group? If not, what kind of objectives – different than group’s objectives –
do some of project participants have?
22. Do you think that you through your membership within the BLP project
you benefit more than some other people who work in similar field but
do not participate in this project? If yes, what benefits or advantages would
you indicate?
23. Would you agree with following statement: “I am sure that no other
BLP project participant would treat me unfairly”? If yes, what is the reason
for this? If not, what would you do if you thought that someone was treating you
unfairly within the group?
24. On the base of your present knowledge and experience, what would
you change in functioning of the BLP project in order to make it more
profitable for all participants? Do you think that other participants would
agree with your suggestions?
25. What do following statements mean for you:
a) BLP project made positive change for me.
b) BLP project made positive change for my local community (it refers to the
inhabitants of your nearest area).
c) BLP project made positive change for the region where I live (it refers to the
part of Podkarpackie voivodship where BLP project is conducted).
COMMUNICATION
26. How frequent do you meet with other participants of the BLP project
and discuss issues relating to the project? Do you think that this frequency
is enough or maybe these meetings are organized too often. If the frequency is
not enough what would you indicate as the reason for this situation? Would you
be willing to give up more of your time fore these meetings and discussions?
27. What are the most frequent topics of your talks with other people
involved in the BLP project? Are there any topics which are not discussed (or
discussed not very often) and you think that they should be discussed?
28. Overall, would you describe you as a person who is well-informed about
issues related to BLP project? Do you think that you are better- or worseinformed than other participants of the project? What is the reason for this
situation? In relation to what kinds of information do you fell best- and worstinformed?
29. Are you able to identify and indicate person who is best-informed in
relation to the BLP project and takes care to keep other participants
89
well-informed about issues which are important for the project? What is
the reason for this situation? Do you positively judge this person’s actions?
30. Do BLP project participants’ meetings are planned and organized in
advance or rather spontaneously hold? If they are organized – who is the
organizer? What locations (buildings) are used for the meetings?
31. What is the mode of communication most frequently used between
project participants (verbal, telephone, letters, e-mail etc.)? Do you find
mentioned modes of communication effective? Would you like to communicate
with people involved in the project in different way? If yes, what different way of
communication would you suggest? What is the reason for this suggestion?
32. What problems in the field of communication and transfer of
information do you find as most important? Do you think that there is a
chance for any improvements in relation to these problems (communication
barriers)?
33. Do you think there are some people within the group who withhold
information? If yes for what reason – do you think they withhold information?
How do you judge such behaviour?
34. Do you think there are some people living within the community who
would help the project but are not part of the group currently? If yes, for
what reason? Who are these persons?
35. Do you have contacts with similar group(s) of local producers out of the
BLP project? If yes, what do these contacts refer to? Did you hear about
other BLP project participants having such contacts with other local producers
groups?
36. Do you think that contacts and cooperation with other groups of local
producers might be favorable for you and your community? Why do you
think this way? What advantages might be gained through such external
cooperation?
37. Can you identify specific groups, organizations or individuals with
whom cooperation should be initiated (it refers to those who are not
cooperate with BLP project participants so far)? Why did you choose these
groups or individuals? What kind of benefits might be gained through such
cooperation?
COLLECTIVE LEARNING
38. Do you think that all of the group members know each other well? What
do you actually mean by the qualification “know well”?
39. What have you learnt about the other participants of the BLP project
through involvement within this initiative? Have you changed your
behaviour as local producer thanks to the cooperation with these people and
participation in the BLP project? If yes, what changes do you think about? Have
you changed your attitude to community where you live thanks to the
participation in the BLP project?
40. What would you consider the most important thing that you have
learnt, through your participation in the BLP project? Do you think that
you would learn this anyway and participation in the project was not needed in
this case?
90
41. Do you think that all members of the group have the same opinions
about the direction that the project/initiative should take? If not, does it
cause any conflicts or rather BLP project participants tolerate different ideas and
visions of further development of the project? Are these ideas discussed and
deliberated within the group of participants of this initiative?
ROLE OF STATE AND PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS
42. Do you think that this initiative could have been possible in times of
communist state? If not, why do you think this way? Do you think that people’s
attitude toward each other and their willingness to cooperate have changed since
socialist times? If yes, could you give some examples of such changes? Do these
changes influence functioning of BLP project? If yes, could you briefly describe
this influence?
43. Do you trust the state institutions more now than in socialist times or
less? Why? What kinds (types) of institutions do you think about?
44. Did you vote in the last local elections? Did you vote in the last national
elections? What was the reason for this?
45. How does accession to the EU affect people’s behaviour within BLP
project? Do you think that more friendly for BLP project are Polish or EU
institutions? Why do you think this way?
ROLE OF LOCAL COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL NORMS
46. Could you identify and indicate all individuals and institutions which
you find as important for BLP project functioning? Could you briefly
describe what is the importance of each mentioned person or institution?
47. Do you think that people in your area cooperate well with each other? If
yes, what does this cooperation refer to? If not, what is the reason for this
situation? Do you think that people in your area are frank to each other?
48. Does group of local producers participating in BLP project have got its
leader? If yes, who is the leader? If not, do you think that leader should appear
or be indicated by BLP project participants?
49. Are there cliques existing within the BLP project which isolate from
other participants and limit contacts with rest of the producers? If yes,
what is the reason for this situation? How does it influence functioning of BLP
project in your opinion?
ROLE OF MARKET AND COMPETITION
50. What is the scope of the market that you operate on? Is it local, regional,
national or international? Have you changed scope of the market that you
operate on after becoming participant of BLP project?
51. Do you think that your involvement within this initiative made your
offer more or less competitive? In what way? Do you think that you offer
competitive product (or service)? Could you briefly describe most important
advantages and disadvantages of your product?
52. Do you see any risk in your economic activity? What does this risk refer
to? Are you afraid of competition from other local producers? Do you observe
other local products and try to use their ideas in your activity? What kinds of
ideas?
91
53. What ways of your product promotion do you use in your economic
activity? Do you think that these ways are sufficiently effective?
54. Do you make (or made in near past) any changes in your product (or
products)? If yes, what kinds of changes do you think about and why did you
decide to make such improvements? If no, what is the reason that you do not
make any improvements in your product(s)?
QUESTIONS ASKED AT THE END OF THE INTERVIEW TO ALL
INTERVIEWEES:
55. Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted, or
you can not be too careful in dealing with people? Why do you think this
way?
56. How many different social organizations (associations) are you involved
in (including recreational groups, religious groups, voluntary
organizations,
non-governmental
organizations,
governmental
organizations etc.)?
57. How much do you trust (on a scale from 1 to 5)31 the following:
Local government officials in your commune
National government officials (voivodship, governmental institutions and
agencies)
The European Union (its institutions and officials)
Organizers and coordinators of BLP project
Other local producers participating in the BLP project
For what reason did you choose these particular answers?
58. If there was a problem within your community which required different
people coming together to solve it (inhabitants, politicians, civil
servants, entrepreneurs etc.) how likely do you think they would be
successful?
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat unlikely
Very unlikely
For what reason did you choose this answer?
59.If a community project does not directly benefit you, but has benefits
for others in the community, would you a) be willing to contribute money
(Yes or No)? b) willing to contribute time (Yes or No)?
For what reason did you choose this answer?
60.What are your main sources of information about what the government (both
local and national) and the EU is doing?
Relatives, friends and family (‘word of mouth’)
Community bulletin board
31
1=To a very great extent 2=To a great extent 3=Neither to a great nor small extent 4=To a small
extent 5=To a very small extent
92
Local market/local shops
Community or local newspaper
National newspaper
Radio
Television
Internet
Community leaders
Groups or associations I am involved with
Business or work colleagues
Government agencies
Political parties I am involved with
Non-governmental organizations I am involved with
61.What are your main sources of information about what is happening
within your community?
Relatives, friends and family (‘word of mouth’)
Community bulletin board
Local market/local shops
Community or local newspaper
National newspaper
Radio
Television
Internet
Community leaders
Groups or associations I am involved with
Business or work colleagues
Government agencies
Political parties I am involved with
Non-governmental organizations I am involved with
In case of questions 6 and 7 possible options for answer should be presented to
interviewee. Interviewee should be asked to pick (for each question separately) three
most important sources of information?
62.How would you rank the relative importance of the following factors
affecting well functioning of the BLP project?
High levels of trust within the community
Past experiences of all stakeholders with working together
Having a highly motivated group of people/community who are willing to
cooperate
Having good communication between all actors
Keeping well informed and having enough information to make decisions
Actors understanding each other and sharing the same objectives
Involvement of governmental agencies in the process
Active involvement of the local community
93
Market driven incentives for cooperation
In case of question all options for answer should be presented to interviewee.
Interviewee should answer following questions:
- Does particular factor generally refers to the BLP project
- If yes, how interviewee judges importance of this factor for well functioning of
the BLP project (with using following scale: Very important, Somewhat
important, Neither important nor unimportant, Somewhat unimportant, Not
important at all)
94
Annex 3
Interview guidelines (version for interviews with coordinators)
The following research is conducted by Adam Mickiewicz University’s Institute
of Sociology within international research project funded by European Commission.
This project is titled IDARI and refers to different kinds of initiatives which are
undertaken in rural areas in CEE countries. One of the selected initiatives in Poland is
„Bieszczady’s Local Product” (BLP) project. In this case research is mainly based on
in-depth interviews with local producers who participate in the project and other
people involved within the project. The objective of these interviews is to get to
know opinions and attitudes of participants in relation to BLP project. The research is
conducted in cooperation with Community’s Cultural Centre in Lutowiska which is
institution coordinating the project. Research findings will be presented at
international level (publications and scientific conferences) which undoubtedly will
help in popularizing activities undertaken by local producers from Podkarpackie
voivodship.
We would like to thank you for your help in conducting this research and
assure you that research results will be presented in overall way and remain all
interviewees anonymously.
GENERAL ISSUES
1. How would you describe your role within the BLP project?
2. Could your describe initial stag of the BLP project development? Who
was the originator of the idea?
3. What are the most important problems in the field of conducting such
project currently?
4. How do you imagine this project in next 1-2 years?
5. How do you judge process of local products’ development in Poland?
6. What do local producers in Poland mostly need at this moment (what
kind of support do they need)?
INTERPERSONAL TRUST
7. What was the main reason for you to involve in the BLP project? What
main benefits does activity within BLP Project gives its participants?
8. Did you cooperate with other participants of the project before? If yes,
what was the field of this cooperation? How many participants did you know
before? How long did you know these people? In what capacity did you know
them?
9. Do you think that participants of BLP Project trust each other? Why do
you think this way?
10. What would be your reaction if participants within the project broke
your trust or cheated you? Did this happen in the past? If yes, could you
briefly describe that situation?
11. Have you had any problems in dealing with any project participants in
the past? If so, please explain. How do you judge these problems with
cooperation at this moment? How does this affect your behaviour toward them?
95
Have you heard of any similar problems between other participants of the
project?
12. Are you satisfied with working with other members of their community
for this initiative? If yes, what are the main reasons for your satisfaction?
13. What do you think other BLP project participants expect of you? What
expectations do you have of people within the project? Do your expectations
differ for different participants of the project?
14. Would you like new people join BLP project? What might be the productive
“input” from these persons for the project? Do you think that there is good
opinion about the BLP project in the region?
15. How do you judge importance of geographical distance between
participants of the project? Does it limit process of cooperation? If yes, what
are the ways for overcome this problem?
TRUST IN STATE INSTITUTIONS
16. Do you expect support for BLP project from public and state
institutions (government, self-government)? Should government or selfgovernment support local producers? If yes, in what way? Do you think that
present activity of public and state institutions favour further development of BLP
project?
17. How do you judge influence of Poland’s accession in EU for further
Development of BLP project? Would you expect – in relation to your
economic activity – more appropriate actions from Polish or EU institutions?
18. Is there a cooperation within BLP project with other non-governmental
organizations? If yes, what is the reason for this cooperation? If not, what is
the reason for no undertaking such cooperation?
SOLVING CONFLICTS WITHIN THE PROJECT
19. Did you observe any conflicts within BLP project between participants
of the project or between participants of the project and project
initiators/coordinators to date? If yes, what was the field of this conflict and
how it was solved? If not, what potential fields of conflict would you indicate what are the most common differences between people that cause
conflict/problems within the group? Do you think that BLP project participants
would handle solving this conflict?
20. Are there any formal mechanisms of solving problems, potential
conflicts or arguable issues within BLP project? If yes, what are these
mechanisms? If not, do you think that establishment of such formal ways of
solving conflicts is desirable? Which ways do you find as most appropriate
(establishment of set of formal rules, deciding arguable issues by voting,
excluding people who break formal rules etc.)? Why did you choose these ways?
21. Who would you go to first if you experienced a problem within the
project, situation that you would not satisfied with or feel harmed?
BLP PROJECT PARTICIPANTS’ MOTIVATIONS
22. Did you have any fears related to the BLP project at the beginning of
your involvement in this initiative? What specific fears did you have? Did
you have any hopes related to the BLP project at the beginning of your
96
involvement in this initiative? If yes, what kind of hopes did you have? And what
were the fears and hopes of other participants?
23. What are the most important problems and barriers of entry for new
participants of the BLP project?
24. Would you involve in the BLP project again if you were asked for
making such decision after some time of being part of this initiative?
Why did you choose this answer?
25. Do you think that some people within the group are benefiting disproportionally from their involvement in actions which purpose is to
make BLP project functioning better? If yes, why does this happen?
26. Do you think that all people involved in the group are equally committed to the
objectives of the group? If not, what kind of objectives – different than group’s
objectives – do some of project participants have?
27. Do you think that you through membership within the BLP project
producers benefit more than some other people who work in similar
field but do not participate in this project? If yes, what benefits or
advantages would you indicate?
28. On the base of your present knowledge and experience, what would
you change in functioning of the BLP project in order to make it more
profitable for all participants? Do you think that other participants would
agree with your suggestions?
29. What do following statements mean for you:
a) BLP project made positive change for local producers.
b) BLP project made positive change for local communities in the communes
where the project is conducted
c) BLP project made positive change for the region (it refers to the part of
Podkarpackie voivodship where BLP project is conducted).
COMMUNICATION
30. How frequent do you meet with other participants of the BLP project
and discuss issues relating to the project? Do you think that people would
be willing to give up more of your time fore these meetings and discussions? Do
you think that this frequency is enough or maybe these meetings are organized
too often. If the frequency is not enough what would you indicate as the reason
for this situation?
31. What are the most frequent topics of your talks with other people
involved in the BLP project? Are there any topics which are not discussed (or
discussed not very often) and you think that they should be discussed?
32. Do BLP project participants’ meetings are planned and organized in
advance or rather spontaneously hold? If they are organized – who is the
organizer? What locations (buildings) are used for the meetings?
33. What is the mode of communication most frequently used by you to
communicate with other project participants (verbal, telephone,
letters, e-mail etc.)? Do you find mentioned modes of communication
effective? Would you like to communicate with people involved in the project in
97
different way? If yes, what different way of communication would you suggest?
What is the reason for this suggestion?
34. What problems in the field of communication and transfer of
information do you find as most important? Do you think that there is a
chance for any improvements in relation to these problems (communication
barriers)?
35. Do you think there are some people within the group who withhold
information? If yes for what reason – do you think they withhold information?
How do you judge such behaviour?
36. Do you think there are some people living within the community who
would help the project but are not part of the group currently? If yes,
for what reason? Who are these persons?
37. Do you have contacts with similar group(s) of local producers out of
the BLP project? If yes, what do these contacts refer to? Did you hear
about other BLP project participants having such contacts with other local
producers groups?
38. Do you think that contacts and cooperation with other groups of local
producers might be favorable for participants of the BLP project? Why
do you think this way? What advantages might be gained through such external
cooperation?
39. Can you identify specific groups, organizations or individuals with
whom cooperation should be initiated (it refers to those who are not
cooperate with BLP project participants so far)? Why did you choose these
groups or individuals? What kind of benefits might be gained through such
cooperation?
COLLECTIVE LEARNING
40. Do you think that all of the group members know each other well? What
do you actually mean by the qualification “know well”?
41. What have you learnt about the other participants of the BLP project
through involvement within this initiative? Have you changed your
behaviour as local producer thanks to the cooperation with these people and
participation in the BLP project? If yes, what changes do you think about? Have
you changed your attitude to community where you live thanks to the
participation in the BLP project?
42. What would you consider the most important thing that you have
learnt, through your participation in the BLP project? Do you think that
you would learn this anyway and participation in the project was not needed in
this case?
43. Do you think that all members of the group have the same opinions
about the direction that the project/initiative should take? If not, does it
cause any conflicts or rather BLP project participants tolerate different ideas and
visions of further development of the project? Are these ideas discussed and
deliberated within the group of participants of this initiative?
ROLE OF STATE AND PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS
44. Do you think that this initiative could have been possible in times of
communist state? If not, why do you think this way? Do you think that
98
people’s attitude toward each other and their willingness to cooperate have
changed since socialist times? If yes, could you give some examples of such
changes? Do these changes influence functioning of BLP project? If yes, could
you briefly describe this influence?
ROLE OF LOCAL COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL NORMS
45. Could you identify and indicate all individuals and institutions which
you find as important for BLP project functioning? Could you briefly
describe what is the importance of each mentioned person or institution?
46. Do you think that people in your area cooperate well with each other?
If yes, what does this cooperation refer to? If not, what is the reason for this
situation? Do you think that people in your area are frank to each other?
47. Are there cliques existing within the BLP project which isolate from
other participants and limit contacts with rest of the producers? If yes,
what is the reason for this situation? How does it influence functioning of BLP
project in your opinion?
ROLE OF MARKET AND COMPETITION
48. What is the scope of the market that local producers involved in the
project operate on? Is it local, regional, national or international? Do you think
that scope of the market that local producers operate on has changed after
becoming participant of BLP project?
49. Do you think that involvement within this initiative made local
producers’ offer more or less competitive? In what way?
50. What ways of product promotion are most often used in economic
activity by BLP project participants? Do you think that these ways are
sufficiently effective?
51. Do BLP project participants make (or made in near past) any changes
in their product (or products)? If yes, what kinds of changes do you think
about? If no, what is the reason that they do not make any improvements in
their product(s)?
QUESTIONS ASKED AT THE END OF THE INTERVIEW TO ALL
INTERVIEWEES:
52. Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted, or
you can not be too careful in dealing with people? Why do you think this
way?
53. If there was a problem within your community which required different
people coming together to solve it (inhabitants, politicians, civil
servants, entrepreneurs etc.) how likely do you think they would be
successful?
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat unlikely
Very unlikely
54. For what reason did you choose this answer?
99
55. What are your main sources of information about what the government
(both local and national) and the EU is doing?
Relatives, friends and family (‘word of mouth’)
Community bulletin board
Local market/local shops
Community or local newspaper
National newspaper
Radio
Television
Internet
Community leaders
Groups or associations I am involved with
Business or work colleagues
Government agencies
Political parties I am involved with
Non-governmental organizations I am involved with
56. What are your main sources of information about what is happening
within your community?
Relatives, friends and family (‘word of mouth’)
Community bulletin board
Local market/local shops
Community or local newspaper
National newspaper
Radio
Television
Internet
Community leaders
Groups or associations I am involved with
Business or work colleagues
Government agencies
Political parties I am involved with
Non-governmental organizations I am involved with
In case of questions 3 and 4 possible options for answer should be presented to
interviewee. Interviewee should be asked to pick (for each question separately) three
most important sources of information?
57. How would you rank the relative importance of the following factors
affecting well functioning of the BLP project?
High levels of trust within the community
Past experiences of all stakeholders with working together
Having a highly motivated group of people/community who are willing to
cooperate
Having good communication between all actors
100
Keeping well informed and having enough information to make decisions
Actors understanding each other and sharing the same objectives
Involvement of governmental agencies in the process
Active involvement of the local community
Market driven incentives for cooperation
In case of above question all options for answer should be presented to interviewee.
Interviewee should answer following questions:
- Does particular factor generally refers to the BLP project
- If yes, how interviewee judges importance of this factor for well
functioning of the BLP project (with using following scale: Very
important, Somewhat important, Neither important nor unimportant,
Somewhat unimportant, Not important at all).
101