I Lissabontraktaten blev territorial samhørighed defineret som den tredje dimension af europæisk samhørighed. Selv om der i praksis lægges stor vægt på at opnå en geografisk afbalanceret økonomisk udvikling, er der stadig forskelle i levestandard mellem landdistrikter og byområder. I nogle tilfælde vokser disse forskelle. Denne rapport dokumenterer forskellene land og by imellem med hensyn til sociale, politiske, kulturelle og økonomiske følgevirkninger. Disse forskelle kan udgøre en alvorlig trussel mod den sociale samhørighed i Europa. Det fremgår således af denne rapport, at borgere i landdistrikter oftere opfatter sig selv som tilsidesat af myndighederne og har ringere tillid til myndigheder og institutioner end borgere i byområder. Desuden er udbuddet af offentlige tjenester i landdistrikter ringere end i byområder, og denne kløft bliver stadig dybere. For at sikre fremtiden for alle områder – land som by – skal der findes innovative løsninger til at bekæmpe økonomisk tilbagegang. Denne rapport skitserer kreative løsninger, der anvendes på tværs af medlemsstaterne til at levere tjenester i fjerntliggende områder.
Key findings
• Forpligtelsen til at sikre en afbalanceret geografisk udvikling på tværs af de europæiske regioner er forankret i Lissabontraktaten. På trods af denne målsætning er der dog stadig betydelige forskelle i indkomst- og levevilkår mellem landdistrikter og byområder i Europa, hvor beskæftigelsesfrekvensen og niveauet af menneskelig kapital i gennemsnit er højere i byområder, og hvor forskellen i medianindkomst er steget med næsten 20 % i løbet af det seneste årti.
• Borgere i landdistrikter mærker en fordel i forhold til boligomkostninger og boligforhold: Kun 6 % af husstande i landdistrikter er overbebyrdede med boligomkostninger, mod 9 % af husstande i byområder. Borgere i landdistrikter er mere tilbøjelige til at eje deres bolig og bo i større boliger, og de udsættes i mindre grad for forurening og kriminalitet. De naturlige omgivelser rummer også øgede muligheder for at opnå klimaneutralitet.
• Det er vigtigt, at der er adgang til offentlige tjenester af god kvalitet i alle områder for at opbygge tillid blandt de borgere, der føler, at deres lokalsamfund lades i stikken, da resultaterne viser, at ulige muligheder og manglende anerkendelse kan fremme utilfredshed og udhule den sociale tolerance og tillid. Denne generelle mangel på tillid blandt borgere i landdistrikter er særligt bekymrende og kræver øget politisk fokus på, og investering i, landdistrikter.
• Kvinder i landdistrikter står over for yderligere udfordringer, herunder en dybere beskæftigelseskløft mellem kønnene og mere konservative holdninger. Politikker skal derfor fokusere på at tilskynde kvinder i landdistrikter til at komme ind på arbejdsmarkedet – og blive der. Vigtigt i den forbindelse er det at sikre, at der findes børnepasningsfaciliteter af god kvalitet i landdistrikter.
• Det vil være afgørende for medlemsstaterne at prioritere investeringer i uddannelse for lokalsamfund i landdistrikter, da borgere i landdistrikter ikke har samme adgang til tjenester og infrastruktur som borgere i byområder, herunder skoler og højhastighedsbredbånd. Disse forskelle i levevilkår og offentlige tjenester mellem land og by synes at indvirke negativt på den sociale kapital, idet borgere i landdistrikter er mere tilbøjelige til at føle, at deres rolle – og lokalsamfundenes rolle – ikke anerkendes på centraladministrativt plan.
The report contains the following lists of tables and figures.
List of tables
- Table 1: Indicators used to assess the rural–urban divide in income, poverty and living conditions
- Table 2: Summarising rural–urban gaps in income, poverty and living conditions
- Table 3: Indicators used to assess the rural–urban divide in employment and opportunity
- Table 4: Summarising rural–urban gaps in employment and opportunities, 2012–2021
- Table 5: Individual and community recognition gaps
- Table 6: Variables from the EVS used to measure cultural differences
- Table 7: List of survey questions used to analyse political participation
- Table 8: Political participation indicators, by degree of urbanisation and political participation type, EU27, 2022 (%)
- Table 9: Political participation variables in Eurofound’s Living, working and COVID-19 e-survey
List of figures
- Figure 1: Distribution of population, by degree of urbanisation, EU27, 2020 (%)
- Figure 2: Urban population as a share of the total population, by region, 1960–2021 (%)
- Figure 3: Financial hardship in rural and urban areas throughout the COVID-19 crisis
- Figure 4: Employment situation of rural and urban residents throughout the COVID-19 crisis
- Figure 5: Median income, by Member State and degree of urbanisation, 2021 (€)
- Figure 6: Convergence trends in median income rate, by degree of urbanisation, 2012–2021 (€)
- Figure 7: AROPE rate, by Member State and degree of urbanisation, 2021 (%)
- Figure 8: Convergence trends in AROPE rate, by degree of urbanisation, 2012–2021 (%)
- Figure 9: Capacity to meet living costs (a) and ownership of assets and appliances (b) as proxies of the rural–urban gap in living standards
- Figure 10: Housing cost overburden rate, by Member State and degree of urbanisation, 2021 (%)
- Figure 11: Convergence trends in housing cost overburden rate, 2012–2021 (%)
- Figure 12: Aggregate home and neighbourhood characteristics (a) and structural quality (b) as proxies of the rural–urban gap in housing conditions
- Figure 13: Employment rate among 20- to 64-year-olds, by Member State and degree of urbanisation, 2021 (%)
- Figure 14: Convergence in employment rate, by degree of urbanisation, 2012–2021 (%)
- Figure 15: NEET rate, by Member State and degree of urbanisation, 2021 (%)
- Figure 16: Convergence in NEET rate, by degree of urbanisation, 2012–2021 (%)
- Figure 17: Tertiary educational attainment, by Member State and degree of urbanisation, 2021 (%)
- Figure 18: Convergence in tertiary educational attainment, by degree of urbanisation, 2012–2021 (%)
- Figure 19: Population with at least basic digital skills, by Member State and degree of urbanisation, 2021 (%)
- Figure 20: Individual recognition gap, by Member State and degree of urbanisation (%)
- Figure 21: Community recognition gap, by Member State and degree of urbanisation (%)
- Figure 22: Individual and community recognition gaps
- Figure 23: Gender equality index, by Member State and degree of urbanisation, 2017
- Figure 24: Liberal morality index, by Member State and degree of urbanisation, 2017
- Figure 25: Immigrant acceptance index, by Member State and degree of urbanisation, 2017
- Figure 26: Estimate of urbanisation level as a predictor of views of gender equality, liberal morality, immigrant acceptance and social tolerance, 2008 and 2017
- Figure 27: Share of respondents who voted in their last national election, by Member State and degree of urbanisation (%)
- Figure 28: Share of respondents who have attended a meeting of a trade union, political party or political group, by Member State and degree of urbanisation (%)
- Figure 29: Share of respondents who have contacted a politician or a public official, by Member State and degree of urbanisation (%)
- Figure 30: Share of respondents who have attended a protest or demonstration, by Member State and degree of urbanisation (%)
- Figure 31: Share of respondents who have signed a petition, by Member State and degree of urbanisation (%)
- Figure 32: Share of respondents who have commented on an issue online, by Member State and degree of urbanisation (%)
- Figure 33: Share of respondents who have boycotted a product or service of a company, by Member State and degree of urbanisation (%)
- Figure 34: Logistic regression results for formal and informal political participation, by degree of urbanisation
- Figure 35: Trust in government, trust in the EU, and satisfaction with democracy, by degree of urbanisation, EU27
- Figure 36: Trust in government, by Member State and degree of urbanisation (%)
- Figure 37: Trust in the EU, by Member State and degree of urbanisation (%)
- Figure 38: Satisfaction with democracy, by Member State and degree of urbanisation (%)
- Figure 39: Logistic regression results for trust in institutions and satisfaction with democracy, by degree of urbanisation, 2022
- Figure 40: Likelihood of perceiving services as poor quality, by degree of urbanisation
- Number of pages
-
92
- Reference nº
-
EF22027
- ISBN
-
978-92-897-2350-3
- Catalogue nº
-
TJ-04-23-916-EN-N
- DOI
-
10.2806/647715
- Permalink