Bridging the rural-urban divide: Addressing inequalities and empowering communities

Javascript is disabled in your browser. Please, enable it for a better user experience.

Authors

Massimiliano Mascherini

Marie Hyland

Garance Hingre

Marta Anzillotti

Daniel Molinuevo

Eleonora Peruffo

Viginta Ivaškaitė-Tamošiūnė

Abstract

The Treaty of Lisbon established territorial cohesion as the third dimension of European cohesion. Despite the high priority given in policy to achieving geographically balanced economic development, gaps in living conditions still exist between rural and urban areas. In some cases, these gaps are growing. This report documents rural–urban differences in social, political, cultural and economic outcomes. These differences may pose a serious threat to social cohesion in Europe. Indeed, this report finds that rural residents more often perceive themselves as disregarded by governments and have lower levels of trust in governments and institutions than urban residents. Moreover, public service provision in rural areas is poorer than in urban areas, and gaps in provision are continually emerging. To ensure a bright future for all areas, innovative solutions to combat economic decline must be found. This report outlines creative solutions that are being deployed across Member States to provide services in remote areas.

Bridging the rural-urban divide: Addressing inequalities and empowering communities

English (759.75 KB - PDF)

Key findings

The goal to ensure balanced geographic development across European regions is rooted in the Lisbon Treaty. Despite this commitment, however, notable gaps in income and living conditions persist between rural and urban areas in Europe with rates of employment and levels of human capital higher on average in urban areas and where the gap in median income has increased by almost 20% over the past decade.
Inhabitants of rural areas experience an advantage in housing costs and conditions: only 6% of households are overburdened with housing costs, compared to 9% of urban households. Rural residents are more likely to own their homes and to live in larger homes, suffering less from pollution and crime. The natural surroundings in which they live also provide opportunities to pursue climate neutrality.
It is important for good-quality public services to be available in all areas to build trust amongst those citizens who feel their communities are being left behind, as findings show that unequal opportunities and lack of recognition can foster discontent, eroding social tolerance and trust. This general lack of trust among residents in rural areas is especially concerning and calls for increased political attention to be paid to rural areas and their economic investment.
Women in rural areas face additional challenges, including a higher gender employment gap and more conservative attitudes. Policies will therefore need to focus on encouraging women in rural areas to enter and remain in the labour force. An important component of this is ensuring that good-quality childcare facilities are available in rural areas.
It will be critical for Member States to prioritise investment in education and training for rural communities as rural residents do not enjoy the same access to services and infrastructure that is available in urban areas, including schools and high-speed broadband. These rural–urban differences in living conditions and public services appear to be taking a toll on social capital with rural residents being more likely to feel that their role, and that of their communities, is not recognised by central governments.

Executive summary

Bridging the rural–urban divide: Addressing inequalities and empowering communities

Author(s):

Eurofound

Bridging the rural–urban divide: Addressing inequalities and empowering communities

English (56.92 KB - PDF)

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: eurofound.link/ef22027

Cite this publication
Eurofound (2023), Bridging the rural–urban divide: Addressing inequalities and empowering communities, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

Key findings

Bridging the rural–urban divide: Addressing inequalities and empowering communities

List of tables

List of figures

Share this page

Tell us what you think