Rita Vilkė, Živilė Gedminaitė-Raudonė


Throughout the last half a century, rural development policy has experienced many transformations in the name of industrialization, including the mechanization of work process in agriculture, the installation of irrigation and amelioration systems, the electrification of farms, the application of chemical production technologies, increased productivity, and a myriad of other developments. Present questions of balanced sustainability and the minimization of negative impacts with regard to quality of life are taking leading positions in agricultural policy debates. The results of previously implemented agribusiness support measures are beginning to signal a disastrous future for ongoing agricultural policy, which has over accelerated rural development and thus caused significant changes in rural landscapes and the lives of rural residents. Therefore, future agriculture requires new models and innovative decisions, as well as good political will in the field. The main aim of this paper is to propose future directions for collaboration between government and agribusinesses using an innovative circular bio-economy economy approach for attaining the balanced development of rural sustainability. Qualitative data were collected in summer and autumn of 2018 using semi-structured interviews in Lithuanian livestock farms and government institutions. These are the key players in biogas production, as from one side they act as biogas producers (livestock farms) and from the other act as actual decision-makers (government institutions). The results of the research demonstrate that future agribusiness is highly dependent on the role taken by government in accelerating prospective innovations, even though they happen in a field of activity that is supported by public funds. Collaborative political decisions made to support the circular bio-economy economy approach in biogas production might be helpful for the future development of livestock agribusiness that is less polluting and of more benefit to society. It is suggested to broaden the use of the circular bio-economy economy approach in fostering the balanced development of rural sustainability in the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy after 2020.


collaboration, sustainable rural development, government, farmers, circular bioeconomy, biogas production.

Full Text:



Bochko, V. S. (2015). The Accelerating and Constraining Factors of the Coordinated and Balanced Development of Regions. Economy of Region/Ekonomika Regiona, 41(1).

Curran, J., & Storey, D. J. (2016). Small firms in urban and rural locations. Routledge.

Czekała, W. (2018). Agricultural Biogas Plants as a Chance for the Development of the Agri-Food Sector. Journal of Ecological Engineering, 19(2).

Dimitris, D. (Ed.). (2006). The Development Dimension Coherence of Agricultural and Rural Development Policies. OECD Publishing.

Drăgoi, A. E., & Bâlgăr, A. C. (2017). Rural Development Plans–an Instrument for Achieving the Sustainability Goal in EU Member States. Global Economic Observer, 5(2), 39-47.

European Commission. (2014). National/regional innovation strategies for smart specialisation (RIS3). Cohesion policy 2014–2020 [online], Available from Internet:

Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The Circular Economy–A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of cleaner production, 143, 757-768.

Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., & Ulgiati, S. (2016). A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. Journal of Cleaner production, 114, 11-32.

Gu, J., Zhou, S., & Ye, X. (2016). Uneven Regional Development Under Balanced Development Strategies: Space‐Time Paths of Regional Development in Guangdong, China. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 107(5), 596-610.

Hanna, P. (2017). European Union funds as a tool for creating new functions of rural areas, as illustrated by the example of RDP. Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development, 2017(1644-2017-2205).

Jones, E., Kelemen, R. D., & Meunier, S. (2016). Failing forward? The Euro crisis and the incomplete nature of European integration. Comparative Political Studies, 49(7), 1010-1034.

Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., & Hekkert, M. (2017). Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 127, 221-232.

Landabaso, M. (2014). Guest editorial on research and innovation strategies for smart specialization in Europe. European Journal of Innovation Management, 17(4), 378-389.

Marsden, T. (2017). The condition of rural sustainability: issues in the governance of rural space in Europe. In The reform of the CAP and rural development in Southern Europe (pp. 29-48). Routledge.

McCann, P., & Ortega-Argilés, R. (2013). Transforming European regional policy: a results-driven agenda and smart specialization. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 29(2), 405-431.

Mitchell R.K., Agle B.R., Wood D.J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review 22(4): 853–86.

Murray, A., Skene, K., & Haynes, K. (2017). The circular economy: an interdisciplinary exploration of the concept and application in a global context. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(3), 369-380.

Naldi, L., Nilsson, P., Westlund, H., & Wixe, S. (2015). What is smart rural development?. Journal of rural studies, 40, 90-101.

Naudé, M. (2011). Sustainable development in companies: Theoretical dream or implementable reality. Corporate Ownership & Control, 8(4), 352-364.

Schröder, P., Anantharaman, M., Anggraeni, K., Foxon, T., & Barber, J. (2019). Sustainable Lifestyles, Livelihoods and the Circular Economy. Routledge.

Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: a sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759-1769.

Statistics Lithuania (2018). Energy Balance 2017.

Tovey, H. (2016). Rural sustainable development in the knowledge society. Routledge.

Tregear, A., & Cooper, S. (2016). Embeddedness, social capital and learning in rural areas: The case of producer cooperatives. Journal of Rural Studies, 44, 101-110.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

"Public Policy and Administration" ISSN online 2029-2872 / ISSN print 1648-2603