The limits of development: State structural policy, comparing systems adopted in two European mountain regions (1945-1989)

该项目的目标是编写一本关于1945年至1989年间不同政权下山区国家结构政策历史的专著。通过比较两个样本历史案例，每个样本地区代表了不同的欧洲发展道路，每个地区都包含了大量的山区，希望能获得新的见解，为关于农村地区现在和未来的辩论提供信息。选择进行研究的两个地区是奥地利，作为一个明显的西方国家，和捷克斯洛伐克的国家社会主义秩序。这项研究的出发点是这样一个假设：1945年以来，这两个国家的政治方针最初在受影响的地区引起了相互不同的发展，但由于它们各自的山区所处的结构相似的情况，奥地利和捷克斯洛伐克从1960年代以来所遵循的政策出现了一些趋同。在空间规划、农业和自然保护政策的基础上，对两国在区域规划方面的不同策略进行了比较分析。这一努力的核心问题是它们如何处理纠正区域差异的问题。该研究的基本假设是，由于山区的地貌特征，现代发展政策在山区面临着特别困难的挑战：尽管国家拥有干预这些地区的手段，但这样做的成本相对较高。因此，通过对该地区自然条件的评估和对山区价值的社会判断来确定发展的限制。山区一直是不同解释的主题。将它们评价为具有国家和经济重要性或值得环境保护，与将它们与结构问题联系起来的概念（包括诸如“落后”、经济不利和移徙等概念）形成对比。由于这些不同的解释导致了各种各样的政策，一个至关重要的问题是，结构性政策在多大程度上只是对农业现代化和社会变革所引发的景观、人口分布和社会环境的变化作出反应，或者其本身提供了一种驱动力。在多大程度上认为保存现有结构是重要的？在涉及推动山区开发、保护和发展的三位一体力量的背景下，这项研究的目的是审查国家行动，并将这些行动置于这些地区政策执行的背景下。本研究涉及农业、环境和规划历史的主题，并在方法论上与领土研究中的问题联系起来。

The goal of the project is to draw up a monograph on the history of state structural policy in mountainous regions under a variety of regimes between 1945 and 1989. It is hoped to gain new insights to inform the debate on the present and future of rural regions by comparing two sample historical cases against one another, with each sample region representing a different European pathway to development, and with each of the regions containing a substantial chunk of mountainous territory. The two regions chosen for the study are Austria, as a markedly western country, and Czechoslovakia with state socialist order. The research starts from the assumption that the political approaches of these two states from 1945 on initially provoked mutually divergent developments in the affected regions, but that, as a result of the structurally similar situations in which their respective mountain regions found themselves, a number of convergences emerged in the policies followed by Austria and Czechoslovakia from the 1960s on.Undertaking a comparative analysis, the author researches the two countries’ differing strategies in regional planning on the basis of their policies on spatial planning, agriculture and nature conservation. At the center of this effort is the question as to how they approached the problem of correcting regional disparities. The basic assumption of that study is that modern development policy faces particularly difficult challenges in mountainous regions thanks to their geomorphological character: While states possess means with which to intervene in such regions, the cost of doing so is relatively high. The limits of development are thus determined both through evaluations of the region’s natural conditions and through societal judgments on the worth of mountain regions.Mountain regions have been subject of divergent interpretations. Evaluation of them as being either of national and economic importance or as worthy of environmental protection contrasted with notions linking them to structural problems (including such concepts as "backwardness", economic disadvantage and emigration). As these various interpretations led on to a variety of policies, a question of central importance is the extent to which structural policy was simply responding to or itself provided a driving force for change in the landscape, population distribution and social environment, triggered by agriculture modernization and social transformations. To what extent was the preservation of existing structures considered important? Against a background that involved a triad of forces promoting the exploitation, protection and development of mountain regions, the study aims to examine state action and to place that action in the context of policy implementation in those regions. This study touches upon topics from agricultural, environmental and planning history, and ties in methodologically with issues grappled with in territorial studies.