COPIED
5 mins

Shrinking Rural Areas: A fresh look at an old problem

Rural depopulation is not a new phenomenon. EU policies have responded in various ways, and with different degrees of effectiveness, since the early years of the Union. However, in the past five years, there has been a strong renewal of interest in this issue, across several EU institutions.

The European Parliament has produced a report on the role of Cohesion policy in tackling rural depopulation and two fact sheets summarising the evidence. The Committee of the Regions also commissioned a report, and subsequently issued an opinion document. The European Network for Rural Development organised a workshop on the subject in 2018. The Rural, Mountainous and Remote Areas (RUMRA) Intergroup has been established, and the Commission has appointed Dubravka Šuicaas as Vice-President for Democracy and Demography.

Rural shrinking has become a very visible phenomenon – associated with powerful manifestations of popular discontent. But there is, at the same time, rising optimism about the potential offered by subtle, incremental changes in technological, market and social contexts, which may facilitate the ‘repopulation’ of depleted rural areas, or adjustment to the demographic status quo. The COVID-19 crisis will no doubt accelerate technological change and stimulate further debate.

Different kinds of rural shrinkage

It is necessary to be clear what we mean by ‘shrinkage’. Back in 2008, Grasland defined a shrinking region as one ‘that is losing a significant proportion of its population over a period greater than, or equal to, one generation’ (Map 1). Population decline may take place as a result of ongoing outmigration – we term this ‘active’ shrinkage. By contrast, there are regions that have positive net migration rates, but that are nevertheless shrinking because of their age structure – this is ‘legacy’ shrinking. Of course, this is not a binary classification, but a continuum. There is a wide variety of combinations of migration and natural change (Map 2).

Furthermore, demographic change is not independent of other socio-economic processes. The ESPON ESCAPE team distinguishes between ‘simple’ (demographic) and ‘complex’ shrinking, which acknowledges that demography is part of a wider systemic process.

Shrinking rural areas may, therefore, be distinguished not only on the basis of the severity of their population decline, and whether this is of the ‘active’ or ‘legacy’ type, but also on the basis of different kinds of causal process. We suggest four hypothetical types:

Locational disadvantage: this type is associated with ‘negative’ locational characteristics (isolation, sparsity, poor endowment of natural resources, poor-quality agricultural land, proximity to borders, etc.).

Agricultural restructuring: this is driven by rural–urban migration associated with technological changes in agriculture, and by the lure of urban educational and employment opportunities and lifestyles.

Peripherisation: this type of shrinking process has some similarities with the first, but it is distinguished by being the consequence of macro-scale processes of spatial reorganisation of economic activity (globalisation).

Events and transitions: this type involves historical events or transitions, such as those experienced by the central and eastern European countries at the end of the socialist era in 1989, the Balkan wars in the 1990s and the EU integration process in the 2000s. All of these events have had lasting consequences for rural demographic trends.

A better understanding of these socio-economic processes of decline is foundational to the design of appropriate forms of policy to address the demographic outcomes.

How has EU policy responded?

We cannot understand the EU policy response without acknowledging the interdependencies between different contexts, including:

major external events, such as the 2008 financial crisis, and enlargement;

changing technology and its effect upon patterns of economic activity;

changing rural development theory and paradigms;

the EU’s meta-strategy (agenda 2000, Lisbon agenda, Europe 2020);

the learning experience of the EU’s policy structures and agencies

The effects of these are explored in detail in the ESCAPE project’s draft final report, which will be published later in the summer. However, the key lesson to be learned from almost half a century of EU intervention concerns the balance between ‘exogenous’ and ‘endogenous’ development approaches (ECORYS Research and Consulting, 2010).

In the case of rural development policy, two broad periods can be distinguished. From 1975 to around 2005, the common agricultural policy (CAP) supported the incomes of farmers in ‘less favoured areas’ (LFAs) through the ‘exogenous’ instrument of livestock headage payments. Ameliorating population decline was consistently cited as a key justification for this policy.

In the new century, the Lisbon strategy, with its emphasis on jobs, growth and innovation, resulted in the objectives of the ‘territorial’ measures within CAP Pillar 2 being expressed (and later evaluated) in terms more of employment and economic activity than of the maintenance of population or rural communities. Later, the Europe 2020 strategy added sustainability and inclusion. Furthermore, the evolution of the menu of rural development measures, and the gradual increase in the flexibility accorded to Member States in putting together rural development programmes (RDPs), allowed some of the ‘older’ Member States to focus their RDPs upon agri-environment measures, to the exclusion of measures that might help to counter depopulation. Measures that have more relevance to depopulation (village renewal, basic services, etc.) consistently received a higher proportion of Pillar 2 expenditure in the ‘new’ Member States of the east and south. However, overall expenditure on these ‘endogenous’ measures has always been comparatively low.

After the reform of the structural funds in 1989, EU regional policy was delivered through five (later six) objectives, three of which covered most of the shrinking areas of rural Europe, and two of which were at least partly defined by population decline or sparsity.

However, the approach tended to view cities and towns as (exogenous) ‘engines of growth’, leaving the needs of (shrinking) rural areas to be met through ‘spread effects’. Since 2000, ‘Lisbonisation’ has shifted attention away from compensation for disadvantage, and ‘negative’ issues such as depopulation, towards supporting development potential, in accordance with ‘jobs, growth and innovation’ objectives. Such goals are most easily achieved in the context of cities, towns or villages. It appears that interventions to improve infrastructure, create jobs and nurture innovation in settlements, while reducing inter-regional disparities, have had a polarising effect within regions – doing little to ameliorate rural shrinking, or even exacerbating it.

For much of the post-2000 period, one crucial policy instrument, with considerable potential to address rural shrinking, LEADER, has remained outside the two mainstream policies discussed above, as a ‘community initiative’. In the current programming period, it has become part of community- Led Local Development (CLLD).

It is perhaps in recognition of the limitations of the ‘Lisbonised’ CAP and Cohesion policy that ‘policy-driven analysis’, sponsored by various EU institutions, has explored a number of approaches very relevant to the problem of rural shrinking. These include smart specialisation, smart Villages, Urban- Rural Partnerships, Inner Peripheries, and Functional Rural Areas.

Thus, rural shrinking has not been ignored by EU policy – there is no shortage of competent instruments. However, there is today a serious lack of coherence and strategy. The policy legacy is like a collection of DNA fragments that do not amount to a recognisable organism!

This article appears in Green infrastructure and reuse of spaces

Go to Page View
This article appears in...
Green infrastructure and reuse of spaces
Go to Page View
Dubravka Šuica: How can we support people and regions to adapt to changing realities?
Dubravka Šuica is Vice President of the European
Željko Uhlir: A strong Europe in a world of challenges
Željko Uhlir is State Secretary at the Ministry
Foreword
The current pandemic has added to the numerous
Claude Turmes: Using ESPON in Policymaking
Claude Turmes is Minister for Energy and Spatial
Regenerating cities: The critical role of buildings
" Reaching the goals of 2050 is not
Green Infrastructure in urban areas
What is green infrastructure? Green infrastructure (GI) has
Cross-border cooperation in midst of COVID 19 crisis
The current unprecedented crisis has put to the
Green Infrastructure in the Netherlands: a policy-maker's perspective
I was asked to reflect on the ESPON
More than 100 acres of new green surfaces in Ljubljana
Degraded, overlooked and unused areas of the city
Circular management for greener cities
Circular management of spaces and buildings and green
How green is the reuse of spaces and buildings?
In many cities, population growth puts pressure on
Sustainable regeneration of port cities
Despite overall growth in the maritime sector, many
Urbanisation and land-use practices in European regions
Improving urbanisation and land use practices in European
Improving knowledge about the reuse of spaces and buildings
The new ESPON Policy Brief Reuse of Spaces
Cork’s docklands – learning from regeneration in a port city
On 31 May 2019, Cork City expanded its
ESPON evidence in planning practice and policy development
It is commonly understood that the development of
A practical handbook for SDG 11 and 15
The Urban Agenda partnerships on the circular economy
A practical tool to implement nature-based solutions
We consider the topics of reuse of spaces
Territorial approach is crucial for sustainability goals
Daniel Baliński is deputy director of the Strategy
Urban green infrastructure and reuse of spaces and buildings: views from Croatia
Croatian towns and cities face similar challenges to
State of the European territory: A key contribution to the debate about the future EU
As a geographer and a Member of the
Healthy and active ageing is more important than ever
In the Decade of Healthy Ageing (2020–2030), the
Shrinking Rural Areas: A fresh look at an old problem
Rural depopulation is not a new phenomenon. EU
The Hague and the urban circular collaborative economy
Jan Harko Post Jay Navarro Oviedo Triggered by
Scope and use of digital plan data platforms in Europe
In the past decade, many European countries have
Changing ground: The future place of the productive city
Over the past decades, metropolitan areas across Europe
Localising SDG goals
In 2015, the UN General Assembly adopted the
A New ESPON tool for macroregions in Europe
The new European and Macro-regional Territorial Monitoring (EMTM)
Technological transformation: Growth opportunities for lagging regions in Europe
The 4.0 technological transformation rests on the creative
Success story: Quick Check Territorial Impact Assessment
Identifying whether or not EU policies, or policies
ESPON FUORE: A tool beyond the classical administrative boundaries
Development and sustainability policies are looking progressively into
Territorial Quality of Life: ESPON measurement
The ESPON Quality of Life Measurements and Methodology
ESPON TOURISM –a tool for the tourism of the future
Tourism is one of the largest economic sectors
Net impact of Interreg: statistical inference
As part of its transnational outreach efforts, ESPON
Entrepreneurial development niches for Interreg
This article introduces potential niches for Interreg programmes
interreg EUROPAN
European union European Regional Development Fund
URBACT
Driving change for better cities
INTERact
EU cities facing COVID-19: impact and responses URBACT,
Shaping the future of the ESPON programme
As the next programming period approaches, the exchanges
Geography of COVID19 and first policy answers in European regions
The sudden appearance and exponential increase in severe
Outlook for the German Presidency
The COVID-19 pandemic has shifted the priorities of
Looking for back issues?
Browse the Archive >

Previous Article Next Article