campus

social
Revista Lusófona de Ciências Sociais
2004, 1, 85-103

Territorial Identity
and Sustainable Development:
from Concept to Analysis

Zoran Roca*
Jorge Carvalho Mourão**
Introduction

The concern for the diversity and autonomy of regional and local identity has been
increasingly voiced across social sciences over the last decade (Agnew 2000; Haartsen et
al. 2000; Massey and Jets 1995; Amin and Thrift 1994; Hadjimikalis 1994; Massey 1991) and
has gained a strategic importance in regional development policies and programmes,
especially in the peripheral and lagging regions and countries of the European Union. One
of major arguments has been that an increased competitiveness of localities and regions on
the globalised market of goods, services and ideas, can be decisive for achieving the
sustainable “local development engineering” (Cosgrove 1998; Commission européenne
1994).
In Portugal, it has been argued that globalisation, together with the enlargement of the
EU, is imposing difficult challenges because “it has brought about elements and factors
that are unfavourable to both inter- and intra-regional social and economic cohesion”,
though, at the same time, “it is essential to attract the foreign investments that will enable
diversification of the regional economy and promote its high quality and stability, including
social and environmental sustainability” (MP 1999, Chapter I: 52; 69). In this context, it has
been widely accepted that the valorisation of territorial identity is essential in regional and
local development strategies and programmes, especially in rural areas.
However, the need to (re)affirm the identity of places and regions in Portugal has been
promoted much more rhetorically than in terms of practice at the field level. It is argued in
this paper that this gap is due to the lack of appropriate concepts and analytical tools for the
understanding of local identity as a development issue. The paper brings forward a recent
experience in creating a conceptual and methodological framework for the study of local
identity and globalisation, as well as the first findings of an exploratory field-research on
this topic in rural Portugal.

Policy concerns and implementation limits

Common rhetoric
There has hardly been a regional and local development strategy or programme for rural
Portugal, that would not warn about the loss of identity as a manifestation of social and
________
* Director, Centro de Estudos de Geografia e Desenvolvimento Regional, ULHT, Lisboa.
** Investigador, Centro de Estudos de Geografia e Desenvolvimento Regional, ULHT, Lisboa.
 Zoran Roca and Jorge Carvalho Mourão

economic depression and marginalisation of places and regions,1 or that would not
emphasise that combating negative and attracting desirable effects of globalisation require
that special attention should be given to local identity.
For example, in the final document adopted at the First European Conference on Local
Development and Social Cohesion, held in Serpa, Portugal, in 1995, it was highlighted that
“the valorisation of local cultural identity and environmental protection should become
useful instruments in creating new activities, generators of employment and retaining and
attracting people” (CEDLCS 1995, 4). Likewise, at the National Assemblies and Fairs of
Local and Regional Development Agents, held in Amarante, in 1998 and in Tavira in 2001,
strong quests were made in favour of the “valorisation of cultural identity”, “building local
self-esteem”, “strengthening local diversity”, “encouraging community feeling”, “mobilising
active local citizenship” and “enabling decentralised development” (Animar 1998), as well
as calling for “recreation of local identities in all of its dimensions” in order to “combat
exclusion and massification generated by globalisation” (Animar 2001).
Along the same lines, the objectives of the EU Initiative LEADER II, strongly promoted
in Portugal, referred to the need to valorise “territorial potentials” and “richness of regional
heritage”. Moreover, in order to become eligible for financing, local development projects
have had to incorporate “the sensitisation of the population about territorial identity and
prosperity” (DGDR 1997, 218-219). The most recent example of the pro-identity rhetoric can
be found in the National Regional Development Plan 2000-2006 where it is argued that
“harmony between modernity and tradition mean, both territorially and geostrategically,
combining the generalised cosmopolitan living patterns with the valorisation of collective
identity” (MP 1999 Chapter III: 10).
In short, the need to care about identity has been accepted as the conditio sine qua non
for further development of the Portuguese rural economy and society in the context of
globalisation, or, as Albino suggested, “local identity must be operationalised into a
development resource ... The strategy of local development should be based on the
appreciation of the ancestral typicality as a means of encouraging further evolution of new
local innovations” (1997: 113).

Methodological constraints
In order to reconcile local development needs, potentials and contexts with global
conditions, a comprehensive recognition of the origin and nature of the identity of places
and regions is required. However, the problem is that the concept of local identity has not
been transformed into an analytical category, equipped by methods and tools for recording
and understanding the nature of identity features and assessing the causes and direction
of their change.
The notion of local identity can imply a great diversity of meanings, such as ‘unique
properties’ of places and regions, their ‘characteristics and particularities’, ‘natural and
cultural heritage’, ‘endogenous potentials’ and ‘comparative (dis)advantages’. Most often

86
 Territorial Identity and Sustainable Development

the actual content, scope and value judgements behind such generalisations tend to remain
unclear and biased, thus inadequate for development policy and strategy design, or for
development planning and project formulation purposes.
If it is unclear what the identity of a place and region means in factual, practical and
verifiable terms, that is, beyond the above-mentioned, fairly generic designations, how can
one determine what aspect of identity needs to be strengthened, preserved, diversified, or
made ‘more competitive’, so that it becomes a factor of development? Furthermore, how to
monitor and evaluate changes in local identity, and against which reference points? Which
quantiqualitative benchmarks should be used to distinguish, compare, or predict desirable
from unwanted changes in local identity? And, even if the nature of local development
issues at stake and the needs for change were identified, who are the legitimate ‘guardians’
of local identity, that is, which institutions or individuals are capable, or entitled, to cope
with forces of globalisation locally?
As far as the global-local nexus is concerned, at least two important analytical limitations
need to be highlighted. First, the macroscopic perspective has prevailed in the majority of
interpretations of the consequences of globalisation, while there has been too little insight
at the local level. In fact, though “commentators seem sure that there is a ‘dialectic’ between
the global and local, that in some sense what counts as the local has been transformed by
globalisation” (Massey 1991, in Amin and Thrift 1994:1), most usually the empirical evidence
has not been sought at levels lower than a single or groups of countries. Interpretations
based on primary records of the effects of globalisation at lower, intra-country, regional and
local levels, have been underrepresented, if not completely neglected.2
The second limitation has to do with the “underestimation at present of the literature on
the local-global nexus in terms of the role of people and their organisations as social agents
affecting change” (Hadjimichalis, 1994: 249). Indeed, virtually no effort has been made to
divert from a tendency to interpret changes in economic, cultural, political and other spheres
of life primarily from the perspective of systems and institutions, and to ignore the fact that
every institutional setting is run and/or used by individual stakeholders and that,
consequently, all representations of local identity are necessarily subjective.
By removing the above-mentioned limitations, firmer grounds could be created for a
more profound, empirical and policy-relevant understanding of, as Amin and Thrift asserted,
“the continued salience of places as settings for social and economic existence, and for
forging identities, struggles, and strategies of both a local and global nature” (1994: 9).

Searching for evidence

In the framework of a research project on globalisation and local development in Portugal3

an effort was made to detect the presence and nature of changing local identity in rural
areas and to gain insight about the role of development stakeholders4 in that change. To
this end, an exploratory, nation-wide pilot-survey on knowledge, attitudes and practice

87
 Zoran Roca and Jorge Carvalho Mourão

(KAP) of local development stakeholders in relation to local identity and globalisation was
carried out. The conceptualisation of the KAP questionnaire used in the survey resulted
from an attempt to operationalise the concept of local identity, as outlined hereunder.

The KAP questionnaire

The objectives of the first KAP questionnaire was to bring records of the development
stakeholders’ representations of the identity of territories on which they operate and of
their views about local changes attributable to globalisation, as well as about their role in
valorising local identity features.
The working definition of the concept of local identity introduced in the questionnaire
was that “it represents the set of cultural, social, economic, technological and other
specificities of a territory that make it different from other territories”. Such broad, value-
free, designation was introduced in order to maximise conditions for the spontaneity of
answers from different stakeholders and, thus, for bringing more light to the issue of “whose
identity or identities are we talking about, and who determines the regional identity of an
area” (Groote et al. 2000: 2).
Likewise, in parts of the KAP questionnaire focussed on global effects on local identity
and development, the notion of globalisation was generically introduced as “a growing
interdependence, at the world level, of tendencies, problems, values, life-stiles and
decisions”.5 It was hoped that it would minimise possible respondents’ perceptions of the
‘global’ as everything that is ‘not local’, in view of the fact that “depending on the degree
of inclusion- exclusion of each place in the world economy, ‘global’ can refer to the next city
and region or the actual economy and society” (Hadjimicalis 1994:241).
In order to facilitate response on such complex concepts and issues, the questions were
closed, with multiple-choice answers, and the concept of local identity was presented in an
extensively disaggregated manner. The step-wise process of disaggregation consisted of
itemisation of local identity features, their testing in the field, and creation of a roster of
local identity components. The first itemisation was inspired by concepts of the ‘global
sense of place’ (Massey 1991), the ‘contestation of place’ (Masey and Jess 1995), the
‘regions in the minds’ (Agnew 1999), the ‘claimed rural identities’ (Haartsen et al. 2000) and
the ‘glocalisation’, neologism which refers to “the accrued articulation of local territories
with the world economy, stressing the persistence of spatiality, inscription of economic
social and cultural phenomena.” (Benko 2000:14).
The scope of itemisation was established on the basis of theoretical arguments and
empirical accounts such as that, in spite of the global pressures, the “cultural landscapes
remain our unwitting autobiography” (Rubinstein 1996:23 ); that “contrary to the most
sober predictions, territories with their specificities are not erased from the economic fluxes
of mundialisation”, and that the “regional richness” has been guaranteed given that material
and immaterial specificities are “territorially anchored” (Benko 2000: 12-14); that ‘verticalities’,
and not anymore ‘horizontalites’, increasingly produce ‘hegemonic’ and ‘hegemonized’
geographic space (Santos 1994); that the emergence of a ‘networked region’ reflects, inter

88
 Territorial Identity and Sustainable Development

alia, the “thickness of public and private industrial support institutions”, and depends on
“the receptivity of firms towards innovations” (Todtling 1994:80); that fusion of
telecommunications and information technology (‘telematics’) still have limited impact on
development in peripheral regions (Ilbery et al. 1995); and, that different forms of ‘territorial
mobilisation’ tend to surge in defence of local priorities against globalisation (Hadjimichalis
1994).
The actual designation (labelling) of local identity components drew upon the works of
Portuguese geographers, anthropologists and socio-economists, such as Ribeiro (1991),
Brito (1994), Bandeira (1991), Cavaco (1992) Barreto (2000) and Caetano (2000), renown for
their in-depth assessments and typologies of physical and human specificities of Portuguese
regions and places, especially in rural areas. In addition, various diagnostic studies and
policy-oriented documents from central, regional and local government agencies and NGOs
(e.g.: Animar 2001; 1998; MP 1999; MA 1995; DGDR 1997) were consulted in developing a
first roster of local identity components.
The testing of this roster in the field6 resulted in the elimination of identity components
considered as too vague or obsolete and in the addition of new ones that either have not
been prioritised in the literature or refer to recently emerged identity features. Among such
new features, those related to global stimuli to local production and businesses occupy a
prominent place.
This matches with theoretical expectations on the subject such as, for example, that
“firms now have geographical imaginations that privilege regions and localities as the
geographical scales of choice in making decisions about investments rather than the national
territories that once dominated their geographical mindset (e.g. Hocking 1997 Elcock 1997,
Jones 1997, but see Wright 1998)” (Agnew 2000:105), as well as that the importance of ‘local
embedding’ (workforce, information-gathering, markets, finance, etc.) and networks are
changing, “since a considerable number of SMEs are also engaged in international and
global markets and networks and parts of large firms are also linked to the local environment”
(Todtling 1994:82-83). The finally obtained roster consisted of seventy-five components
that mirror major, traditionally salient and recent identity features of rural Portugal. In the
KAP questionnaire, all identity components are clustered in three spheres - the socio-
cultural, socio-economic and techno-economic (Box 1).

89
 Zoran Roca and Jorge Carvalho Mourão

Box 1. Components of local identity

Socio-cultural sphere Socio-economic sphere Techno-economic sphere

1. Collective memory (old symbols, 1. "Assistancialismo” (spirit of 1. Adoption of new communication

songs, legends) passive dependence on external & information technologies
2. Conservative localism assistance) 2. Air pollution
3. Constructed rural heritage 2. Aged population 3. Alternative tourism and leisure
4. Cultural production (exhibits, 3. Consumerism (spirit of) industry (ecology, culture)
concerts, theatre) 4. Creation of new employment 4. Big enterprises
5. Degraded cultural landscape 5. Educational attainment 5. External demand for agro-
6. Environmental conscientiousness 6. Entrepreneurial spirit products
7. Historic urban nuclei (old towns) 7. Exodus of the youth 6. External investment -
8. International tourism 8. Incentives to retain the youth international
9. Mass-media production (local 9. Insecure employment 7. External investment - national
newspapers, radio) 10. Living standard (reasonable high) 8. Financial institutions (banks,
10. Modern arts and crafts 11. Newly enriched class insurance companies)
(souvenirs) 12. People’s indebtedness 9. Forest degradation
11. Multiethnic conviviality 13. People’s political participation 10. Market agriculture
12. National tourism 14. Pluriactivity 11. Mass tourism and leisure
13. People’s self-esteem 15. Pockets of poverty industry
14. Positive cultural image 16. Presence of secondary residences 12. Micro-enterprises
15. Private sponsorship of local 17. Professional qualification 13. Modern agricultural technology
culture 18. Professionals from other regions 14. Modern industrial technology
16. Public investment in local culture (national and international) 15. Old industrial technology
17. Religiousness among the youth 19. Rural-urban inequality 16. Organic farming
18. Traditional arts and crafts 20. Social crises and conflicts (drugs, 17. Public domestic water supply
19. Traditional culinary art crime, street protests) 18. Public sewage system
20. Traditional cultural landscape 21. Social inequality 19. SMEs
21. Traditional events (feasts, fairs) 22. Social services for the elderly 20. Soil degradation
22. Traditional modes of conviviality 23. Temporary emigrants 21. Solid waste collection
23. Traditional public spaces 24. Traditional solidarity relations 22. Subsistence agriculture
24. Urban lifestyles in villages 25. Unemployment 23. Supermarkets
25. Xenophobia 24. Traditional, atomised commerce
25. Water pollution

Most identity components were clustered on the basis of their usual belonging to a
particular sphere of identity. Some components, such as those related to social and
environmental features, are transversally relevant to all sectors of local life and development,
and thus make part of more than one sphere of identity. A different, perhaps more detailed
clustering of identity components (e.g., making sharper distinctions between environmental,
social, economic, and other components) could have been introduced, but that would turn
the KAP questionnaire too complex and would only complicate communication with
respondents.
The first questionnaire, used as part of the nation-wide pilot KAP survey, addressed
professional local development activists (LDAs), mostly senior staff in local and regional
development agencies7 and consisted of two sections. The first one was intended to bring
evidence of the importance LDAs attribute to local identity as a policy issue and to explore
their representation of the socio-cultural, socio-economic and techno-economic dimensions
of the identity of places and regions in which they operate. In the second section, the
attitudes of LDAs towards globalisation in general and, in particular, towards its effects on
local identity are explored. Their views on the role of individual and institutional stakeholders
in that change are also recorded.

90
 Territorial Identity and Sustainable Development

First records

On local identity
Asked to express their views on the importance of local identity in development of the
area in which they operate, LDAs unanimously supported the idea that “to care about local
identity must be a priority in the local development interventions” and a large majority
agreed that local identity “must become competitive in order to enable local development”
(Chart 1).

Chart 1. Attitudes of LDAs regarding local identity and development issues

(% responses)

To c a re a bo ut lo ca l ide ntity m us t be a prio rity in the

lo c al de ve lo pm e nt inte rve ntio ns .
Lo ca l ide ntity m us t be co m e co m pe titive in o rde r to
ena ble lo c a l de ve lo pm e nt.
A s tro ng lo c a l identity is an es s e ntia l pre re quis ite
fo r lo c al de ve lo pm e nt.
Adequa te va lo ris a tio n o f lo c al ide ntity is ha rdly
po s s ible witho ut the interventio n o f lo c ally
S tre ngth o f lo ca l ide ntity de pe nds o n its c a pa c ity to To tally a gre e
re s is t e xte rna l influe nc e s . Agree m o re tha n dis a gre e
Underdeve lo pm e nt re fle c ts the pers is te nce o f Do no t a gre e no r dis a gre e
nega tive cha ra c te ris tic s o f lo c a l ide ntity. Dis agree m o re tha n a gre e
P e rs is te nc e o f ne ga tive fe a ture s o f lo c a l ide ntity To tally dis a gre e
a re c a us e d m o re by e xternal the n internal fa c to rs .
It inc re a s ingly do es no t m a ke s e ns e to wo rry a bo ut
lo c a l ide ntity in the era o f the glo ba lis a tio n o f the
It is wo rth s a c rifying the tra ditio nal lo c a l ide ntity if it
ca n c o ntribute to inc re a s ing ec o no m ic pro s pe rity
C o ns e rva tio n o f tra ditio nal va lues , a rts and c ra fts
im pe des the m o dernis atio n o f lo c a l e c o no m y and

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Likewise, a majority shares the view that “a strong local identity is an essential
prerequisite for local development and also favours (though not so explicitly) the idea that
“adequate valorisation of local identity is hardly possible without the intervention of locally
recruited local development agents.”
Large majority of LDAs disagreed with allegations such as that “it does not make sense
to worry about local identity in the era of the globalisation” and that “conservation of
traditional values, arts and crafts impedes the modernisation of local economy and society.”
A less firm negative response was recorded on the suggestion that “it is worth sacrifying
the traditional local identity if that would help increasing the economic prosperity of a local
community”.
Finally, the LDAs reacted much less unanimously in supporting or rejecting the
suggestions that “the strength of local identity has to do with the capacity to resist external
influences”. An even greater disagreement was on the idea that “underdevelopment reflects
the persistence of negative characteristics of local identity”. The most controversial issue,
however, seems to be whether “the persistence of negative characteristics of local identity

91
 Zoran Roca and Jorge Carvalho Mourão

has to do with internal or external factors”, on which approximately equal shares of affirmative,
negative and neutral response were obtained.
Requested to portray the area in which they operate by indicating the level of presence
of the components of local identity, the majority of LDAs ranked as highest the traditional
events, traditional cultural landscape, constructed rural heritage and traditional culinary art
(Chart 2).

Chart 2. “Strongly present” components of socio-cultural identity

(% responses by LDAs)

tra ditio na l e ve nts 66,7

tra ditio na l la nds c a pe 63,6
c o ns truc te d he rita ge 54,5
tra ditio na l c ulina ry a rt 52,7
his to ric urba n nuc le i 38,9
tra ditio na l a rts & c ra fts 38,2
c o lle c tive me m o ry 36,4
tra ditio na l c o nvivia lity 36,4
na tio na l to uris ts 29,1
c o ns e rva tive lo c a lis m 28,3
inte rna tio na l to uris ts 27,3
tra ditio na l public s pa c e s 25,9
po s itive c ultura l im a ge 20,4
pe o ple 's s e lf-e s te e m 15,1
public inve s tm e nt in c ulture 14,8
m a s s -m e dia pro duc tio n 13,2
urba n life s tyle in villa ge s 13
de gra de d la nds c a pe 11,3
c ultura l pro duc tio n 9,4
re ligio us ne s s o f yo uth 9,4
xe no pho bia 9,3
mo de rn a rts & c ra fts 7,4
m ultie thnic c o nvivia lity 7,3
e nviro nm e nta l 5,5
s po ns o rs hip o f c ulture 1,9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

A sizeable share of medium ranks (20-40% of responses) was attributed to a wide diversity
of salient identity components such as traditional modes of conviviality, use of traditional
public places, traditional arts and crafts and presence of collective memory and conservative
localism, but also to a wide range of newly emerging features such as the presence of
national and international tourists, degradation of cultural landscape, penetration of urban
lifestyles in villages, public investments in local culture, production of local journals and
positive cultural image of the area of LDAs’ operations. The lowest importance (less than
10% of responses) was attributed to components such as the religiousness of the youth,
xenophobia and multiethnic conviviality, while environmental conscientiousness is still
does not make part of the local cultural identity.
Regarding the socio-economic sphere of local identity, most LDAs attributed highest
ranks to two most notorious features of contemporary rural Portugal: the aged population
and exodus of the youth (Chart 3).

92
 Territorial Identity and Sustainable Development

Chart 3. “Strongly present” components of socio-economic identity

(% responses by LDAs)

a ge d po pula tio n 64,8

e xo dus o f the yo uth 46,3
ins e c ure e m plo ym e nt 37
s e rvic e s fo r the o ld 31,5
"a s s is te nc ia lis m o " 30,2
une mplo yme nt 29,6
po litic a l pa rtic ipa tio n 27,8
pluria c tivity 27,8
rura l-urba n ine qua lity 27,8
s o c ia l ine qua lity 27,8
c o ns ume ris t s pirit 24,5
po c ke ts o f po ve rty 22,2
tra ditio na l s o lida rity bo nds 20,8
ne wly e nric he d c la s s 17
te m po ra ry e migra nts 15,1
s e c o nda ry re s ide nc e s 14,8
s o c ia l c ris e s a nd c o nflic ts 11,1
pe o ple 's inde bte dne s s 11,1
o uts ide pro fe s s io na ls 9,4
e ntre pre ne uria l s pirit 5,6
e duc a tio na l a tta inme nt 5,6
c re a tio n o f ne w jo bs 3,8
pro fe s s io na l qua lific a tio n 1,9
inc e ntive s to re ta in yo uth 1,5
living s ta nda rd 0,1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Not surprisingly (Barreto 2000), insecure employment was ranked third, followed by the
medium presence (15-30% responses) of a mixture of “well established” features such as,
“assistencialismo” (i.e., spirit of passive dependence on external assistance), unemployment,
rural-urban gap, traditional solidarity relations, on one side and, on the other, new phenomena
such as consumerism, growing social inequalities and pluriactivity. The weakest presence
(less than 10% responses) LDAs attributed to several identity feature that are most usually
considered as strategically important for social progress, such as educational attainment,
entrepreneurial spirit and incentives to retain youth.
No component of the techno-economic dimension of local identity was considered
outstandingly present by the majority of LDAs (Chart 4).

Chart 4. “Strongly present” components of techno-economic identity

(% responses by LDAs)
do m e s tic wa te r s upply 45,5
s ubs is te nc e a gric ulture 45,5
tra ditio na l c o m m e rc e 44,4
s o lid wa s te c o llec tio n 34,5
fina nc ia l ins titutio ns 27,8
m ic ro -enterpris e s 27,8
public s e wage s ys tem 25,9
S M Es 25,5
hydro -po llutio n 16,4
a lte rna tive to uris m & le is ure 16,4
s o il de gra datio n 14,5
fo res t degrada tio n 12,7
to uris m and leis ure 11,1
o ld indus tria l te c hno lo gy 11,1
e xte rna l de m a nd fo r pro duc ts 11,1
s upe rm arkets 9,1
m arket a gric ulture 5,5
inve s tm ents - na tio na l 3,7
m o dern indus tria l te c hno lo gy 3,7
a ir-po llutio n 3,6
m o de rn fa rm te c hno lo gy 3,6
e xternal inve s tm e nts 1,9
o rga nic fa rm ing 1,9
big enterpris e s 1,8
info rm a tio n te c hno lo gy 0,1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

93
 Zoran Roca and Jorge Carvalho Mourão

The highest ranks (over 30% responses) belong to identity features that reflect the still
prevailing traditional economic structure, i.e., subsistence agriculture and small, atomised
commerce, but also some important elements of progress, such as recent investments in
domestic water supply and solid waste collection. Medium ranks (10-30% responses) belong
to such diverse components as the SMEs and micro- enterprises, alternative tourism and
leisure industry, as well as the use old industrial technology and environmental problems
such as water pollution, forest and soil degradation. The minimum presence (less than 5%
responses) was ascribed to features that are usually regarded as symptoms of progress and
innovation in rural areas, such as modernisation of agricultural technology, external demand
for local agricultural products, increased external investments (both national and foreign)
and organic farming. Finally, the LDAs consider that the adoption of new information/
communication technologies is not at all a local identity feature.

On globalisation
The only globalisation-related argument on which the majority of the LDAs expressed
their absolute support is “that it is necessary to challenge globalisation at the local level”,
while on other issues their reactions diverged in all directions (Chart 5).

Chart 5. Attitudes of LDAs regarding Globalisation and Development

(% responses by LDAs)

It is ne c e s s a ry to c ha lle nge glo ba lis a tio n a t the lo c a l

le ve l.
Glo ba lis a tio n o f life s tyle s a nd c o ns um ptio n pa tte rns is a
ne ga tio n o f lo c a l c ultura l ide ntity.
Glo ba lis a tio n s tim ula te s the s tre ngthe ning o f the c ritic a l
c itize ns hip c o ns c io us ne s s .
Glo ba lis a tio n o f c ulture c a n c o ntribute to the a ffirm a tio n
o f the lo c a l c ultura l ide ntity.
No wa da ys , glo ba lis a tio n is a c tua lly the a me ric a nis a tio n
To tally agree
o f the e c o no m y a nd c ulture .
A gree mo re than disagree
Glo ba lis a tio n o f m a rke ts a nd c o m pe titive ne s s c a n
Do no t agree no r disagree
c o ntribute to the a ffirm a tio n o f s m a ll-s c a le e c o no m y.
Disagree mo re than agree
Glo ba lis a tio n is a po s itive pro c e s s fo r the future o f
To tally disagree
Hum a nity.
lo ba lis a tio n o f te c hno lo gie s o f c o m m unic a tio n is
be ne fic ia l o nly to the s o c ia l e lite .
Glo ba lis a tio n is m o re in fa vo ur tha n a ga ins t o f the
o bje c tive s o f lo c a l de ve lo pm e nt.
Glo ba lis a tio n c re a te s e ve r-gre a te r o ppo rtunitie s fo r
s o c ia l a nd e c o no m ic de ve lo pm e nt in the pe riphe ra l

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

While extremely opposite attitudes were expressed on the issue of whether globalisation
of communication technologies is beneficial only to the elites, the two allegations that
provoked greatest divergence and indeed scepticism (neutral answers) among the LDAs
are that “globalisation of markets and competitiveness can contribute to the affirmation of
small-scale economy” and that “globalisation is more in favour than against the objectives
of local development”. Finally, on the issue of whether “globalisation creates ever-greater

94
 Territorial Identity and Sustainable Development

opportunities for social and economic development in the peripheral regions” a near majority
expressed affirmative views, but this issue provoked also important shares of neutral and
negative reactions.
In contrast to the above, the views of LDAs diverge very much regarding effects of
globalisation on the geographic area in which they operate (Chart 6). While the majority
praises the globalisation of communication technologies and of civic conscientiousness
and critical citizenship, there is an important share of neutral views on these issues. On the
other side, while no LDA considers local effects of globalisation on consumption patterns
and lifestyles as “very negative”, there is a great deal of divergence between those who
support and those who are uncertain or have “more negative than positive” views towards
this phenomenon. Greatest level of uncertainty and indeed division among the LDAs was
recorded regarding local effects of globalisation of financial capital and competitiveness.

Chart 6. Attitudes of LDAs regarding effects of globalisation in the area

in which they operate(% responses of LDAs)

Glo ba lis a tio n o f c o m m unic a tio n tec hno lo gie s

Glo ba lis a tio n o f c o ns um ptio n pa tte rns and

life s tyle s
Very po sitive
Glo balis atio n o f c ivic c o ns c ientio us ne s s and P o sitive
c ritica l citize ns hip (e nviro nm e nt, de mo cra c y, No t po sitive no r negative
pea c e , to le ra nce , etc .) Negative
Very negative
Glo balis atio n o f the fina nc ia l c a pita l and
inve s tm e nts

Glo ba lis a tio n o f m a rkets a nd c o m pe titive nes s

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

It seems that, in general terms, more positive than negative effects of globalisation on
the socio-cultural sphere of identity have been felt in areas in which LDAs operate, particularly
regarding the components such as environmental conscientiousness, cultural production,
private sponsorship of local culture, presence of international tourists, external cultural
image and public investments in local culture (Chart 7).

95
 Zoran Roca and Jorge Carvalho Mourão

Chart 7. Effects of globalisation on socio-cultural components of local identity

(% response)

e nviro nm e nta l c o ns c io us ne s s
inte rna tio na l to uris ts
na tio na l to uris ts
c ultura l pro duc tio n
s po ns o rs hip o f c ulture
po s itive c ultura l im a ge
public inve s tm e nt in c ulture
m o de rn a rts & c ra fts
m ultie thnic c o nvivia lity
urba n life s tyle in villa ge s
tra ditio na l a rts & c ra fts
his to ric urba n nuc le i P o sitive effects
tra ditio na l c ulina ry a rt Negative effects
m a s s -m e dia pro duc tio n
tra ditio na l e ve nts No effects
c o ns e rva tive lo c a lis m Unkno wn effects
pe o ple 's s e lf-e s te e m
c o ns truc te d he rita ge
xe no pho bia
c o lle c tive m e m o ry
tra ditio na l public s pa c e s
tra ditio na l la nds c a pe
de gra de d la nds c a pe
re ligio us ne s s o f yo uth
tra ditio na l c o nvivia lity
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Most LDAs attributed negative effects to only two components, namely traditional
modes of conviviality and collective memory. Among other more negatively than positively
affected components are cultural landscape, both traditional and degraded, traditional public
spaces and traditional events. Equal shares of LDAs consider penetration of urban lifestyles
in villages as positive and negative effect of globalisation.
Regarding the socio-economic sphere of identity, the LDAs indicated a much smaller
number of positively than negatively affected components (Chart 8). The majority of LDAs
reported positive effects only on the creation of new employment opportunities, higher
educational attainment, people’s entrepreneurial spirit and presence of professionals from
other regions. The overwhelming majority attributed negative effects to a wide diversity of
traditional and recently emerged components such as the exodus of the youth, consumerist
spirit, insecure employment, rural-urban inequality, peoples’ indebtedness, social crises
and conflicts, social inequality, unemployment, pockets of poverty and traditional solidarity
relations.

96
 Territorial Identity and Sustainable Development

Chart 8. Effects of globalisation on socio-economic components of local identity

(% response of LDAs)

c re a tio n o f ne w e mplo ym e nt
high e duc a tio na l a tta inm e nt
pe o ple 's e ntre pre ne uria l s pirit
pro fe s s io na ls fro m o the r
s o c ia l s e rvic e s fo r the o ld
a de qua te pro fe s s io na l
s e c o nda ry re s ide nc e s
pluria c tivity
inc e ntive s to re ta in the yo uth
high living s ta nda rd
pe o ple 's po litic a l pa rtic ipa tio n
"a s s is te nc ia lis m o " P o sitive effects
ne wly e nric he d c la s s Negative effects
te mpo ra ry e m igra nts No effects
une mplo ym e nt
unkno wn effects
tra ditio na l s o lida rity bo nds
pe o ple 's c o ns ume ris t s pirit
po c ke ts o f po ve rty
s o c ia l ine qua lity
s o c ia l c ris e s a nd c o nflic ts
rura l-urba n ine qua lity
pe o ple 's inde bte dne s s
ins e c ure e mplo ym e nt
a ge d po pula tio n
e xo dus o f the yo uth

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Finally, the LDAs attributed more positive, neutral and unknown, than negative effects
of globalisation to identity components in the techno-economic sphere (Chart 9). Most of
them associated positive effects to alternative tourism and leisure industry, the role of
financial institutions, adoption of communication and information technologies, as well as
to technological modernisation of industry and agriculture. Most negatively affected seem
to be traditional commerce, micro-enterprises, old industrial production and agriculture,
both subsistence and commercial. The unknown effects are attributed mostly to recently
emerging features, bringing new dynamics to local economy, such as the big enterprises,
supermarkets, organic farming and tourism and leisure industry

97
 Zoran Roca and Jorge Carvalho Mourão

Chart 9. Effects of globalisation on techno-economic components of local identity

(% response by LDAs)

a lte rna tive to uris m & le is ure

fina nc ia l ins titutio ns
info rma tio n te c hno lo gy
mo de rn a gric ultura l
m o de rn indus tria l te c hno lo gy
s upe rm a rke ts
do m e s tic wa te r s upply
to uris m a nd le is ure indus try
public s e wa ge s ys te m
m a rke t a gric ulture P o sitive effects
S M Es
a gro -pro duc ts o n e xte rna l Negative effects
s o lid wa s te c o lle c tio n No effects
inve s tme nts - na tio na l
o rga nic fa rming Unkno wn effects
inve s tm e nts - inte rna tio na l
big e nte rpris e s
m ic ro -e nte rpris e s
a ir-po llutio n
hydro -po llutio n
o ld indus tria l te c hno lo gy
fo re s t de gra da tio n
s o il de gra da tio n
tra ditio na l, a to m is e d
s ubs is te nc e a gric ulture

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

When requested in the KAP questionnaire to qualify the role of different local individuals
as local development stakeholders in relation to the socio-cultural sphere of identity, LDAs
pointed to local political leaders as the only outstanding “promoters of cultural linkages
and exchange” with the outside world (Chart 10).

Chart 10. Attitudes of LDAs on the role of individual stakeholders in relation

to the socio-cultural sphere of local identity (% valid responses by LDAs)

po litic a l lea ders

P ro mo te cultural
highly qua lified pro fe s s io na ls
linkages /exchange
new re s ide nts - inte rna tio na ls

s tude nts (s e c o nda ry a nd highe r e duc .)

Easily ado pt external
re ligio us le a ders cultural inno vatio n

ne w re s idents - natio na ls

lo c a l re s ide nts em plo yed o uts ide Do no t ado pt easily

external cultural
big agric ultural entre prene urs inno vatio n
big indus trial entre pre ne urs
Oppo se external and
re turn m igra nts glo rify lo cal culture
re turnee s fro m the c o lo nies

pe ns io ners Do n't kno w

s ma ll m ercha nts

s ma ll / me dium indus trial entre prene urs

No t applicable
s m a ll /m edium agric ultural entre prene urs

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

98
 Territorial Identity and Sustainable Development

Furthermore, most of the LDAs considered students, return migrants and highly skilled
professionals as local stakeholders who “easily adopt external cultural innovation”, while
small merchants, small and medium farmers, small and medium industrial entrepreneurs and
retirees are the most notable among those who “do not adopt easily external cultural
innovation”. Among those who “oppose external and glorify local culture”, the most
frequently highlighted were the new residents from other countries. Among the institutional
stakeholders (Chart 11), most LDAs consider that true “promoters of cultural exchange” are
only local and regional development agencies, local governments, modern civic associations,
cultural institutions and secondary schools. While just the Catholic Church and social
assistance institutions “do not adopt cultural innovation easily”, there are no great
differences among other institutions in respect to the preservation of the cultural sphere of
local identity.

Chart 11. Attitudes of LDAs on the role of institutional stakeholders in relation

to the socio-cultural sphere of local identity (% valid responses)

lo c a l a nd re gio na l de ve lo pm e nt a ge nc ie s
m unic ipa l go ve rnm e nt
m o de rn a s s o c . (e c o lo gy, c ivic a c tio n)
c ultura l ins titutio ns P ro mote cultural
s e c o nda ry s c ho o ls linkages /exchange
tra ditio na l a s s o c ia tio ns (s po rts , m us ic )
pro fe s s io na l tra ining c e ntre s
Easily ado pt external
m a s s m e dia cultural inno vatio n
prim a ry s c ho o ls
to uris m a nd c a te ring e nte rpris e s
Do not adopt easily
s o c ia l a s s is ta nc e ins titutio ns
external cultural
a s s o c ia tio ns o f e ntre pre ne urs innovatio n
c o unty go ve rnm e nt
po lyte c hnic s c ho o ls Oppo se external and
glo rify lo cal culture
unive rs ity (bra nc h o f)
a gric ultura l c o -o pe ra tive s
fina nc ia l ins titutio ns Do n't kno w
c a tho lic c hurc h
indus tria l e nte rpris e s
o the r c hurc he s No t applicable
c o m m e rc ia l e nte rpris e s

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Conclusions

This research revealed a possible way out from conceptual-methodological constraints

to a deeper understanding of global effects on local identity. By extensively disaggregating
the concept of local identity into discernible and verifiable components, it was possible to
record a diversified evidence of LDAs’ representations of global effects on local identity.
Main findings, lessons learned and suggestions for future research are given below.
The LDAs were unanimous in supporting the common pro-identity rhetoric, but disagreed
on specific, tangible and subtle topics and dilemmas, such as, for example, whether local

99
 Zoran Roca and Jorge Carvalho Mourão

factors, and not only global, cause and perpetrate negative identity features and
underdevelopment, and whether to accept the trade-offs between modernisation and
tradition, at the expense of the latter, in the name of social and economic progress. Most of
the LDAs were very critical towards their local communities, pointing to the strong presence
of identity features such as ‘assistencialismo’, low self-esteem, local conservatism, lack of
entrepreneurship and low educational attainment, i.e., symptoms of deep rooted socio-
economic passivity and stagnation. It is, therefore, not surprising that the LDAs expressed
greatest mutual disagreement, and indeed scepticism about the prospects for (re)affirmation
of local identities as a means of increasing competitiveness of local culture and economy.
It seems that ‘glocalization’ has not yet significantly contributed to local identities.
According to the LDAs, the traditional local ‘fixes’ and ‘horizontalities’, related to cultural
values, lifestyles, social institutions and economic structure, still dominate over recently
emerging identity components synonymous to global ‘fluxes’ and ‘verticalities’ (Santos,
1994), such as consumerism, international and alternative tourism and leisure industry,
rurbanization, integration of external professionals and secondary residents. Likewise, very
weak presence of components such as commercial agriculture, external investments, modern
industrial technology and big firms show that ‘networked regions” and local ‘embededness’
of global economic agents (Agnew 2000; Todtling 1994) are still not a reality. More, the
LDAs’ assertion that telematics is not yet notable as an identity component of rural Portugal
corroborates similar findings from other peripheral countries and regions (Ilbery et al. 1995).
All of the most strongly present identity components related to cultural traditions,
human resources and structure of economy seem to have been more negatively than
positively affected by globalisation. In fact, LDAs point to imminent loss of certain features
that are commonly considered as ‘uniquely Portuguese’, thus representing potentially
competitive local development assets (Albino 1997; Benko 2000), such as the traditional
cultural landscape, traditional events and habits and collective memory. On the other, more
reassuring side, some moderately present local identity components - such as commercial
agriculture and external demand for local products, international tourism, local cultural
production and, potentially linked to all those, creation of new employment opportunities -
seem to be much more positively than negatively associated with impacts of globalisation.
It is also encouraging that currently very weakly present but desirable, dynamic, innovative
and/or potentially competitive identity components - such as environmental
conscientiousness, people’s self-esteem and entrepreneurial spirit, incentives to retain the
youth, modernisation of agricultural technology, organic farming and external investments,
as well as adoption of telematics - also seem to be much more positively than negatively
associated with globalisation.
Findings from this research, have brought some more light to a wide scope of local
identity issues as reported by a specific local development stakeholder, the LDAs. Future
studies should proceed in two directions, as parallel research-lines: first, the present model
should be further elaborated and applied in KAP surveys addressing a wide variety of other
development stakeholders (Groote et al. 2000); second, an adequate methodological

100
 Territorial Identity and Sustainable Development

framework should be developed for confronting such records of perceived, imagined or

‘claimed identities ‘ (Haartsen et al. 2000) with realities in all spheres of life.
An important limitation of the present model is the lack of reference to time-frame(s) in
the records of stakeholders’ representations of changing identities. Furthermore, the
accounts of ‘globalisation effects’ need to be desaggregated, so as to distinguish, for
example, the effects of world-wide processes from concrete US- or EU-driven dynamics.
Another key problem to be tackled in KAP surveys is the setting up of benchmarks for
distinguishing ‘negative’ from ‘positive’, ‘desirable’ from ‘unwanted’, or ‘strong’ from ‘weak’
components. In this context, the most challenging would be to set criteria for distinguishing
the levels of ‘global competitiveness’ of identity components. The adequacy of such
improvements of the present model will determine the success of the other second line of
research, aimed at confronting the imagined with real local identities (Agnew 1999).
Multivariate analyses of stakeholders’ representations should be carried out in relation to
their personal and professional profiles and experience, the official information on regional
and local geographic and socio-economic contexts in which they operate, as well as against
the global development tendencies and the concrete policy frameworks and instruments
that affect them as beneficiaries, or not.
Confronting the perceived identities with geographical and developmental reality should
enable the categorisation of identity features as ‘development resources’, the development
of typologies of stakeholders in terms of their integration in the local and global economy
and culture, as well as the assessment of their roles as producers and consumers of territorial
identities. In this way, grounds would be laid for a more efficient, that is, explicit and
operationally viable, integration of the care for local identity in development policies.

Notes
1
Most rural areas in Portugal have suffered from the declining of small-scale agriculture, under-utilisation
or abandonment of cultivable land; lacking investments in economic and social infrastructure and
services and, especially, in productive activities, as well as from the continuous weakening of
demographic vitality and depletion of endogenous human resources, often referred to as “human
desertification” All this has been accompanied by fading cultural traditions and adoption of new
identities. (Animar 2001, 1998; Barreto 2000; Roca 1998; Cavaco 1992; Bandeira 1991).
2
True, geographers, sociologists, industrial economists and business analysts, political scientists and
others have explored effects of globalisation on local cultural identities, local business strategies,
local industrial agglomerations, local political struggles, etc. (Amin and Thrift 1994), but such
contributions tend to cover only sporadic and isolated cases (mostly the “success-stories”), rely on
secondary sources of information and remain confined to monodisciplinary interpretations.
3
The project started in 1999 as part of a long-term research programme of the Applied Social Science
Research Centre at the Universidade Lusófona de Humanidades e Tecnologias, Lisbon, and in the
framework of the Plurianual Financial Support Programme of the Foundation for Science and
Technology of Portugal.
4
Here the term “development stakeholders” designates all individuals or groups of people and institutions
that directly or indirectly stand to gain or lose given a particular development course or activity
(Roca 1999).
5
The notion of globalisation appears in the KAP questionnaire disaggregated in several of its most
obvious manifestations, such as those related to financial capital and investments, markets and
competitiveness, communication technologies, consumption patterns and lifestyles, and civic
conscientiousness and critical citizenship (Grupo de Lisboa 1994: 46)

101
 Zoran Roca and Jorge Carvalho Mourão

6
Consultations were carried out in rural areas of Northern, Central and Southern Portugal with the teams
of professionals involved in assessments of local and regional development issues and in design and
implementation of development programs, projects and initiatives.
7
Around one hundred and fifty local and regional development agencies operate in Portugal under
various juridical forms (e.g., associations, co-operatives, foundations and consulting firms) (Animar
1998a). Many have emerged as part of the recent history of Portugal (marked by the overall
democratisation of development) and actually became leading agents of socio-economic change in
rural areas, especially since Portugal joined the EU in 1986. The use of EU Structural Funds has been
largely channelled to support their activity.

References
Agnew, J., “From the Political Economy of Regions to Regional Political Economy”, Progress in
Human Geography, 24, 1 (2000), pp. 101-110.
Agnew, J., “Regions on the Mind does not Equal Regions of the Mind”, Progress in Human Geography,
23, 1 (1999), pp.101-110.
Albino, C., (ed), Desenvolver Desenvolvendo - Práticas e Pistas para o Desenvolvimento Local no
Alentejo, Messejana, ESDIME C.R.L., 1997.
Amin, A. and Thrift, N., “Living in the Global”, in Amin, A. and Thrift, N. (eds.) Globalisation,
Institutions and Regional Development in Europe. Oxford University Press, 1994, pp. 1-22.
Animar, Declaração de Amarante: Desenvolvimento local - uma Oportunidade de Futuro, Amarante,
Animar/Manifesta ’98, 1998..
Animar, Guia das Iniciativas de Desenvolvimento Local. Messejana, Animar, 1998.
Animar, Declaração de Tavira. Tavira/Faro Animar/Manifesta 2001.
Barreto, A., A Situação Social em Portugal, 1960-1999, Lisboa, ISC, 2000.
Benko, G., « La recomposition des espaces », Agir - Revue géneral de stratégie. Nº.5, 2000, pp.11-18.
Brito, R. S., Portugal - Perfil Geográfico, Lisboa, Editorial Estampa, 1993.
Caetanao, P. & Vasco, R., Portugal ainda, Lisboa, Bisancio, 2000.
Cavaco, C., Do despovoamento rural ao desenvolvimento local, Lisboa, Direcção Geral do
Desenvolvimento Rural, 1994.
CEDLCS, Declaração de Serpa, Serpa, Conferência Europeia sobre Desenvolvimento Local e Coesão
Social, 1995.
Commission européenne, Valeur ajouté et ingénierie du développement local, Luxemburg, Office des
publications officielles des communautés européennes, 1994.
Cosgrove, D., “Cultural Landscapes”, in Unwin, T. (ed.) A European Geography, Harlow, Addisson
Wesley Longman Ltd, 1998, pp. 65-81.
DGDR, Novas Políticas Europeias e Desenvolvimento Rural em Portugal, Lisboa, Direcção Geral de
Desenvolvimento Rural (DGDR), 1997.
Elcock, H., “The North of England and the Europe of the Regions, or, When is a Region not a Region?”,
in Keating, M and Loughlin, J., (eds.) The Political Economy of Regionalism, London, Frank Cass,
1997, pp. 422-435.
Groote, P.; Huigen, P.P.P; Haartsen, T., “Claiming Rural Identities”, in Haartsen et al., Claiming Rural
Identities, Assen, Van Gorcum, 2000, pp.1-7.
Grupo de Lisboa , Limites à Competição, Lisboa, Europa-América/Economia & Gestão, 1994.
Haartsen, T., Groote, P., Hiogenm, P.P.P., Claiming Rural Identities, Assen Van Gorcum, 2000.
Hadjimichalis, C., “Global-Local Conflicts: Examples from Southern Europe”, in Amin, A. and Thrift,
N. (eds.) Globalisation, Institutions and Regional Development in Europe, Oxford University Press,
1994, pp.237-256.
Hocking, B., “Regionalism: An International Relations Perspective”, in Keating, M. and Loughlin, J.
(eds.), The Political Economy of Regionalism, London, Frank Cass, 1997, pp. 90-111.
Ilbery, B.; Clark, D.; Berkeley, N.;Goldman, I., “Telematics and Rural Development: Evidence from a
Survey of Small Businesses in the European Union”, European Urban and Regional Studies. Nº. 2.,
1995, pp. 55-67.

102
 Territorial Identity and Sustainable Development

Jones, B., “Wales: A Developing Political Economy”, in Keating, M and Loughlin, J., (eds.) The Political
Economy of Regionalism, London, Frank Cass, 1997, pp. 388-405.
MA, Valores do mundo rural, Lisboa, Ministério da Agricultura / Instituto de Estruturas Agrárias e
Desenvolvimento Rural, 1995.
Massey, D., A Global Sense of Place, Open University, D103 Block6. The Making of the Regions, 12-
51, Milton Keynes, Open University Press, 1991.
Massey, D. and Jess, P. (eds.), A Place in the World? Places, Cultures and Globalisation. The Open
University , 1995.
MP, (1999) Plano de Desenvolvimento Regional 2000-2006, Lisbon, Ministério do Planeamento (MP),
1999.
Ribeiro, O., Portugal o Mediterrâneo e o Atlântico. 6ª Edição, Lisboa, Livraria Sá da Costa Editora,
1001.
Roca, Z., “Positive Experiences in Increasing the Involvement of Young Men and Women in Rural
Development in Portugal”, in Youth and Rural Development in Europe: Policy Issues and Responses.
Rome, FAO, 1998, pp. 39-61.
Roca, Z., “Local Development Initiatives and Agents: Relevance of Portuguese Experience for the
European Countries in Transition”, Proceedings of the Third Moravian Geographical Conference,
CONGEO’99 Regional Prosperity and Sustainability, Brno, Institute of Geonics, Academy of Sciences
of the Czech Republic, 1999, pp. 168-175.
Rose, G., “Place and Identity: A Sense of Place”, in Massey, Doreen and Jess, Pat (eds.) A Place in the
World? Places, Cultures and Globalisation, The Open University, 1995, pp. 87-132.
Rubenstein, J. M., An Introduction to Human Geography, Upper Sdaler River, N.J, Prentice Hall, 1996.
Santos, M. et al (eds.), Território, Globalização e Fragmentação, São Paulo, Editora Hucitec, 1994.
Todtling, F., “The Uneven Landscale of Innovation Poles: Local Embeddedness and Global Networks”,
in Amin, A. and Thrift, N. (eds), Globalisation, Institutions and Regional Development in Europe,
Oxford University Press, 1994, pp. 68-90.

103