This chapter examines key factors that underpin effective rural policy implementation. These include promoting policy coherence and integrated action, working at functional scale through collaboration, strengthening the evidence on rural regions to inform decision-making, galvanising the rural voice through targeted action, and developing more effective rural communication strategies.
Reinforcing Rural Resilience
Abstract
Rural areas are at a crossroads. Once seen as isolated, they are now emerging as hubs of innovation, driven by technological advances and evolving work patterns. But unlocking their full potential requires more than economic investment – it demands a new approach to governance and policymaking. The COVID-19 pandemic reinforced this reality. It demonstrated that remote work is viable in rural areas with the right infrastructure and that policy agility and local engagement are crucial for responding to shocks and seizing new opportunities (UN DESA, 2021[1]). Similarly, the OECD Working Party on Rural Policy has long emphasised the importance of understanding how sectoral and structural policies affect rural areas differently (OECD, 2006[2]). The OECD Principles on Rural Policy (2019) provide a strategic framework for navigating these complexities and fostering inclusive, sustainable rural development.
This report reinforces the need for more responsive, place-based rural policies that reflect shifting realities and emerging opportunities. Chapter 2 assesses trends across different indicators on wellbeing, analysing challenges and growth potential in rural places. It identifies three enabling factors to be strengthened to unlock rural opportunities, including entrepreneurship and innovation, skills, and digital connectivity. The STAR drivers of rural growth (tradeable sector specialisation, proximity to FUAs, natural resource endowments, and rural-specific assets) can be leveraged through integrated and effective policy approaches to improve rural wellbeing. Chapter 3 builds on this by examining important areas for policy action in rural places, including economic competitiveness, service delivery, and the green transition, and outlines specific actions across different types of rural places.
However, even the most carefully designed strategies will struggle to deliver results if policy implementation is weak or inconsistent. This chapter, therefore, shifts focus to the underlying conditions that, if left unaddressed, risk weakening the impact of rural policies (Figure 4.1):
1. Promoting policy coherence and integrated action
2. Working at functional scale and collaboration
3. Strengthening rural evidence to inform policies
4. Actions to galvanise the rural voice
5. Developing more effective rural communication strategies
Source: Author’s elaboration
While these issues are not new, addressing them has become more urgent. The chapter opens by examining the growing expectations of rural citizens for coordinated, long-term solutions that extend beyond electoral cycles and bureaucratic divisions. It also explores the relationship between policy discontent and rural well-being. The first section makes the case for greater policy coherence and highlights the importance of an integrated, cross-government approach to rural policymaking. The second section focuses on the significance of working at scale, particularly in regions with low population density and limited agglomeration benefits. It underscores the need for collaboration across various levels – including rural-urban and public-private partnerships.
The third section emphasises the importance of gathering stronger rural evidence to inform strategies and guide policy development by identifying rural well-being indicators and gathering rural proofing intelligence. The fourth section highlights three key approaches to empowering rural communities: strengthening local capacity by enabling greater fiscal dexterity, supporting meaningful consultation processes, and promoting foresight activities at the local level to enable rural actors and citizens to co‑design solutions on the issues that matter most to them. Finally, the chapter addresses the critical role of communication. It explores how governments can adapt their communication mechanisms to ensure that rural citizens are better informed, understood, and more effectively engaged in the policy process.
4.2.1. Why the focus on the potential barriers to effective implementation is urgently needed
Increasingly, rural communities are resisting policies that they perceive as unfair or imposed upon them. Similarly, rural residents are no longer willing to quietly endure access to poor infrastructure, inadequate public services (e.g. education and healthcare), fewer employment opportunities, and a general sense of insecurity (Pelling, 2022[3]) as well as systemic disinvestment that has contributed to rural decline (Cahill, 2024[4]). This is evidenced by the increase in social unrest and ballot box decisions in OECD Member countries.
The Rural Voter: The Politics of Place and the Disuniting of America (Shea and Jacobs, 2023[5]) examines the cultural, economic, and political factors contributing to this divide and its implications for American politics. The findings are based on a comprehensive survey, which included a sample of 14 000 U.S. residents, 10 000 of which live in rural areas. The work revealed the importance of place in animating modern rural politics. The authors note that rural voters are an important voting bloc that feels disenfranchised, left behind, and concerned about their way of life, which fuels their electoral decisions. Specifically, the authors note that perceptions matter (Jacobs and Shea, 2024[6]). In the Politics of Resentment, Katherine J. Cramer noted that rural voters are distrustful that politicians will respect the distinct values of their communities and allocate a fair share of resources (Cramer, 2016[7]). Both authors observe that the divisions between rural and urban communities are becoming more pronounced and a divide that are rooted in trust.
The recent farmers’ crisis that broke out in several European countries (i.e. Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain) reflects this growing divide (Blenkinsop, Latona and Wlodarczak-semczuk, 2024[8]) (Ausloos and Trompiz, 2024[9]). The widening gap between prosperous and lagging regions has fuelled frustration with government policies, with rural discontent increasingly translating into populist movements. (Crulli, 2024[10]) argues that the rise of populist parties represents the political backlash of marginalised rural communities, which feel abandoned by policy makers following socio-economic transformations driven by globalisation, de-industrialisation, and post-industrialisation. For example, in Germany, some argue that the rise of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has been fuelled by economic disparities and feelings of being unheard (Stroud and McCabe, 2025[11]). Similarly, in the Netherlands, tensions led to the formation of the Farmers’ Party in 2019, which became the largest party in regional elections by 2023, significantly influencing national policymaking (Taylor and Horton, 2024[12])).
These episodes serve as a reminder that policy, when detached from local realities, risks exacerbating rather than resolving discontent. These factors should also signal to national governments that they will not be able to conduct and effectively implement policies that impact rural constituencies if they do not understand and support them. When rural communities feel undervalued, underrepresented, and deprioritised in national policymaking, their frustrations can lead to what scholars call the geography of discontent (Rodríguez-Pose, 2017[13]). Social unrest in rural communities has increased across OECD countries, driven by economic disparities, policy disputes, and environmental concerns. These grievances stem from environmental regulations, widening inequality, and declining trust in national public institutions. The rise of inequality within countries is mainly occurring amongst small Territorial Level 3 (TL3) regions, and particularly between TL3 metropolitan and non-metropolitan regions, giving rise to an increasing rural urban divide (Bryce and Garcilazo, 2024[14]).
Perception of trust
The results from the trust survey reveal higher or moderate trust in the national government in predominantly urban regions than in intermediate and in rural areas (Figure 4.2). This is collected through analysing respondents’ confidence in institutions, civil servants, and the judiciary. Across the 22 OECD countries where data is available, trust was highest in predominantly urban regions in 7 countries, while in both intermediate and rural regions, it was highest in 4 countries each. This not a surprising result, it is linked to citizens’ proximity to institutions, their ability to engage with local authorities and more easily inform the decision-making process that the institution plays in providing services, infrastructure, economic opportunities etc (Foster and Frieden, 2017[15]). Studies show that across the European Union, although people assess local and national governments differently, local institutions are more trusted, largely because their actions to directly improve citizen’s wellbeing are easier to see at this level (Arrighi et al., 2022[16]). Additionally, governance structures may also play a role, studies show that in in centralised systems, people report higher trust in the national government compared to decentralised ones, where people feel more directly represented at the local level (Fitzgerald and Wolak, 2014[17]).
Note: The OECD average is not weighted by the number of respondents. The question asked is: "On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all and 10 is completely, how much do you trust each of the following? The national, regional, local government" (0-4=Lower trust, 5=Neutral trust, 6-10=Higher trust)”.
Source: Own calculations based on the 2023 OECD Trust Survey
Perceptions of corruption further compound rural discontent. Understanding how corruption is perceived – particularly in rural regions – adds nuance to the broader narrative of institutional mistrust. The corruption index is a measure of people’s perception of the prevalence of corruption within the national government. It is not a measure of actual corruption. These results reveal that rural places perceived higher levels of corruption and urban areas the lowest. The analysis shows that in 20 countries the highest values of perceived corruption occurred in rural areas, followed by towns and semi-dense areas which were the highest in 10 countries and in 8 they were the highest in cities (Figure 4.3). This implies that the degree of rurality could be linked to perception of corruption in the government, the further away someone is from a city, the more they perceive corruption in their government.
Corruption could be due to a combination of factors including limited access to services and lower education rates, weaker legal and institutional frameworks, and a lack of economic opportunities. Implicit in this is how people perceive benefit, so arguably if the impact of a national policy seems imbalanced at the local level, that could also be perceived as corruption e.g. national government favouring urban dwellers or rich over poor. Studies suggest that people with limited access to services and economic opportunities view the government as ineffective and unconcerned with their wellbeing, with selective attention to corruption-related information being higher among rural areas that are socio-economically disadvantaged, especially when comparing themselves to urban areas where political power is concentrated (Maeda and Ziegfeld, 2015[18]); (McKay, Jennings and Stoker, 2023[19]).
Corruption Index, as an index score from 0-100
Note: The Corruption Index measures perceptions in a community about the level of corruption in business and government. Higher scores on the Corruption Index indicate more residents perceive corruption as widespread. Index scores are calculated at the individual record level. The average figures inside countries are weighted by design weights calibrated to age, gender and education or socio-economic status at national level
Source: Own calculations based on Gallup data and interim result from the project Regional development along the settlement network
Rural discontent and farmer discontent
Farmer discontent and broader rural discontent are overlapping but distinct phenomena (Figure 4.4). It is important to distinguish between the two and understand their difference to craft the best policy response. Rural discontent could stem amongst others from economic decline, suboptimal access to services, and limited economic opportunities, affecting a diverse range of rural residents, small business owners and rural workers. In parts of the United States, for instance, hospital closures have exacerbated frustration among non-farming rural populations.
Farmer discontent, by contrast, is rooted in agricultural policy, pricing mechanisms, and market access. In several European countries including in France, Poland, Belgium, and the Netherlands, farmers have staged large-scale protests environmental regulations, such as pesticide bans and nitrogen emission limits. These policies, while designed to address environmental concerns, negatively impact farmer yields, fuelling resentment.
If governments are to address discontent--rural or farmer--effectively, they must go beyond economic indicators and consider the broader determinants of well-being. Policies should be tailored to local conditions, ensuring they do not inadvertently deepen inequalities. Developing robust, place-based well-being measures is not just an academic exercise but a policy necessity. Without such insights, interventions risk being too generic to address the realities of those most affected.
Source: Author’s elaboration
Effective rural policy requires both policy coherence and integrated cross-government action, two interrelated but distinct governance challenges. Policy coherence ensures that different policies reinforce rather than contradict one another by aligning goals, reducing inefficiencies, and preventing unintended conflicts across sectors. Integrated cross-government action moves beyond alignment to focus on the practical co‑ordination of policy implementation across ministries, agencies, and levels of government. In rural contexts, both are essential. Without coherence, policies risk undermining each other – investments in broadband expansion, for example, may be ineffective if not accompanied by policies on digital literacy and economic support for businesses to use the technology. Without integration, even well-aligned policies may fail due to fragmented decision-making and a lack of co‑ordination in service delivery.
4.3.1. Policy coherence: a necessity for rural policy
Policy coherence refers to the systematic alignment of government policies to ensure that different sectors work toward shared objectives rather than competing priorities. In rural policymaking, this means ensuring that policies on agriculture, transport, business development, and social services are mutually reinforcing. Incoherence occurs when policies work at cross-purposes (OECD, 2005[20]). For instance: A government promoting rural economic development may simultaneously impose restrictive land-use policies that limit agricultural expansion, creating unintended barriers for farmers and businesses. An ambitious broadband expansion policy may overlook digital literacy, making it difficult for rural businesses and communities to fully leverage connectivity. Policies encouraging decentralised energy production must be co‑ordinated with grid infrastructure investment to ensure feasibility. A coherent approach ensures that rural policies complement rather than obstruct one another.
Table 4.1 highlights several policies related to land use, infrastructure, resource management, and public services. Each of the areas in the table are typically managed by different levels of government and departments. In peri-urban areas, land conversion from rural to urban uses is often regulated through formal land-use plans. However, land-use policies are most effective when integrated with other policy areas, such as transport infrastructure and labour market integration. For instance, pressure for land-use changes may stem from decisions to improve transport links, expand sewer and water capacity, or facilitate better rural-urban connectivity. Policy coherence ensures that these domains work together rather than at cross-purposes.
Source: OECD (2020), Rural Well-being: Geography of Opportunities, OECD Rural Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d25cef80-en.
Challenges to achieving policy coherence
Despite its importance, policy coherence is difficult to achieve due to the complexity of governance structures and competing political and institutional priorities. One of the most significant challenges is the existence of sectoral silos, where ministries and agencies develop policies independently, with limited co‑ordination. This often results in conflicting priorities, inefficiencies, and policies that fail to account for cross-sectoral dependencies. Another challenge stems from the different time horizons and objectives of government actors. Infrastructure projects, for instance, require long-term investments, while political cycles and budget constraints often push policy makers to prioritise short-term gains. This can result in inconsistent policy approaches, where rural development strategies shift with changes in political leadership, disrupting continuity and long-term planning. Furthermore, weak institutional mechanisms for interdepartmental collaboration exacerbate incoherence. Without structured co‑ordination mechanisms, different departments may implement policies that contradict one another, leading to inefficiencies and missed opportunities for synergy.
To overcome these challenges, several countries have institutionalised mechanisms that promote coherence in rural policymaking. Finland, for example, has adopted a National Rural Programme, overseen by a Rural Policy Council that brings together stakeholders from various sectors to ensure alignment across policy areas. Policy coherence in rural policy aligns with the concept of mainstreaming, a strategy embraced by the British government (OECD, 2011[21]). Mainstreaming ensures that rural considerations are integrated into the decision-making processes of all ministries, rather than being treated as a niche concern. This approach aims to provide consistent policy treatment across different regions. The UK government has reaffirmed its commitment to mainstreaming rural policy through initiatives like Unleashing Rural Opportunity, which integrates rural concerns into broader policy agendas to improve rural quality of life. Additionally, the Delivering Rural Opportunity report outlines key funding, policy, and delivery commitments, highlighting efforts to embed rural considerations within the general policy framework. However, OECD analysis indicates that effective mainstreaming requires significant co‑ordination capacity and oversight beyond what is typically visible in government (Box 4.1).
Mainstreaming rural is complex; it requires wide co-ordination capacity and oversight. Through mainstreaming the government is pursuing a multi-faceted agenda with multi-stakeholder objectives. Numerous departments at the national level have important roles to play in improving the responsiveness of policies. Mainstreaming rural makes it more, rather than less, dependent on existing common understandings about rurality, at the national and subnational level, and on an interconnected framework at the national level beyond what is now visible. This is largely because mainstreaming is simple in theory, but more complex in relation to rural. Placing the responsibility on all departments to mainstream rural is conceptually elegant. But ensuring that the needs of rural areas are understood and considered as part of day-to-day policymaking can be a challenge when the department that has the responsibility for rural development does not control or dictate the work of these departments or organisations.
Source: (OECD, 2011[21])
Similarly, Germany’s Federal Government’s Fourth Report on Rural Development and the Equivalence Report underscore the importance of ensuring that all ministries adopt a common approach to strengthen rural areas, calling for reduced regulatory burdens and sustained support for local authorities. This co-ordination helps address spatial disparities and maintains viable rural communities (Box 4.2).
In Germany, the Federal Government published its Fourth Report on Rural Development, which presents the situation of rural areas and describes co-ordinated federal policy measures. This includes an overview of how different ministries collaborate on place-based initiatives and funding. Another key milestone, the recent Equivalence Report “For strong and liveable regions in Germany”, underlines that economic, social, and environmental disparities among the country’s regions have narrowed in many respects. Still, ensuring that municipalities receive adequate resources and have sufficient legal autonomy remains central to maintaining liveable, productive rural places.
Both reports emphasise how streamlining administrative procedures can create better scope for local action. Greater trust in local self-government, along with clear funding formulas that consider spatial realities, support rural communities in providing essential services and generating sustainable local growth.
Source: (BMEL, 2024[22]), (BMWK, 2024[23])
4.3.2. Integrated cross government action
While policy coherence ensures alignment of goals, integration focuses on how policies are implemented across different agencies, ministries, and levels of governance. Integration entails a whole-of-government approach where public institutions work collaboratively to design and execute policies that reflect the interconnected nature of rural development. Without integration, even the most well-aligned policies may fail due to fragmented decision-making, duplication of efforts, and inefficiencies in service delivery. Rural areas often require multi-sectoral solutions due to their unique geographic and demographic characteristics. Infrastructure development, for example, must be planned in co‑ordination with economic policies to support job creation, while education policies should be linked to local workforce needs. An integrated approach ensures that these policy areas work in tandem rather than in isolation.
Why is cross agency integration especially relevant for rural policy
An integrated approach is needed because rural policy spans multiple sectors
An effective integrated approach requires more than the mere articulation of common goals. It demands that government departments and agencies actively co‑ordinate their actions to achieve these objectives. No single agency controls all aspects of rural policy. Transport, housing, healthcare, education, business support, and environmental policies must be co‑ordinated across departments to avoid duplication and inefficiencies. For example, rural healthcare services depend not only on investments in hospitals and clinics but also on adequate transport infrastructure to ensure access, particularly for those in remote areas (see Figure 4.5). Effective rural healthcare therefore requires collaboration across government agencies, community organisations, businesses, and academic institutions to deliver holistic solutions (Aslam, 2023[24]). Similarly, economic development strategies must be aligned with housing, education, and business support policies to create an environment conducive to long-term growth.
Source: Author’s elaboration.
This means re-visiting government spending typically allocated according to departmental mandates to build in flexibility to support initiatives that span multiple policy areas. This would allow rural communities to benefit more from public investment. This also ensures that investments in one sector often catch opportunities to reinforce progress in others, leading to improved efficiencies and less gaps. For instance, the Netherlands complements national rural strategies with place-based agreements such as Regio Deals and community-led initiatives like Dorpendeals. These initiatives support local ownership of development, social cohesion, and service delivery, particularly in rural and peripheral areas. A recent national programme also addresses wellbeing disparities through improved policy and funding co‑ordination (RLI, 2023[25]).
An integrated cross agency approach is needed to foster rural economic growth
Rural economies rely on integrated approaches that align infrastructure investment with job creation, skills training, and business support. For example, rural manufacturing and agrifood industries require co‑ordinated policies on workforce development, transport, and digital connectivity to thrive. Rural economies face unique structural challenges, including higher relative fixed costs, lower returns on investment, and constraints related to geography and scale. These factors influence decision-making in both the public and private sectors, often leading to underinvestment in rural areas in critical areas such as housing, infrastructure, and economic diversification. Economic shocks – caused by the departure of major employers, downturns in nearby cities, or shifts in global trade patterns – can disproportionately affect rural communities. Those grappling with population decline, shifting labour markets, and inadequate connectivity require co‑ordinated, multi-sectoral investments to sustain long-term growth.
A cross-government approach implement strategies offers the flexibility to respond to such disruptions while keeping long-term strategic objectives in focus. Governments across the OECD are increasingly recognising the need for a more balanced territorial development that can one the one hand support rural areas that are stagnant and on the other maintain prosperity in more dynamic regions.
The Netherlands has emphasised the integration of social, ecological, and economic factors in rural policymaking to promote balanced territorial development (Belterman and Meulen, 2024[26]).
Japan combines investment in digital infrastructure with land use planning and sustainable food systems to address the specific needs of remote rural areas (MAFF, 2023[27]).
Latvia has implemented territorial reform and introduced Functional Urban Area (FUA) planning tools, while promoting participatory budgeting, citizen councils and Smart Villages to enhance policy co‑ordination at the local level (HLPF, 2022[28]).
New Zealand launched the NZD 3 billion Provincial Growth Fund to support regional infrastructure, Māori economic participation, and climate resilience. The fund has led to significant job creation and GDP growth through co-financing and targeted support to underperforming regions (Kānoa, 2024[29]).
Without an integrated approach, rural populations will continue to contend with inconsistent and often contradictory policies that affect their economic and social well-being. An integrated approach ensures that policy actions reinforce one another, fostering synergies across sectors rather than working at cross-purposes.
An integrated cross agency effort is needed to Implement the OECD Principles of Rural Policy
The OECD Principles of Rural Policy provide a strategic framework aimed at improving rural policymaking among member countries Figure 4.6. These principles emphasize the importance of integration across sectors, governance levels, and rural-urban connections. This approach ensures that rural areas can fully leverage emerging opportunities, such as new technologies and changing societal preferences, to enhance their competitiveness and inclusiveness. A core tenet of these principles is the need for co‑ordinated action, blending bottom-up initiatives with top-down policy alignment. This entails fostering local innovation while ensuring coherence with national and regional strategies. As part of the OECD Rural Principles Dialogues series, country representatives have shared examples of initiatives that put these principles into practice. One such example is Canada’s seven Regional Development Agencies, which collaborate with other federal departments to implement place-based solutions that advance both national and regional objectives. This co‑ordinated approach helps bridge policy gaps and maximise the impact of public investment in rural areas. Other examples, detailed in Table 4.2, further showcase the importance of integrated governance, cross-sector collaboration, and regional connectivity in advancing rural development.
Note: The OECD Principles of Rural Policy was adopted by the Regional Development Policy Committee on March 1, 2019.
Source: (OECD, 2019[30])
Source: Author’s elaboration
An integrated cross agency approach is needed to help shrink the gap in inequality
A long-standing policy concern is how to guide rural economies toward a more productive and prosperous future without allowing them to fall further behind as urban areas grow (UN DESA, 2021[1]). The 2023 OECD Regional Outlook presents compelling evidence of deepening inequalities within OECD countries, particularly between metropolitan and non-metropolitan regions. While globalisation has facilitated economic convergence between countries, stark regional income disparities continue to exist within them (OECD, 2023[31]). Over the past two decades, the gap in income per capita between the wealthiest 20% of regions and the poorest 20% has remained stark. In countries such as France, the United Kingdom, the United States, Italy, and several Eastern European nations, the wealthiest regions earn more than twice as much per capita as the least affluent ones.
Beyond economic disparities, widening inequalities risk eroding public trust and fuelling social unrest, particularly in rural areas that feel overlooked by national policies. Canada’s Indigenous people play a crucial role in climate change mitigation drawing on extensive ecological knowledge. They also suffer disproportionately from climate change related issues such as food insecurity. More broadly, when rural populations perceive that decision-makers prioritise urban interests, political tensions can emerge. Even well-intentioned policies can inadvertently deepen rural grievances if they fail to account for local economic and social realities. A case in point is the Netherlands’ nitrogen emissions policy. Following a ruling by the country’s highest administrative court, the government concluded that its nitrogen permit system was failing to prevent environmental damage (Tullis, 2023[32]). As a result, the government proposed buying out and shutting down thousands of livestock farms to meet environmental targets and his decision provoked intense backlash.
4.3.3. Enabling policy Integration
Collaboration is not an end but a means to achieving better public policy outcomes (Institute for Government, 2020[33]). In 2020, the Institute for Government organised a roundtable with civil service leaders and conducted a survey to identify the primary barriers to interdepartmental collaboration. Five key challenges emerged consistently:
weak organisational structures that fail to sustain co‑operation,
competition for resources among departments,
limited data-sharing mechanisms,
an absence of shared objectives, and
difficulties in securing commitment from key actors.
Addressing these issues requires proactive institutional changes, stronger incentives for co‑operation, and well-defined accountability frameworks (Institute for Government, 2020[33]) Overcoming barriers to integration in the context of rural policy requires more than just institutional reforms – it requires a fundamental shift in mindset, accompanied by deliberate actions and supported by robust data.
Reframe the narrative on rural areas to focus on the advantages
Many argue that policy integration challenges exist across all areas of government, so why should rural policy be any different? While this is true, the Institute for Government’s survey of civil servants offers valuable insights into why rural policy faces distinct obstacles. The survey found that one of the key barriers to cross-government action is a lack of understanding among civil servants about how and why collaboration improves outcomes. Compounding this is a negative perception of rural areas—as economically and socially disadvantaged, in contrast to dynamic urban centres (Ashwood and MacTavish, 2016[34]). Together, these assumptions create a "double bind", meaning a situation in which rural policy struggles not only with more co‑ordinated implementation issues but also with biases that hinder collective action.
For this reason, experts consistently argue that a shift in the rural narrative is urgently needed. One that highlights its strengths and contributions rather than portraying it as dependent on urban areas for support (Atterton, 2022[35]) (Shortall and Alston, 2016[36]). In a 2020 study Jones et al, analysed the impact the EU approach to territorial cohesion has on lagging regions and the ability to catch up with more prosperous regions. They found that “limited visions of success or failure” tended to “reinforce the notion that ‘lagging’ regions have to play a game” based on rules defined by urban areas (Jones, Goodwin‐Hawkins and Woods, 2020[37]),
An integrated approach to developing and implementing rural policies is not merely a rural concern: it is a national imperative. Expanding rural broadband, for instance, does not solely benefit remote communities; it enhances national digital inclusion, supports business growth, and strengthens regional economies. The notion that urban areas must "rescue" rural communities, or that rural regions are inherently disadvantaged, diminishes their perceived role in advancing national objectives (see Figure 4.7). Without a fundamental shift in this narrative, civil servants must first be persuaded that collaboration itself is beneficial, and then be further convinced that collaboration on rural issues is equally worthwhile. This added layer of scepticism makes achieving meaningful cross-government co‑ordination even more difficult.
Source: Influenced by (Parnell, 2022[38])
Enabling an integrated approach
Governments that embrace integrated, cross-sectoral approaches are better positioned to foster sustainable rural growth. Several OECD countries have adopted integrated rural strategies:
Austria: Every ten years, Austria conducts a forward-looking review of integrated policymaking, bringing together experts, ministries, and local governments to shape long-term rural development strategies. This process fosters collaboration across sectors, ensuring that policies related to digitalization, knowledge dissemination, and infrastructure align with national and local objectives.
South Korea: The South Korean government promotes rural-urban linkages by strengthening local government autonomy, preparing independent economic self-reliance structures, and adopting flexible spatial definitions to facilitate co‑operation across administrative boundaries. These efforts help ensure that rural development policies are locally driven while still benefiting from national-level support.
Ireland: Our Rural Future is Ireland’s national rural development strategy, developed through extensive public and stakeholder input. This place-based approach integrates economic, social, and environmental development goals while ensuring policy alignment across government departments. By spanning regional and national policy domains, it promotes co‑ordinated investment in rural areas.
Poland: Poland’s rural areas face many risks such as depopulation, public services insecurity, and increasing intra-regional disparities. To address this, the biggest policy focuses are to bring knowledge to rural areas and build networks. This supplements both national and EU financial support to encourage the capacity building necessary for rural households to diversify away from farming and engage in activities necessary in the current context such as support of the EU Green Deal.
A range of tools can enhance policy coherence and align investment across different levels of government. Contractual agreements, co-financing arrangements, policy conditionalities, formal consultation processes, and intergovernmental committees all serve as mechanisms to strengthen co‑ordination (OECD, 2022[39]) (OECD, 2019[40]). Dedicated partnership councils, such as the Partnership Council for Wales, facilitate collaboration between local authorities and the Welsh Government. However, while such platforms exist, their effectiveness depends on whether they foster meaningful dialogue and lead to actionable outcomes. Collaboration should not be reduced to a checkbox exercise but must serve as a strategic mechanism to deliver seamless public services across government departments. In Wales, stakeholder interviews revealed concerns that the council lacked the capacity to advance meaningful discussions, limiting its ability to address key issues and drive constructive engagement at the highest level (OECD, 2024[41]).
Actively create opportunities for co‑ordinated implementation
In Canada, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED)’s rural economic development team conducts targeted outreach to other government departments, ensuring that rural best practices are integrated into new policy proposals. ISED’s rural economic development team also builds local networks that connect rural partners and provides a pathfinding service to navigate government support. Vertical integration – aligning national, regional, and local policies – ensures that high-level strategies are effectively translated into practical solutions on the ground. The Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee, for instance, creates a direct dialogue between the Inuit community and the Canadian government, strengthening mutual respect and ensuring that Indigenous cultural assets and environmental priorities are safeguarded alongside economic development initiatives.
Assess the levels of co‑ordination on rural policies with a view to improve it.
Governments should also assess the extent and effectiveness of integrated policymaking for rural areas. This requires clear indicators to track how well policy silos are being dismantled and how effectively different government sectors collaborate. Key metrics include:
Number of interministerial or inter department committees: A higher number suggests active efforts to align strategies across government departments (e.g. agriculture, health, education, environment) in addressing rural challenges.
Budget allocation analysis: Examining funding streams can reveal whether resources are being directed toward integrated solutions or remain fragmented. For example: The Agricultural Policy Framework in Canada, which involves joint federal and provincial funding, reflects an integrated financing model for agricultural initiatives.
Cross-government joint training initiatives: Investing in joint training programs for policy makers and civil servants fosters shared understanding and capacity-building across silos.
Diversity and number of stakeholder engagement platforms: Greater participation of local governments, NGOs, businesses, and community leaders signals stronger collaboration in rural policy development and implementation.
Develop effective rural proofing process to support integrated action
Rural Proofing is a process designed to ensure that policies are suitable for rural areas. It involves making evidence on rural dynamics, available in a timely fashion to decisionmakers, to enable changes and adjustments early in the policy design and strategy development phase. (Bryce, 2024[42]). It is a measure that is growing in importance to help shape how policies are applied in rural areas. Northern Ireland provides an example of a most formalised process. The Rural Needs Act makes rural proofing a part of the policymaking process and calls for the rigorous scrutiny of proposed policies to ensure: i) fair and equitable treatment of rural communities; and ii) that a policy does not indirectly have a detrimental impact on rural dwellers and communities (DAERA, 2015[43]). In Canada, rural proofing initiatives at the provincial level aim to help ministries evaluate the effects of new policy proposals or changes on existing programs before they are put into effect” (Rural Ontario Municipal Association, 2015[44]).
The effectiveness of rural proofing increases when the process is designed well, implemented, supported, and embedded into national, regional, and local policy frameworks. The rural proofing model used by the European Commission provides a solid foundation. The scepticism largely stems from its process-oriented nature, which depends on multiple factors aligning before meaningful results can be achieved. Additionally, there are often too many expectations on rural proofing – a successful process highlights the potential negative consequences of a proposed policy, but it cannot compel a policy maker to act on the information provided. As a result, governments may acknowledge identified risks yet proceed with policies unchanged due to competing priorities.
The requirements to consider any significant impact on territorial and rural issues and to gather evidence from various types of territories is included in the European Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines. The guidelines set a clear objective, to ensure coherence, consistency, and complementarity between policies, including when it comes to impacts on rural areas. The rural proofing process involves screening the list of upcoming initiatives to be adopted the following year (called the Annual Commission work programme), for new ones likely to have differential impacts on rural areas. The initiatives are categorised by type for screening. For most impactful or new legislation, better regulation guidelines require an impact assessment. In this case, services are invited to conduct a pre-territorial assessment necessity check to determine if the legislation is likely to have a symmetrical territorial impact. If the preliminary check is positive, then, a full territorial impact assessment is needed. Less impactful or non-legislative actions (e.g. communications) which are not subject to impact assessments are reviewed using softer mechanisms and qualitative approaches.
Note: The ESPON TIA tool is an interactive web application designed to provide a quick overview of the potential territorial impacts of EU Legislations, Policies, and Directives (LPDs) that are currently being developed. https://tiatool.espon.eu/TiaToolv2/welcome. The European Commission Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox outlines the principles that the Commission adheres to when creating new initiatives and proposals. Chapter 3 of the guidelines focuses on identifying impacts in evaluations, fitness checks, and impact assessments. It includes Tool number 18, which is dedicated to identifying all types of potential impacts and Tool number 34, which specifically encourages screening for territorial impacts.
Rural proofing involves a few crucial steps:
Identifying potential issues: assessing the direct impact of a proposed policy action.
Conducting deeper analysis: using data and other tools to examine indirect and long-term effects.
Adjusting policy measures: Introducing interventions to mitigate or remove negative impacts
While it is not meant to be a tick box exercise, it can become one when it lacks essential guardrails such as co-ordination, authority to act, monitoring, and buy-in from government departments. Ideally, rural proofing should take place as early as possible in the policy development process – before a decision to act is final. It will only be useful if it is properly positioned to influence decisions at key moments and provides decisionmakers with the necessary information to make informed decisions. Governments should consider several factors to improve the process (see Box 4.4).
Rural proofing has proven to be a valuable mechanism for improving policy implementation – enhancing effectiveness, reducing costs, and mitigating negative side effects. Countries considering new rural proofing initiatives, or refining existing ones, should follow these guidelines:
1. Develop clear objectives and tailored supporting tools: Avoid vague, overly ambitious, or excessive objectives, as they can hinder effective implementation.
2. Adopt a pilot approach and learn from sub-optimal short-term results: In a learning by doing model, schemes can be recalibrated based on feedback as well as ensure that allocated resources align with the actions needed to fully support and sustain rural proofing.
3. Create a model that becomes less dependent on political commitment over time: Maximise political support, especially when it exists, especially in countries new to rural proofing, but develop mechanisms that ensure sustainability beyond political cycles by embedding a “rural proofing culture” within public administration.
4. Reframe the rural narrative from "rural needs help" to "rural is a place of untapped opportunities": Shift the perception of rural areas from being problematic to being full of potential.
5. Consider the context: Start small if rural proofing is new. A targeted, issue-specific approach may be more feasible than an all-of-government model, depending on the country’s context, governance structure, and available resources.
6. Design the rural proofing model with the public servant “end user” in mind: Ensure that rural proofers (the civil servant) have access to training, tools, and support tailored to the governance type (bottom-up or centralised).
7. Encourage the collection of rural proofing intelligence: Strengthen quantitative and qualitative data collection to inform rural proofing, making it more effective and innovative.
8. Be flexible: there is no one size fits all rural proofing model: Consider arrangements that facilitate access to external expert bodies/stakeholders taking advantage of their resources and skills also consider ad hoc or more formalised processes.
9. Measure success but set realistic expectations: Rural proofing cannot force policy makers to act on its findings. In some cases, despite identified issues, policies may proceed unchanged due to external factors. Evaluation metrics should capture these nuances, ensuring that rural proofing is assessed fairly and not just in terms of immediate impact, but also over the long-term.
Source: (Bryce, 2024[42])
4.4.1. Functional Rural Areas: overcoming fragmentation in rural policy
Developing policies based on Functional Rural Areas (FRAs) presents a significant opportunity to enhance the effectiveness of policymaking in rural regions. By recognising the intricate links that define rural life such as shared markets, transportation networks, and public services, governments can craft more coherent policies that address key challenges (e.g. employment, infrastructure, and public health). FRAs prioritise the economic, social, and spatial interconnections among communities. This approach ensures that interventions are more attuned to the realities of rural populations. Beyond improving policy relevance, FRAs offer a sharper lens through which to understand rural dynamics. Traditional administrative boundaries often obscure crucial trends and opportunities.
A framework rooted in FRAs enables policy makers to detect patterns that might otherwise remain hidden, fostering a more nuanced and effective response to rural development. The result is policymaking that is not only better informed but also more impactful in improving rural livelihoods. The concept of a functional area is not new. The OECD Working Party on Territorial Indicators collaborated with the European Commission (EC) to define Functional Urban Areas (FUAs). More recently, the 13th OECD Rural Development Conference in Cavan underscored the importance of this issue, culminating in the Cavan‑OECD Roadmap for Strengthening Rural Resilience in the Face of Global Challenges. This roadmap outlines six key actions, the first of which calls for an internationally harmonised definition of FRAs that accurately reflects rural realities while accounting for regional diversity.
Defining Functional Rural Areas
Typically, official statistics on commuting flows constitute the methodological foundation for the delineation of functional areas, and these data should be used for this purpose whenever available. However, commuting patterns provide only a partial view of the complex interactions between and within regions. A singular focus on work-related mobility fails to account for the full breadth of rural interactions – whether rural to rural or rural to urban.
These interactions often transcend administrative boundaries, making a more comprehensive framework necessary. Rural areas vary widely, encompassing islands, mountain areas, natural reserves, and mining territories. A well-calibrated approach should reflect these distinctions, enabling targeted policy interventions that bolster resilience and growth.
Although FRA’s should capture linkages and provide a basis for developing indicators on:
Economic activity: Understanding the dominant sectors in rural economies – whether agriculture, forestry, tourism, mining, renewable energy, or technology – provides essential insights into regional strengths and vulnerabilities.
Labour mobility: Examining commuting flows among rural areas and between rural areas and urban centres sheds light on economic dependencies and development opportunities.
Access to services: Evaluating proximity to healthcare, education, and retail facilities is crucial for assessing quality of life and policy gaps.
Infrastructure and connectivity: Mapping transportation networks, digital infrastructure, and logistics routes helps determine the extent to which rural areas are integrated into the wider economy. Investment in these domains can catalyse economic opportunity and social cohesion.
They must also balance the computational costs and availability of data in developing a comprehensive and comparable definition.
Testing the Functional Rural Area Approach
To implement the FRA framework effectively, governments must pilot tailored strategies designed to enhance economic and social outcomes. A phased approach, involving test cases in diverse rural settings, across three distinct types of rural areas: peri-urban zones, clusters of mid-sized towns, and remote rural regions will provide the empirical foundation needed for broader adoption. This diversity will enable policy makers to formulate interventions that reflect local needs while generating insights applicable to wider implementation. Testing and refining interventions in pilot FRAs, policy makers can ensure that successful strategies are scaled up to benefit rural communities more broadly. A well-executed FRA framework has the potential to transform rural policy, shifting from fragmented, one-size-fits-all approaches to a model that is both regionally specific and globally applicable.
4.4.2. Seek ways to maximise rural-urban interconnections
Urban and rural areas are deeply interconnected. An ecological crisis in a rural area can escalate into a social crisis in an urban centre. Conversely, an urban shock – such as a health crisis – can disrupt key infrastructure and services that supply entire regions. These areas have distinct yet complementary assets, which, if leveraged effectively, could bring significant economic, environmental, and social benefits to both. New technologies are reshaping rural-urban linkages. For example, increasing numbers of people live in the countryside while commuting to urban centres for work.
Some cities are actively seeking partnerships with their surrounding rural areas. In Poland, rural-urban linkages are being strengthened to counteract the decline of cities and towns outside Functional Urban Areas (FUAs). These towns risk losing their social and economic functions, but enhanced collaboration can improve access to services and economic opportunities across the rural-urban continuum (OECD, 2022[46]). As green and digital transitions accelerate, rural areas will play a key role in supporting urban sustainability. Growing demand for renewable energy will require cities to rely on rural regions for wind, water, and biomass energy production. Rural-urban partnerships will be crucial in managing these interdependencies effectively.
To unlock the full potential of rural-urban partnerships, governments must take deliberate action by:
Incentivising collaboration through policy frameworks that encourage investment and co‑ordination.
Strengthening local governance capacity to ensure that both urban and rural areas can effectively implement policies.
Developing better measurement tools that go beyond commuting patterns to capture the full scope of rural-urban interdependencies.
By embracing a functional, place-based approach, policy makers can ensure more balanced and sustainable development across regions—bridging gaps, fostering co‑operation, and unlocking shared prosperity for both urban and rural communities.
Integrating rural-urban partnerships into policy frameworks
Maximising rural-urban linkages is increasingly recognised as a key objective in national and supra-national regional development policies. The Cohesion Policy of the European Union (EU), along with the OECD’s Regional Development Policy Committee, emphasises the need for greater co‑operation across territories. Both the OECD Principles on Urban Policy and the OECD Principles on Rural Policy share Principle 3, which underscores the importance of supporting interdependencies between urban and rural areas (OECD, 2019[47]). The RDPC’s research highlights how sectoral and structural policies have differentiated spatial impacts and stresses the importance of a functional approach that goes beyond traditional administrative boundaries. These interactions include demographic shifts, labour market flows, public service provision, and environmental considerations – all of which require tailored, place-based solutions.
Despite policy efforts, some OECD economies struggle to achieve balanced development. Additionally, the growing disparities between urban and rural areas, waning public trust in public institutions and persistent social unrest reinforce the need for stronger collaboration. Currently, urban policies often overlook rural perspectives, while rural policies fail to recognise urban centres' significance for rural development. Additionally, urban and rural policies frequently operate in isolation, with little consideration for their interdependencies. Furthermore, urban and rural policies frequently operate in isolation, failing to account for their interdependencies.
To overcome these obstacles, governments must take a more proactive role in fostering rural-urban co‑operation through national and regional policy frameworks by actively promoting and incentivising rural-urban partnerships. Stronger co‑operation can lead to: Sustainable land use and planning; Better public services, including transport, healthcare, and education and more resilient economies that harness both urban and rural strengths. Portugal is already piloting initiatives that support networking and capacity-building among towns, villages, and cities. These efforts help communities tackle challenges such as climate change adaptation through co‑ordinated action.
Measuring rural-urban linkages look beyond commuting flows
Traditional measures of rural-urban interaction, such as commuting data, provide valuable insights but fail to capture the full complexity of these relationships. The movement of people between rural and urban areas significantly influences economic patterns, as income earned in urban jobs supports rural businesses and local economies. However, rural-urban interdependencies extend beyond mobility, encompassing environmental services, economic exchanges, and shared infrastructure.
A more comprehensive approach to measuring rural-urban linkages should incorporate multiple dimensions. In Türkiye, research has identified five key areas of rural-urban interaction: demographic patterns, economic interdependencies, public service access, environmental externalities, and governance structures. France has also explored alternative classifications of rural-urban relationships, mapping different types of rurality based on economic and social transformations. These approaches demonstrate the need to move beyond simplistic rural-urban distinctions and instead analyse functional relationships that drive regional development.
New technologies offer promising ways to improve the measurement of rural-urban connections. Mobile device data, for example, provides real-time insights into how people access services, recreational spaces, and economic opportunities across urban and rural settings. Estonia has pioneered the use of such data to redefine mobility patterns, offering a more nuanced view of how rural and urban populations interact. Additionally, tracking economic flows – such as urban investment in rural infrastructure, rural food supply chains, and ecosystem service exchanges, can help policy makers design more effective regional strategies. Expanding the scope of rural-urban metrics will enable governments to develop policies that are better aligned with the realities of regional interdependencies (Box 4.5). By considering factors such as environmental linkages, digital connectivity, and shared public services, policy makers can design strategies that foster stronger collaboration and more balanced territorial development.
Capturing the full complexity of rural–urban relationships require going beyond traditional metrics such as commuting flows. Expanding the types of information collected is a critical first step toward building a more comprehensive evidence base—one that can better inform territorial policies, identify new opportunities for collaboration, and support more integrated development strategies.
There are different approaches to move beyond commuting data to measure rural-urban interaction.
replacing "place of work – place of residence" data, the traditional commuting data from censuses, with alternative data (e.g. mobile data) to improve the analysis of "functional areas" for urban or rural spaces.1.
using new data/technologies to measure alternatives commuting patterns, such as access to services or recreational activities. E.g. Estonia
looking at dimensions of rural-urban interdependencies other than the mobility of people. This can be achieved by examining the mobility of goods, interactions resulting from sharing infrastructure, and interactions resulting from sharing environmental resources and assets, including ecosystems and ecosystem services.
Economic exchanges and dependencies, showing how urban markets rely on rural areas for food supply and vice versa.
Proportion of rural population accessing urban healthcare, education, or other essential services
Level of public or private investment from urban areas in rural development projects or vice versa.
Monitor nutrient flows (e.g. organic waste from cities being used as fertilizer in rural areas) and their environmental impact.
Track rural tourism development driven by urban demand and its impact on rural communities’ social and economic wellbeing.
Source: (JRC, 2020[49]) (OECD, 2020[50])
For rural-urban collaboration to reach its full potential, governments must take a more proactive role in fostering co‑operation across administrative boundaries. Policies should incentivise joint planning and investment, ensuring that rural and urban areas work together to build resilient and inclusive economies. Strengthening local governance capacity is also crucial, as many municipalities lack the resources and expertise needed to engage in effective partnerships. Additionally, shifting towards a functional, place-based approach will allow governments to design policies that reflect the interconnected nature of urban and rural areas. Instead of viewing these regions as separate entities, policy makers must recognise their mutual dependencies and develop strategies that support balanced development. This means expanding the measurement of rural-urban linkages beyond commuting data to include economic exchanges, environmental flows, and digital connectivity.
4.4.3. Public-private partnerships to support more effective rural policies
The success of rural development depends on collaborative efforts that transcend traditional boundaries and engage diverse stakeholders. Government should collaborate extensively, and foster co-operation, at the local level with private and public sector actors, to ensure that market sensitive development interventions are delivered in a professional and supported manner. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) serve as a catalyst for rural development by bringing together government agencies and private entities to leverage resources, expertise, and operational efficiencies. Given the scale of rural needs, the diversity of rural communities, and government fiscal constraints, mobilising private sector partnerships is a strategic tool for policy implementation (OECD, 2020[51]). For those promoting local development in rural areas, private co-investment can add important ingredients that are otherwise absent Box 4.6.
Public-private partnerships bring more innovative way to share risks, costs, returns, and the stewardship of assets because private financing:
provides more capital than is otherwise available, and in a quicker and more efficient manner.
helps to rebuild local investment markets and averts other ‘disinvestment’ from occurring.
creates a greater commercial and professional discipline within development policies and initiatives.
attracts wider interest from other commercial players, giving confidence that something of value must be occurring which might merit their interest.
builds a more sustainable finance strategy into local development initiatives, allowing public funds to be gradually unlocked for alternative actions.
repositions good local development activity as ‘investment’ rather than ‘expenditure’ in the modern economy.
Source: (Clark and Mountford, 2007[52])
Additionally, these partnerships can create a more structured framework for risk-sharing and responsibility allocation, enabling the development of infrastructure and services that can transform rural communities. PPPs represent a “third way” – a model that capitalises on private sector investment and expertise while advancing rural development goals. Through collaborative engagement, the public and private sectors can combine knowledge, financial resources, and innovation to deliver public goods more efficiently (Bjärstig and Sandström, 2017[53]). By working together, they can develop and implement solutions for challenges that neither sector can fully address alone. For example, in the past 20 years, many governments have partnered with the private sector to enhance the development and management of water systems. Such partnerships are essential for securing additional funding and optimising the use of available resources.
PPPs are a powerful tool for rural development because they combine the agility and investment power of the private sector with public sector incentives to drive sustainable rural growth. Governments can leverage private sector engagement to enhance their capacity and benefit from risk transfer, financial incentives, technical expertise, and innovation. Governments can play a critical role in initiating partnership connections as well as structuring, financing, and regulating partnerships, especially in rural areas, where private sector engagement may be less prevalent compared to urban settings (Bjärstig and Sandström, 2017[53]). Civil society actors can also play a role by lending their expertise and knowledge and leveraging their connections in the community to bring voices from the community see Table 4.4.
To effectively harness the efforts of diverse private stakeholders, governments must focus on aspects that go beyond financial contributions, particularly on robust policies and regulatory frameworks, fair risk allocation, and enhanced accountability (OECD, 2009[54]). To successfully engage the private sector, governments should consider:
The nature and modalities of private sector participation
The institutional and regulatory environment for investment
Ensuring public and institutional support for the project and financing choices
Aligning public-private co‑operation with the public interest
Encouraging responsible business conduct
Assessing economic, social, and environmental impacts
One example of a PPP model gaining traction in the critical minerals and mining sector is Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) integration. ESG-focused partnerships align business investments with sustainability and social responsibility, ensuring that projects not only generate economic returns but also benefit local communities and mitigate environmental impacts. Private sector engagement in rural policy has shifted from traditional Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives to structured ESG frameworks, which help companies measure and report on their environmental, social, and governance (OECD, 2022[55]; Eccles and Stroehle, 2018[56]). These frameworks are now widely used see Box 4.7 to learn more.
By 2026, ESG-focused institutional investment is expected to grow by 84% from 2022 levels, reaching USD 33.9 trillion and making up over 21% of assets under management (PwC, 2022[57]). As a result, companies operating in natural resource sectors—especially in rural areas—are under increasing pressure to adopt ESG principles.
The impact of ESG practices is amplified in rural regions that are economically dependent on resource-related activities, such as mining, forestry, or energy. Many of these rural, resource-rich regions have lower population density and are dominated by a handful of multinational companies that drive local economic activity (Breul and Atienza, 2022[58]). This makes corporate ESG initiatives an essential tool for improving local development and quality of life.
Some examples of how mining companies’ ESG actions support rural development across environmental, social, and governance dimensions include:
Environmental activities: Given their environmental footprint in rural communities, resource companies often implement ESG programmes focusing on land restoration, community-led environmental monitoring, and compensation strategies for environmental impact. For example, Teck Resources has invested in rehabilitating mined land for future uses such as wetlands, wildlife habitats, and recreational spaces (Teck Resources, n.d.[59]).
Social activities: ESG programmes enhance community well-being by investing in education, childcare, healthcare, housing, and cultural infrastructure. In Ontario, Canada, and Pilbara, Australia, mining companies have partnered with local schools to improve educational infrastructure, funded sports centres, and worked with local governments to enhance childcare and healthcare access.
Governance activities: Some companies promote good governance in resource management by ensuring transparency, ethical compliance, and local economic integration. For instance, in Antofagasta, Chile, mining companies have joined the regional governance board to align industry activities with local development priorities and improve regional economic cohesion.
While ESG initiatives have the potential to drive sustainable rural development, several challenges must be addressed such as:
Ensuring ESG initiatives produce long-term benefits: The effectiveness of ESG activities depends on a company’s ability to engage with local communities, the type of project (greenfield vs. brownfield), and the governance capacity of local authorities.
Overcoming the timing mismatch between short-term financial needs and long-term community priorities. Junior companies with limited institutional capacity face difficulties balancing financial pressures with community engagement in long-term consultation processes.
Strengthening local governance capacity: Many rural regions lack co‑ordination between multiple ESG initiatives, which can increase inequality between beneficiary communities and create economic dependency. Additionally, monitoring and evaluating ESG outcomes remains difficult due to a lack of clarity on responsible oversight bodies and technical expertise.
As ESG-focused investment continues to grow, PPPs that incorporate ESG principles will play an increasingly central role in driving responsible rural development, securing social license to operate, and ensuring long-term economic and environmental sustainability. To maximise the long-term impact of ESG activities in rural regions, governments and businesses must adopt a more co‑ordinated approach to planning, designing, and implementing ESG initiatives. Key actions to strengthen ESG contributions to rural development include:
Participatory planning that involves local communities in decision-making
Stronger subnational governance mechanisms to facilitate PPPs
Collaborative strategies between governments and rural stakeholders to ensure ESG efforts lead to sustainable, long-term development
4.5.1. Measuring rural well-being
As noted earlier the recent social tensions in several countries signal a degree of dissatisfaction with current policies in some rural places. However, understanding what drives happiness or discontent in rural regions is an area that requires further exploration. There is undoubtedly a link with between rural well-being and discontent. Well-being includes various dimensions, and perceptions of well-being can differ significantly. In many instances, this dissatisfaction arises from a combination of factors, including a lack of opportunity, declining services, and demographic shifts. Rural well-being indicators may tell us part of the story, but discontent emerges when certain conditions intersect in ways that go beyond what traditional quality-of-life data can fully capture.
Today’s policy makers face a complicated landscape where economic decline, social inequalities, and policy failures erode well-being. When individuals face more challenges than they have resources to manage, their well-being declines (Dodge et al., 2012[60]). In Greece, for instance, research suggests a strong correlation between economic downturns – measured through unemployment and income changes – and shifts in electoral outcomes (Sotiriou, Petrakos and Alexiou, 2025[61]). As such, identifying the triggers and drivers of rural discontent could be key to crafting more effective policy responses.
Source: Author’s elaboration
Many countries have national wellbeing frameworks in place using the OECD model as a starting point (OECD, 2020[51]). These well-being frameworks aim to diagnose socio-economic vulnerabilities and assess whether policies improve living standards. National wellbeing frameworks may cover domains like income, housing, health, and environment but the rural experience of these domains will differ in ways that the national framework does not catch (Figure 4.9). For example, access to healthcare as a national metric may not capture the driving distance to the nearest healthcare provider or hospital. However, despite growing recognition that rurality shapes well-being outcomes, rural specific well-being indicators are less prominent.
Quantifying rural well-being: the data imperative
Discontent does not emerge in isolation; it is nurtured by a combination of structural inequalities and policy neglect. Geographical remoteness can mean reduced access to public services, digital exclusion, and weaker social cohesion. The OECD’s Rural Well-being: Geography of Opportunities calls for a shift towards a more people-centred approach to rural policy – one that moves beyond productivity metrics to consider social and environmental dimensions (OECD, 2020[51]). There are two ways to measure the quality of life in rural areas. One is more objective and is the more typical approach relying on indicators that focus on resources and opportunities. Specifically, how well the needs of individuals in a society are being met across several spectrums, such as physical, economic, social, environmental, and emotional aspects. The other is more subjective and places the focus on the individual perceptions and assessments of their own life within society and how individuals perceive their benefit from societal decisions or policies.
There are inherent difficulties in measuring these dimensions, rural residents often value different aspects of life. For example, they may not prioritise travel distances or certain opportunities as highly as preserving a certain way of life. Studies suggest rural and semi-dense areas exhibit higher levels of community attachment. These include more distinct boundaries in rural areas that encourage residents to form a stronger sense of belonging, more frequent social interaction with community members that increases networks and social capital, and less transience in rural areas with people staying for extended periods of time (Whitham, 2019[62]). This can lead to increased civic engagement as people feel a sense of pride in contributing to improving wellbeing in their community (Figure 4.10). There may also be a correlation between age demographics in rural regions and civic engagement with older adults having more time to engage in these activities (Kafkova, Vidovicova and Wija, 2018[63]); (Stoecker and Witkovsky, 2022[64]).
Civic Engagement Index, as an index score from 0-100
Note: The Civic Engagement Index assesses respondents’ inclination to volunteer their time and assistance to others. It is designed to measure a respondent’s commitment to the community where he or she lives. The average figures inside countries are weighted by design weights calibrated to age, gender and education or socio-economic status at national level.
Source: Own calculations based on Gallup data and interim result from the project Regional development along the settlement network.
To design effective rural interventions, policy makers need better data on rural wellbeing. Identifying the key domains of well-being – those factors that matter most to rural communities – requires a combination of empirical research and direct engagement with local populations. In Canada, discussions on rural well-being measurement highlighted a critical gap: the lack of localised data, the absence of community-specific tools, and limited capacity to use existing data effectively. The issue is even more pronounced in island and mountain communities, where geographic isolation, fluctuating economies, and small populations make standardised data collection difficult. The EU, for example, lacks a common definition for mountain areas, complicating efforts to assess well-being in these regions.
In 2022, the Dutch National Statistics Bureau applied an expanded version of the OECD’s well-being framework to examine the transition to nature-based agriculture. Their analysis spanned twelve themes, including housing, material wealth, work-life balance, environmental conditions, and social cohesion. The goal was to determine whether policies translated into tangible improvements for rural residents. A broader effort to systematise well-being measurement comes is highlighted in What is Rural Well-being and How is it Measured? An Attempt to Order Chaos (Veréb et al., 2024[65]). This study analysed 159 research papers covering 33 dimensions of well-being, revealing that rural well-being is a highly interconnected concept. It is not sufficient to examine single aspects in isolation; relationships between indicators matter just as much.
Source: Author’s elaboration
4.5.2. Rural proofing intelligence
One factor that underpins the entire rural proofing process is the availability and quality of the supporting evidence or rural proofing intelligence. Access to comprehensive and reliable data strengthens the analytical foundation of rural proofing, allowing for evidence-based policy adjustments and supporting more integrated policy actions. The capacity to provide policy advice grounded in ‘evidence-based’ analysis is dependent on the availability of reliable data (Head, 2015[66]). In the United States, the Census Bureau’s annual American Community Survey is a key resource for determining federal programme eligibility and assessing rural needs and strength. One criticism of this survey is that the data on the “small sample sizes in sparsely populated areas”, produces high margins of error and makes measures for individual communities unreliable (Scally and Burnstein, 2020[67]). However, as observed by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee when examining the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the United Kingdom, how well data on rural conditions is presented across government is a crucial factor in shaping government wide policy (House of Commons, 2013[68]).
To develop effective policies, policy makers must be aware of potential impacts between policies and have tools to identify their nature and extent. Rural proofing intelligence could address this need by compiling statistical analysis, simulations, expert consultations, and other forms of evidence (see Figure 4.12 and Table 4.5). This intelligence could be structured in three tranches:
Source: Author’s elaboration
State of rural data to provide an overarching view of rurality and rural conditions within a country, including its definition and its economic, environmental, and social dimensions. This is a critical starting point, as a common reason for rural policy disparities is a lack of awareness of the distinct characteristics that differentiate rural and urban areas. Example of state of rural data include the State of the Countryside reports by the former Commission for Rural Communities (England, United Kingdom) Up until the Commission closed, the reports presented statistical and analytical evidence on social, economic and environmental issues in rural England (see Figure 4.13). Similarly, the State of Rural Canada report produced by the Canadian Rural Revitalisation Foundation provides it also offers an overview of the diverse challenges and opportunities facing rural, remote, and northern communities across the country (Canada Rural Revitalization Foundation, 2024[69]).
State of Countryside 2010 Table of Contents
Potential impact data to evaluate how specific policy proposals may affect rural communities, particularly in ways that may be unintended, disproportionate, or overlooked, thus supporting necessary policy adjustments. For example, if a new tax on gasoline is proposed the potential impact data would provide evidence of any effects on rural communities if the tax were to move forward. This type of data is narrower than state of rural data, specific to the proposed policy but key to supporting evidence informed decision-making.
Value-added data to demonstrate how working with rural communities – rather than overlooking or bypassing them – can help non-rural ministries (e.g. environment, health, education, energy) more effectively achieve their policy goals. This evidence can take different forms such as case studies, rural narratives, or outcome-based evaluations.
Collecting rural intelligence does not have to be an overwhelming or resource-intensive task for governments. In many cases, a substantial body of relevant evidence, particularly the state of the rural data, already exists but is either dispersed across agencies and institutions or simply not packaged in the form recommended here. Governments also do not need to work alone. This process presents an opportunity to engage a diverse range of rural stakeholders in strategic collaborations.
Moreover, many governments already maintain relationships with expert institutions – such as universities or research bodies – that can be mobilised to support both the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of rural intelligence gathering. Finally, ensuring that information is synthesised and clearly communicated is essential for those tasked with rural proofing. These institutions are not only well placed to identify evidence gaps and collate dispersed data, but also to translate findings into accessible, policy-relevant formats.
Climate change policies, such as carbon taxes, renewable energy projects, or land use regulations can disproportionately affect rural communities. The below example explores how the different pillars that comprise rural proofing intelligence could potentially support a carbon tax policy:
State of rural data would help establish a clear understanding of the rural context and baseline conditions in rural areas, including:
High dependence on fossil fuels: Rural residents rely more on personal vehicles and agricultural machinery than urban populations.
Limited access to alternative energy sources: Many rural homes use oil, wood, or LPG heating instead of electricity or gas grids.
Longer travel distances and fewer public transport options: Rural workers and businesses have limited alternatives to petrol and diesel vehicles.
Lower average incomes than urban areas: A carbon tax could have a higher financial burden on rural households.
Potential impact data would help assess risks early by exploring how a carbon tax might affect rural communities, potential areas include:
Increased fuel costs: Higher petrol and diesel prices would disproportionately impact rural households, farmers, and transport-dependent businesses.
Reduced rural economic competitiveness: Higher costs for agriculture and manufacturing could put rural businesses at a disadvantage compared to urban industries.
Energy poverty risk: Low-income rural households reliant on oil or wood heating may struggle with higher costs.
Social and political backlash: Policies perceived as unfair to rural communities could trigger protests and erode public trust.
Value added data would provide opportunities to leverage rural assets to create shared benefits and additional value for climate adaptation and economic development rather than simply minimising harm to rural areas. Some areas that could be explored include:
Incentivising rural renewable energy development: Providing subsidies for rural solar, wind, and biofuel projects can create local jobs and reduce dependency on fossil fuels.
Supporting rural transport innovations: Expanding electric vehicle charging networks and rural bus services can offer alternative mobility options.
Creating tax rebates or exemptions for rural industries: Farmers and rural businesses could receive targeted tax relief or transition support.
Encouraging localised climate action: Rural communities could be partners in conservation efforts, reforestation projects, and carbon sequestration initiatives.
Source: Authors’ elaboration
4.5.3. Rural proofing intelligence and the OECD Principles on Rural Policy
More broadly, rural proofing intelligence can play a crucial role in supporting the implementation of the OECD Principles of Rural Policy. Robust rural data can provide evidence-based insights that improve policy design and help identify barriers to economic development, infrastructure gaps, and demographic trends. This ensures that investments align with local needs, reinforcing Principles 1, 2, and 7. Impact assessment data can support Principles 3, 4, and 9 by preventing rural-blind policymaking and helping prioritise initiatives with the greatest potential to strengthen rural economies and communities. Meanwhile, Principles 5, 6, 8, and 10 can be enhanced through value-added data, which allows policies to be crafted in a way that leverages rural strengths, creates win-win opportunities, and aligns local strategies with broader national policy goals.
Source: Author’s elaboration
Participatory governance and inclusive decision-making work indicate that policies aimed at supporting rural areas alone may not be sufficient to restore trust. As Jacobs and Shea emphasise, many rural constituents have "a long memory" regarding how previous governments have treated them or failed to meet their needs, which reinforces their scepticism towards new initiatives. Cramer identifies three key aspects of rural resentment:
A belief that rural areas are ignored by decision-makers.
A perception that rural communities do not receive their fair share of resources.
A conviction that rural values and ways of life are misunderstood and disrespected by urban policy makers (Cramer, 2016[7]).
Participatory governance commonly defined where citizens and stakeholders actively contribute to shaping policies, is a cornerstone of open government, as recognised in the 2017 OECD Recommendation on Open Government (OECD, 2022[71]). Participatory governance must be more than a rhetorical commitment: it must become an institutionalised practice. Governments must move beyond one-time consultations and establish real feedback loops to ensure that rural concerns are not only acknowledged but meaningfully addressed in policy design and implementation. However, true engagement requires more than simply bringing diverse voices to the table: it demands that rural stakeholders be given equal footing. The study Moving Towards Social Inclusion: Engaging Rural Voices in Priority Setting for Health (Tugendhaft et al., 2023[72]) found that rural communities, when properly engaged, can actively contribute to discussions on resource allocation and policy trade-offs and contribute valuable insights – when given the opportunity.
4.6.1. Engagement and meaningful consultation
Governments must recognise that rural discontent is not merely an economic issue; it also highlights a governance problem. A multitude of initiatives aimed at addressing climate change and facilitating a green transition is being implemented across OECD countries. However, a recurring oversight is creating a role for rural communities in shaping these strategies. This exclusion reflects a long-standing perception of rural areas as peripheral to national interests, rather than recognising them as equal partners in tackling societal challenges. If rural voices continue to be sidelined from policymaking, especially on critical economic, social, and environmental issues, the repercussions could extend beyond social unrest to broader economic and governance failures.
The erosion of trust in institutions has made a balanced and participatory approach to governance essential, including meaningful consultation with affected communities. The recent increase in social unrest should alert policy makers to the fact that policies impacting rural constituencies cannot be effectively designed or implemented without their support. Rural stakeholders should be engaged not only from a pragmatic perspective (e.g. where gaps need to be filled), but also from an ethical standpoint, acknowledging their right to influence the policies that affect their lives. Therefore, governments should actively pursue new and improved methods for informing, consulting, and engaging rural citizens in the policymaking process. This means:
Amplifying rural voices and ensuring their concerns are considered and the potential impact of the policies on rural communities considered.
Bringing rural actors into policy discussions early to craft more effective, context-sensitive solutions.
Prioritising transparency and accessibility to create buy-in for necessary but difficult policy changes.
Ensuring sustained engagement beyond one-time consultations to establish lasting trust.
When do you consult rural constituents
Another factor that can hinder effective consultation is the need for rapid decision-making. While speed is often prioritised in policymaking, this can lead to suboptimal outcomes if it is not balanced with collaboration between departments and engagement with rural communities (Ali et al., 2024[73]). It is essential to weigh the need for speed against the potential impact of a policy or initiative. For instance, if a policy could face significant opposition, proceeding with minimal engagement could be costly in the long run. Likewise, superficial check-the-box consultation processes that provide little opportunity for feedback and necessary adjustments.
Source: Author’s elaboration
Citizen participation can be helpful to address problems in most policy areas, from climate change, public health, housing, infrastructure, transportation, education, to combating inequality and social exclusion, among others. Citizens should only be involved in a decision-making process if:
There is a problem that citizens can help solve.
Citizens or a particular group will be impacted by the policy action (e.g. Indigenous communities, farmers, etc.).
There is room in the decision-making process for citizens to have influence over certain decisions. In other words, it is possible to act on the advice received from people. is a genuine commitment by senior leadership to take into account citizens’ inputs.
There are sufficient financial, technical, and human resources available to implement a meaningful participatory process.
There is enough time to organise a participatory process, and the timeframe fits the decision-making cycle. Meaning that the decision has not been taken before the process starts.
Source: Author’s elaboration based on (OECD, 2022[71])
Meaningful consultation
Studies show that rural residents often lack awareness about climate change and therefore do not actively participate in, or support, climate-related policies (Slee, 2021[75]). Additionally, rural populations tend to define their identity strongly around their geographical location, which also influences their stance on environmental policies (Bonnie, Diamond and Rowe, 2020[76]). If rural stakeholders perceive policies as threats to their way of life, rather than collaborative solutions, their resistance increases. Meaningful engagement must acknowledge this identity-driven perspective and integrate rural knowledge into climate discussions to foster more inclusive, locally adapted solutions.
One of the leading causes of consultation fatigue is the perception that public contributions are ignored or have little influence on outcomes. When citizens see no evidence that their recommendations or comments are considered, trust erodes and future engagement declines. Governments should institutionalise mechanisms to summarise consultation outcomes and clearly explain how public input has shaped (or not) final policies or strategies. A lack of feedback can deter participation and diminish the legitimacy of consultation processes. For example, a study on community consultation perceptions found that ineffective feedback mechanisms not only undermine the purpose of engagement, but also discourage future involvement (Walsh, van der Plank and Behrens, 2017[77]).
To be effective, engagement with rural communities must go beyond symbolic consultations and adhere to the following principles:
Create a space for exchange: Effective consultations should allow for open dialogue where participants can disagree, propose changes, and contribute to solutions.
Ensure a two-way dialogue: Policymakers must practise active listening, consider multiple perspectives, and provide space for structured discussions, alternating between small group and plenary formats, facilitated by skilled moderators.
Ensure diverse stakeholder representation: Participants should be a microcosm of the general public, selected through stratified random sampling based on demographic and attitudinal criteria to reflect the broader community.
Provide access to prior information: Rural constituents should have access to a wide range of accurate, relevant, and accessible evidence and expertise, including experts and advocates they select.
Establish transparent feedback mechanisms that demonstrate how public input influences decision-making. This approach not only validates participants' contributions but also encourages ongoing engagement in future consultations.
Source: Author’s elaboration
Different ways to engage rural citizens
Governments can improve service delivery and policy effectiveness by engaging rural citizens in decision-making processes. Ensuring their voices are heard allows them to influence agendas while also playing an active role in achieving development goals. Successful engagement strategies must be inclusive, community-cantered, and adaptable to rural needs. Countries worldwide have implemented various approaches to enhance rural participation in integrated governance and development. Finland’s Rural Policy Council acts as a cross-sector policy platform ensuring that different sectors collaborate in designing co‑ordinated policies with rural input. In Australia, the Regional Development Australia (RDA) initiative trains rural leaders to act as connectors between their communities and government bodies, facilitating alignment across sectors such as education, transport, and energy.
Raising awareness about integrated development policies is also essential. Norway’s government runs campaigns to educate rural citizens on how green energy projects, sustainable agriculture, and infrastructure development intersect, ensuring greater participation in policy planning. While engaging rural citizens in participatory budgeting allows them to influence how public funds are allocated across sectors. Portugal’s rural municipalities employ participatory budgeting to direct funds toward community-driven projects integrating transport, tourism, and environmental initiatives. Governments can also collaborate with businesses and NGOs to co-design rural development projects that align with community needs. In the United States, the Rural Development Innovation Center facilitates public-private partnerships (PPPs) to improve broadband connectivity, healthcare access, and economic development in rural areas.
In a study by the Duke Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment and Sustainability (NIEPS) the research found that there are opportunities to engage rural voters on climate change and environmental policies. The results also highlight the complexity of the rural/urban divide on environmental issues. It emphasised that rural voters seemed to care about the environment but have concerns about policy effectiveness, government intervention, and climate change regulations. See a summary of the key points below:
Similar environmental concerns across regions: While a rural/urban divide exists regarding environmental policy, rural and urban/suburban Americans value environmental protection similarly. However, rural voters prioritize clean water and farmland conservation more, while urban/suburban voters focus more on climate change.
Core values shape rural perspectives: Rural Americans' views on environmental conservation are influenced by strong community ties, environmental stewardship, and a deep connection to nature.
Scepticism toward government policies: Rural voters, even those from typically pro-regulation groups (Democrats, younger, highly educated), are more sceptical of government intervention, particularly federal policies.
Pro-environment, yet critical of policies: Rural voters often support environmental conservation but are concerned about the impact and effectiveness of specific environmental policies, such as the Clean Water Act.
Knowledgeable on environmental issues: Rural voters are not uninformed about environmental issues or policies; they understand trade-offs and have nuanced views.
Preference for local and state oversight: Rural voters favour environmental policies managed by state and local governments, where they can have direct involvement in decision-making.
Climate change is highly polarised: Rural voters are less supportive of government action on climate change, and even pro-environment rural demographics are more muted in their support compared to their urban/suburban counterparts.
Climate change scepticism linked to regulatory concerns: Many rural voters hesitate to accept climate change science due to concerns that climate policies may negatively impact rural communities.
Low trust in environmental advocacy groups: Rural voters trust scientists and local farmers/ranchers the most for environmental information but are sceptical of environmental advocacy groups, though they differentiate conservation groups as more collaborative.
Effective messaging for rural voters: Rural voters respond well to messages focused on moral responsibility, protecting future generations, and clean water. They also resonate with messaging that emphasizes holding corporations accountable for environmental protection.
Source: (Bonnie, Diamond and Rowe, 2020[76]).
4.6.2. Build Capacity by strengthening local government fiscal capacity
Increased fiscal flexibility to drive local development
Some local government in rural communities are often caught in a financial paradox. They require investment to grow yet lack the fiscal tools to finance that growth themselves. Indeed, many governments rely on national transfers that shape strategies not around long-term investment but around eligibility criteria for national transfers. Thus funding streams that can be unpredictable, restrictive, and politically driven. The result is a system where some localities prioritise eligibility for central government aid over long-term investment in their own economic future. The problem is not merely a lack of funding. It is the structure of financing itself. When local governments have little control over their own revenue, they struggle to make independent, strategic investments. Shifting towards a more flexible and diversified financial model – one that allows rural areas to mobilise their own resources – is not only an economic necessity but a matter of governance. A locality that can finance itself can shape its own future (Clark and Mountford, 2007[52]).
Local fiscal and financial frameworks vary greatly from country to country, with some countries giving large autonomy to local governments, in terms of revenue-raising capacity, expenditure decisions or borrowing rules. Some countries have recognised the importance of empowering local governments with greater financial autonomy. In Denmark nearly two-thirds of public expenditure takes place at the municipal level, with local income taxes generating up to 80% of revenues. This structure ensures that local leaders have both the responsibility and the means to foster long-term economic growth. Crucially, Denmark’s Kommune Kredit, a publicly owned, non-profit financial institution, allows local governments to access capital markets at competitive rates, reducing reliance on national transfers.
Finland follows a similar path. Municipalities there raise approximately 50% of their revenue through their own taxes and benefit from MuniFin, a financing institution that issues bonds on international markets to fund local development. In this system, fiscal autonomy translates directly into investment capacity. Contrast this with Ireland, where local governments control just 22% of public investment and raise a mere 2% of total tax revenue. Heavily dependent on national transfers, Irish municipalities have limited ability to set independent fiscal policies. The central government’s control over funding decisions constrains local leaders’ ability to shape economic strategies tailored to their communities (Vammalle and Bambalaite, 2021[78]).
Source: MUNIFI Database
How local governments are financed influences their economic strategies
Local governments rely on five main sources of revenue: tax income, grants, user fees, property-related income, and other streams such as social contributions and revenue from public enterprises. However, their control over these funds is often constrained. Many local governments operate less as decision-makers and more as administrators of centrally dictated spending programmes. Budget ceilings, earmarked grants, and regulatory restrictions limit their ability to shape investment priorities. The way subnational governments are funded directly influences their approach to economic development. OECD research suggests that in countries with high tax levels, public investment plays a central role in driving economic growth. In contrast, countries with lower tax levels tend to encourage private-sector engagement as the primary growth engine. The more a local government relies on national transfers, the more likely it is to prioritise demonstrating public need over fostering private investment. (Vammalle and Bambalaite, 2021[78]).
Most OECD countries fall somewhere in between these models, but their position on this spectrum has profound consequences. At one extreme, local government focus on maximising eligibility for state funding. At the other, they act more like businesses. Meaning competing for investment, fostering entrepreneurship, and improving infrastructure to attract firms and skilled workers. A local government’s financial flexibility determines whether it can proactively invest in its future or remain confined to administering central budgets. Those with greater tax autonomy have clear incentives to develop their local economies, while those dependent on transfers often adopt a passive stance, positioning their regions as beneficiaries of government aid rather than engines of economic opportunity. The contrast is stark: some regions vie for subsidies, while others strive to become magnets for investment. In the EU funding for rural development is also supported by LEADER programme that enables bottom-up action by putting resources directly in the hands or rural constituents so they can co-design their own development (see Box 4.10).
The European Commission’s LEADER programme has become a cornerstone of EU rural development policy. Introduced in 1991, the initiative—its name an acronym of the French Liaison Entre Actions de Développement de l'Économie Rurale (Links between Actions for the Development of the Rural economy)—marked a departure from conventional, top-down policymaking. By shifting control over policy decisions to the local communities themselves, LEADER seeks to ensure that development initiatives are tailored to local needs. It also fosters cross-sector collaboration, bringing together individuals, local authorities, social and economic partners, businesses, and civil society through Local Action Groups (LAGs). Networking, cooperation between local territories and local innovation are also part and parcel of the LEADER method.
Implemented under the national and regional Rural Development Programmes of each EU Member State, LEADER is co-financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). Its resources support place-based development strategies, reinforcing the principle of bottom-up governance by granting local communities a direct role in decision-making, strategy formulation, and resource allocation. Today, some 2 600 LAGs operate across the EU, covering 65% of the rural population.
The success of LEADER has prompted its adoption beyond rural policy. The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF), and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) have incorporated its principles into a broader framework of Community-Led Local Development (CLLD). LEADER and CLLD groups now manage tens of thousands of projects across rural Europe, generating economic, cultural, social, and environmental benefits. What began as an experiment in participatory governance has become a defining feature of EU rural development.
Source: European Commission
Actions to strengthen local government fiscal capacity
Empowering rural local governments with greater financial autonomy is not simply an economic matter – it is a question of governance. Without the ability to raise and control their own revenues, local leaders remain constrained by national priorities rather than local needs. Reforms that allow municipalities to expand their revenue sources, borrow responsibly, and participate in capital markets would enable them to take control of their own development. Four key steps could help shift the balance:
Expanding fiscal autonomy by allowing local governments to adjust tax rates, impose user fees, and retain a greater share of property and business taxation.
Diversifying financing tools, including municipal bonds, loan facilities, and new revenue instruments such as land value capture.
Providing regulatory flexibility to ensure that local governments can borrow responsibly, enter into partnerships, and leverage financial markets effectively.
Restructuring intergovernmental transfers to reward investment-led development rather than reinforcing dependency on central funding.
4.6.3. Use foresight tools to enable experimentation and local co-designed policy actions
In an era of rapid transformation, rural communities must be equipped not only to respond to external pressures, but to actively shape their own futures. Participatory governance offers a powerful framework for placing local voices at the heart of policy decisions. Yet, traditional policymaking often lacks the anticipatory tools needed to prepare for complex, long-term challenges. Foresight methodologies such as scenario planning, horizon scanning, and participatory futures thinking, can help fill this gap. When embedded within local governance structures, these tools empower rural stakeholders to co-design policies that reflect their aspirations and prepare for uncertainty. By incorporating foresight into decision-making, communities can better navigate disruption, align strategies across sectors, and enhance resilience. This section explores how foresight tools can strengthen participatory governance, allowing rural communities to shape the policies that will determine their long-term development.
Definition of futures thinking and foresight
Foresight is the discipline of exploring and anticipating future possible developments to shape the preferable future (European Commision, 2023[79]). It involves creating and using information about the future in a way that combines “facts”, derived from empirical data with assumptions about the future based on a blend of subjective perceptions, expectations, hopes and fears, imaginative and creative thinking (Wilkinson, 2015[80]). The process employs a structured framework that draws on multiple disciplines to elicit assumptions about the future, thereby aiding decision-making in the present (Berkhout, 2002[81]). It is future-oriented, with a significant emphasis on gathering information about future realities. At its core, foresight involves three interconnected principles. “Thinking the Future”, “Debating the Future” and “Shaping the Future” (Figure 4.17). Rather than focusing on a single projected future, foresight explores a wide range of possible, plausible, and preferable futures.
The European Commission has bolstered strategic foresight capacity both internally and across Member States, aligning it with ongoing Resilience and Recovery Plans. Key initiatives include foresight networks, annual foresight reports, and policy tools to identify opportunities and vulnerabilities (OECD, 2024[83]). Strategic foresight goes a step further. It seeks to embed future insights into policymaking, strategic planning, and preparedness (European Commision, 2023[79]). The OECD defines strategic foresight as the “structured and explicit exploration of multiple futures in order to inform decision-making.” It is considered an approach to assist decision making in the face of uncertainty. By engaging in strategic foresight, governments can make prudent decisions in uncertain situations and explore diverse, plausible future scenarios, while also considering the potential opportunities and challenges that may arise. Considering and preparing for a broad range of possible future developments and their implications as a fundamental aspect of responsible and effective policymaking (OECD, 2020[84]).
Foresight work is a participatory process
Foresight is inherently collaborative. A participatory approach is essential to both the design and implementation of foresight initiatives. Engaging a diverse range of stakeholders—including local governments, community representatives, businesses, and researchers – in data collection and scenario-building strengthens the credibility, relevance, and practicality of foresight outcomes. It also recognises people as active agents in shaping the systems in which they live (Gore, 2014[85]). The result is an approach to policymaking that prioritises local knowledge, assets and potential for growth.
Source: Author’s elaboration
This participatory model places local knowledge, assets, and aspirations at the centre of policymaking, fostering approaches tailored to the unique characteristics of each place. Tools such as foresight workshops create platforms for inclusive engagement, enabling stakeholders across levels and sectors to co-create scenarios and exchange knowledge. These exercises facilitate mutual understanding, bridge disciplinary divides, and strengthen policy coherence. For example, a foresight exercise on demographic pressures might examine future scenarios from the perspectives of both a young person considering relocating to a rural area and an ageing resident contemplating retirement Figure 4.18. This helps build shared narratives around challenges and risks that are essential for resilient policy design. In complex contexts such as climate change, where baselines are shifting and outcomes are uncertain, the value of exploring a spectrum of futures becomes especially critical (Bengston et al., 2022[86])
Foresight tools: scenario planning, horizon scanning, and trend analysis.
Scenario planning creates plausible portrayals of different futures, grounded in assumptions, historical trends, and local context. It does not aim to predict outcomes but to prepare for a range of possibilities. Effective scenario development begins with identifying regional drivers of change and key uncertainties shaping rural development. These drivers may be highly localised. A change in municipal leadership, for example, may lead to new policy directions or shifts in administrative structures, as seen in Limerick, Ireland. Analysing the interaction between trends and drivers across different parts of a region creates a clearer view of possible trajectories – identifying both opportunities and challenges ahead.
Change drivers can be different across regions, certain parts of a region or a rural areas and local communities. For example, a change in local government can lead to new directions, or an incoming government may demand greater administrative efficiencies or more control of resources/budget flexibilities e.g. Ireland, Limerick. Closely examining the interplay between trends and change drivers in different parts of the region would provide a more complete picture of possible futures in the region as a whole. This analysis provides the foundation for developing narratives or storylines, making a region’s trajectory clearer and identifying challenges and opportunities on the horizon. Foresight intelligence noted in Figure 4.19 and discussed below, uses this information to explore how different rural futures might unfold to help policymakers and stakeholders develop strategies for long-term resilience and adaptation.
Intelligence gathering specific to rural regions
Rural foresight activities require robust intelligence that integrates spatial elements at all stages of data collection. The environment in which subnational governments operate is evolving rapidly, unpredictably, and fundamentally. Since future changes will affect different regions in distinct ways, as a result spatial characteristics are vital in rural foresight work. This requires data that accurately reflects the state of rural areas from multiple perspectives. This could be referred to foresight intelligence, which is comprised of three pillars as shown in Figure 4.19: The state of the region by typology (e.g. socioeconomic, demographic, and environmental conditions) impact data (including megatrends and localised trends); and change drivers (or forces) that shape future developments.
Source: Author’s elaboration
State of the region data: This is robust data that clearly delineates the region and rural story: Regions are highly diverse, encompassing a mix of landscapes, populations, and economic conditions – from flourishing employment hubs to areas experiencing population decline. Foresight intelligence must reflect these specific variations to be useful. Rural-urban interconnectivity plays a crucial role. Rural areas are linked to cities through demographic shifts, labour markets, public services, and environmental interactions. These connections often cross traditional administrative boundaries and go beyond city-cantered labour markets, forming bi-directional relationships (OECD, 2018[87]). The local government in the Outer Hebrides in Scotland conducted a state of the region analysis and found that: the youth population is shrinking due to lack of job opportunities. The dominant industries (fishing, tourism, and agriculture) are struggling due to climate change and declining market demand. The local workforce lacks training in renewable energy or sustainable industries (Thomson et al., 2024[88]).
Trends impact data: Data on the Impact of trends (mega and local) in the rural context. Identifying emerging disruptions and opportunities is crucial for rural areas local governance and policy planning and is probably not analysed as much as it should be on a granular scale. How do global megatrends and local trends impact rural regions differently? How do rural trends compare to national, regional or global trends? Megatrends, weak signals (lower impact but potentially transformative events), and change drivers form the foundation of foresight intelligence (Stucki, 2023[89]). In July 2022, the OECD organised a strategic foresight workshop to assess the effects of megatrends on subregional governments and their implications for multilevel governance policies. The exercise highlighted two primary ways in which rural areas may transform: exogenous factors (e.g. urban spillover effects or global economic and environmental shifts) and endogenous factors (e.g. local community-driven actions and policy initiatives). Leaders in the Alentejo region in Portugal, analysed global trends and found that renewable energy investments were increasing, with companies seeking land for solar farms. European Union climate policies were incentivising green projects and funding skills programmes. Sustainable agriculture practices were growing in demand, and eco-tourism was expanding (OECD, 2023[90]).
Change drivers impact data: Data that puts the impact of change drivers in the rural context. Change drivers are the underlying forces that propel trends forward (Gordon, 2010[91]). These forces determine the trajectory of trends, making them significant disruptors that may vary in impact across different rural contexts. For example, the rise of disinformation or declining trust in government may manifest differently in rural and urban settings within the same region. A single driver can influence multiple trends Gordon, 2010[38]. For example, the ageing population trend is driven by medical advancements, improved healthcare access, and healthier lifestyles. Change drivers are often categorised as social, technological, environmental, economic, and political. Identifying the key drivers that influence regions, and the main uncertainties are crucial before undertaking a scenario development process. Local leaders in Lausitz, Germany found that the energy transition policies were driving demand for green jobs. Companies were willing to invest if a trained workforce was available and young people showed interest in sustainability careers, but there were no structured training programmes (Baron and Bartl, 2024[92]).
Rural proofing intelligence and foresight intelligence share common data needs but serve distinct purposes in policymaking. Both require robust demographic, socioeconomic, environmental, and technological data, and both assess the impact of trends and external forces on rural areas. However, their key distinction lies in their temporal focus and application.
Spatial Characteristics: Both foresight and rural proofing rely on demographic, socioeconomic, and environmental data, but foresight intelligence will place greater emphasis on long-term spatial shifts rather than current policy effects.
Trends and Change Drivers: Both frameworks examine how trends shape rural areas, but foresight will focus on predictive insights and scenario planning, while rural proofing assesses policy effectiveness and immediate adjustments.
Rural-urban Linkages: Both approaches consider rural-urban dynamics, but foresight will look at future interactions and dependencies, whereas proofing focuses on existing conditions
While both approaches utilise spatial and cross-sectoral intelligence, foresight intelligence places a stronger emphasis on strategic visioning and transformation, whereas rural proofing intelligence is focused on mitigating immediate policy risks. Together, these intelligence frameworks can complement one another—proofing ensures policies work for rural areas today, while foresight helps shape the policies needed for the rural communities of tomorrow.
Source: Author’s elaboration
Public expectations and the way information is consumed have transformed how information is delivered. Digital technology has empowered the public to choose their own communication platforms and to become producers and co-creators of content (Yudarwati and Gregory, 2022[93]). While this has expanded communication channels, it has also made information more susceptible to misinterpretation and distortion. Government messages and communications will be influenced by new digital trends and initiatives. This is particularly relevant in the rural context, specifically regarding how the government communicates policies and initiatives with potentially negative impacts to rural communities.
4.7.1. The Importance of Effective Communication in Rural Areas
Improving communication with rural communities is crucial for rebuilding trust in government policies. Governments must better understand the concerns, needs, and realities of rural citizens, especially those who feel left behind, to design more effective and context-specific responses. This is also essential when shaping national policy reforms affecting rural economies. Failure to consider regional differences can lead to one-size-fits-all solutions, which risk alienating rural populations. For example, spatially blind policies, such as the fuel tax increases in France or the nitrogen crisis in the Netherlands, have triggered significant rural discontent. On the other hand, rural citizens expect clear, transparent, and useful communications from their government.
Communicating complex policies and decisions is challenging, particularly within electoral cycles, where political considerations often take precedence. However, weak communication, especially with those most affected, can undermine the success of policy initiatives. The case of the Netherlands serves as an illustrative example. According to Nitrogen wars: the Dutch farmers’ revolt that turned a nation upside-down, the highest administrative court in the Netherlands ruled that the country's nitrogen permit system was failing to prevent emissions from harming nature reserves and, therefore, needed to be addressed immediately. However, it took dairy farmers several months to fully grasp the implications of this ruling” (Tullis, 2023[32]). A few months later, an advisory committee released a report outlining measures to address the issue, including the potential buyout and closure of livestock farms. However, the report failed to clarify whether these buyouts would be voluntary or compulsory, and the farming community assumed the worst. The way governments communicate their vision, mission, and policies can determine their success or failure
The OECD’s first report on public communication (OECD, 2021[94]) though not rural-specific, makes the case for a more strategic and evidence-based approach to communication. It outlines key recommendations, including:
Strengthening the governance of public communication
Adopting data-driven and evidence-based communication strategies
Evaluating the impact of public communication on policy outcomes
Enhancing agility in communication in a rapidly evolving digital landscape
Countering mis- and disinformation through communication-led interventions
Using communication to improve public trust and policy transparency
Public policies are not merely technocratic decisions; they directly shape citizens’ lives, so “they must have a say” (Nic Cheeseman, 2014[95]) Traditionally, public sector communication has been one-directional – governments informing rural communities about policies or strategies. While this approach has its place, it is often limiting when local communities have little opportunity to contribute their own knowledge and perspectives. A more effective model for rural communication involves transitioning from a one-way approach (informing) to a participatory framework based on three pillars:
Informing: The government communicates policies to the public.
Consulting: Rural citizens provide feedback and contribute insights; and partnering
Involving and partnering. Communities actively participate in decision-making (see Figure 4.20).
This participatory approach increases government accountability, enhances rural empowerment, and fosters greater public engagement in decision-making processes.
Source: Adapted from (Yudarwati and Gregory, 2022, p. 48[93])
Tailoring Communication for Rural Audiences
Effective communication is not just about delivering information – it is about fostering trust, transparency, and participation. Governments must prioritise engagement with rural communities through consultation and communication strategies, ensuring that rural voices are heard and respected. To communicate effectively, messages must be adapted to suit the rural audience. In the United States, rural communities were disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, experiencing higher death rates per capita than urban areas. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) faced significant challenges in building trust and reaching rural populations. In response, the CDC Foundation worked with partners to refine its communication strategy. Key lessons learned include:
Co-creating messages with rural communities to ensure they align with local values and priorities
Using plain language to ensure clarity
Acknowledging community concerns without judgement
Leveraging existing local communication networks rather than imposing top-down strategies
Tailoring messages to cultural and demographic contexts
Selecting the right channels for communication, including social media, local newspapers, radio stations, and community events
Engaging trusted local messengers to improve credibility and uptake of messages
Trust is built through honesty, transparency, and consistency. Governments must avoid technical jargon, misinformation, and ambiguity when conveying policies to rural communities.
Select the proper channel to disseminate the message. This is crucial to ensure that the intended audience receives the message. Dissemination channels include social media, newspapers, community events, and local radio or television. In diverse rural communities, engaging trusted messengers to spread messages also helps increase buy-in. Local leaders, community organisations, and influencers play a vital role in bridging the communication gap between governments and rural communities. Governments should identify and train local ambassadors to deliver messages in ways that resonate with rural audiences. A bottom-up approach, where information is contextualised by trusted community figures, enhances engagement and credibility.
Misinformation is a growing challenge in rural areas, often exacerbated by limited media literacy and the rapid spread of unverified information. Governments and organisations should:
Identify key sources of misinformation in rural communities
Develop proactive strategies to counter false narratives
Train community members and local media representatives to verify information
Implement media literacy programmes to help rural citizens critically assess information sources
By empowering rural residents to identify credible sources, they can become more informed participants in community discussions and policy dialogues.
Finally, implement communication strategies in collaboration with community partners to help ensure messages resonate with diverse rural communities. Partnerships are essential for implementing effective strategies in diverse rural communities. Digital communication is expanding, but traditional methods remain critical in rural settings. Some rural areas have limited internet access and digital literacy. Therefore, communication strategies should integrate both digital and traditional media. Radio, for example, remains one of the most powerful tools for reaching remote and under-resourced areas. It provides real-time information, strengthens community connections, and ensures inclusivity. To ensure accessibility, messages should be communicated in local languages and include visual aids suitable for diverse literacy levels.
Transforming rural policy is not just a necessity; it is an opportunity. Rural regions are no longer passive recipients of national policies but dynamic spaces of innovation, resilience, and growth. However, realising their full potential demands a fundamental shift in governance. Rural areas face distinct challenges and opportunities that require tailored, place-based responses. As rural economies evolve, governments are under increasing pressure to ensure that policies result in tangible improvements in people’s lives. Today’s transformations including shifting patterns of globalisation, biodiversity loss, climate change, democratic decline, digitalisation, and demographic shifts, are reshaping societies and economies. Without forward-looking policies that anticipate disruptions, enhance preparedness, and foster resilience, rural regions risk falling further behind.
To meet these challenges, a greater focus on innovation, industrial policies, and enhanced access to public services is essential. However, these efforts must be embedded within a framework that is evidence-based, participatory, scalable, and fosters partnerships across sectors and regions. Effective policy communication will also be critical to ensuring that rural communities understand, support, and benefit from these strategies. The challenges facing rural communities such as economic disparities, policy fragmentation, and social unrest, are not isolated issues; they are symptoms of broader governance failures. The response must go beyond economic development alone. The future of rural policy is not about sustaining the status quo; it is about transformation. By reframing the rural narrative from considering it not as a problem to be managed, but as an opportunity to be unlocked, governments can build thriving, inclusive, and future-ready rural economies that benefit both rural and urban areas alike.
The five focus areas outlined in this chapter (e.g. policy coherence and integrated cross-government action; considering scale and enabling collaboration; improving rural evidence; empowering rural actors; and strengthening communication with rural communities), are essential for responding to the growing distrust and dissatisfaction among rural populations. Each element contributes to rebuilding trust in public institutions by addressing longstanding perceptions of being undervalued, unheard, and overlooked in national policymaking.
Policy coherence and integrated governance promote a more balanced and co‑ordinated approach to rural development, helping to reduce fragmentation and inconsistencies that often frustrate rural communities. A better consideration of scale and spatial dynamics enables governments to understand rural patterns more clearly and tailor interventions accordingly. Fostering collaboration, whether through rural-urban linkages, public-private partnerships, or community initiatives, broadens the range of options for job creation, service delivery, and economic opportunity in rural regions.
The collection and use of rural-specific evidence ensures that decisions are grounded in the lived realities of rural populations. Over time, this enhances the legitimacy of public action and reassures communities that policies are responsive to their needs. Equally important is empowering rural voices by creating more flexible mechanisms for local governments to access resources and actively participate in shaping policy. When rural actors are consulted meaningfully, especially early in the policymaking process, this not only strengthens buy-in but also fosters a deeper sense of inclusion and respect. Taken together, these actions can help close the trust gap, respond to rural discontent, and support the design of more effective, inclusive, and resilient rural policies.
References
[73] Ali, A. et al. (2024), “Balancing speed and coordination: Senior leaders’ perspectives on civil service transformation during and after the pandemic”, International Public Management Journal, pp. 1-18, https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2024.2406430.
[96] Arango, J. (2017), La tenencia de tierras colectivas en Colombia: Datos y tendencias, https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/006704.
[16] Arrighi, J. et al. (2022), “The scale of trust: local, regional, national and European politics in perspective”, GROUPE D’ÉTUDES GÉOPOLITIQUES, https://geopolitique.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/confiance-en.pdf.
[34] Ashwood, L. and K. MacTavish (2016), “Tyranny of the majority and rural environmental injustice”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 47, pp. 271-277, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.06.017.
[24] Aslam, A. (2023), Supporting Resilience in Rural Areas through cross-sector Partnerships, Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASHTO), https://www.astho.org/topic/report/supporting-resilience-in-rural-areas-through-cross-sector-partnerships/ (accessed on January 31 2025).
[35] Atterton, J. (2022), “Analytical overview of rural proofing approaches and lessons learned”, ENRD Thematic Group Rural Proofing - Background document, https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/background_paper-rural_proofing-jane_atterton_220127.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2022).
[9] Ausloos, M. and G. Trompiz (2024), “French farmers back on the streets as Mercosur talks fuel discontent”, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/french-farmers-back-streets-mercosur-talks-fuel-discontent-2024-11-17/ (accessed on 31 January 2025).
[92] Baron, D. and W. Bartl (2024), “The Coal Phase-Out in Germany and Its Regional Impact on Economic Worries”, Social Sciences, Vol. 13/7, p. 339, https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13070339.
[26] Belterman, A. and E. Meulen (2024), Policy brief on well-being in rural areas in the Netherlands presented in the OECD Rural Principles Series Workshop 1: The Path to Economic Resilience in Rural Areas by the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Food Security, and Nature., https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/4-aafke-belterman-eva-meulen-oecd-path-to-economic-dvlpmt-pptx/270314756 (accessed on 28 January 2025).
[86] Bengston, M. et al. (2022), “Strategic foresight in forestry: How Canada and the United States use a neglected tool to build a green, healthy and resilient future”, XV WORLD FORESTRY CONGRESS, 2–6 MAY 2022, COEX, SEOUL, REPUBLIC OF KOREA, http://tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10967494.2024.2406430? (accessed on 31 January 2025).
[81] Berkhout, F. (2002), “Foresight futures scenarios: developing and applying a participative strategic planning tool”, Greener Management International, pp. 37-53, https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Foresight-futures-scenarios%3A-developing-and-a-tool-Berkhout-Hertin/fa559d408543bf920cb9943bfbdc0a770f93fb43.
[53] Bjärstig, T. and C. Sandström (2017), “Public-private partnerships in a Swedish rural context - A policy tool for the authorities to achieve sustainable rural development?”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 49, pp. 58-68, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.11.009.
[8] Blenkinsop, P., D. Latona and A. Wlodarczak-semczuk (2024), “Farmers protest across Europe, press ministers to act”, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/protesting-farmers-jam-brussels-with-tractors-ministers-meet-2024-02-26/ (accessed on 31 January 2025).
[22] BMEL (2024), Kraft des Landes – Vierter Bericht der Bundesregierung zur Entwicklung der ländlichen Räume (Kurzfassung), https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Broschueren/4-reg-bericht-le.html.
[23] BMWK (2024), Für starke und lebenswerte Regionen in Deutschland, https://www.bmwk.de/Redaktion/DE/Pressemitteilungen/2024/07/20240703-gleichwertigkeitsbericht.html.
[76] Bonnie, R., E. Diamond and E. Rowe (2020), “Understanding Rural Attitudes Toward the Environment and Conservation in America”, Duke Nichols Institute, https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/publications/understanding-rural-attitudes-toward-environment-conservation-america.pdf (accessed on 6 February 2025).
[58] Breul, M. and M. Atienza (2022), “Extractive industries and regional diversification: A multidimensional framework for diversification in mining regions”, The Extractive Industries and Society, Vol. 11, p. 101125, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2022.101125.
[42] Bryce, B. (2024), “Rural Proofing: Lessons from OECD countries and potential application to health”, OECD Regional Development Papers, No. 73, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4011899a-en.
[14] Bryce, B. and J. Garcilazo (2024), “Rural discontent: Social unease and quality of life in the rural countryside”, OECD Regional Development Papers, No. 99, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a7164b54-en.
[4] Cahill, E. (2024), “A reminder to reporters: If you’ve seen one rural place … you’ve seen one rural place”, Aspen Instutite, https://www.aspencsg.org/a-reminder-to-reporters-if-youve-seen-one-rural-place-youve-seen-one-rural-place/ (accessed on 32 January 2025).
[69] Canada Rural Revitalization Foundation (2024), State of Rural Canada 2024, https://sorc.crrf.ca/ (accessed on 2025).
[52] Clark, G. and D. Mountford (eds.) (2007), Investment Strategies and Financial Tools for Local Development, Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264039865-en.
[70] Commission for Rural Communities (2010), “State of the Countryside 2010”, Commission for Rural Communities: Tackling Rural Disadvantage, https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20110118133542/http:/ruralcommunities.gov.uk/2010/07/06/state-of-the-countryside-2010/ (accessed on 20 March 2025).
[7] Cramer, K. (2016), The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker, Chicago: University of Chicago.
[10] Crulli, M. (2024), “Thin or thick? Populist and radical right politics across European cities, suburbs, and countryside”, Comparative European Politics, Vol. 22/6, pp. 792-838, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41295-024-00382-8.
[43] DAERA, D. (2015), Thinking Rural: The essential guide to rural proofing, https://www.daera-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/dard/guide-to-rural-proofing.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2023).
[60] Dodge, R. et al. (2012), “The challenge of defining wellbeing”, International Journal of Wellbeing, Vol. 2/3, pp. 222-235, https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v2i3.4.
[56] Eccles, R. and J. Stroehle (2018), Exploring Social Origins in the Construction of ESG Measures, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3212685.
[79] European Commision (2023), “Strategic Foresight”, https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/strategic-planning/strategic-foresight_en.
[82] European Foresight Platform (2012), Final Report Summary - EFP (European foresight platform - supporting forward looking decision making), https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/244895/reporting.
[17] Fitzgerald, J. and J. Wolak (2014), “The roots of trust in local government in western Europe”, International Political Science Review, Vol. 37/1, https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512114545119.
[15] Foster, C. and J. Frieden (2017), “Crisis of trust: Socio-economic determinants of Europeans’ confidence in government”, European Union Politics, Vol. 18/4, https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116517723499.
[91] Gordon, A. (2010), “A DEFT Approach to Trend-based Foresight”, Foresight, https://pure.au.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/130953357/Gordon_Foresight_DEFT_Trends.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2024).
[85] Gore, S. (2014), Futures thinking: a guide to using futures thinking to drive corporate resilence and transformational innovation, The World Business Council for Sustainable, https://docs.wbcsd.org/2017/01/Future_Thinking/1_Futures_Thinking.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2024).
[66] Head, B. (2015), “Policy Analysis: Evidence Based Policy-Making”, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-097086-8.75030-6.
[28] HLPF (2022), “Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals – 2022”, Latvia, https://hlpf.un.org/sites/default/files/vnrs/2022/VNR%202022%20Latvia%20Report%201.pdf (accessed on 22 March 2025).
[68] House of Commons (2013), “Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Rural Communities”, Sixth Report of Session 2013–14, Sixth Report of Session 2013–14. Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmenvfru/602/602.pdf (accessed on February May 2025).
[33] Institute for Government (2020), How to improve Collaboration across Government, https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/improve_collaboration_across_government.pdf? (accessed on 31 January 2025).
[6] Jacobs, N. and D. Shea (2024), The Rural Voter: The Politics of Place and the Disuniting of America, Cambridge University Press,.
[37] Jones, R., B. Goodwin‐Hawkins and M. Woods (2020), “From Territorial Cohesion to Regional Spatial Justice: The Well‐Being of Future Generations Act in Wales”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 44/5, pp. 894-912, https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12909.
[49] JRC (2020), “Mapping Mobility Functional Areas (MFA) using Mobile Positioning Data to Inform COVID-19 Policies”, European Commission: JRC Publications Repository, https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC121299 (accessed on 2 May 2025).
[63] Kafkova, M., L. Vidovicova and P. Wija (2018), “Older Adults and Civic Engagement in Rural Areas of the Czech Republic”, European Countryside, pp. 247-262, https://doi.org/10.2478/euco-2018-0015.
[29] Kānoa (2024), Regional Economic Development & Investment Unit - Evaluation summaries and impact data for the Provincial Growth Fund, https://www.growregions.govt.nz/.
[18] Maeda, K. and A. Ziegfeld (2015), “Socioeconomic status and corrption perceptions around the world”, Research and Politics, https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015580838.
[27] MAFF (2023), Policy measures for rural revitalisation in Japan, Government of Japan, https://www.maff.go.jp/e/policies/index.html.
[19] McKay, L., W. Jennings and G. Stoker (2023), “What is the geography of trust? The urban-rural trust gap in global perspective”, Political Geography, Vol. 102, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2023.102863.
[95] Nic Cheeseman, J. (2014), Politics Meets Policies: The Emergence of Programmatic Political Parties, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, https://gsdrc.org/document-library/politics-meets-policies-the-emergence-of-programmatic-political-parties/.
[41] OECD (2024), Regional Governance and Public Investment in Wales, United Kingdom: Moving Forward Together, OECD Multi-level Governance Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e143e94d-en.
[83] OECD (2024), The Strategic Foresight System of the Government of Flanders, Belgium, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e55125c5-en.
[31] OECD (2023), OECD Regional Outlook 2023: The Longstanding Geography of Inequalities, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/92cd40a0-en.
[90] OECD (2023), Rethinking Regional Attractiveness in the New Global Environment, OECD Regional Development Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a9448db4-en.
[71] OECD (2022), OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f765caf6-en.
[55] OECD (2022), Policy guidance on market practices to strengthen ESG investing and finance a climate transition, OECD Business and Finance Policy Papers, No. 13, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2c5b535c-en.
[39] OECD (2022), Regional Governance in OECD Countries: Trends, Typology and Tools, OECD Multi-level Governance Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4d7c6483-en.
[46] OECD (2022), Urban-Rural Linkages in Poland, OECD Regional Development Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/94b5c782-en.
[94] OECD (2021), OECD Report on Public Communication: The Global Context and the Way Forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/22f8031c-en.
[50] OECD (2020), Delineating Functional Areas in All Territories, OECD Territorial Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/07970966-en.
[51] OECD (2020), Rural Well-being: Geography of Opportunities, OECD Rural Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d25cef80-en.
[84] OECD (2020), “Strategic foresight for the COVID-19 crisis and beyond: Using futures thinking to design better public policies”, OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c3448fa5-en.
[40] OECD (2019), Effective Multi-level Public Investment: OECD Principles in Action, OECD Multi-level Governance Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c3bc625b-en.
[30] OECD (2019), OECD Principles of Rural Policy, https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/rural-service-delivery/oecd-principles-on-rural-policy.html (accessed on 28 January 2025).
[47] OECD (2019), OECD Principles of Rural Policy, https://www.oecd.org/cfe/regionaldevelopment/Principles%20on%20Rural%20Policy%20Brochure%202019_Final.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2022).
[87] OECD (2018), “Rural 3.0: A Framework for Rural Development”, OECD Regional Development Papers, No. 73, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/618f702b-en.
[48] OECD (2013), Rural-Urban Partnerships: An Integrated Approach to Economic Development, OECD Rural Policy Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264204812-en.
[21] OECD (2011), OECD Rural Policy Reviews: England, United Kingdom 2011, OECD Rural Policy Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264094444-en.
[54] OECD (2009), Regions Matter: Economic Recovery, Innovation and Sustainable Growth, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264076525-en.
[2] OECD (2006), The new rural paradigm : policies and governance., OECD.
[20] OECD (2005), Policy Coherence for Development: Promoting Institutional Good Practice, The Development Dimension, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264108554-en.
[74] OECD (2001), Citizens as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264195561-en.
[38] Parnell, W. (2022), Rural Characteristics – a new prism for rural proofing? A Reflection Paper for the ENRD Thematic Group on Rural Proofing.
[3] Pelling, J. (2022), Labour and Justice: Swedish Discontent, FRIEDRICH-EBERT-STIFTUNG, https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/stockholm/18834-20220126.pdf.
[57] PwC (2022), Asset and Wealth Management Revolution Report, https://www.pwc.com/id/en/media-centre/press-release/2022/english/esg-focused-institutional-investment-seen-soaring-84-to-usd-33-9-trillion-in-2026-making-up-21-5-percent-of-assets-under-management-pwc-report.html (accessed on 12 May 2025).
[25] RLI (2023), Every Region Counts: A new approach to regional policy, https://www.rli.nl/en/publications/2023/every-region-counts.
[13] Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2017), “The revenge of the places that don’t matter (and what to do about it).”, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Vol. 11 (1), pp. 189-209, https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/85888/1/Rodriguez-Pose_Revenge%20of%20Places.pdf.
[45] Rouby, A. and K. Ptak-Bufkens (2022), New approaches to rural proofing EU legislation following EU’s rural vision;.
[44] Rural Ontario Municipal Association (2015), The Rural and Northern Lens & A Voice for Rural and Northern Ontario, https://www.roma.on.ca/sites/default/files/DOCUMENTS/Reports/2015/AVoiceforRuralandNorthernOntario201501.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2022).
[67] Scally, C. and E. Burnstein (2020), “Rural Communities Need Better Data”, Urban Institute, https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/rural-communities-need-better-data (accessed on 24 October 2022).
[5] Shea, D. and N. Jacobs (2023), The Rural Voter, Columbia University Press, https://doi.org/10.7312/jaco21158.
[36] Shortall, S. and M. Alston (2016), “To Rural Proof or Not to Rural Proof: A Comparative Analysis”, Politics and Policy, Vol. 44/1, https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12144.
[75] Slee, B. (2021), “RURAL VOICES: A qualitative analysis of the findings from stakeholder workshops contributing to the long-term vision for rural areas”, European Network for Rural Development, https://ec.europa.eu/enrd/sites/default/files/enrd_publications/rural-voices.pdf (accessed on 6 February 2025).
[61] Sotiriou, A., G. Petrakos and S. Alexiou (2025), “The drivers of regional discontent in the EU”, Global Challenges & Regional Science, Vol. 1, p. 100002, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gcrs.2024.100002.
[64] Stoecker, R. and B. Witkovsky (2022), “Elder Civic Engagement and Rural Community”, Ageing International, Vol. 48/526-546, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12126-022-09488-4.
[11] Stroud, L. and D. McCabe (2025), “Why is far-right AfD dominating in northeast Germany?”, Europe News, https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/03/10/why-is-far-right-afd-dominating-in-northeast-germany (accessed on 2 April 2025).
[89] Stucki, M. (2023), “Trends, Change Drivers and Megatrends: Understanding the Big Picture and Path-Dependencies”, FuturesPlatform, https://www.futuresplatform.com/blog/megatrends-trends-and-change-drivers-the-larger-picture-and-path-dependencies (accessed on 6 April 2023).
[12] Taylor, M. and H. Horton (2024), “Climate crisis leaves European farmers vulnerable to far right, say campaigners”, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/04/climate-crisis-europe-farmers-vulnerable-far-right? (accessed on 4 February 2025).
[59] Teck Resources (n.d.), Relationship with Communities, http://www.teck.com/news/stories.
[88] Thomson, S. et al. (2024), “Rural and Agricultural Development – Maximising the Potential in the Islands of Orkney, Shetland & Outer Hebrides”, A SRUC report to Orkney Islands Council, Shetland Islands Council, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, Orkney Local Action Group, Shetland Local Action Group, Outer Hebrides Local Action Group, and Highlands and Islands, https://doi.org/10.58073/SRUC.26125552 (accessed on 7 February 2025).
[72] Tugendhaft, A. et al. (2023), “Moving towards social inclusion: Engaging rural voices in priority setting for health”, Health Expectations, Vol. 27/1, https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13895.
[32] Tullis, P. (2023), “Nitrogen wars: the Dutch farmers’ revolt that turned a nation upside-down”, The Guardian, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/16/nitrogen-wars-the-dutch-farmers-revolt-that-turned-a-nation-upside-down? (accessed on 11 February 2025).
[1] UN DESA (2021), “Reconsidering Rural Development”, World Social Report 2021,, https://digitallibrary.in.one.un.org/TempPdfFiles/5973_1.pdf (accessed on 29 January 2025).
[78] Vammalle, C. and I. Bambalaite (2021), “Funding and financing of local government public investment: A framework and application to five OECD Countries”, OECD Working Papers on Fiscal Federalism, No. 34, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/162d8285-en.
[65] Veréb, V. et al. (2024), “What Is Rural Well‐Being and How Is It Measured? An Attempt to Order Chaos*”, Rural Sociology, Vol. 89/2, pp. 239-280, https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12536.
[77] Walsh, B., S. van der Plank and P. Behrens (2017), “The effect of community consultation on perceptions of a proposed mine: A case study from southeast Australia”, Resources Policy, Vol. 51, pp. 163-171, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2016.12.006.
[62] Whitham, M. (2019), “Community Entitativity and Civic Engagement”, American Sociological Association, Vol. 18/3, https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12385.
[80] Wilkinson, A. (2015), The role of the OECD in International Foresight: Better Use of Foresight for Better Policies for Better Lives, https://www.jef.or.jp/journal/pdf/200th_Cover_03.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2024).
[93] Yudarwati, G. and A. Gregory (2022), “Improving government communication and empowering rural communities: Combining public relations and development communication approaches”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 48/3, p. 102200, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2022.102200.