Incremental changes, rather than major transformations, have shaped the evolution of Irish rural policy, culminating in Our Rural Future (ORF). This chapter traces the development of rural policy in Ireland, noting key shifts that enabled the approach in place today. It examines how the public financing framework shapes local implementation, highlighting both advancements and barriers. It also identifies gaps between ORF's ambitions to engage communities and improve local economic conditions and the obstacles localities face in implementing their aspirations.
Rural Policy Review of Ireland 2026
Abstract
Irish rural policy has evolved not through major transformations but through commendable, sustained, incremental changes over time. While most changes reflect adjustments in national priorities, some are responses to the evolution of European Union (EU) legislation, regulations and financial support.
In Ireland, as in most OECD countries, the majority of the policies affecting rural people, firms and communities originate and are implemented in other departments for which rural affairs are a low priority. However, in Ireland, because the national government plays the dominant role in policy formation and funding, the opportunities for effective “bottom-up” rural initiatives at the local level are more limited than in most other OECD countries.
Ireland has a long tradition of sophisticated rural policy. Our Rural Future (ORF) is a whole-of-government approach to rural policy and delivery. It was meant to ensure that people in all parts of Ireland are at the centre of rural policy. Specific rural policy ORF is complimented with policies and strategies in different government departments and agencies that also deliver specific benefits to rural regions in Ireland.
As a standalone “rural department” similar to ministries in other OECD countries, the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht and the Gaeltacht (DRCDGG) works to ensure that rural regions are on the agenda and are not overlooked or diluted by the multiple priorities of sectoral ministries. The DRCDGG provides support by allocating its resources to: promote the representation of rural interests in policymaking and delivery; maintain and develop links with the rural network; improve the evidence base on the rural context; and sponsor other bodies.
Rural policy is implemented at the sub-national level through regional and local development strategies that comply with the National Planning Framework (NPF). Regional assemblies, local authorities (LAs), local development companies (LDCs), local community development committees, LCDCS and local action groups (LAGs) contribute a regional and local perspective to the development of national policy and drive local delivery of national policies.
The establishment of the DRCDGG in 2017 represented a structural milestone that affirmed rural affairs’ position within national policy architecture. Since then, the government has implemented strategies that build upon past lessons and experiences from previous decades.
ORF distinguishes itself by having over 170 policy measures aligned to 8 themes. Some are under the direct remit of the DRCDGG, and others are under the responsibility of different departments. Bringing the different policy measures together under one umbrella allows for a firm overview of the multitude of actions that could impact rural development in Ireland but it is not without challenges.
An important observation about Irish rural policy is that it has evolved not through major transformations but through sustained, incremental changes over time. This is noteworthy, because Ireland has one of the most centralised systems of government according to OECD standards. It is a parliamentary democracy and unitary country with local self-governance recognised in the 1999 constitution (Article 28A). The Irish parliament, called Oireachtas, consists of two houses: the House of Representatives (Dáil Éireann) and the Senate (Seanad Éireann).
Historically, rural development was closely tied to the well-being of farmers and the structure of agricultural support. Policy priorities were defined through a lens that aligned rural progress with agriculture. Over time, however, there has been a decoupling – both institutional and fiscal – of agricultural policy and broader rural development. This change enabled a more holistic and place-based approach to emerge, more responsive to the diverse needs of rural communities beyond the agricultural sector. In other words, rural policy in Ireland has been shaped by a gradual move from “agriculture-rural” to simply “rural” affairs with a separate standalone department. This transition has been marked by pockets of targeted decentralisation, e.g. local government reform, and short arcs of institutional experimentation, e.g. different ways to manage rural issues across government.
Importantly, while Irish rural policy is mostly shaped by the national government, it is strongly influenced by the European Union through its legislation, regulations and financial support. Ireland joined the European Union in 1973, which shifted Irish agricultural policy to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and led to all of Ireland becoming eligible for cohesion funding. Over time, Ireland has made effective use of EU support for its rural areas and has adjusted domestic policy both to be consistent with evolving EU requirements and to maintain continued access to available funding steams. In particular, the European LEADER programme has played a central role in facilitating rural development because it provides small rural communities with an independent source of multi-year funding that can be used for local priorities.
This chapter traces that transformation. It begins with a brief overview of the historical trajectory of rural policy in Ireland before exploring key priorities in the national rural strategy, ORF. It also looks at the subnational governance structures in place to deliver these priorities, particularly concerning the interplay between EU funding and national transfers. Finally, it examines how rural development is operationalised on the ground – through partnerships, local institutions and participatory mechanisms mediating national policy delivery at the regional and local levels. In sum, this chapter reviews the architecture of rural development policy in Ireland: what it looks like today and how it came to take this form.
Before the 1999 White Paper on Rural Development, Irish rural policy focused mainly on agriculture, as rural well-being was considered linked to agriculture, with the well-being of rural areas seen as inseparable from the farming sector.
The white paper represented a significant inflexion point in policy by officially establishing rural development as a separate policy stream decoupled from agriculture. One decade later, in 2012, the plan Putting People First introduced a broad reform of subnational government that envisioned devolution of responsibilities and funding to LAs and communities to facilitate “bottom-up” development in urban and rural places. The period following through 2017 could be viewed as experimentation and conceptual reorientation. The government worked to establish its definition of rural development while deciding on its strategic approach and operational framework. The interventions implemented during this phase maintained a small-scale approach yet exhibited a variety of forms, including pilot programmes, community initiatives and targeted capital investments that addressed new rural requirements.
The establishment of the DRCDGG in 2017 represented a structural milestone that affirmed rural affairs’ position within national policy architecture. Since 2017, the government has implemented strategies that build upon past lessons and experiences from previous decades. Having the DRCDGG as a dedicated department enabled the government to set rural development goals, expand policy discussions on rural issues, and mobilise and deploy resources to realise a more strategic and integrated vision for rural development in Ireland.
Before the white paper
The national government of Ireland has had a strong commitment to rural policy since the founding of the Irish state in 1922. At the time, Ireland was a largely rural nation with most of the population living outside cities and an economy that largely relied on agriculture. According to the 1926 census, conducted just a few years after independence, 53% of the population were employed in agricultural occupations. Economic historians note that on the eve of independence in 1922, Ireland was a predominantly rural economy, apart from the industrialised areas of the North-East (Destenay, 2022[1]).
In the intervening decades the nation evolved in terms of an increasing share of urban dwellers and a more diversified economy, but a clear focus on rural issues remained in public policy to the point that a common criticism of the national government was that it was excessively focused on rural areas (Ó Gráda and O’Rourke, 2021[2])). This focus can be understood as reflecting the strong historical and cultural role that rural areas and rural people played in the history of the country from colonial times until the present. At the same time, OECD work during this period noted that the “countryside” all too often meant “farmland”, and rural development policy was thus seen as a byproduct of, or adjunct to, agricultural policy; very few OECD countries have attempted to implement rural policies geared to today’s economic realities (OECD, 1988[3]).
Upon accession to the European Union, Ireland benefitted from both cohesion funding and the CAP, both of which opened up new streams of policy and programmes and significant new funding for improving the well-being of rural people (MacFeely, 2016[4]). However, the national population continued to decline in the period after succession, and rural outmigration continued. In Ireland, emigration decreased for a short while in the 1970s, following Ireland’s entry into the European Union. This period was marked by more people returning than leaving. However, years of huge borrowing and spending in the 1970s, coupled with a second oil price crisis in 1979, resulted in economic problems developing in 1980s. In turn, the national debt increased and emigration driven by a search for employment began to reoccur. In the 1980s, four males emigrated for every three females. Migration took place from everywhere, with emigration from major urban centres often exceeding the national rate (UCC, 2024[5]).
Over time, the combination of EU funds and national government investments set in place opportunities for improvements in well-being in urban and, to a lesser extent, rural areas. In particular, while the CAP provided high initial levels of support to small Irish farms, over time the policy became less generous to small farms in all parts of the European union (Ludlow, 2005[6]). As Ireland prospered, the level of EU cohesion support declined, initially in the Dublin and South-East regions, and eventually across all of Ireland as EU expansion introduced new countries with a greater need.
Post white paper and before the DRCDGG: Rural affairs delinked from agriculture and a move to decentralise
In the 21st century, Irish policy has formally recognised the importance of devolving initiatives and responsibility for rural development to local levels. The publication in 1999 of the White Paper on Rural Development, Delivering for the Future: A Strategy for Rural Development in Ireland, was also significant in that it heralded the newly titled Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development to act as the “lead” department in providing a central focus and drive for rural development policy matters (DRCDG, 2022[7]). This department was a dedicated resource to implement the rural development strategy outlined in the white paper. Nonetheless, during this period, responsibility for rural policy/development would move between a number of departments as the government sought to develop and embed a distinctive lane for rural development issues.
The while paper set the tone with the demand that sectoral policies contain a regional and rural focus. It included procedures for “rural proofing” all national policies, so that policymakers are aware of the likely impact of policy proposals on the economic, social, cultural and environmental well-being of rural communities. The rural development policy agenda was defined in the white paper as all government policies and interventions which are directed towards improving the physical, economic and social conditions of people living in the open countryside, in coastal areas, towns and villages and in smaller urban centres outside of the five major urban areas (Houses of the Oireachtas, 2000[8]). The 2002 National Spatial Strategy recognised that both cities and rural areas could benefit from appropriate spatial planning.
Local government reform
OECD analysis at the time revealed clear moves away from centralised “top-down” policy and delivery towards more local “bottom-up” approaches. During this period “some federal states have transferred additional powers to lower tiers of government while others, like France, have increased the ambit of local and other regional authorities” (OECD, 2003[9]). This was also the case in Ireland. The period following the 2008 economic crisis had a profound impact on rural communities across OECD countries, including Ireland. Crucially the intensity of the financial crisis led to the national government clawing back local government “own-source” revenue in an effort to expand national fiscal capacity, but which left LAs with very limited fiscal capacity.
It also marked the publication of two key policy documents that sought to redefine the direction of rural development: the 2014 report of the Commission for the Economic Development of Rural Areas (CEDRA, 2014[10])and the 2015 Charter for Rural Ireland (DRCDG, 2019[11]). The 2014 Local Government Reform Act implemented the ideas in Putting People First and further advanced the agenda by empowering LAs and placing greater emphasis on economic, social and community development. It also sought to address municipal fragmentation by replacing eight regional authorities with three regional assemblies to which members of the constituent LA councils are appointed. These assemblies – Northern and Western, Southern, and Eastern and Midland – are composed of representatives appointed from county and city councils within each LA.
The act also established new participatory and governance structures, including the local community development committees (LCDCs) and public participation networks (PPNs) (see Box 3.1). The reform emphasised the importance of devolving responsibility for identifying development opportunities to the municipal level and extended sub-county local government across the entire country through the creation of municipal districts. Crucially, however, implementing local initiatives hinged on acquiring external funding wither from the national government or from EU sources.
LA strategic policy committees (SPCs) were also adjusted under the 2014 act, to include in each LA a mandatory SPC for economic development and enterprise. SPCs have their statutory basis in Section 48 of the Local Government Act 2001, as amended, and “consider matters connected with the formulation, development, monitoring and review of policy which relate to the functions of the LA and to advise the authority on those matters”. SPCs bring together elected members and sectoral stakeholders, with the intention of giving councillors and relevant sectoral interests, including the Irish Farmers’ Association, social inclusion sectoral bodies, and community and voluntary sectoral bodies, an opportunity for full involvement in the policymaking process from the early stages.
The 2014 act introduced many reforms with effect from 1 June 2014, including:
The number of councils were reduced from 114 to 31 due to the abolition of town and borough councils and mergers. This included the merging of the city and county councils in Limerick and Waterford and the two county councils in Tipperary.
Elected members were reduced from 1 627 to 949.
Ninety-five municipal districts were introduced, which covered all counties.
Eight regional authorities and 2 regional assemblies were replaced by 3 regional assemblies.
Under the 2014 legislation, councillors have stronger policymaking powers and a greater level of control over the actions of the LA chief executive. LAs are also able to become more involved in the economic development of their communities.
The local government reforms assigned important new functions to local government sector in the areas of:
Local and community development, particularly through the LCDC structures, including the formulation and implementation of local economic and community plans.
Economic development generally, through a clearer and stronger statutory role for LAs.
Enterprise support, transfer of local responsibility from separate county enterprise boards to LAs in the form of the local enterprise offices (LEOs).
Source: OECD (2024[12]), Ireland, OECD Background Report, OECD Paris.
The changing focus of rural policy: CEDRA and the DRCDGG
CEDRA was created in 2014 in response to sustained economic decline in rural Ireland, a trend that was accelerated by the 2008 financial crisis. This led to increased levels of rural outmigration, rural business failures, reduced off-farm income – especially for small farms – and increased demand for public sector support in rural communities. Informed by an extensive consultative process, the report filed in 2014 made 34 recommendations on ways national government support could enhance rural economic development. The report gleaned lessons from early iterations of rural development and called for a two-track approach to rural development policy:
The first, set out a vison for rural affairs that focused on revitalising the rural economy.
The second called for the establishment of an “effective, agile, responsive co‑ordination, decision‑making and delivery mechanism to deal with the complex, evolving policy agenda” (CEDRA, 2014[10]).
Many of the recommendations in the CEDRA report were about actions that government could do internally through policy changes to create a better environment for rural businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), to start, grow and prosper. A significant number of these involved enhancing rural infrastructure such as those linked to broadband, roads, water, that would involve larger public sector investments. In this way, the report sought to overcome the perceived shortcomings of the white paper strategy, which it described as failing to deliver an integrated approach defined as one that encompasses social, cultural, economic, environmental and geographical dimensions (CEDRA, 2014, pp. 16, parag. 4[10]).
Other recommendations focused on stimulating rural business by increasing access to finance, putting in place skill development programmes appropriate to local needs, encouraging collaboration between state economic development agency Enterprise Ireland and foreign direct investment (FDI) agency IDA Ireland to investigate opportunities for small-scale FDI in rural areas, expanding the capacity of the LEOs to help finance a broader range of firms beyond export‑oriented start-ups, to include all forms of SMEs including social enterprise, and establishing a rural innovation and development fund to support new types of businesses. Each recommendation was intended to enable rural people in a community to achieve better economic outcomes, by enabling them to start or expand local businesses and restructure their local economy to meet new demands.
The 2016 Charter for Rural Ireland which was conceived to focus on rural regeneration and ensure the existence of systems capable of supporting enterprise creation and development, thus realising the mandates proposed in the CEDRA report. This resulted in the establishment of DRCDGG as the ministry responsible for national rural development policy as well as promoting rural and community development. Another significant development during this period – although not explicitly aimed at rural development – carried important implications for rural communities: a discernible shift by government towards decentralisation. Putting People First: Action Programme for Effective Local Government introduced a series of reforms that curtailed central government involvement in the operational management of local services, streamlining administrative controls and procedures. Concurrently, local capacity was strengthened through the delegation of a broader range of appropriate functions.
In the wake of the pandemic, Ireland’s governmentwide mandate, Our Shared Future (2020), set out a people-centred vision for renewal that implicitly offered a way to better integrate rural development within the broader development strategies of the Irish government and that emphasised an improved quality of life for all and more balanced regional development. Since then, a number of larger national development strategies have been introduced –such as Project Ireland 2040, the Climate Action Plan, the National Remote Work Strategy and Food Vision 2030. Each sought to embed this focus in plans to varying degrees. For example, Project Ireland 2040 provides a long-term policy framework that should lead both the NPF and the National Development Plan to better incorporate efforts to accommodate the employment and housing needs of an increasing population and improving infrastructure to better achieve balanced growth. These elements form the policy scaffolding for Ireland’s rural development strategy set out in ORF.
ORF provides a structure for national government rural development support in Ireland for 2021 to 2025. A key strength of has been its focus on policies and programmes that strengthen community development. It is structured around eight themes:
1. Optimising digital connectivity.
2. Supporting employment and careers in rural areas.
3. Revitalising rural towns and villages.
4. Enhance participation, leadership and resilience in rural communities.
5. Transitioning to a climate-neutral society.
6. Supporting the sustainability of agriculture, the marine and forestry.
7. Supporting the sustainability of the country’s islands and coastal communities.
8. Implementing the policy.
Each theme corresponds to a subset of policy actions or commitments from different branches of government. As such the policy takes a whole-of-government approach to inclusive, sustainable rural development. The central focus is an effort to enhance social cohesion with the villages and towns across rural Ireland. This approach is consistent with OECD recommendations first set out in 2006 with the New Rural Paradigm and progressing through to the 2020 Rural Well-being: Geography of Opportunities report.
A focus on eight themes with targeted policy actions
National rural strategy ORF distinguishes itself by having over 170 policy measures aligned to 8 themes. Some are under the direct remit of the DRCDGG, while others are the responsibility of different departments. It is particularly noteworthy that bringing them together under one umbrella allows for a firm overview of the multitude of actions that could impact rural development in Ireland. Also, incorporating the policy priorities outside the responsibility of the DRCDGG allowed the department to step into a multifaceted role, directly leading some priorities while enabling or supporting other departments to deliver on their rural objectives. ORF is implicitly structured on the understanding that no single agency can provide rural development independently. It is both a strategy and a signal: by including the measures not in the DRCDGG’s remit, it seems as if ORF is reminding those departments that rural development is a whole-of-government approach and that they have a role in delivering rural outcomes, even if they do not hold the rural development portfolio.
Given that rural development in Ireland is influenced by multiple government departments (e.g. rural, agriculture, housing, education, economy, infrastructure, environment), an examination of the level of policy coherence is also needed. ORF seems to have strategically leveraged the broader co‑ordination mandate of ORF to align rural objectives across the different plans, instruments and departments. It used the presence of “rural” or “spatial considerations” in various strategies – explicitly or implicitly – as an accountability mechanism, reminding all actors to remain focused, coherent and responsive to rural concerns. The following sections goes in some depth on the different themes and accompanying policy measures to better understand the policy in practice.
Optimising digital connectivity
Digital connectivity is an essential enabler of rural development and access to education, employment, public services and innovation. Recognising this, most OECD countries include targeted measures in their national broadband strategies to expand access in rural and remote areas. ORF theme “Optimising digital connectivity” reflects this direction, placing particular focus on broadband expansion and digital inclusion. While the DRCDGG plays an important role in leading a number of measures, implementation involves multiple departments – including the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment, the Central Statistics Office (CSO), the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment (DETE), the Department of Finance and the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science (DFHERIS) (Figure 3.2). This illustrates that achieving meaningful digital connectivity in rural areas requires cross‑government collaboration. ORF, in this sense, showcases the importance of co‑ordinated action. This is in line with OECD guidance, which stresses the need for integrated, whole-of-government responses to overcome the systemic and multidimensional nature of rural digital divides.
The timing of ORF’s development during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic proved significant. During this period, the gaps in digital connections were much more acute, particularly in rural and remote areas. The theme represented a shift away from a commercial investment approach to broadband deployment by introducing over 16 government-led measures aimed at expanding rural broadband access and promoting digital usage. One of the most important actions was the commitment of up to EUR 2.7 billion towards the National Broadband Plan (NBP) rollout targeting commercially unviable regions. The NBP was first announced in 2012, but rollout was initiated in 2019 and accelerated during the pandemic. The plan includes the creation of broadband connection points (BCPs) at public locations chosen by LAs to help with remote work and digital skills training as well as support for community initiatives. Public locations such as community halls, libraries, sports facilities, enterprise hubs, tourist sites and other community spaces serve as BCPs. A common argument against such rollouts is the perception that rural areas are too costly to serve, with limited demand, higher prices and lower service quality (OECD, 2004[13]). The Irish response suggests that these concerns may not always hold true.
Note: CSO: Central Statistics Office; DE: Department of Education; DETE: Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment; DF: Department of Finance; DFHERIS: Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science; DPER: Department of Public Expenditure and Reform; DRCDGG: Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht; SOLAS: State agency responsible for further education and training. The names of government departments shown here reflect those used in ORF for consistency, but please note that some departments were renamed in 2025.
Source: Government of Ireland (2021[14]), Our Rural Future: Rural Development Policy 2021-2025, https://assets.gov.ie/static/documents/our-rural-future.pdf.
Most of the commitments from government departments focus primarily on expanding broadband access or enabling remote work, such as expanding free-to-use wireless Internet connectivity in rural areas through the BCPs, European initiative WiFi4EU and the Digital Innovation Programme. The 2022 Cavan-OECD Roadmap on Strengthening Rural Resilience against Global Challenges encouraged OECD Member countries to seize the opportunities offered by digitalisation by adapting support services to enhance remote working conditions for all population groups, particularly women and youth (OECD, 2022[15]). The initiatives outlined in ORF seek to do just that, supporting remote working through actions to keep skilled workers in rural regions and by implementing a National Remote Work Strategy and legislation for remote work requests. Recently introduced legislation, the Workplace Relations Commission Code of Practice addresses the right to request remote working. More broadly, these measures aim to reduce barriers to living, working and accessing essential services in rural areas, reflecting the DRCDGG’s overarching focus on improving rural quality of life through digital inclusion.
Several policy measures have been adopted to ensure that high-speed and reliable broadband access is utilised to provide high-quality services. For example, the DFHERIS is driving improvements in access to tertiary education through blended and remote learning to enable young people in rural areas to access higher education without leaving their communities. This provides individuals with the opportunity to gain qualifications, while keeping local talent in rural areas. In addition, the DFHERIS is working to provide targeted upskilling opportunities for workers in sectors that are going through technological change (e.g. manufacturing, agriculture and renewable energy). These efforts enhance individual adaptability and build local resilience in the face of changing labour market demands.
The Cavan-OECD roadmap also encouraged governments to co‑ordinate and examine different strategies related to land use, housing and transportation policies to allow for different living and working patterns. Ireland’s approach reflects this direction. Some measures seek to map the location of remote work-friendly facilities to expand and build a national network of remote working hubs. Additionally, LAs should be empowered to do the same by providing them with dedicated funds to transform empty town centre properties into multi-use remote work-friendly facilities.
The measure led by the CSO focused on building evidence based on remote work to inform strategies and support long-term remote work adoption could reveal areas that could be further aligned and leveraged. The effort is focused on developing national data on the incidence and frequency of remote work, establishing a centralised cross-departmental knowledge base on the costs and benefits of remote working, and mandating public sector bodies to move to 20% home and remote working. Related pilot initiatives include testing co-working and hot desking for civil servants in selected towns and promoting remote work uptake through IDA Ireland, Enterprise Ireland and Údarás na Gaeltachta.
In summary, through ORF, the Irish government and DRCDGG have launched a variety of programmes to boost digital connections and enable remote work in rural regions, nationwide strategies and legislative actions. One example is the Connected Hubs, a national network of co-working hubs, first launched in May 2021.These hubs are multi-functional in their design and use and support local, domestic and international businesses (Box 3.2). Nonetheless, extensive co‑ordination across government departments is essential for successful digitalisation of rural Ireland because multiple departments oversee broadband and remote work initiatives, which illustrate the complexity and interconnectedness of this issue.
The National Connected Hubs Network, from now on referred to as Connected Hubs, was launched by the Western Development Commission and the DRCDGG. It is part of ORF, specifically the National Remote Work Strategy. Attracting remote workers and digital nomads to rural areas is the focus. The Connected Hubs platform – through the site ConnectedHubs.ie – provides access to government-operated hubs across Ireland. The hubs offer flexible, professional workspace options for individuals seeking a productive work environment. Enterprise centres funded by Enterprise Ireland complement this by offering dedicated support for entrepreneurs, start-ups and SMEs, particularly in areas such as digitalisation, innovation and scaling.
Connected Hubs aims to strengthen the development of rural areas by training, retaining and attracting talent. Originally established as a pilot in the west of Ireland, Connected Hubs has since expanded nationwide, with support from the DRCDGG. A significant step forward was taken with the 2023 passage of the Right to Request Remote Working Bill, which helped broaden access to remote work and opened up more ways to utilise hub infrastructure. There are now over 350 hubs in operation: some are privately owned while some are social enterprises, community groups or LAs.
The hubs are not just for remote workers: they also support start-ups, scale-ups and even international companies looking to establish a presence in new locations without the cost of a permanent office. This flexibility unlocks the potential to relocate or launch a business anywhere in Ireland. In this way, they are helping local businesses to start, innovate and grow.
Source: O’Brien, A., E. Whelan and J. Levie (2023[16]), The Social and Community Impact of Rural Working Hubs in Ireland, https://universityofgalway.ie/ruralworkinghubs/Remote-report_screen.pdf.
Supporting employment and careers in rural areas
Irelands SMEs and entrepreneurs operate in a broadly favourable business environment with a solid and comprehensive set of programmes targeted at SMEs and entrepreneurs (OECD, 2019[17]). Despite this, discussions with stakeholders revealed some challenges with supporting and motivating entrepreneurship and diversifying employment opportunities in rural areas. Thus, some improvements could be made to achieve priorities. The 2019 OECD report on entrepreneurship in Ireland noted that more could be done to “spread entrepreneurship across all segments of the population”. Other observations included the need to scale up micro and small enterprises and strengthen local entrepreneurship ecosystems (OECD, 2019[17]).
ORF reflects some of these ambitions, dedicating 26 policy actions to this theme (Figure 3.4). The initiatives are ambitious and diverse, but many are not within the remit of the DRCDGG. Responsibility for delivering these actions is dispersed across several departments, including DETE, the DFHERIS and the DRCDG, underscoring the cross-cutting nature of rural policy. Some measures promote business start-ups and strengthen the broader conditions supporting innovation, skills and local leadership.
Note: DCEDIY: Department of Children, Equality, Durability, Integration and Youth; DETE: Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment; DFHERIS: Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science; DHLGH: Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage; DSP: Department of Social Protection; DRCDG: Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht; DTCAGSM: Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media; FI: Fáilte Ireland Trade Portal; IDA Ireland: Inward investment promotion and development. The names of government departments shown here reflect those used in ORF for consistency, but please note that some departments were renamed in 2025.
Source: Government of Ireland (2021[14]), Our Rural Future: Rural Development Policy 2021-2025, https://assets.gov.ie/static/documents/our-rural-future.pdf.
ORF recognises the diverse nature of entrepreneurship, which encompasses elements outside the private sector. The proposed strategies demonstrate a wider viewpoint recognising civic engagement, community empowerment and social innovation as fundamental elements for building rural resilience. This includes promoting value-added activities in agriculture, logistics, manufacturing, renewable energy, biotechnology and sustainable tourism.
Other strategies focus on expanding technological innovation to help rural areas tap into new opportunities. This is key, as arguably, the world is in the midst of another technological revolution, due in large part to artificial intelligence (AI), which has the potential to reshape work and impact rural employment. In fact, OECD analysis reveals that the rise of large language models could have an impact on a much larger share of workers than previous digital technologies (OECD, 2024[18]). For example, the share of workers highly exposed to generative AI in the near future is expected to range from 16% in the mostly rural state of Guerrero (Mexico) to 77% in Greater London (United Kingdom), while Ireland’s exposure level is above 50% (Figure 3.5). Similarly, when residents collaborate on solution development, they help distribute innovative thinking, which in turn can lead to local economic growth (OECD, 2013[19]).
Youth engagement is also a priority. Attracting and retaining young people in rural areas is a challenge. As part of this theme, the DRCDG supports the annual Rural Youth Assembly, which provides structured opportunities for young people to influence policy decisions about digital transition and future skills, amongst a variety of other topics. At the assembly, rural Irish youth benefit from structured platforms to impact digital transition policies and skill development, which acknowledges them as essential stakeholders to enhance rural leadership while maintaining the engagement of skilled people in a dynamic economy.
Finally, the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration launched the pilot Rural Local Community Safety Partnerships, which develop collaborative models to enhance local well-being and safety. This model will be rolled out nationally and on a statutory basis following the commencement of the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024. These initiatives do not represent direct economic policy, yet they establish favourable conditions for entrepreneurship through enhancements to quality of life and increased community trust.
Share of employment highly exposed to Gen-AI now or in the near future
Note: Estimates for TL2 (large) regions, except for Slovenia which is TL3 (small). Last available year: 2024 for Canada and Korea, 2023 for Australia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, 2022 for all others.
Source: OECD (2024[18]), Job Creation and Local Economic Development 2024: The Geography of Generative AI, https://doi.org/10.1787/83325127-en.
Generative AI may lead to both job destruction and creation. Across the OECD, approximately 26% of workers are exposed to generative AI, but only 1% are considered highly exposed. Nevertheless, as generative AI technologies are integrated into the workplace, up to 70% of workers could be exposed to generative AI shortly, with 39% of these considered to be highly exposed. Table 3.1 provides examples of occupations within each category. The extent to which these estimates materialise in regions depends on the actual uptake by workers and firms, which in turn hinges on both investment and training.
Note: Selected occupations.
Source: OECD (2024[18]), Job Creation and Local Economic Development 2024: The Geography of Generative AI, https://doi.org/10.1787/83325127-en; Eloundou, T. et al. (2023[20]), “GPTs are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of Large Language Models”, https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.10130.
Large language models such as generative pre-trained transformers (GPTs) have characteristics of a general-purpose technology and can generate high-quality text, images and other content based on large amounts of training data. Higher paying occupations tend to be more exposed to generative AI, while occupations heavily reliant on science and critical thinking skills are less exposed on average. Similarly, jobs that require more education and/or training tend to, on average, be more exposed to generative AI. It may be too early to determine the full impact of generative AI on local labour market composition. While certain labour markets are highly exposed to AI, this has not yet resulted in significant changes. It may take some time before we observe shifts in employment figures in response to the impact of generative AI. Labour markets may change as they integrate generative AI tools. These exposure estimates do not imply job displacement, but they should correlate with productivity as they measure the tasks that can be done faster with the help of generative AI.
Source: OECD (2024[18]), Job Creation and Local Economic Development 2024: The Geography of Generative AI, https://doi.org/10.1787/83325127-en.
Revitalising rural towns and villages
Small towns are just as important as cities, a position recognised by ORF. A survey from the Institute for Consumer Science and Analytics shows that 64% of the French population feels attached to their town centre, and 72% visit at least once a week (Town of Nogent-sur-Marne, 2020[21]). Regenerating and repopulating these communities would advance the middle ground between rural and urban (Thadani, 2022[22]). However, small towns have faced a series of challenges across the OECD, including shocks such as the COVID-19 pandemic, supply chain disruptions and inflation.
Most towns typically have an urban element, organised around a commercial centre: a main street with local businesses, shops, restaurants and places for communal events. Main streets support access to services, strengthen social cohesion by being the central point for community interaction and serve as important economic and community anchors (OECD, 2023[23]). The New European Bauhaus is an EU policy and funding initiative to implement the green transition for high-quality, socially inclusive and economically resilient rural as well as urban built environments. The THRIVE Programme (Town Centre First Heritage Revival Scheme) managed by regional assemblies, is inspired by this movement and funded by the ERDF. OECD countries are also increasingly focused on small-town centres. In Japan, for example, there is a similar initiative to improve town centres to help deal with ageing populations and shrinking rural economies. OECD countries are also increasingly focused on small-town centres. In Japan, for example, there is a similar initiative to improve town centres to help deal with ageing populations and shrinking rural economies. Dereliction, neglect and abandonment have posed significant challenges in rural towns and villages in Ireland for the past few years. The “Revitalising rural towns and villages” theme reflects an ambition to reverse this decline.
Working across public agencies and departments, as well as with business networks and civil society groups, is necessary to bring together the expertise, build engagement and expand access to funding. The full complement of measures under this theme does not rely on a single tool or department. Instead, it reflects a layered effort involving several departments, with the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage playing a significant role (see Figure 3.6). For example, the department supports regeneration efforts through the Urban Regeneration and Development Fund, which provides capital funding for projects in towns with populations exceeding 10 000 inhabitants. The DRCDG leads or co-leads key initiatives, such as the Town and Village Renewal Scheme and the Town Centre First initiative (see Box 3.4). As part of its mandate, the DRCDG’s Town and Village Renewal Scheme enhances shopfronts and street façades in smaller towns and villages and supports the reuse of vacant and derelict buildings. DETE supports the redesign of public spaces for cultural events and festivals.
Note: DHLGH: Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage; DPER: Department of Public Expenditure and Reform; DRCDG: Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht; DTCAGSM: Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media. The names of government departments shown here reflect those used in ORF for consistency, but please note that some departments were renamed in 2025.
Source: Government of Ireland (2021[14]), Our Rural Future: Rural Development Policy 2021-2025, https://assets.gov.ie/static/documents/our-rural-future.pdf.
Local governments often lack awareness of available funding opportunities or the capacity to access and deliver them. The measures in this theme have a local lens. For example, one measure provides support for LAs to take a more active role. LAs are empowered to use compulsory purchase powers under the Derelict Sites Act 1990 to engage with property owners. They may also offer commercial-rates-based incentives to encourage business activity and bring vacant commercial units back into use.
Additionally, there is support for dedicated LA staff to facilitate town centre renewal; additional measures reflect a concern with inclusivity and innovation. Young people and older people are two social groups that are tied more closely than others to historic town centres (d’Antonio, 2024[24]). One policy aims to provide town centre housing for older people through partnerships with Approved Housing Bodies. Another helps to make serviced sites available at cost, allowing individuals and families to build homes in rural towns.
Revitalising town centres cannot be achieved in isolation, as various factors influence the long-term viability of a town centre. The measures that focus on infrastructure and promote new delivery models acknowledge this aspect with initiatives such as investment in water and wastewater systems, as well as support for Irish Water’s Small Towns and Villages Growth Programme. Other actions aim to revitalise towns through the development of the Night-Time Economy and support for Smart Towns and Villages, promoting local resilience and digital solutions.
Town Centre First (TCF) was co-developed by the DRCDG and the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage (DHLGH) to help revitalise towns and villages across Ireland. It is deeply embedded in Ireland’s broader spatial planning vision under Project Ireland 2040, whose key component, the NPF, sets the long-term spatial development objectives for the country. The April 2025 NPF revision updates the 2018 projections, drawing on Census 2022 data and new Economic and Social Research Institute modelling.
It forecasts that Ireland’s population will reach approximately 6.1 million by 2040, roughly 1 million more than the 2022 base, representing an upward revision of around 250 000 people relative to the original 2018 NPF projection. The National Development Plan 2021-2030 provides the capital investment to implement the NPF, allocating funding to realise its objectives principally to promote compact growth, strengthen rural economies and support sustainable transport.
Each plan is rooted in the identity of its town yet aligned with regional spatial strategies, local development plans and national priorities. The initiative addresses local problems: persistent vacancy and dereliction, commercial restructuring and a drift toward car-dependent, edge-of-town development. It does this by providing targeted investment, enhanced local planning and improved evidence to enable a community-led town regeneration model. It is also an initiative that enjoys continued support, receiving EUR 4.56 million in funding in 2024.
TCF brings these goals by combining these pillars with local leadership and communities as co‑designers and co-developers of the towns where they want to live and work. Town Regeneration Officers, embedded within each LA, serve as key connectors between local plans and national resources, including access to funding through the Rural Regeneration and Development Fund and Urban Regeneration and Development Fund. Importantly, it organises policy action at the level where change is most tangible, yet within a vertically co‑ordinated system that ensures national ambition is reinforced by local knowledge.
Source: OECD (2024[12]), Ireland, OECD Background Report, OECD Paris; Government of Ireland (2023[25]), Town Centre First: Annual Implementation Plan 2023, https://towncentrefirst.ie/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/TCF-Annual-Implementation-Plan.pdf.
In summary, small towns in Ireland are being reinforced and recognised as key to rural regeneration initiatives. Revitalisation is a multi-departmental effort, with main streets as an essential focus. Measures target physical renewal (facades, buildings), cultural use of space and support for local businesses, with a national and local lens that focuses on inclusion and promotes innovation. While the DRCDG leads on key initiatives, much of the responsibility lies with departments responsible for housing, tourism and others, highlighting the need for co‑ordination across departments.
Enhancing participation, leadership and resilience in rural communities
ORF’s participation, leadership and resilience measures are multifaceted, rooted in Ireland’s strong volunteer tradition and formal engagement structures like PPNs. It also proactively engages youth, seeks to create a rich stakeholder base and explores ways stimulate more social enterprise support. The Irish system as a whole and ORF specifically promote and nurture participatory governance. One example is the Town Centre First initiative, which mobilises people for a town team approach to co-design the town they want to live and work in, guided by the LA. A participatory approach to governance embodies elements such as accountability and the sharing of power, which, when combined, can help reduce the obstacles to effective and sustainable rural development (OECD, 2025[26]). The policy measures to realise the Enhancing Participation, Leadership, and Resilience theme are diverse (Figure 3.7). They reflect a broad set of actions intended to engage and mobilise local stakeholders to play a role in developing and implementing policy solutions.
Note: DCEDIY: Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth; DSP: Department of Social Protection; DRCDG: Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht; DTCAGSM: Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media. The names of government departments shown here reflect those used in ORF for consistency, but please note that some departments were renamed in 2025.
Source: Government of Ireland (2021[14]), Our Rural Future: Rural Development Policy 2021-2025, https://assets.gov.ie/static/documents/our-rural-future.pdf.
Volunteering is a long-standing tradition in Irish culture--with a higher rate of participation in unpaid voluntary activity than the EU average, serving as a key pillar of local governance (OECD, 2023[27]). Participation in local government has been encouraged through the PPNs introduced. PPNs aim to facilitate the contribution of volunteer-led organisations to local economic, social and environmental capital. There are over 19 063 social inclusion, community and voluntary and environmental organisations constituted PPNs (DRCD, 2023[28]). PPNs have been established in every LA area in Ireland. Not surprisingly, several measures under this theme focus on promoting, mobilising, strengthening and streamlining volunteer activities. These include implementing the National Volunteering Strategy 2021‑2025 to support volunteers and community-based organisations, as well as establishing a permanent volunteer reserve in local areas. Asking local stakeholders to take on more prominent roles in the community through volunteering means they should be equipped with the necessary tools to participate meaningfully. Three measures focus on capacity building. These include mentoring and training for community development leaders, especially those aged 18 to 25, providing additional support to help groups develop projects and access funding, and creating a single information portal to provide a funding roadmap for rural and community development.
Measures like strengthening public participation networks, LCDCs and creative strategies, including Culture Days, seek to increase community participation more broadly while at the same time targeting newcomers. Citizen and stakeholder participation is an essential element for governance and is recognised as such by Provisions 8 and 9 of the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Open Government (2017[29]) and in the OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes (2022[30]) (Box 3.5). In a participatory process, the likelihood of local stakeholders taking ownership and becoming committed to the outcomes of decision-making and policy actions increases significantly. Community participation and voice in policy is another area of focus through measures that seek to foster meaningful rather than superfluous engagement. Citizens today are more informed than ever and are demanding a say in shaping the policies and services that affect their lives. For this reason, public institutions at all levels of government are increasingly creating opportunities to harness citizens’ experiences and knowledge to make better public decisions (OECD, 2022[30]).
However, while volunteers can be a crucial source of ideas and labour that can improve rural communities, they are subject to both “burnout” and disillusionment over time. Maintaining a high rate of volunteer engagement requires that LAs and other elements of government commit the resources to bring about improvements that the volunteers are working toward and that their efforts are recognised and supported. In particular, it important to find ways to refresh the pool of volunteers by encouraging new participants and this is easier to do if potential volunteers can see their efforts will make a difference.
Citizens and the public should be enabled to see, understand, contribute to, monitor and evaluate public decisions and actions. The global landscape for citizen and stakeholder participation is evolving constantly, becoming richer with new and innovative ways to involve citizens and stakeholders in public decisions. At the same time, differences in involving these two groups have become apparent, as individual citizens require participation methods designed to provide them with time, information, resources and incentives needed to engage, while stakeholders (any interested and/or affected party, such as institutions and organisations) have a lower participation threshold, dedicated resources and clear interests to participate.
The OECD guidelines are based on evidence collected over the years, Citizens as Partners: OECD Handbook on Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-making (OECD, 2001[31]), the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Open Government (OECD, 2017[32])the OECD Handbook on Open Government for Peruvian Public Servants, the OECD report Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave (OECD, 2020[33]), the OECD and European Commission Directorate‑General for Regional and Urban Policy Citizen Participation in Cohesion Policy Guidelines and Playbooks (OECD, 2022[34]) as well as existing resources from academia and other organisations.
Citizen participation processes should be organised only when there is room for meaningful citizen participation in the decision-making process. The ten-step path provides guidance in developing the process:
1. Identifying the problem to solve and the moment for participation: The first step when planning a citizen participation process is to identify if there is a genuine problem that the public can help solve. If there is, then the problem needs to be defined and framed as a question. Citizens can be actively involved in any of the stages or throughout the policy cycle: when identifying the issue, formulating policy, making decisions, implementing policy or evaluating it.
2. Defining the expected results: A clear understanding of the expected outcomes or results of the participation process is needed to define the desired inputs or contributions from citizens and the impact they will have on the final decision.
3. Identifying the relevant group of people to involve and recruiting participants: Different types of groups can be involved in a participation process, such as a broad group of citizens from diverse backgrounds, a representative group of citizens, a particular community based on geography or other demographic characteristics, as well as stakeholders, ranging from non‑governmental organisations to businesses or academia. Different strategies can be employed to recruit them: an open call, a closed call or a civic lottery.
4. Choosing the participation method: Eight citizen participation methods and their characteristics are compared and described to help choose the most applicable one in a given situation: information and communication, open meetings/town hall meetings, civic monitoring, public consultation, open innovation, citizen science, participatory budgeting and representative deliberative processes.
5. Choosing the right digital tools: Digital tools can allow citizens and stakeholders to interact and submit their inputs in different ways. They should be chosen to facilitate the participation method. Policymakers should keep in mind the existing “digital divides”, plan for technical, human and financial resources needed to deploy digital tools and choose tools that are transparent and accountable. When possible, digital tools should be chosen alongside in‑person methods.
6. Communicating about the process: Public communication can help at every step of the way, from recruiting citizens, to ensuring the transparency of the process and extending the benefits of learning about a specific policy issue to the broader public. Constant, clear and understandable communication that uses plain language is most effective.
7. Implementing the participation process: There are general considerations that concern the implementation of any participatory process: preparing an adequate timeline, identifying the needed resources, ensuring inclusion and accessibility and considering a citizens’ journey through a participatory process.
8. Using citizen input and providing feedback: The inputs received as part of the participatory process should be given careful and respectful consideration and used as stipulated in the beginning, with clear justifications if any inputs or recommendations are not used or implemented. Communicating to participants about the status of their inputs and the ultimate outcome of their participation helps to close the feedback loop.
9. Evaluating the participation process: Through evaluation, the quality and neutrality of a participatory process can be measured and demonstrated to the broader public. Evaluation also creates an opportunity for learning by providing evidence and lessons for public authorities and practitioners about what went well, and what did not.
10. Fostering a culture of participation: A shift from ad hoc participation processes to a culture of participation can be supported by embedding institutionalised participation mechanisms, multiplying opportunities for citizens to exercise their democratic “muscles” beyond participation and protecting a vibrant civic space.
Source: OECD (2022[30]), OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes, https://doi.org/10.1787/f765caf6-en.
One initiative under this theme is the Rural Ideas Fora, a series of stakeholder engagement events hosted by the DRCDG. Nine fora were held, covering a range of issues (DRCDG, 2024[35]). The fora were designed to gather inputs, foster debate and add more rural voices to the policy discussion space on topics related to ORF, thereby enabling the gathering of diverse perspectives. For example, the remote working forum generated a rich debate on maximising the opportunities linked to appropriate infrastructure and facilities, with a particular focus on remote working hubs and how remote and blended working can encourage more people to live in rural areas while working in good-quality jobs, regardless of their employer’s location.
The forum on climate-neutral societies focused, among other things, on the importance of creating a vision for climate neutrality that balances economic development, social well-being and environmental considerations and examined the challenges and opportunities this presents. The discussion on revitalising towns and villages provided different perspectives on the key elements of a vibrant rural community and the interdependency of cities, towns and villages. Additionally, the forum on a socially inclusive rural Ireland aimed to generate ideas for tackling exclusion and isolation in rural Ireland through the DRCDG’s Social Inclusion and Community Activation Programme (SICAP) and other social inclusion initiatives.
“Young people are the engine keeping rural areas alive” (Council of Europe, 2025[36]). However, across the OECD, many countries, including Ireland, are grappling with the fact that young people from rural communities are being attracted to opportunities and amenities in cities. One way to help mitigate the problem lies in engagement: embracing their ideas and bringing them into the policy space. The Rural Youth Assembly initiative introduced as part of this theme in ORF was designed to amplify the voices of younger rural individuals and provide a platform for them to be heard and engaged. The assembly comprises a group of young people between the ages of 12 and 24 who discuss the challenges and opportunities associated with living, working and socialising in rural Ireland. Attracting young people to rural communities requires a strategic, sensitive approach. Governments need to remove barriers to social, economic and political participation of rural youth and create new opportunities for them. The assembly is unique in that it is a gathering with the express purpose of hearing and putting them in direct line with the government. In this way, it allows for deep insights from a youth perspective that government actors would not otherwise be privy to (Box 3.6).
The 2024 Irish Rural Youth Assembly attracted 49 delegates aged 18‑24 years old from across the country. The discussion focused on learning in rural Ireland (e.g. early years education, primary school, secondary school, college, trades, courses and apprenticeships) and living and working in rural Ireland (e.g. day-to-day life, health, hobbies, well-being, services). The participants raised the following as the most common issues affecting young people in rural Ireland:
lack of youth facilities, e.g. youth centres, community spaces
lack of youth services or non-sporting activities
lack of sports facilities and activities (limited sports infrastructure, e.g. no swimming pool or leisure centre)
poor broadband that hinders education, work and staying connected
transport: unreliable and unaffordable public transport and school bus services. a high dependency on cars
education: school closures, poor facilities, limited choice of subjects, lack of support for rural schools and gaelcholáistí
access to healthcare: long distances to services, long waiting lists, high costs
lack of employment opportunities: having to travel long distances to work, few job opportunities locally, exploitation of young workers
a feeling that the voices and views of young people are not taken into consideration in decisions that affect them
lack of essential and basic infrastructure, such as street lighting, footpaths and safe places to exercise
housing shortages: difficulty finding affordable housing, lack of long-term rental options, many holiday homes left empty
a sense of being disconnected from or shut out of decision making by politicians
lack of cultural opportunities
gaps in mental health support
limited access to services and support for people with disabilities
a decline in the use of the Irish language
inequality experienced due to a traditional mindset and stereotyping.
Source: DRCDG (2024[37]), Rural Youth Assembly 2024: Summary Report, https://assets.gov.ie/static/documents/rural-youth-assembly-summary-report-2024.pdf.
A few measures focus on increasing the adoption of social innovation, such as one by the DRCDG to support multi-functional spaces that can be used to fill gaps in services. As a recent OECD study on social enterprises in Ireland revealed, Ireland is home to 4 335 social enterprises. They play a significant role in supporting the implementation of national and local strategies across many sectors. ORF recognises social enterprises play a role in promoting sustainable development of rural communities. In Ireland, they are active across many sectors such as childcare, housing, health, food, tourism, recycling, transportation and arts, culture and music (OECD, 2023[27]), Two additional measures focus on strengthening local communities and enhancing community well-being. The strategy incorporates heritage and arts programmes to help resolve community challenges like rural isolation and mental health issues while establishing TidyTowns Special Awards to engage young people aged 16 to 25.
Enhancing public services in rural areas
In rural areas, persistent service delivery gaps remain, particularly in digital connectivity, employment opportunities and access to public services. This is one of the most cross-cutting themes in ORF, as it implicates multiple departments and requires strong co‑ordination to deliver impact. While progress is being made through initiatives under ORF, challenges persist, particularly in transportation and healthcare.
Transportation
OECD analysis reveals that in rural Ireland, 80% of all trips are made by car, compared with 58% in urban areas (Harbour et al., 2024[38])]. In addition, many people in rural towns drive short distances that could otherwise be walked or cycled. At the same time, approximately 350 000 people live in remote areas beyond the reach of traditional fixed-line bus services, making public transport a critical area of investment (OECD, 2024[12]) The Irish government is seeking to address this through a range of initiatives, some of which are captured explicitly in ORF. Improving public transport system in rural areas is inherently challenged by low volumes of travellers and a sparse road network that result in transit systems that result in, limited bus frequency, and a spoke and hub route system that requires first travelling to central terminal and switching to another bus to get to the ultimate destination.
The National Demand Management Strategy supports efforts to reduce vehicle kilometres travelled. The School Transport Scheme, which provides transport for children who live 3.2 km or more from their nearest primary school and 4.8 km from a post-primary school, is by nature a rural transport scheme. It fills a significant gap by serving children in areas with little or no public transport alternatives. More broadly, the Connecting Ireland Rural Mobility Plan, developed by the National Transport Authority (NTA), supports improved access by providing a level of service that enables people living outside cities to travel to towns and carry out a full range of daily activities as defined by the CSO. The plan also aligns with ORF by piloting new transport initiatives.
Note: DCEDIY: Department of Children, Equality, Durability, Integration and Youth; DECC: Department of Environment, Climate and Communications; DH: Department of Health; DHLGH: Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage; DJ: Department of Justice; DRCDG: Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht; DT: Department of Transport; DTCAGSM: Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media; NTA: National Transport Authority. The names of government departments shown here reflect those used in ORF for consistency, but please note that some departments were renamed in 2025.
Source: Government of Ireland (2021[14]), Our Rural Future: Rural Development Policy 2021-2025, https://assets.gov.ie/static/documents/our-rural-future.pdf.
Infrastructural limitations, such as a lack of: footpaths, connected street networks and cycling infrastructure, further constrain rural mobility and access to public transport. Evidence suggests that many people drive short journeys that could otherwise be made on foot or by bicycle. The NTA funds the Rural Transport Programme, which is managed locally by 15 Local Link offices. These offices provide both regularly scheduled bus services and demand-responsive transport. In terms of coverage, NTA research shows that 41% of the population living outside cities is within 400 metres of a route or service offering at least 3 return trips on weekdays. However, 26% of the population either lacks access to public transport entirely or is served by very limited options (NTA, 2021[39]).
ORF includes multiple measures to address service shortfalls, some explicitly targeting rural areas, while others have a rural impact through broader design (Figure 3.8). For example, the Regional Enterprise Plans Funding and Infrastructure Unit does not focus exclusively on rural areas but identifies infrastructure gaps that affect them. A Sustainable Rural Mobility Plan will link settlements of a specific size to the national transport system. Local Link services will expand and better integrate with other transport options under the NTA’s Connecting Ireland Rural Mobility Plan. For more remote areas, new schemes such as a subsidised Local Area Hackney scheme and a grant-aided community transport service scheme will support local mobility. There are also plans to pilot ride-hailing services and transition the Transport for Ireland Local Link fleet to low- or zero-emission vehicles.
The Connecting Ireland Rural Mobility Plan aims to improve access to services by better connecting people to them. It relies on research has identified the differences between well-connected and less‑connected such as the that two out of five villages are not linked to nearby larger towns. The key commitments made in Connecting Ireland are as follows:
an ambition for 70% of people in rural Ireland to have access to public transport services that provide at least a basic level of connectivity
over 100 rural villages benefitting from frequent public transport services for the first time
over 100 rural areas benefitting from a regular service to their county town for the first time
over 60 new connections to regional cities from surrounding areas
an innovative approach to improving mobility for people in remote areas.
Source: NTA (2021[39]), Connecting Ireland Rural Mobility Plan: Enhancing Public Transport Across Rural Ireland - Summary Report, https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/NTA-Connecting-Ireland-Report.pdf.
Healthcare
Improving transport access is only part of the picture. Access to healthcare also remains uneven across rural Ireland. General practitioners (GPs) play a critical role in primary care. While the total number of Irish GPs per 100 000 people has increased over the past 30 years, the number of GPs practising in rural areas has declined over the past 2 decades (Harbour et al., 2024[38]). As in other OECD countries, GP and specialist care are less accessible in rural areas, requiring residents to travel further for services. For example, the only dedicated centre for cancer surgery in the West region is located in Galway City, meaning patients in the North-West must travel long distances for treatment.
Demand for primary care services is expected to rise by 46% across Ireland by 2031. At the same time, Ireland is projected to face a GP workforce shortage of between 493 and 1 380 by 2025, a shortfall that will disproportionately affect rural regions (Harbour et al., 2024[38]). In response to these challenges, ORF includes initiatives such as the establishment of 96 new Community Healthcare Networks across the country, intended to reshape how healthcare is delivered and support people in living more independently within their communities.
Other relevant initiatives include Healthy Ireland, which promotes better health and well-being through collaboration with LAs, and Sláintecare, the Department of Health’s overarching strategy for reforming health and social care delivery. Sláintecare commitments are included in ORF and monitored through regular progress reports. In addition, the Limerick Declaration on Rural Health Care provides a roadmap for improving rural healthcare in line with government priorities for an inclusive Irish society. It recognises the role of the health sector in contributing to economic growth as part of a rural revitalisation agenda (Box 3.8) (Glynn et al., 2023[40]).
As noted, GP shortages, an ageing workforce and limited geographic access are placing rural health systems under increasing strain. At the 19th World Rural Health Conference (2022), more than 650 participants gathered to explore how to improve health outcomes, empower rural communities to manage their health, and ensure that national health systems support rural populations in achieving the highest attainable standard of care.
The resulting Limerick Declaration on Rural Health Care serves as a blueprint for delivering high-quality healthcare more effectively in rural and remote settings. While global in scope, the discussions paid particular attention to the Irish healthcare system. Four key themes emerged:
Rural healthcare needs and delivery: Healthcare services should be tailored to the specific needs of those living in rural communities. Delivery models and approaches must counter geographic, social and cultural barriers to care.
Rural workforce: Whenever possible, the rural health workforce should be drawn from the communities they serve. Recruitment and retention of a rural health workforce will require targeted incentives, ongoing support and guidance, structured mentorship and recognition at all stages of the career pathway.
Advocacy and policy: Government health policies, strategies, plans, programmes and financing modalities should be rural proofed to avoid unintended adverse effects on rural communities.
Research for rural healthcare: The rural dimension is underrepresented in health risk analyses, outcomes and health system performance. Health research must be rural proofed, and a proportion of all health research funding should be ring-fenced for rural-focused research.
Source: Glynn, L. et al. (2023[40]), “The Limerick Declaration on Rural Health Care 2022”, https://doi.org/10.22605/rrh7905.
Transitioning to a climate-neutral society
As noted in ORF, climate change is already having impacts on Ireland’s environment, society, economy and natural resources (Government of Ireland, 2021[14]). To this end, the government is committed to halving carbon emissions over the next decade. Achieving this goal will require action across all parts of the country, including rural areas. The measures under the theme of “Transitioning to a climate-neutral society” are designed to support this goal. They also align with the OECD Rural Agenda for Climate Action, which calls for rural strategies to play a greater role in helping rural regions address the climate emergency and achieve net-zero emissions (OECD, 2021[41]). While the Department of the Climate, Energy and the Environment is leading several of these efforts, multiple departments are engaged and/or co-leading (Box 3.1).
On 2 November 2021, the OECD launched its Rural Agenda for Climate Action during a session organised and hosted within the COP26. The political document calls for a stronger role of rural policies to contribute to climate change goals and draws attention to much-needed policy action in six areas:
1. capacity building
2. evidence base
3. renewable energy
4. land use and ecosystem services
5. circular and bioeconomy
6. decarbonising transport.
The Rural Agenda for Climate Action outlines how countries can climate proof rural development policies and increase the role rural policies play in reaching climate change goals. National and supranational governments worldwide are mobilising vast amounts of resources to accelerate the green transition in rural areas. The agenda aims to support OECD Member countries in the implementation and effective use of available funds.
Eliminating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will require a shift in how goods and services are produced and, in some cases, the use of new energy carriers and raw materials. These changes demand different types of investment and infrastructure. The transition will affect firms and, by extension, workers. Some businesses – particularly those unable to adapt – may contract, while others will grow and evolve. Given the diversity of socio-economic conditions across rural areas, understanding the implications of these shifts will be crucial for future rural prosperity.
Note: DECC: Department of Environment, Climate and Communications; DHLGH: Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage; DRCDG: Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht; DT: Department of Transport; OPW: Office of Public Works. The names of government departments shown here reflect those used in ORF for consistency, but please note that some departments were renamed in 2025.
Source: Government of Ireland (2021[14]), Our Rural Future: Rural Development Policy 2021-2025, https://assets.gov.ie/static/documents/our-rural-future.pdf.
To support this, a joint initiative between the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine aims to scale employment in the green and circular economy, focusing on sectors such as the bioeconomy, sustainable tourism and low-carbon construction. However, labour market shortages present a significant challenge. Ireland has the highest green job vacancy rate in the OECD, with 82% more vacancies per employed person in green jobs than in the average job, well above the OECD average of 29% (see Figure 3.10). If green jobs remain in short supply, particularly in rural areas where many climate-related actions will be concentrated, workforce shortages could slow implementation. This points to the need for targeted rural skills strategies, aligned with broader ORF priorities on education, youth engagement and economic development.
Difference between the labour market tightness of green jobs and the average job in the labour market by region, 2022
Note: Labour market tightness is defined as the number of vacancies over employment. Occupations that have at least 10% of their tasks classified as green are defined as green jobs, following OECD (2023[42]). The country average refers to the employment-weighted average of regions and the OECD average refers to the unweighted average of countries.
Source: OECD (2024[43]), “Job Creation and Local Economic Development 2024 - Country Notes: Ireland”, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/job-creation-and-local-economic-development-2024-country-notes_ad2806c1-en/ireland_4b65ba5a-en.html.
Peatland rehabilitation is another area of focus, supporting emissions reduction, carbon sequestration and biodiversity. A EUR 108 million investment from the Climate Action Fund is being used to rehabilitate 33 000 acres of peatland across the 80 000-hectare (ha) estate of company Bord na Móna. In parallel, the national restoration programme for designated raised bog sites aims to restore 25 000 ha. Internationally, similar efforts are underway. In Scotland, degraded peatlands are estimated to account for over 15% of the country’s GHG emissions. In response, the Peatland ACTION programme provides land managers with funding and technical support for peatland restoration, including project design and advisory services (Levedag and Raderschall, 2023[44]).
Some measures focus on strengthening climate governance, such as the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Bill. Others aim to promote public engagement through new dialogue structures and support greater community participation in renewable energy projects. Programmes such as the Community Benefit Fund, the Renewable Electricity Support Scheme and the Micro-generation Support Scheme help communities access funding for local energy initiatives. There is also a goal to expand the Sustainable Energy Communities network from 500 to 1 500 by 2030. This broader community engagement is particularly relevant in the context of rising rural and farmer discontent in Europe and OECD countries, sometimes fuelled by top-down, centralised approaches to climate policy.
Support for the transition also includes investment in energy efficiency and the built environment. The Territorial Just Transition Plan for the European Union prioritises research and new projects, while national measures promote home retrofitting and heat pump installation by 2030, both of which also offer employment benefits. Separately, there are efforts to encourage more sustainable land management and strengthen the role of ecosystem services in rural development.
In line with Principle 8, which calls for strengthening sustainability, ensuring the just adaptation of rural areas to climate change and enhancing the value of ecosystem services, Ireland is advancing a mix of national and local actions to transition its rural economy toward long-term ecological resilience. The agriculture sector, which accounted for 34.4% of Ireland’s GHG emissions in 2022, has become a focal point for climate policy. While emissions increased by 14% between 2012 and 2022, a 1.2% reduction in 2022 – linked to fertiliser use reduction – signals a turning point. The Climate Action Plan 2024, Ireland’s third climate plan update, sets more ambitious targets to reduce land-sector emissions by 10% by 2025 and 25% by 2030.
Key actions include:
Improving management on 450 000 ha of grassland on mineral soils for greater carbon sequestration.
Reducing intensity of management on 80 000 ha of organic soils.
Increasing cover crops and straw incorporation in tillage to improve soil carbon.
Expanding the organic sector to 450 000 ha and tillage farming to 400 000 ha.
Reducing chemical nitrogen fertiliser use to 300 000 tonnes and producing 5.7 terawatt-hours of biomethane.
Offaly County Council is a practical example of rural leadership in this transition. With a legacy of energy production, the county is now host to over 1 gigawatt of renewable generation capacity in development. As of May 2025, there was approximately 396 megawatt of grid-scale renewable electricity generation capacity connected in Offaly. Officials credit a proactive planning framework since 2009 for this energy pipeline but call for stronger integration of employment and local revenue benefits into national energy strategy.
At the local level, climate governance is also evolving. All 31 LAs in Ireland adopted Local Authority Climate Action Plans (LACAPs) in early 2024, integrating both adaptation and mitigation in line with national requirements. LACAPs are explicitly required by law to be aligned with the national Climate Action Plan and the National Adaptation Framework. These frameworks create stronger connections between national climate objectives and localised delivery, recognising that rural areas have both a role and a stake in shaping climate solutions.
Nature-based solutions are emerging as key tools. While the rewetting of industrial peatlands can reverse biodiversity loss and enhance ecosystem services, stakeholders caution that co‑ordination remains limited, with gaps between energy, amenity and ecological planning. Overall, Ireland’s climate transition illustrates the interplay between national policy ambition and local innovation, and the importance of joined-up strategies that embed environmental goals into the rural development agenda.
Sources: OECD (2024[12]), Ireland, OECD Background Report, OECD Paris; CARO (2025[45]), “Local Authority Climate Action Plans (LA CAPs)”, https://www.caro.ie/local-authority-climate-action/local-authority-climate-action-plans-(1).
Supporting the sustainability of agriculture, marine and forestry
In Ireland, there are approximately 135 000 farms, 2 000 fishing vessels and aquaculture sites, and 2 000 food and beverage enterprises. Like most OECD Member countries, agriculture remains a significant economic activity, but does not necessarily drive local employment. For example, a closer look at the sectors driving employment in Irish rural towns and settlements with fewer than 1 500 inhabitants reveal that commerce or professional services seem to play a pivotal role in employment (Figure 3.11).
Employment is broken down by industry in towns/cities (settlements) with fewer than 1 500 inhabitants
Source: Central Statistics Office, Ireland.
Despite the declining impact on employment in rural regions, agriculture remains a multi-functional asset. The sector continues to contribute to local economies in diverse ways, such as providing amenities, traditional landscapes, opportunities for primary and secondary processing, cultural value and tourism-related services. The measures under the theme “Supporting the sustainability of agriculture marine and forestry” in ORF sought to enhance these different areas and address challenges in various ways. The measures that support farmers’ markets, farm shops and food emporiums aim to increase farm income. This is key because farm households often rely on a combination of farm and non-farm income sources, and the Irish are no different. In Ireland, 57% of farm holders or their spouses are engaged in off-farm employment. Policies that facilitate diversification, whether into tourism, forestry or food processing, have the potential to support both farm and non-farm rural households. The most overarching and ambitious vision for transforming the industry is outlined in the Agri-Food Strategy for 2030. It features a long-term strategy to transform Ireland into an international leader in sustainable food systems.
To facilitate further transformations, environmental sustainability objectives are also at the heart of several of the measures. Environmental transitions are gaining momentum in Ireland. Organic farming has expanded significantly by 480% between 1997 and 2022; grassland decreased from 62% to 59%, while forestry increased from 7% to 11% (CSO, 2024[46]). Pilot initiatives, such as the agri-environment scheme, which rewards farmers for adopting more sustainable farming practices, will encourage more farmers to adopt this approach. This is complemented by initiatives focusing on sustainable forestry, such as one measure aiming to achieve 8 000 ha per year in new plantings, building new habitats and advancing agriculture and forestry education and expertise, which are relevant to broader rural development.
One initiative led by the Department of Transport addresses an often-overlooked issue: increasing the use of environmentally friendly vehicles in rural regions and improving access to charging stations. The initiatives focus on the needs of rural areas in the development of an Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Strategy, which aims to ensure that charging infrastructure keeps pace with demand. Innovation, digitalisation and labour shifts are key elements reshaping the sector, with automation fostering an increasing demand for middle-skilled occupations, such as those involving the operation of digital technologies. Some initiatives seek to leverage these crucial elements by applying a Living Lab model to establish innovation networks, identifying and piloting tailored place-based initiatives for primary production, food and biobased systems.
Agricultural producers are constantly responding to pressures from changing economic, environmental and demographic conditions. These decisions affect farm size, scale, intensity, the nature and organisation of farming operations, as well as farm income diversity and engagement in non-farm income alternatives. Farmers are often the most affected by changes in temperature and weather conditions. ORF includes initiatives to implement the strategy Ag Climatise – A Roadmap Towards Climate Neutrality for the Agri‑Food Sector, which features concrete action steps, denoting what needs to be done and when, based on comprehensive stakeholder engagement and input (Government of Ireland, 2020[47]). Similarly, it calls for promoting the integration of climate action with environmental protection strategies while maintaining sustainable farm incomes, as outlined in the Common Agricultural Policy Strategic Plan 2023‑2027.
Rural development and agricultural policies tend to differ in their scope of activity and objectives. This can sometimes create a gap in policy implementation. In ORF, the responsibility for realising the measures under this pillar rests almost entirely with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Figure 3.12). This reflects a persistent reality for the DRCDGG, as it has numerous measures in the rural strategy that fall outside its remit. This also reinforces the need for more cohesive interdepartmental collaboration and place-based strategies that reflect the lived realities of rural households (Cervantes-Godoy, 2022[48]).
Note: DAFM: Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine; DETE: Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment; DH: Department of Health; DSP: Department of Social Protection. The names of government departments shown here reflect those used in ORF for consistency, but please note that some departments were renamed in 2025.
Source: Government of Ireland (2021[14]), Our Rural Future: Rural Development Policy 2021-2025, https://assets.gov.ie/static/documents/our-rural-future.pdf.
The successful delivery of ORF’s agriculture-related ambitions hinges on stronger interdepartmental co‑ordination and accountability mechanisms to avoid fragmented implementation. Farm diversification, off-farm employment strategies and environmental sustainability offer opportunities for policy alignment across departments. These intersections may be underutilised but are critical for implementing a place‑based approach. For example, many Irish farms operate at or near subsistence levels, so creating more viable sources of off-farm income is a necessity. There is a combination of measures throughout ORF that directly and indirectly supports these efforts, which could be amplified further.
Supporting the sustainability of the islands and coastal communities
By definition, islands are separated from the mainland by sea, making them peripheral territories. This often results in a high dependence on local resources, high costs of transporting goods and people, a limited internal market, a small labour market, scarcity of land, as well as strong local culture and identity linked to unique natural beauty and landscape specificities (OECD, 2022[49]). Recognising this aspect, the policy measures to realise the “Supporting the sustainability of the islands and the coastal communities” theme responds with a number of key actions (Figure 3.13). Our Living Islands is the first whole-of-government policy for the islands to be published in 27 years. The ten-year cross‑departmental policy for island development demonstrated that action plans covered housing, health, energy, utilities, waste management, climate change, education, digital connectivity, employment, infrastructure and transport.
Note: DAFM: Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine; DECC: Department of Environment, Climate and Communications; DHLGH: Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage; DRCDG: Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht; ÚG: Údarás na Gaeltachta. The names of government departments shown here reflect those used in ORF for consistency, but please note that some departments were renamed in 2025.
Source: Government of Ireland (2021[14]), Our Rural Future: Rural Development Policy 2021-2025, https://assets.gov.ie/static/documents/our-rural-future.pdf.
The more remote coastal and island communities, particularly those based on the west coast of the country bordering the Atlantic Ocean, have the potential to harness the benefits of the associated geographical and weather conditions. Several measures focus on supporting businesses and employment opportunities, whether physical or via innovative use of broadband infrastructure, such as the creation of strategic enterprise hubs. Other measures explore ways to use or reuse space and combining that with technology, such as the initiative to utilise islands as experimental sites for eHealth and microgeneration renewable energy technologies. The Fisheries Local Action Group scheme will boost small-scale seafood businesses alongside marine tourism and leisure projects while benefitting the overall marine sector.
Implementation of the policy
The capacity to implement is key to policy success. In a recent publication Reinforcing Rural Resilience, the OECD notes that the most carefully designed strategies will struggle to deliver results if policy implementation capacity is weak or inconsistent (OECD, 2025[26]). The report highlights a few elements that undermine implementation capacity that if left unaddressed, risk weakening the impact of rural policies. They include:
lack of policy coherence and weak integrated cross-government action
not working at the right functional scale and leveraging collaboration opportunities, e.g. rural-urban
not having rural informed evidence to inform decision making
limited effort to galvanise the rural voice, e.g. meaningful consultation processes
weak or ineffective rural communication strategies.
ORF recognises that the capacity to implement rural strategies needs to be better supported. As such, the measures focus on different ways to turn strategy into action. Giving local actors more voice is a recurring theme, increasing opportunities for different stakeholders to provide input on the type of community they want to live and work in. For example, one policy action provided the basis for supporting rural communities to develop town plans under Town Centre First, which align with regional strategies such as Regional Spatial and Economic Strategies (RSES), county and local development plans, as well as national goals. It signals that planning is not just a technical task but a strategic one that requires local visioning, which will help facilitate coherence across policy domains.
Rural proofing
Rural proofing is also emphasised under this theme. Its purpose is to ensure that policies do not produce unintended negative consequences in rural areas. Yet, as seen across OECD countries, identifying a model that works in practice remains challenging. Its continued inclusion as a focus area underscores the push-and-pull dynamic many OECD countries have with rural proofing, a tool often associated with transformative change that has, in practice, struggled to deliver on that promise (Bryce, 2024[50]). Ireland is no exception: while demand for rural proofing persists, inconsistent application and limited outcomes have weakened confidence in it as a policy tool. ‘
ORF acknowledges this and, through Measure 148, commits to developing a more “effective” rural proofing model. This effort builds on two key publications commissioned by the DRCDGG: Proposals for an Effective Rural Proofing Model for Ireland and Rural Proofing for Public Policy and Programme Development (Parnell and Lynch, 2022[51]). The 2022 report recommended a nimble process that fits Irish policymaking timeframes and resource constraints, while linking proofing quality to the knowledge and capacity of those conducting it. The 2025 guide responds to these findings, offering practical steps to embed rural considerations early in policy development and to promote accountability across departments.
Published in 2022, the Proposals for an Effective Rural Proofing Model for Ireland report revealed, among other things the need for a process that was more nimble, one that could align more with both the time constraints and resource demands of Irish policymaking (Parnell and Lynch, 2022[51]). The authors also linked the quality of the process to the knowledge and capacity of the rural proofers and questioned whether strengthening accountability measures could help when policies are not proofed. In the report, Parnell and Lynch proposed a few items to improve the approach to rural proofing in Ireland.
They include:
Being clear about the purpose of rural proofing and of proposed actions which may affect rural areas as an important starting point.
Having a relatively short, agreed set of factors to consider.
Considering the question of consultation so that it can have a positive impact, without becoming a mechanism which slows down the policymaking process.
Having a good body of knowledge and evidence and putting measures in place to develop and enhance this.
Monitoring the effectiveness of rural proofing and providing an opportunity to make further amendments to the process, to be built into the tools that support rural proofing.
Recognising the higher delivery costs for certain services in rural areas and budgeting for or otherwise addressed.
Considering how to deal with a situation where the mitigation of a negative impact of a measure lies outside the remit of the body proposing the measure.
Source: Parnell, W. and C. Lynch (2022[51]), “Proposals for an effective Rural Proofing model for Ireland”, https://assets.gov.ie/static/documents/Proposals-for-rural-proofing-2022.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2025).
Complementing these efforts are measures to deepen the evidence base and foster knowledge exchange. Two actions focus on strengthening research partnerships between higher education institutions and rural development bodies, including the creation of a Higher Education Institutions Network for Rural Development to mobilise expertise when needed. Other measures promote north‑south co‑operation to share information and best practices, increasing opportunities for experimentation and learning by doing, which aligns with the OECD Principles of Rural Policy:
Planning: enabling coherent, forward-looking rural strategies at the local level.
Actor engagement: bringing new and existing stakeholders into the rural policy space.
Capacity building: educating and empowering those actors to engage meaningfully.
Expert linkages: connecting communities with institutional expertise and research networks.
Knowledge exchange: fostering continuous learning through mechanisms like cross-border collaboration.
Source: Government of Ireland (2021[14]), Our Rural Future: Rural Development Policy 2021-2025, https://assets.gov.ie/static/documents/our-rural-future.pdf.
This framing reflects a welcome understanding that implementation is as much about process and people as it is about programmes and policy instruments.
As in many countries, a large number of actors influence rural policy in Ireland so an examination of the level of policy coherence is warranted. This section explores the vertical and horizontal co‑ordination and highlights the multi-level governance framework in place to support ORF and the rural development in Ireland. Of interest here is horizontal (cross sectoral alignment) and vertical coherence along with institution co‑ordination, as well as whether different policies (across various government sectors and levels) are able to work together to achieve the shared objectives in ORF.
Whole-of-government approach in Our Rural Future
ORF stands out among national rural strategies for embracing this system-oriented model. Its structure explicitly challenges the sectoral fragmentation seen in many OECD countries, where agencies may implement policies that deeply affect rural areas without recognising them as rural in nature. There is a clear focus on taking a co-ordinated approach to rural development issues in Ireland. The cabinet sub‑committee chaired by the Taoiseach and ministers and ministers of state all compliment this effort by ensuring policy co-ordination at the highest level. Interministerial bodies are engaged and the Interdepartmental Policy Committee comprising senior officials of relevant departments that report directly to the cabinet sub-committee.
By incorporating rural-relevant actions from across government, ORF assumes a multidimensional role, serving both as a governance signal and as a co‑ordination platform (Table 3.2). Yet this broad scope naturally brings trade-offs. Without aligned data systems, shared implementation plans and formal accountability mechanisms, cross-government delivery risks becoming fragmented, potentially making it difficult to attribute responsibility for outcomes. The DRCDGG, however, emphasises that accountability is embedded in its governance architecture. The department maintains that mechanisms such as the ORF Implementation Advisory Group, cross-departmental committees and regular reporting arrangements provide transparency and oversight for progress on ORF actions. The advisory group, in particular, is intended to assure the input of local and regional authorities, social partners, local development bodies and the wider voluntary and community sector into rural development policy issues.
Note: This table reflects the structure of the national government at the time of OECD visits in 2024.
Regional level
Effective multi-level governance ensures that policies designed at the national level can be adapted and effectively executed at the local and regional levels. In 2015, under the Local Government Reform Act 2014, three regional assemblies were established (Northern and Western, Southern, Eastern and Midland). The assemblies act as advocates for their regions with central government, the European Union and other stakeholders. They have three core functions:
Developing and implementing RSES, which lay out long-term plans for land use, resource allocation, sustainability and responses to challenges such as population growth and climate change in their area. These strategies guide and influence LA plans and investment (DHLGH, 2021[52]).
Manage and oversee the delivery of significant European funding programmes (primarily the European Regional Development Fund), determining regional priorities and where investment is targeted (COR, 2025[53]).
Promote joint action and mutual support among LAs, foster regional partnerships and facilitate cross-border and interregional collaboration for economic and infrastructure development (OECD, 2023[54]).
Only an elected local councillor in a city or county council election can become a member of the regional assembly (DHLGH, 2021[52]). In practice, after local elections, each county and city council will nominate a specified number of its councillors to serve as regional assembly members. The allocation of seats to each LA is set by ministerial order, roughly proportionate to population. Discussions in the field reveals that this can sometimes result in less focus on a regional vision if individual members focus mostly on the local concerns of the LA they represent.
Impact on rural development
Regional assemblies develop RSES that aim for balanced growth, targeting the sustainable development of both rural and urban areas. The regional assemblies provide a link between the European Union, local and national government. They co‑ordinate with LAs and government agencies, striving to ensure national priorities address rural revitalisation and regeneration needs in their region. These bodies are well placed to align national, regional and local policies (such as the National Planning Framework and local development plans) to better support rural development. Through their EU fund management role, they direct EU funds to specific rural projects, supporting initiatives like town and village renewal, digital hubs and remote working facilities.
Regional Enterprise Plans, managed by DETE, provide a mechanism to co‑ordinate efforts to stimulate economic activity across LA boundaries by identifying opportunities specific to all or part of a region. A major part of their focus is on increasing attractiveness of the region to foreign multinational firms. Activities can include improving core infrastructure to better support business, working to enhance regionwide co‑ordination among LAs and private sector actors, and developing regional labour force improvement mechanisms. The regional assemblies can direct various EU funds under their control to support these approaches and help LAs co‑ordinate their individual investments with the goal of facilitating sustainable regional development. In practice, the benefits from these actions have not been as significant as hoped, in part because this is a new process, in part because the degree of discretion open to the regional assemblies is limited by both Irish national policy and EU restrictions, and in part because LAs have often failed to see the benefit of a regional approach to economic development. LAs may be aware of unmet local needs or of opportunities to provide new goods or services that can improve well-being. However, because most of their funding is earmarked for a specific use, they are unable to act on these opportunities. Broadening the remit of Regional Enterprise Plans to include local firms would strengthen economic activity.
A notable recent development in Ireland’s local governance landscape is the incremental move toward decentralisation, marked most prominently by the introduction of a directly elected mayor in Limerick. This reform traces back to the 2014 local government reform agenda, which laid the groundwork for strengthening local democracy and executive accountability. In 2019, the people of Limerick voted in favour of establishing a directly elected mayor with executive functions, making it the only city in Ireland to endorse this model through a plebiscite. The proposal received central government approval in April 2023, and the new mayoral structure came into effect in 2024, statutorily underpinned by the local government (mayor of Limerick) and the Social Welfare and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 2024.
This reform represents a structural shift at the local level. The directly elected mayor assumes many of the strategic and policy responsibilities previously held by the chief executive. This includes responsibility at a strategic and policy level across the full range of LA functions:
strategic and economic development
housing and construction
road transport and safety
community and cultural services.
The directly elected mayor now has the opportunity to better link the administrative function of the LA to policy objectives with a mandate that is grounded in democratic legitimacy. The mayor is responsible for presenting the draft annual council budget to the elected council. And, the 2024 act provides the mayor with a Mayoral Fund of EUR 7m to advance priorities in 2025. This reform is a significant institutional experiment. It offers valuable insights into the potential benefits and trade-offs of deeper decentralisation in Ireland, particularly in terms of local leadership, accountability and co‑ordination across functional domains. It also highlights the enduring challenge of aligning power with resources; a theme echoed in broader discussions around rural and regional development.
Source: (Office of the Mayor, 2024[55])
Local authorities and local development bodies
Ireland’s subnational governance system is composed of 31 LAs, each responsible for delivering a wide range of public services. The 2011 Programme for Government acknowledged that governance in Ireland was overly centralised and lacked sufficient accountability, calling for reforms to bring about a real shift from the state to citizens. The 2014 reform marked a turning point, reducing fragmentation by consolidating 114 complex two-tier councils into a streamlined system of 31 single-tier councils. These authorities operate under the leadership of 949 elected councillors, who are chosen through local elections held every 5 years. Each LA contains a variety of urban and rural territory, with some LAs being mainly rural with a large share of their population residing in smaller towns and villages.
Currently the main function of local governments is to deliver public services funded by the national state, and to implement national regulations at the local level, and make and implement local policies within a national framework. In principle, this could be seen as strategic, but where national policies drive local responses – both through plans and regulations that must be respected, and because the vast bulk of funds available to subnational government are provided for specific purposes by the national government – a question arises as to whether local governments are fully serving local needs and interests. Indeed, local government appears more flexible and responsive on paper than it is in practice. LAs rely mainly on transfer payments from the national government and to a lesser extent the European Union for the bulk of their revenue. These are mostly restricted funds that can only be used for intended purposes. Without more own-source revenue, there is little possibility of stronger “bottom-up” development approaches.
The LA level is a mix of local and national bodies, including core elected council policy functions, LEOs, which are locally based but nationally co‑ordinated (by DETE) and the delivery of national programmes implemented at the local-authority level by staff within those LAs, often linked to the DRCDGG or other national departments. It has been argued that an unintended consequence of the 2014 decentralisation reforms was that programmes previously developed by the community and voluntary sector came under greater oversight and control by both local and national government (Ruano and Profiroiu, 2017[56]; Citizens Information Board, 2014[57]). This had important implications for rural development in that the current structure inherently reduces the amount of local discretion due to the combination of: limited scope for deviating from national programme requirements, limited capacity to generate own revenue and a resulting reliance on transfers from national government or EU funds, and the separation of policy from implementation. In addition, the national government has introduced competitive tendering for services provided by local voluntary organisations in place of grants, which has reduced morale and increased the financial vulnerability of these organisations.
Day-to-day management within Ireland’s LAs is carried out by a full-time chief executive, whose role is to carry out the administrative responsibilities of the LA, and to advise and assist the elected council in the performance of its statutory functions. This executive leadership is responsible for the implementation of decisions by councillors in relation to their reserved functions and implements responsibilities devolved to the LA by national government, including planning, and oversees service delivery across the LA territory. The council appoints the chief executive but candidates for the position are first approved by the minister after being selected by the Public Appointments Service. Similarly, while the council can suspend a chief executive, the position can only be terminated if the minister concurs. Such a process might raise the question of the extent to which the priorities of a chief executive are those of the council or the national government, particularly since chief executives tend to move from one LA to another over their career.
LAs are mandated to provide services across several key domains, including:
spatial and land use planning
housing
economic and community development
environmental protection
recreation and amenity services
library services
fire and emergency services.
Local development bodies
Sources: Based on DHLG (2016[58]), Revised Guidelines for the Operation of Local Community Development Committees, https://assets.gov.ie/3518/281118173519-f678a0f50ea64eff8a2f7dd9808285b6.pdf (accessed on 30 March 2025).; IDLN (2025[59]), Local Development Companies, https://ildn.ie/about/local-development-companies/ (accessed on 25 March 2025.
The role of local development bodies in implementing LEADER
Ireland has participated in the EU LEADER programme since its inception. As the initiative has evolved, so too has Ireland’s approach to managing its delivery. LEADER is inherently a bottom-up, community-led approach, designed to reflect the aspirations and opportunities of each rural territory. Consequently, the European Union requires that local action groups (LAGs: voluntary, multi-stakeholder partnerships representing local public, private and community interests) play the lead role in determining how funds are allocated over each programme cycle.
In Ireland, the LAG functions as the decision-making partnership responsible for selecting and overseeing LEADER-funded projects within a defined area (DRCDG, 2021[60]). Membership includes representatives of non-governmental organisations, local development companies, LAs, community and voluntary bodies, marginalised groups, youth and cultural organisations and relevant public agencies. Each member holds equal voting status within the LAG. Figure 3.15 is shows the differences between the LCDCs and LDCs within Ireland’s local development system.
Ireland’s governance model for LEADER is more complex than that of many EU member states because two types of entities can serve as LAGs, either LCDCs or LDCs, depending on the local context.
LDC-led LAGs are independent non-profit organisations that act as the LAG and directly deliver the programme. They often also implement other national and EU initiatives, such as the Social Inclusion and Community Activation Programme (SICAP) or the Social Enterprise Measure.
LCDC-led LAGs are statutory committees of LAs established under the 2014 Local Government Reform Act. They act as the LAG’s legal entity and are supported by an implementing partner – typically an LDC that carries out day-to-day animation and project administration – and by a financial partner – the LA – which manages financial oversight and payments.
For the 2023‑2027 LEADER programme, there are 33 LAGs nationwide: 21 LCDC-led and 12 LDC-led. State-sponsored organisation Pobal provides technical and administrative support to the DRCDGG and assists LAGs with programme compliance and reporting.
While both models embed LEADER within Ireland’s wider rural development governance system, they differ in how responsibilities are structured. LCDC-led models promote alignment with LA planning and funding streams, whereas LDC-led models build on the independent experience of long‑standing community development organisations. Both approaches aim to preserve the core LEADER principle of local decision making, though the integration of LAGs within broader institutional structures may sometimes blur lines of autonomy. Overall, Ireland’s hybrid model offers potential synergies between community-led action and strategic co‑ordination but also requires continual attention to maintaining the independence and inclusivity of LAG decision making, the foundation of the LEADER approach.
Municipalities
Most LAs (except for Cork City Council, Galway City Council, and the four Dublin LAs) are further divided into municipal districts (MDs), of which there are 95 in total across the country. Often MDs correspond to the boundaries of a town or village, including adjacent territory, which in many other OECD countries would have an independent local government. Councillors serve dual roles: they are members of both the municipal district and the overarching LA, but are only elected by voters in an MD, with each MD having multiple councillors. Within this structure, the elected council functions as the principal policymaking forum of the LA. Members from a specific municipal district members also exercise certain decision-making powers specific to the district, while primarily feeding into the broader strategic decisions of the full council. This layered governance structure provides a mechanism for local representation and decentralised service delivery. However, as discussed elsewhere, the capacity of these local units, both institutional and fiscal, varies significantly, shaping their ability to contribute to rural economic development in meaningful ways. In a significant number of cases municipal district boundaries correspond to the boundaries of towns and villages, which in the past may have had an elected council.
Amendments in 2025 to the 2014 Local Government Reform Act brought into existence many of the structural changes proposed in community plan Putting People First. However, the ambition of a devolved system of local government based on citizen engagement with the MDs set out in Putting People First has not happened (Quinn, 2015[61]) (Quinlivan, 2017[62]) (Lennon, 2019.[63]) Today, MDs remain relatively low-profile and although their members constitute the LA councils, very little substantive devolution from the LA to the MDs has taken place. While reserved functions are divided between the elected council and the MDs, the majority of responsibility and resources remains at the level of the LA. The decision to devolve additional powers from the plenary council to the municipal districts is itself a reserved function, meaning it is a matter for elected members, all of whom also sit on municipal districts, to determine (Lennon, 2019.[63]) (BOYLE et al., 2021[64]). There are also reserved functions, specified in legislation in each case, that must be carried out at municipal district level and reserved functions that can be performed at either plenary or municipal district level.
Volunteerism
The theme “Enhancing participation, leadership and resilience” in ORF includes a mandate and measures to further activate volunteers in local communities to support the delivery of programmes. In this regard both the Public Participation Networks and Town First programmes are well-designed and highly successful approaches to building social cohesion within a rural community. In conjunction, they provide a way to attract a broad array of local interests, first by building a network and then to bring people into a more formal process of identifying local issues and opportunities and ultimately acting upon them. Importantly, both programmes provide ways for LA engagement with the process, which can provide opportunities for better co‑ordination between local government and community leaders.
Volunteers play a key role in delivering local services. Discussions in the field for this report revealed that volunteerism have been at the core of local development work at the community level in Ireland, whether in urban or rural communities, for more than three decades. The model in use has seen local boards be established by volunteers, then work with staff teams to enable communities to determine how best to address issues of exclusion, poverty, disadvantage and other societal problems, which make it harder for citizens to live full lives in thriving communities, fully engaging in all that Irish society has to offer.
The strong social structure in Irish rural areas and local associations is an asset. However, the very heavy reliance on volunteers to develop and execute rural community policies bears some rethinking. Discussions on the ground reveal some pressure points. Volunteers have quite a lot of responsibilities that can be equated to a second full-time job for some. Some community members are providing services in more than one group. Being civic minded is commendable and should be lauded and appreciated, but when individuals step into these roles simply because no one else will, or because the function is essential but not formally recognised by governance structures, it signals deeper systemic issues.
In 2022, 13.88% of the population in Ireland participated in 1 or more voluntary activities. Participation was lower in large metropolitan areas, while all other region types showed slightly higher levels of engagement, particularly rural and remote regions such as the West (16.04%) and the Border (15.27%) regions (Figure 3.16).
Share of population that is involved in one or more voluntary activities in 2022
Source: Based on data from CSO (2022[65]), Census of Population 2022, https://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/population/censusofpopulation2022/.
In Ireland, the most common areas of voluntary engagement were sport (33%), community (26%) and social/charity activities (23%), followed by religion (15%), with very few participating in political volunteering (2%). In rural Ireland, the Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) plays a particularly central role creating social cohesion within each community where it operates and creating linkages across communities through sports competitions. GAA clubs have various roles as: community centres, the village pub, community sports facilities and wedding, baptism and funeral venues. In large metropolitan regions, community-related volunteering was slightly less common, while social/charity involvement was more prominent. Dublin stands out as an outlier, with 29% of volunteering in the region concentrated in social/charity activities, potentially reflecting higher levels of homelessness in the area (Figure 3.17).
Distribution of volunteers across activities by Irish region in 2022
Source: Based on data from CSO (2022[65]), Census of Population 2022, https://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/population/censusofpopulation2022/.
Our Rural Future funding
The 170 or more priorities identified in Ireland’s ORF are funded through a blend of national government budget allocations, multiple dedicated schemes, EU programmes and co-financing from LAs and local communities (DRCDG, 2021[66]; DRCDG, 2024[67]). For 2025, the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht and the Gaeltacht (DRCDGG) was allocated EUR 212 million specifically for rural development and EUR 260 million for community development, resulting in a total budget package of EUR 472 million (DRCDG, 2024[67]). Some investment schemes require match funding from LAs and, occasionally, contributions by local communities or philanthropic sources, For example, 10‑20% match for Town and Village Renewal Scheme projects; 5% in certain transition regions (DRCDG, 2025[68]).
Major elements are funded through the Rural Regeneration and Development Fund (EUR EUR 60 million), LEADER programme (EUR 42 million), Town and Village Renewal Scheme (EUR 20 million), Ceantair Laga Árd-Riachtanais (CLÁR) (EUR 11 million), Local Improvement Scheme (EUR 15 million) and Outdoor Recreation Infrastructure Scheme (EUR 16 million) (OBrian, 2023[69]). Many priorities (especially those under LEADER, regeneration and rural enterprise) receive co-funding via EU programmes such as the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and Cohesion Policy Funds (DRCDG, 2021[66]). Funding for ORF priorities is thus broad-based, leveraging government, EU, LA and community resources in an integrated programme, with transparent and competitive grant processes for most flagship schemes.
Sources: DRCDGG (2021[66]), “Our Rural Future: Minister Humphreys announces call for Category 2 applications to the €1 Billion Rural Regeneration and Development Fund”, https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-rural-and-community-development-and-the-gaeltacht/press-releases/our-rural-future-minister-humphreys-announces-call-for-category-2-applications-to-the-1-billion-rural-regeneration-and-development-fund/; OBrian, F. (2023[69]), “Overview of the DRCDG Rural Development Investment Programme”, https://www.opr.ie/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/February-2023-Councillor-Training-DRCDG-Presentation.pdf; DRCDGG (2024[67]), “Budget 2025: Ministers Humphreys and Joe O’Brien deliver €472 million for Rural and Community Development”, https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-rural-and-community-development-and-the-gaeltacht/press-releases/budget-2025-ministers-humphreys-and-joe-obrien-deliver-472-million-for-rural-and-community-development/; DRCDGG (2025[68]), Town and Village Renewal Call for Proposals: 2025 Scheme Outline, https://www.sdcc.ie/en/services/environment/town-and-village-renewal-scheme/2025-tvrs-scheme-outline.pdf.
Councils also top up national programmes from their own-revenue sources, especially on roads, recreational infrastructure and local economic initiatives. Some small-scale projects seek donations or local fundraising to meet match requirements or add value. Initiatives targeting digital, climate action or youth are often delivered with support from other government departments, drawing on multi-annual public investment plans for rural areas.
Local authority funding
LAs in Ireland are very large both in geographical and population terms compared to other European countries. Further since municipal districts have a very minor role, there is no functional level of government beneath the LA, unlike in many other OECD countries where small cities, towns and villages have elected governments and delegated functions. Effective policy coherence includes input from rural stakeholders, such as local governments, businesses, community organisations and residents, to ensure that national policies align with rural realities. Local government finance directly impacts how ORF is implemented at the local level. The financial health of local governments is influenced by broader sectoral policies (e.g. national fiscal policies, tax structures, public expenditure planning). Local governments in Ireland largely depend on national transfers rather than local revenue sources to fund rural development. As in other OECD countries, LAs derive their budget from a variety of sources, including, transfers from national government and revenue generated locally from charges for various services provided to individuals and businesses.
Turley shows that Ireland had one of the lowest ratios of local government expenditure to total government expenditure within the European Union in 2023 at 10.4%, and similarly, one of the highest allocations of fiscal responsibility for delivering public goods services to national governments, despite many of these normally being considered to be best delivered locally (Turley, 2025.[70]). While local governments deliver many of these services, both the level provided, and funding is largely determined nationally. OECD data for 2023 show local government in Ireland collected 1.6% of general government tax revenue (Turley, 2025.[70]). This makes LAs particularly dependent on transfers from the national government compared to similar LAs in other OECD countries. Most of these funds are restricted to specific uses, which leaves LAs with limited discretionary funds.
LAs can apply for targeted grants from relevant departments. These include capital grants (e.g. housing, road construction), regeneration funds and other projects like CLÁR, and the Town and Village Renewal Scheme. However, these funding sources typically specify how the money can be spent, leaving little discretion to the recipient. The current financing system provides very little flexibility to LAs to either alter the relative mix of services they provide to reflect local needs or to find activities that are not anticipated by the national government. In particular, local economic development activity, which could add to local employment and income by fostering new local businesses, is dependent on support from the LEOs or from LEADER.
Each LA adopts their own annual budget and the DHLGH publishes the consolidated budget for the sector. The four major sources include:
fees for goods and services locally provided
commercial rates: property taxes paid by local businesses
current and capital functions: grants and subsidies from different government departments, state agencies
other less significant sources: local taxes and specific levies.
Total LA revenue budget for 2024 is EUR 7.4 billion, a 10% increase from EUR 6.7 billion in 2023 (OECD, 2024[12])). But the composition of that revenue shows some significant structural issues. LA income has become reliant on grants and subsidies from the government for about 60% of revenues (OECD, 2024, pp. 16, parag. 1[12]). Once capital income is included, this share declines to about 45%. Ireland ranks among the lowest in the OECD in terms of subnational government expenditure and revenue, reflecting its low level of fiscal decentralisation and limited local revenue-raising capacity (Figure 3.18). In 2022, only 15.7% of subnational government revenue came from taxes, while the majority (66.8%) was derived from grants and subsidies, primarily from the European Union. Other smaller sources of income included tariffs and fees (12.3%), social contributions (5%) and property income (0.2%).
The high reliance of LAs on transfer payments and grants from national government to fund their activities can be problematic for development planning (UNCDF, 2023[71]), (Pender, 2012[72]) (Bonet, 2013[73]). When funds are provided on an annual basis, it can be challenging to make multi-year investments. A recent study in Kenya shows the impact of devolution to counties of both responsibilities and revenue sources from national government, with a significant positive effect on their economic growth (Muthomi, 2024[74]). Kenya like Ireland inherited a highly centralised government upon independence. Devolution came with significant obligations for counties to respect national government policy objectives (p. 7). The study found that a combination of increased own-source revenue and conditional grants increased economic growth rates between 2013 when devolution took place. The study also found that equalisation payments from the national government to those counties with the weakest fiscal capacity had an insignificant impact, perhaps because these transfers were for purposes only weakly connected to economic development (pp 11-12).
Subnational expenditure/revenue as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) and the share of public expenditure/revenue in 2022, in %
Note: Data cover 43 countries, including all 38 OECD Member countries, the 3 OECD accession countries (Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania), as well as Cyprus and Malta.
Source: Based on the OECD Regional Database.
Subnational tax revenue relative to GDP, public revenue, and subnational revenue in 2022
Note: Revenue is tax revenue of the subnational government. This is expressed as a share of GDP, as a share of general government tax revenue so called “public tax revenue”, and subnational government revenue.
Source: Based on the OECD Regional Database.
In rural areas own-source revenue from commercial rates and local fees is typically smaller than in cities, where business activity is a larger share of economic activity and business property is more valuable. LAs without a larger city consequently have little control over their revenue stream, which in turn makes it difficult to execute an investment-based development strategy. Where grants and transfers are either conditional or otherwise restricted in their use, they can induce recipients to adopt those activities that can be most easily funded, even those which may not be ideal for longer term development.
Certainly some, and perhaps the majority, of the costs associated with local government functions can be clearly identified and funded through transfer payments. However other functions, particularly investments in economic development are specific to a place and time and require local funding capacity to be implemented. Smart specialisation strategies are a useful example. Each LA can develop an investment strategy that is appropriate for its unique opportunities and needs. However, it can only implement that strategy if it has the financial capacity to make the investment. This will be difficult for LAs that rely to a great extent on transfers and grants that are restricted to specific uses as their main source of revenue.
European policy and funding
European policy is a layer in multi-level governance. EU directives and programmes help shape rural development, and the European Union has a well-established development approach. As such, better co‑ordination and alignment of EU programmes is key. The Rural Pact is a European Commission initiative (launched in 2021) under the umbrella of the Long-Term Vision for Rural Areas. ORF closely overlaps with the long-term vision for rural areas, often called the Rural Pact. They have common strategic objectives, rural proofing and rely to some degree on EU funding. Both prioritise rebuilding rural areas to be attractive for living, working and investment, target regeneration and digital access as means to reverse decline and depopulation. They both also feature commitments to rural proofing policies, investing in digital infrastructure and supporting community-led initiatives.
Ireland’s overall allocation from the various EU Cohesion Policy funds (European Regional Development Fund [ERDF], European Social Fund Plus [ESF+], EU Just Transition Fund, European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund) totals EUR 1.4 billion for 2021-2027 (PEIPSRD, 2025[75]). These figures do not include separate CAP Pillar 1 (direct payments) or LEADER funds, which are significant in the rural context. The CAP and the LEADER Rural Development Programme, and the ERDFs are the main European sources of funding that impact on rural Ireland. The LEADER programme, focused on local rural development, has a financial allocation of EUR 250 million for the period up to 2027 (EC, 2025[76]). This supports initiatives in rural enterprise, environment and social inclusion via LAGs (see Table 3.4).
The CAP, managed primarily by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, and the ERDF are the main EU sources of funding that impact rural Ireland. The DRCDGG is the paying agency for the LEADER programme, which is funded through Irelands’ CAP Strategic Plan 2023-2027. The ERDF, designed to correct social, economic and territorial disparities, is administered by the three regional assemblies established by the reform of local government in 2024. LAs in Ireland access ERDF funding through a structured, programme-based system, managed at the regional level by regional assemblies. EU funds allocated for regional and rural development are evolving with increasingly stringent restrictions on their use. In addition, numerous EU directives – covering areas such as consumer law, transport, energy and the environment – must be incorporated into policies.
Originally known as Liaison entre Actions de Développement de l’Économie Rurale (Links between Actions for the Development of the Rural Economy), LEADER is the EU rural development initiative that supports community-led local development (CLLD) in rural areas. It is part of the CAP, comes under Pillar II (Rural Development) and is co-financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and national governments. Unlike LEADER, which is community-led, ERDF funding is more institutional and strategic, supporting projects aligned with regional development priorities. LEADER and CLLD schemes function in Ireland as key EU-aligned mechanisms to ensure local empowerment and access to European funds, fulfilling both national and European commitments.
Source: EC (2025[76]), “Agriculture and Rural Development in Ireland”, https://ireland.representation.ec.europa.eu/strategy-and-priorities/key-eu-policies-ireland/agriculture-and-rural-development_en (accessed on 22 August 2025).
Across the European Union, there are over 2 500–3 300 CLLD LAGs, covering more than half of the EU’s rural population (Kah, 2024[77]). Ireland currently has 33 LAGs (DRCDG, 2025[78]). The number of LAGS seems appropriate in relation to the size of the country and its rural population. France, Italy, Poland and Spain have hundreds of LAGs each, while smaller countries may have two to several dozen (Kah, 2024[77]) Two main trends emerge in the distribution of LEADER funding in Ireland. First, rural regions receive significantly more funding than urban areas such as Dublin or the Mid-East (Figure 3.20). The Border region, in particular, received substantial allocations: approximately EUR 42.7 million between 2014 and 2020, and EUR 47.7 million for the 2021‑2027 period (EUR 12.6 million in 2021‑2022 and EUR 35.1 million in 2023‑2027).
LEADER differs from traditional top-down funding programmes by using a bottom-up approach that empowers local communities to design and deliver their own development strategies. In Ireland, LEADER is managed nationally by the DRCDGG but delivered locally by LAGs. While LEADER is a major source of funding for LDCs, they are not funded solely by LEADER. Most LDCs in Ireland operate as multi‑programme, multi-funded entities, delivering a suite of government and EU programmes. The LDCs are the implementing partners for LEADER. Table 3.5 provides an overview of the different funds LDCs receive including their links to national and EU funding sources.
The Social Inclusion and Community Activation Programme (SICAP) is a national initiative that is directly linked to rural Ireland by targeting poverty, social exclusion and disadvantage through local partnerships and tailored supports in both rural and urban setting. It is co-funded by the Irish government through the DRCDGG and by the ESF+, and provides flexible, locally managed funding to address exclusion and disadvantage across the country, with a strong presence in rural counties. The programme is implemented locally by 33 LCDCs and delivered by programme implementers in 53 contract areas, many of which cover rural regions. It supports rural communities and individuals by building community capacity, providing personal development, lifelong learning, labour market supports and supporting social enterprises through local engagement and projects tailored to rural needs (Box 3.13).
Source: EC (2025[76]), “Agriculture and Rural Development in Ireland”, https://ireland.representation.ec.europa.eu/strategy-and-priorities/key-eu-policies-ireland/agriculture-and-rural-development_en (accessed on 22 August 2025).
Note: Tús provides short-term work placements for unemployed people, while the RSS (Rural Social Scheme) offers rural community work opportunities to low-income farmers and fishermen. Similarly, the CE (Community Employment) programme places people facing long-term unemployment in part-time or temporary community work.
Source: EC (2025[76]), “Agriculture and Rural Development in Ireland”, https://ireland.representation.ec.europa.eu/strategy-and-priorities/key-eu-policies-ireland/agriculture-and-rural-development_en (accessed on 22 August 2025).
SICAP supports a wide range of rural community projects, focusing on social inclusion, lifelong learning, employment, community development, integration and enterprise. Here are several examples of SICAP projects in rural Ireland:
Community education for children (Wexford): The Elevate project enables children in Enniscorthy to engage with creativity- and community-focused learning beyond the conventional classroom, targeting educational disadvantage in rural neighbourhoods (O’Brien, 2024[79]).
Migrant integration network (West Limerick): The West Limerick Migrant Network brings together migrants from ten countries to build an inclusive rural community, celebrate cultural diversity and facilitate engagement in local activities (LDC, 2024[80]).
Active youth participation (Charleville and Mitchelstown): The ARISE Project in County Cork supports rural youth through capacity building for active participation and leadership in their local societies.
Social enterprise development (County Clare, Kildare): Rural communities receive support to establish and expand social enterprises, often addressing local needs such as childcare, community cafés or environmental initiatives.
Work placement and enterprise support (national): SICAP provides training, mentorship, enterprise grants and access to self-employment schemes for rural unemployed individuals, helping them transition to work or set up small businesses, sometimes involving returnees to rural Ireland and farmers diversifying income.
Food projects (Ballyhoura, national): Ballyhoura Development’s food initiatives, supported by SICAP, connect rural groups through sustainable food projects, including local gardens and nutrition education.
Capacity building for community groups (Roscommon): Support is given to rural volunteer groups, ranging from training in governance and funding applications to initiating local mental health and well-being events.
Sources: O’Brien, S. (2024[79]), “Turning New Pages: Inspiring Learning through Children, Creativity and Community”, https://wld.ie/case-studies/ (accessed on 15 August 2025); LDC (2024[80]), “West Limerick Resources CLG 2024 Case Study - Creating Community: West Limerick Migrant Network in Action”, https://www.wlr.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Case-Study-2024-_Creating-Community-WLR-2024.pdf (accessed on 22 August 2025).
Both the European Union and the OECD champion multi-level governance as leading to improved policy effectiveness. To address rural development challenges in Ireland, all these resources can and should be better connected to the national vision of rural development and the European Union’s Long-Term Vision for Rural Areas. Moreover, EU funds to support regional and rural development now come with greater restrictions on their use, as the EU moves to identify and implement its preferred development approaches. The ultimate effect is to impose a uniform set of constraints on county governments that results in an environment where all county governments face essentially the same narrow set of policy choices, even though their conditions and opportunities differ considerably.
Monitoring and evaluation of Our Rural Future
The DRCDGG is responsible for developing, implementing and monitoring rural policy in Ireland. Oversight and accountability are embedded through a dedicated implementation advisory group. The DRCDGG monitors progress and reports directly to the Cabinet Committee on the Economy and Investment, chaired by An Taoiseach. This governance structure ensures that rural development remains a standing priority at the highest levels of policymaking.
At the same time, having over 170 priorities with a large number of the priorities outside the control of the DRCDGG results in a larger proportion of resources being used to follow up and report on ORF. This also results in an imbalance between administrative tasks and policymaking, with too much emphasis (and time spent) on reporting. ORF is monitored on a six-monthly basis. These reports are very detailed and review every single measure. It is a time-consuming and onerous task and the necessity of reviews twice per year must be questioned. The monitoring process reports on spend and structures but is unable to capture the actual impact of these measures, and the differences they are making to rural communities.
While there are different ways to further refine the way progress is captured in the reports. For example, the quantitative summaries could be complemented by short narratives or stories on projects that describe how the process worked and what lessons can be learned. This would provide greater opportunity to elaborate on the process of people and place-based development. It would also allow us to understand in which rural places ORF is having an impact. It is also important to step back and evaluate whether these priorities are appropriate and to find ways to reduce the burden of monitoring and reporting, exploring ways that allow for more policy development while maintaining levers for encouraging action on rural issues with other departments at the national level.
The paradox of rural development in Ireland is that rural affairs are perhaps more important in Ireland than in many other OECD countries. Rural areas maintain a special place in the Irish national self-image. Much of the national identity is based on rural heritage, international tourism is mainly oriented to rural visits and a relatively large share of the national population continues to live in rural locations. The Irish government, in principle, recognises the importance of devolving significant responsibility and resources to enable locally based bottom-up rural development; but in practice, the last decades have seen a steady increase in centralisation of responsibility and resources at the national level. The result has been increased local government dependency on national funding and an increasing reliance on subsidies for rural people. Both reduce the incentive for rural people and local governments to find innovative ways to improve their lives.
The OECD approach to rural development has always emphasised a bottom-up, investment driven process, where local people and local governments jointly identify development opportunities and challenges specific to their location, and then identify and implement a strategy to improve their situation (OECD, 2022[15]) (OECD, 2025[26]). The role of national and supranational governments, such as the European Union, is to encourage and support this process by providing technical assistance, supplemental finance and a regulatory framework that ensures local actions fit within national and supranational goals. LEADER is the quintessential example of a programme that implements this approach. In Ireland, the recent trajectory of rural policy has reduced the scope for local control, despite providing additional support both in terms of funding and technical assistance.
Over time, Irish rural policy has been decoupled from this type of locally driven economic development. The decoupling can be seen in the difference in focus between the CEDRA report and ORF. CEDRA was established in 2012 to examine Ireland’s current status and medium-term potential for economic development and emphasised the importance of local entrepreneurship and strengthening local competitive advantages. By 2021, when the DRCDGG released ORF, the focus on strengthening rural economies through bottom-up development had disappeared. ORF shifted to a much broader rural community development approach that incorporates reaching social development objectives, revitalising rural housing and village centres, building social cohesion, implementing efforts to mitigate climate change and improving rural infrastructure.
For example, ORF identifies 170 priorities for national rural policy, with the majority being things the national government can do to support rural areas. Most of these are in principle useful actions, but the missing piece is a process that will allow rural people in a specific place to identify and utilise a subset to achieve their rural vision. Certainly, programmes like the public participation networks and Town Centre First create the opportunity for identifying local development opportunities, but to date, there has been only limited success in allowing localities to actually implement their aspirations.
In 2019, the DRCDGG provided a status report on actions undertaken by the government in response to the 2014 CEDRA report. A few of the recommendations were still unresolved, but the vast majority were considered to have been addressed. However, while the CEDRA recommendations explicitly focused on economic development, the 2019 DRCG status report consistently uses community or rural development. Indeed, the remit of the DRCDGG is community development, but absent strong local economies, the viability of even well-governed communities is uncertain.
In addition, the status report primarily focuses on government-to-government actions that show adjustments of specific national policies and programmes to address the CEDRA recommendations. It discusses how different branches of the national government speak to each other. What is missing is whether the changes have meaningfully affected the issues that the CEDRA report raised in terms of fostering place-specific economic improvements. In particular, there is little in the status report about any evidence of change in rural economic conditions at the local level, which was the underlying motivation for the work of CEDRA.
The evolution of rural development policy in Ireland has been gradual, adaptive and deeply context-sensitive. This change is significant because it has allowed Ireland to move beyond a narrow sectoral focus on agriculture and to embed rural development across wider domains of government action. ORF is a notable and coherent step forward. It is a useful reference point for countries pursuing change within more centralised and top-down governance systems. Chapter 4 offers a more detailed assessment of the system and identifies areas where greater alignment or ambition may be needed.
The OECD has conducted 7 virtual meetings and 2 field visits involving over 600 government officials and stakeholders as part of the research for the Rural Review of Ireland. The virtual discussions included were as follows:
Introduction and overview of Our Rural Future (April 2024)
Innovation and entrepreneurship in rural Ireland (May 2024)
Access to public services: Housing, broadband, health and skills (May 2024)
Economic development and the local labour market (May 2024)
Rural well-being (May 2024)
Meeting with former Irish government officials (September 2024)
Meeting with the Irish higher education institute network (October 2024).
These were complemented by field visits to:
Dublin and Limerick in June 2024
Dublin and Roscommon in September 2024.
The discussions and visits were supplemented by a Background Report on Rural Development in Ireland prepared by the Government of Ireland (OECD, 2024[12]). The objective of the report and activities was to engage with various government and non-government representatives at the national, regional and local levels to understand the approach to rural policy in Ireland. The discussions focused on identifying challenges, exploring areas of opportunity and assessing strengths and weaknesses. This document outlines some preliminary findings and observations on rural development policy in Ireland that emerged from these discussions. It does not cover all of the issues that will be analysed in the final report but instead provides an overview of the recurring themes.
The OECD rural reviews involve peer reviewers, delegates from the Working Party on Rural Policy and the Regional Development Policy Committee. These are government officials currently working on rural or regional policy in their countries. The peer-reviewing countries participating in the OECD Rural Review of Ireland are Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland. Representatives from each of these countries contributed to the discussions and shared their insights on the key messages highlighted in this report.
References
[73] Bonet, J. (2013), Expanding local revenues for promoting local development. Urban Public Economics Review, (19), pp.64-87..
[64] BOYLE, R. et al. (2021), “Municipal Districts: A Review”, IPA Local Government Research Series No 18, https://corkcountyppn.ie/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Municipal-Review-2020.pdf (accessed on 28 August 2025).
[50] 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.
[45] CARO (2025), “Local Authority Climate Action Plans (LA CAPs)”, Climate Action Regional Offices, https://www.caro.ie/local-authority-climate-action/local-authority-climate-action-plans-(1) (accessed on 31 August 2025).
[10] CEDRA (2014), Engerising Ireland’s Rural Economy, Report of the Commission for the Economic Development of Rural Areas, https://www.socialjustice.ie/system/files/file-uploads/2021-09/2014-04-14-cedrareport.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2024).
[48] Cervantes-Godoy, D. (2022), “Aligning agricultural and rural development policies in the context of structural change”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 187, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1499398c-en.
[57] Citizens Information Board (2014), , Relate The journal of developments in social services, Vol. 41/3, https://www.citizensinformationboard.ie/downloads/relate/relate_2014_05.pdf (accessed on 22 August 2025).
[53] COR (2025), Division of Powers - Ireland, European Committee of the Regions, https://portal.cor.europa.eu/divisionpowers/Pages/Ireland-intro.aspx (accessed on 22 August 2025).
[36] Council of Europe (2025), “Young people from rural areas must have better access to rights and essential services says Committee of Ministers”, Newsroom, https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/young-people-from-rural-areas-must-have-better-access-to-rights-and-essential-services-says-committee-of-ministers (accessed on 5 May 2025).
[46] CSO (2024), “Ecosystem Accounts – Grasslands and Croplands 2000-2022”, Central Statistics Office, https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/fp/fp-eagac/ecosystemaccountsgrasslandsandcroplands2000-2022/keyfindings/ (accessed on 22 March 2025).
[65] CSO (2022), Census of Population 2022, Central Statistics Office, https://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/population/censusofpopulation2022/.
[24] d’Antonio, S. (2024), “Five Flawless Ways to Revitalise Small Town Centres”, URBACT, https://urbact.eu/whats-new/stories/revitalise-small-town-centres (accessed on 2 March 2025).
[1] Destenay, E. (2022), “Future directions in rural history: Ireland, the First World War and the search for historical evidence”, Rural History, Vol. 34/1, pp. 137-146, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0956793322000255.
[58] DHLG (2016), Revised Guidelines for the Operation of Local Community Development Committees, Community Division of the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, https://assets.gov.ie/3518/281118173519-f678a0f50ea64eff8a2f7dd9808285b6.pdf (accessed on 30 March 2025).
[52] DHLGH (2021), “Local Government: Structure and Functions”, Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-housing-local-government-and-heritage/organisation-information/local-government-structure-and-functions/ (accessed on 22 August 2025).
[37] DRCD (2024), Rural Youth Assembly Summary Report 2024, Department of Rural and Community Development, https://assets.gov.ie/static/documents/rural-youth-assembly-summary-report-2024.pdf (accessed on 21 March 2025).
[28] DRCD (2023), Public Partricipation Networks: Annual Report 2023, Department of Rural and Community Development, https://assets.gov.ie/static/documents/public-participation-networks-annual-report-2023-english-version.pdf (accessed on 14 March 2025).
[78] DRCDG (2025), “LEADER Local Action Groups Contact Details”, Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht, https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-rural-and-community-development-and-the-gaeltacht/publications/leader-local-action-groups-contact-details/ (accessed on 22 August 2025).
[68] DRCDG (2025), Town and Village Renewal Call for Proposals: 2025 Scheme Outline, Town and Village Renewal Scheme, Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht, https://www.sdcc.ie/en/services/environment/town-and-village-renewal-scheme/2025-tvrs-scheme-outline.pdf (accessed on 19 August 2023).
[67] DRCDG (2024), “Budget 2025: Ministers Humphreys and Joe O’Brien deliver €472 million for Rural and Community Development”, Press Release, Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht, https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-rural-and-community-development-and-the-gaeltacht/press-releases/budget-2025-ministers-humphreys-and-joe-obrien-deliver-472-million-for-rural-and-community-development/ (accessed on 21 August 2025).
[35] DRCDG (2024), “Rural Ideas Fora”, Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht, https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-rural-and-community-development-and-the-gaeltacht/collections/rural-ideas-fora/#forum-9-demonstrating-bio-based-solutions-for-rural-communities (accessed on 4 March 2025).
[7] DRCDG (2022), “Delivering for the Future: A Strategy for Rural Development in Ireland”, https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-rural-and-community-development-and-the-gaeltacht/collections/delivering-for-the-future-a-strategy-for-rural-development-in-ireland/.
[60] DRCDG (2021), “LEADER programme for Rural Development”, Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht, https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-rural-and-community-development-and-the-gaeltacht/services/leader-programme-for-rural-development/ (accessed on 22 March 2025).
[66] DRCDG (2021), “Our Rural Future: Minister Humphreys announces call for Category 2 applications to the €1 Billion Rural Regeneration and Development Fund”, Press Release, Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht, https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-rural-and-community-development-and-the-gaeltacht/press-releases/our-rural-future-minister-humphreys-announces-call-for-category-2-applications-to-the-1-billion-rural-regeneration-and-development-fund/ (accessed on 17 August 2025).
[11] DRCDG (2019), “Charter for Rural Ireland - Status of Commitments”, https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-rural-and-community-development-and-the-gaeltacht/publications/charter-for-rural-ireland-status-of-commitments/.
[76] EC (2025), “Agriculture and Rural Development in Ireland”, European Commission, https://ireland.representation.ec.europa.eu/strategy-and-priorities/key-eu-policies-ireland/agriculture-and-rural-development_en (accessed on 22 August 2025).
[20] Eloundou, T. et al. (2023), “GPTs are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of Large Language Models”, arxiv logo, https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.10130 (accessed on 20 March 2025).
[40] Glynn, L. et al. (2023), “The Limerick Declaration on Rural Health Care 2022”, Rural and Remote Health, https://doi.org/10.22605/rrh7905.
[25] Government of Ireland (2023), Town Centre First: Annual Implementation Plan 2023, https://towncentrefirst.ie/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/TCF-Annual-Implementation-Plan.pdf (accessed on 21 March 2024).
[14] Government of Ireland (2021), Our Rural Future: Rural Development Policy 2021-2025, Department of Rural and Community Development, Government of Ireland, https://assets.gov.ie/static/documents/our-rural-future.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2025).
[47] Government of Ireland (2020), “Ag Climatise: A Roadmap towards Climate Neutrality”, https://assets.gov.ie/static/documents/ag-climatise-a-roadmap-towards-climate-neutrality.pdf.
[38] Harbour, E. et al. (2024), “Simulated GP clinic closure: Effects on patient access in the Irish Mid-West”, Rural and Remote Health, https://doi.org/10.22605/rrh8843.
[8] Houses of the Oireachtas (2000), “Seanad Éireann debate - Thursday, 9 Mar 2000 - White Paper on Rural Development: Statements”, https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/seanad/2000-03-09/5/ (accessed on 20 March 2025).
[59] IDLN (2025), Local Development Companies, Irish Local Development Network, https://ildn.ie/about/local-development-companies/ (accessed on 25 March 2025).
[77] Kah, S. (2024), “Multi-funded CLLD: Background paper and outcomes of workshop in Slovenia”, EU CAP Network, https://eu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/2024-02/eu-cap-network-multi-funded-clld-report.pdf (accessed on 15 August 2025).
[80] LDC (2024), “West Limerick Resources CLG 2024 Case Study - Creating Community: West Limerick Migrant Network in Action”, https://www.wlr.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Case-Study-2024-_Creating-Community-WLR-2024.pdf (accessed on 22 August 2025).
[63] Lennon, M. (2019.), Planning’s Position in the ‘Hollowing-out’and ‘Filling-in’of Local Government in Ireland. Planning Theory & Practice.
[44] Levedag, J. and L. Raderschall (2023), “The OECD Rural Agenda for Climate Action: Compendium of Best Practices: Peatland ACTION”, OECD, NordRegio, https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/12a075a017dd412789738e6053d6773c (accessed on 2 April 2025).
[6] Ludlow, N. (2005), “The making of the CAP: Towards a historical analysis of the EU’s first major policy”, Contemporary European History$, Vol. 14/3, pp. 347-371, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960777305002493.
[4] MacFeely, S. (2016), “Opportunism over strategy: A history of regional policy and spatial planning in Ireland”, International Planning Studies, Vol. 21/4, pp. 377-402, https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2016.1162403.
[74] Muthomi, F. (2024), The Nexus Between Revenue Decentralization Reforms and Economic Growth. Public Budgeting and Finance.
[39] NTA (2021), Connecting Ireland Rural Mobility Plan: Enhancing Public Transport Across Rural Ireland - Summary Report, National Transport Authority, https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/NTA-Connecting-Ireland-Report.pdf (accessed on 22 March 2025).
[2] Ó Gráda, C. and K. O’Rourke (2021), “The Irish economy during the century after partition”, The Economic History Review, Vol. 75/2, pp. 336-370, https://doi.org/10.1111/ehr.13106.
[16] O’Brien, A., E. Whelan and J. Levie (2023), The Social and Community Impact of Rural Working Hubs in Ireland, J.E. Cairnes School of Business and Economics, University of Galway, https://universityofgalway.ie/ruralworkinghubs/Remote-report_screen.pdf (accessed on 2 March 2025).
[79] O’Brien, S. (2024), “Turning New Pages: Inspiring Learning through Children, Creativity and Community”, SICAP Case Study 2024, https://wld.ie/case-studies/ (accessed on 15 August 2025).
[69] OBrian, F. (2023), “Overview of the DRCD Rural Development Investment Programme”, Government of Ireland, https://www.opr.ie/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/February-2023-Councillor-Training-DRCD-Presentation.pdf (accessed on 20 August 2025).
[26] OECD (2025), Reinforcing Rural Resilience, OECD Rural Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7cd485e3-en.
[12] OECD (2024), Ireland, OECD Background Report, OECD Paris.
[43] OECD (2024), “Job Creation and Local Economic Development 2024 - Country Notes: Ireland”, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/job-creation-and-local-economic-development-2024-country-notes_ad2806c1-en/ireland_4b65ba5a-en.html.
[18] OECD (2024), Job Creation and Local Economic Development 2024: The Geography of Generative AI, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/83325127-en.
[27] OECD (2023), “Boosting Social Entrepreneurship and Social Enterprise Development in Ireland: In-depth policy review”, OECD Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Papers, No. 2023/20, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3115bcb6-en.
[23] OECD (2023), “Greening high streets: Sustaining community centres”, Policy Brief, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/greening-high-streets-sustaining-community-centres_5ebe6bb5-en.html (accessed on 14 March 2025).
[42] OECD (2023), Job Creation and Local Economic Development 2023: Bridging the Great Green Divide, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/21db61c1-en.
[54] OECD (2023), “OECD Regional Outlook 2023: Ireland country page”, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2024/12/oecd-regional-outlook-2023-country-notes_48701f02/ireland_840013d8/82ed6bd8-en.pdf.
[34] OECD (2022), Engaging Citizens in Cohesion Policy: DG Regio and OECD Pilot Project Final Report, https://doi.org/10.1787/486e5a88-en.
[30] OECD (2022), OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f765caf6-en.
[49] OECD (2022), OECD Territorial Reviews: Gotland, Sweden, OECD Territorial Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/aedfc930-en.
[15] OECD (2022), “The Cavan-OECD Roadmap on Strengthening Rural Reslience against Global Challenges”, OECD Rural Development Conference; Building Sustainable and Thriving Rural Places, OECD, Paris.
[41] OECD (2021), OECD Rural Agenda for Climate Action, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/environmental-transition-in-regions/oecd-rural-agenda-for-climate-action.pdf/_jcr_content/renditions/original./oecd-rural-agenda-for-climate-action.pdf (accessed on 19 March 2025).
[33] OECD (2020), Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave, https://doi.org/10.1787/339306da-en.
[17] OECD (2019), SME and Entrepreneurship Policy in Ireland, OECD Studies on SMEs and Entrepreneurship, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e726f46d-en.
[29] OECD (2017), Recommendation of the Council on Open Government, OECD/LEGAL/0438, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0438 (accessed on 4 March 2025).
[32] OECD (2017), “Recommendation of the Council on Open Government”, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0438.
[19] OECD (2013), Regions and Innovation: Collaborating across Borders, OECD Reviews of Regional Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264205307-en.
[13] OECD (2004), The Development of Broadband Access in Rural and Remote Areas, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264032989-en.
[9] OECD (2003), The Future of Rural Policy: From Sectoral to Place-Based Policies in Rural Areas, OECD Rural Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264100848-en.
[31] OECD (2001), Citizens as Partners: OECD Handbook on Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264195561-en.
[3] OECD (1988), OECD Observer, Volume 1988 Issue 1, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/observer-v1988-1-en.
[55] Office of the Mayor (2024), “Directly Elected Mayor of Limerick”, Limerick City and County Council, https://www.limerick.ie/council/services/your-council/your-mayor/mayor-of-limerick/office-of-the-mayor/directly-elected (accessed on December 2025).
[51] Parnell, W. and C. Lynch (2022), “Proposals for an effective Rural Proofing model for Ireland”, https://assets.gov.ie/static/documents/Proposals-for-rural-proofing-2022.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2025).
[75] PEIPSRD (2025), “Minister Donohoe opens Ireland’s Future of EU Cohesion Policy Conference”, Press Release, Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, https://www.gov.ie/ga/an-roinn-caiteachais-phoibl%c3%ad-bonneagair-athch%c3%b3iri%c3%bach%c3%a1in-seirbh%c3%adse-poibl%c3%ad-agus-digiti%c3%bach%c3%a1in/preaseisiuinti/minister-donohoe-opens-irelands-future-of-eu-cohesion-policy-conference/ (accessed on 22 August 2025).
[72] Pender, J. (2012), “ural wealth creation concepts, strategies, and measures.”, USDA-ERS Economic Research Report.
[62] Quinlivan, A. (2017), . Reforming local government: Must it always be democracy versus efficiency. Administration.
[61] Quinn, B. (2015), . Local government reform–plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. Administration.
[56] Ruano, J. and M. Profiroiu (2017), The Palgrave Handbook of Decentralisation in Europe, Macmillan.
[22] Thadani, D. (2022), “Town Planning: Revitalizing towns, the neglected middle ground”, Public Square: A CNU Journal, https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2022/01/31/revitalizing-towns-neglected-middle-ground (accessed on 22 March 2025).
[21] Town of Nogent-sur-Marne (2020), “4e Assises Metropolitaines du Centre-Ville”, https://www.centre-ville.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/pres-barometre-MGP-2024.pdf (accessed on 1 March 2025).
[70] Turley, G. (2025.), Local government finance in Ireland: The four pillars of fiscal decentralization. Administration, https://doi.org/10.2478/admin-2025-0018.
[5] UCC (2024), “Irish Emigration History”, University College Cork, https://www.ucc.ie/en/emigre/history/ (accessed on 20 March 2025).
[71] UNCDF (2023), Malaga Coalition: Leveraging Own Source Revenues to Realize the Power of Local Governments, https://www.uncdf.org/article/8414/leveraging-own-source-revenues-to-realize-the-power-of-local-governments (accessed on 4 December 2023).