外文标题：Village renewal and rural development in the former German Democratic Republic法国奢侈品
外文作者：Olivia J. Wilson
文献出处:Geo Journal,2018, 46(3) :247–255(如觉得年份太老，可改为近2年，毕竟很多毕业生都这样做)
英文2618单词，14802字符(字符就是印刷符)，中文4689汉字。
Village renewal and rural development in the former
服开头的成语German Democratic Republic
Olivia J. Wilson
怀孕初期下面分泌物会增多吗
Key words: built environment, cooperatives, depopulation, East Germany, employment, infrastructure, rural development, villages
Abstract:This paper analys the “Dorferneuerung” or village renewal scheme – a key policy for rural development in the new “Länder”of Germany which has been transferred from the old Länder. The cont
ribution that Dorferneuerung can make to rural development is considered, with particular reference to the experience of participating villages in Sachn-Anhalt. It concludes that Dorferneuerung has contributed much to improving the built environment but little to new job creation. It is indicative of the advantages and disadvantages of reunification for rural development in the new Länder.
略备薄酒
Introduction
The dramatic and fundamental changes in the rural econ- omy and society of the former German Democratic Republic (GDR) since reunification have received widespread interest and attention, particularly concerning restructuring of the agricultural ctor (e.g. Bergmann, 1992; Gross, 1996; V o- geler, 1996; Wilson, 1996; Hagedorn et al., 1997). The aim of this article is to analy a key policy for rural development in the new ‘Länder’; namely the ‘Dorferneuerung’ or vil- lage renewal scheme. This scheme has been transferred from the ‘old Länder’ where it has been in operation for some forty years. The scheme has attracted interest from other European countries. Indeed, it has been claimed that ‘Dor- ferneuerung will become a trans-national export in the West and East’ (translated from Magel, 1996, p. 4). However, the scheme has not been without its critics (Paas et al., 1994; Grube and Rost, 1995; Herrenknecht, 1995; Zierold, 1997).In order to evaluate the contribution that Dorferneuerung can make to rural development in the new Länder, the ar- ticle will first briefly identif
y the development challenges facing the East German countryside. It will then outline the Dorferneuerung scheme and analy it in terms of its appropriateness for tackling the problems facing rural areas of the new Länder. The evaluation will focus on examples of Dorferneuerung in villages in Sachn-Anhalt,
one of the new Länder.
Dorferneuerung and agricultural restructuring幼儿园的英文
找小姐经历The federal ministry of agriculture justifies the inclusion of Dorferneuerung in the GAK becau (a) it does give priority to the restoration/renovation of farm buildings in villages over non-farm buildings; (b) it can improve the road lay-out in villages and therefore help access for farm traffic and (c) by raising rural living standards generally it may encourage young people to stay on the land (BML, 1995). This argument illustrates the clo association be- tween farming and rural ttlements that still exists in the old Länder. However, its contribution to agricultural restruc- turing in the new Länder is marginal becau of the problems involved in (re)establishing farm business within villages, as illustrated by Ditfurt.
Ditfurt contained 135 farms of about 40 ha in size in the pre-GDR era, but following collectivisation in
the 1950s a single cooperative farm was formed with 2500 ha. New farm buildings were built on the outskirts of the village in the 1970s and many of the village farmyards fell into disu, but becau of lack of redevelopment during the GDR era the farmyards have survived (albeit often in a dilapidated condition). Since reunification the socialist cooperative has been restructured into a registered cooperative of 1400 ha. In addition, there are three full-time family farmers and veral part-time farmers (Tecklenberg, pers. comm.). Only one of the full-time farms is located in the village, and this farmer has built a new barn on the outskirts of the village. It is unlikely that any other full-time farms will be established within the village. In addition to the economic uncertain- ties facing all farmers in the new Länder, two barriers can be identified to the re-establishment of farms within vil- lages. First, the costs of renovating run-down farmyards are enormous and even with Dorferneuerung subsidies may be prohibitive, and cond, the enclod courtyard farms typ- ical of villages in the new Länder may be too small to be suitable for full-time farmers (Grube and Rost, 1995). The farmyards are, therefore, most suited to part-time farmers.
Dorferneuerung and rural development
The extent to which Dorferneuerung can contribute to socio- economic development depends much on individual actors in the process, and in particular on the village mayor, who role is vital in netwo
rking with key officials and in ‘animat- ing’ the village community to participate. This is particularly important in the new Länder where village residents were initially sceptical about the government’s commitment to public participation and were unsure if subsidies would ma- teriali (Stert, pers. comm.). They were also too busy with private problems such as employment and property rights to have time to devote to village matters (Paas et al., 1994).
Ditfurt, Biere and Kläden all entered the Dorferneuerung scheme in its first year (1991) due to the pro-activeness of their mayors. The mayor of Ditfurt made contact with a Gemeinde in Niedersachn straight after reunification to find out about
Dorferneuerung. She was then put in touch with a professor of planning at Hannover University. He brought a group of students to the village to do a field- work project, and through him the mayor was put in touch with an official in charge of Dorferneuerung in the Sachn- Anhalt ministry of agriculture (Tecklenberg, pers. comm.). In many cas neighbouring villages help each other with the Dorferneuerung scheme, especially if they are part of the same ‘Verwaltungsgemeinschaft’ (administrative commu- nity –VWG) which in Sachn-Anhalt is the lowest formal level of local government. For instance, Kläden belongs to a VWG with 12 other Gemeinde and 24 villages. Kläden and another village have now completed Dorferneuerung, but ten other villages are currently
丰收的田野in the scheme, so they can benefit by sharing advice, contacts and experience (Schluslburg, pers. comm.).
Fro joined the scheme in 1994, and its village council has appointed a Dorfberater (village advisor) to work full- time on maximising the development possibilities of Dorfer- neuerung. This is a pilot scheme initiated by an east German NGO reprenting farm and forestry workers (Mühlknickel, 1997). The village advisors work alongside the village coun- cil and working group, and have access to regional advice and information about the plethora of other federal and Län- der grants that can be ‘tied in’ to Dorferneuerung projects. They fulfil a particularly important role in villages like Fro that have a voluntary mayor with little time to devote to Dor- ferneuerung. The Fro village advisor informs the villagers about the scheme, answers inquiries and generally rais public awareness. In addition, she is well networked with key gatekeepers of Dorferneuerung funding (in the Land and District agricultural offices). As well as her involvement in Dorferneuerung, she has t up social activities for old and young people in the village, and has managed to bring in other funding for converting the inside of the village council building (Stert, pers. comm.). While the benefits of the vil- lage advisor scheme have been recognid there is at prent no long-term funding support available (Mühlnickel, 1997; Rakow, pers. comm.).
The construction work resulting from Dorferneuerung schemes has given a boost to rural building firms, but its con- tribution to longer term job-creation is more questionable. One policy that is cloly coordinated with Dorferneuerung is a key federal job creation scheme (Arbeitsbeschaffungs- maßnahmen or ABM), which subsidis unemployed work- ers to work on short term projects of public benefit (BMBau, 1993). All four villages have employed ABM workers on communal projects, in particular environmental improve- ment projects, as cheap labour. For instance, Fro employed 41 ABM workers from 1994 to 1996 to clear undergrowth,build stone walls, lay footpaths and plant trees (Stert, pers. comm.). While this provides training opportunities for the workers and is of enormous benefit to the villages, it does not lead to long-term job creation, and indeed undermines the job market (Schluslburg, pers. comm.).
Suitability of Dorferneuerung for the new Länder
On the surface it would appear that villages in the two parts of Germany have little in common. While Dorferneuerung has been implemented gradually in the old Länder over a period of forty years, in the new Länder it has been imple- mented intensively, with high funding levels, over a period of only ven years. The expectations of Dorferneuerung are much higher in the new Länder than in the old Länder becau of the greater development needs.
There are both positive and negative evaluations of the scheme’s transfer to the new Länder that can be made. Look- ing at the positive side first, the fact that the scheme was already established in the old Länder may have helped to legitimi it in the new Länder, and indeed following reuni- fication each of the new Länder was given help to establish the scheme from an old Land. For instance, Sachn-Anhalt was partnered with neighbouring Niedersachn, and many villages in Sachn-Anhalt have benefited from contact with villages in Niedersachn (as is the ca with Ditfurt). Sec- ond, every village can draw up its own plan with public participation bad on local needs and aspirations. The scheme, although ‘top down’, is flexible and can be tailored to local situations. Third, Dorferneuerung is popular ‘on the ground’ and has already had a dramatic visual impact on villages in the new Länder. The impact can be en in new (or restored) village streets and street furniture, restored village squares and cemeteries, newly planted trees, restored building façades and new roofs. Overall, the Dorferneuerung scheme meets the desire of villagers to improve their living environment and take pride again in their rural heritage (Paas et al., 1994; Grube and Rost, 1995).
However, the localness of the Dorferneuerung scheme is a problem as well as a strength. The scheme lacks inte- gration with other socio-economic policies, and there have been calls for regional
and Land level rural policies to stim- ulate broader socio-economic development initiatives (Paas et al., 1994; Behrens, 1995; Grube and Rost, 1995; Wirth, 1996). Much more could be done to provide back-up advice and information for participating villages and to encourage villages to cooperate with each other. It has even been ques- tioned whether such high public expenditure can be justified on what in some cas can be en as gentrification, when it could be spent on job creation and training (Herrenknecht, 1995; Zierold, 1997). There is inevitably some tension be- tween Wessis and Ossis over not just Dorferneuerung but rural development policy generally. Many of the planners appointed to overe Dorferneuerung schemes and officials in the Sachn-Anhalt ministry of agriculture are Wessis and may have differing views about rural development opportunities than the villagers themlves (Paas et al., 1994; Schluslburg, pers. comm.). Conclusion
This article has provided an overview and analysis of the Dorferneuerung scheme –one of the key rural development initiatives in the new Länder of Germany. Analysis of the scheme has revealed that it has both strengths and weakness. It is esntially a
‘bricks and mortar’ policy which has contributed significantly in the years since 1990 to improvements in village infrastructure and the appearance of villages. The success of Dorferneuerung is clearly visible in the built environment which may account for the scheme’s popula
rity with policy-makers and the public.
物流信息管理
The contribution of Dorferneuerung to wider rural development, and particularly to job creation, is more question- able. While it has provided short-term work for builders and ABM-workers, its contribution to longer-term job creation can only be indirect, and much depends upon the role of key village actors in the process, as well as upon the ge- ographical location of villages and their attractiveness for investment. For Dorferneuerung to fulfil its potential it will be necessary to make the scheme more flexible so that Län- der governments can tailor the scheme to their particular priorities. In addition, it must be en as part of a wider integrated rural development policy. This latter goal may be difficult to achieve while Dorferneuerung remains in the GAK, although if it was taken out of the GAK its funding might be less cure. The future of Dorferneuerung is also dependent on the continuation of European structural fund- ing after 1999. It is unlikely that as much money will be available for Dorferneuerung, especially if the EU expands to include new member states from Central and Eastern Europe.
Reunification of the two Germanies can, therefore, be en as both a blessing and a cur for rural development in the former GDR. It is a blessing in that the new Länder have benefited from institutional and financial support from the old Länder and from the EU, with schemes like Dor- ferne
uerung. It is a cur, however, in that the new Länder have adopted old Länder schemes which are not necessarily suited to their needs. The gap in living standards between Western and Eastern Germany that existed at reunification pressured the federal and Länder governments into taking fast action to achieve rapid development. Now that so much has been achieved to improve the built environment of rural areas, it is to be hoped that the success of Dorferneuerung will provide a basis for new schemes focusing on training and job creation. References
Agra Europe Bonn, 1991: Auswirkungen der Integration in den EG-Agrarmarkt, 7. Behrens H., (ed.), 1995: Intermediäre Akteure in der Dorf- und Regionalen- twicklung. Dorf- und Regionalentwicklung in den neuen Bundesländern: Beiträge aus der Praxis, Göttingen, Agrarsoziale Gellschaft e.V. Kleine Reihe, V ol. 54, pp. 109–331. Bergmann T., 1992: The re-privatisation of farming in Eastern Germany.Sociologia Ruralis, 32: 305–316.
BMBau (Bundesministerium für Raumordnung, Bauwen und Städtebau),1993: Raumordnungsbericht. BMBau, Bonn.BML, 1991–1997: Agrarbericht der Bundesregierung. BML, Bonn.
BML (Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten),1995: Für unre ländlichen Räume. BML, Bonn.
Deutscher Bundestag, 1996: Rahmenplan der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe ‘Verbesrung
