RURAL communities need capacity-building support if they are all to meet the challenge of austerity, writes Brian Wilson.

RURAL communities need capacity-building support if they are all to meet the challenge of austerity, writes Brian Wilson.

The Carnegie UK Trust has published a review paper, Future Directions in Rural Development, which was written for it by much-respected Professor Mark Shucksmith of Newcastle University. Taking rural UK and Ireland as its context, this report addresses the question, what possible futures face our communities, especially during a time of fiscal austerity?

The report considers that rural communities currently face some particular challenges because of the structure of their economies, the social composition of their populations and their access to new technology. Rural economies have grown employment in the service sectors, have seem agriculture become more capital intensive and many have learnt to profit from the appeal of their landscapes, rural environments and local heritage.

Meanwhile, the composition of rural populations has been transformed by selective migration, as young adults move out whilst families and older people move in. Broadband connectivity has become another shaping force and of great import to business opportunities and modern service delivery. Yet many rural areas have yet to achieve 'basic broadband' download speeds of 2Mbs.

A critical point, which this report returns to, is that these challenges are not evenly distributed. Structural changes tend to advantage some rural areas and to disadvantage others.

Shucksmith notes that academics and policy makers came to realise how rural development processes in any locality include a mix of bottom-up and top-down forces. Local communities, institutions and businesses may well be able to mobilise local assets and resources. But in this "networked development" approach they must also be able to draw upon things such as funding, initiatives and support that come from outside the locality.

Despite their appeal, networked approaches run the risk of exacerbating inequalities. This could be inequality between rural places, since local communities have differing capacities to pursue development, or it could be inequality within those local communities, since certain groups may hold much of the influence and capture most of the benefits.

With public expenditure now under significant restraint, Shucksmith thinks there are broadly two futures. One is a return to a (solely) bottom-up development model, where rural communities are increasingly left to help themselves and with reducing government support. Voluntary organisations may try to step in, but could be struggling with funding cuts themselves.

A second scenario is that which recognises the economic potential of rural areas and supports them to grow their (often) untapped potential. This challenges the notion that urban areas are inevitably the engines of growth, with the implication that rural areas are simply pulled along in their wake. Instead, it seeks to build on the frequently unacknowledged levels of entrepreneurship, innovation and productivity displayed by rural areas. This will be familiar territory for those who recall the earlier Commission for Rural Communities report on releasing the economic potential of rural areas.

The report for Carnegie UK Trust believes the aspirations of rural businesses are often frustrated by things such as poor infrastructure, distant services, planning restrictions and labour shortages. The very smallest businesses may go overlooked (if unintentionally) by business support organisations.

The Government's Rural Economy Growth Review, published a year ago, is seen as having usefully recognised such arguments, though the policy measures which it announced are equally considered to be "highly constrained" by tight finances.

Shucksmith says that the analysis suggests action or intervention is necessary at two levels. Networked action at a local (community) level needs to be supported and the policy framework (at local, national and EU levels) needs to be rural proofed.

Local players need to be able to steer development processes to their community's benefit. Yet rural communities have very unequal capacities to act in this way and without promoting capacity-building at the community level, inequalities will grow. Various types of organisation might contribute to this task, but Shucksmith feels that only government can enable or foster this systematically and on the scale required.

This argues that alongside the devolution of power and responsibilities to local communities, must go resources and support. Otherwise some communities will rise to the challenge expected of them, but many will not. Some have the skills, assets, networks and institutions to compete strongly, but others could become "impoverished" as they lose their services and infrastructure.

For Shucksmith, such an approach would both promote greater equalities amongst areas and would enable development that is tailored to local rural circumstances. It's a report which deserves to spark thoughtful debate.

This article was written by Brian Wilson whose consultancy, Brian Wilson Associates, can be contacted at [email protected]. Brian also acts as RSN Research Director.