This study aims to answer the following research questions: (a) to what extent do EU rural development supports for investments address territorial differences of rural areas, especially concerning the differences between rich and intensive areas, on one hand, and marginal and peripheral rural areas on the other hand; (b) how does present governance and the delivery system of measures supporting rural investments contribute to the financial support of marginal and peripheral rural areas? To respond to these questions, the research examined 747 calls for tender in all Italian regions related to 16 types of investment measures and a global amount of EUR 67 billion Euros and 49,410 representative projects approved in 17 Italian regions during the period 2014–2020. Delivery mechanisms included the rules that have been set up to define recipient eligibility and selection criteria of the rural development programmes. The distributive effects of RDP investment support measures appear evidently uneven, especially in agricultural and agro-industrial competitiveness measures, which are mainly allocated in already dynamic and strongly competitive areas. Delivery mechanisms boost disparities when funds are allocated through the “open competition” approach. Instead, the modulation of territorial criteria in the implementation phase can provide effective results in terms of reducing disparities in fund allocation and outreaching the most lagging areas. There are two main novelties of this research: (a) the analysis of territorial criteria in the calls for tenders for investment support, and (b) the effects of these criteria on expenditure distribution at the municipal level (LAU2 in the EU nomenclature). This study has been carried out outside the formal methodological approaches promoted by the European Commission for RDP evaluation and might be considered a complementary approach to evaluation reporting activity. This study might provide two significant contributions to the debate on rural areas. First, a “combined” approach to the definition of rurality (mixing “structural” and “locational” approaches) might provide a better analytical framework in line with the evolution of the literature on rurality. Second, the delivery systems that put more emphasis on territorial targets, as they were presented in this study, might be an essential component of a place-based policy.

This study elaborates on a typology of demographic change and tests this definition at the lowest granular level (LAU2, municipality) with official data. This typology distinguishes between fragile and resilient municipalities based on population dynamics (in terms of duration and intensity) over 1991–2021. This study’s second aim is to elaborate a spatial autoregressive econometric model to evaluate to what extent and in which direction the rate of participation of potential beneficiaries of the Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) of 2014–2020 is affected by demographic change and other explanatory variables. Regression models compare the results of the OLS (aspatial) and spatial autoregressive models (SAR) of four types of participation rates (all RDP schemes; all LEADER schemes; sectoral schemes of RDP and LEADER; non-sectoral schemes of RDPs and LEADER). This comparison makes it possible to understand the differences between centralised and decentralised management and between sectoral and broader rural-targeted schemes. The results of the models appear attractive in interpreting the role of RDP instruments in different regions and local areas. First, the rate of participation is strongly dependent on macro-regional differences. Regarding the demographic factors at the local level, this study highlights that demographic fragility does not necessarily hamper the use of RDP measures. Conversely, the participation rate in RDP policy schemes seems particularly significant in very fragile areas, whereas significance has yet to be proved in other demographic typologies. This result holds particularly true for the policy uptake of non-sectoral schemes. Furthermore, LEADER decentralised interventions fit the fragile areas more than resilient and vital ones due to the territorially targeted approach followed by the Local Action Groups.