Premošćivanje jaza između ruralnih i urbanih područja: rješavanje problema nejednakosti i osnaživanje zajednica

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

Ugovorom iz Lisabona uspostavljena je teritorijalna kohezija kao treća dimenzija europske kohezije. Unatoč visokom prioritetu koji se u politici daje postizanju zemljopisno uravnoteženog gospodarskog razvoja, i dalje postoje razlike u životnim uvjetima između ruralnih i urbanih područja. U nekim slučajevima te se razlike povećavaju. U ovom se izvješću dokumentiraju razlike između ruralnih i urbanih područja kad je riječ o društvenim, političkim, kulturnim i gospodarskim uvjetima. Te razlike mogu predstavljati ozbiljnu prijetnju socijalnoj koheziji u Europi. U ovom se izvješću zaključuje da stanovnici ruralnih područja češće osjećaju da ih vlade zanemaruju i imaju niže razine povjerenja u vlade i institucije nego stanovnici gradova. Osim toga, dostupnost javnih usluga slabija je u ruralnim nego u urbanim područjima, a nedostatci u pružanju usluga stalno se pojavljuju. Kako bi se osigurala svijetla budućnost za sva područja, potrebno je pronaći inovativna rješenja za borbu protiv gospodarskog pada. U ovom se izvješću iznose kreativna rješenja koja se primjenjuju u državama članicama za pružanje usluga u udaljenim područjima.

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

English (759.75 KB - PDF)

Key findings

• Cilj osiguranja uravnoteženog zemljopisnog razvoja u europskim regijama temelji se na Ugovoru iz Lisabona. Međutim, unatoč toj preuzetoj obvezi i dalje postoje znatne razlike između ruralnih i urbanih područja u Europi kad je riječ o dohotku i životnim uvjetima. Uz to, stope zaposlenosti i razine ljudskog kapitala u urbanim područjima u prosjeku su više, a tijekom proteklog desetljeća razlika u srednjem dohotku povećala se za gotovo 20 %.

• Stanovnici ruralnih područja imaju prednost u pogledu troškova i uvjeta stanovanja: samo je 6 % kućanstava preopterećeno troškovima stanovanja u usporedbi s 9 % kućanstava u urbanim područjima. Vjerojatnije je da će stanovnici ruralnih područja posjedovati svoje domove i živjeti u većim domovima. Osim toga, manje su izloženi onečišćenju i kriminalu. Prirodno okruženje u kojem žive također pruža mogućnosti za postizanje klimatske neutralnosti.

• Važno je da kvalitetne javne usluge budu dostupne na svim područjima kako bi se izgradilo povjerenje među onim građanima koji smatraju da su njihove zajednice zapostavljene. Naime, rezultati pokazuju da nejednake mogućnosti i nedostatak priznanja mogu poticati nezadovoljstvo te negativno utjecati na društvenu toleranciju i povjerenje. Taj opći nedostatak povjerenja među stanovnicima ruralnih područja posebno zabrinjava i zahtijeva da se veća politička pozornost posveti ruralnim područjima i gospodarskim ulaganjima u njih.

• U ruralnim područjima žene se suočavaju s dodatnim izazovima, među ostalim s većim rodno uvjetovanim razlikama u zaposlenosti i konzervativnijim stavovima. Politike će se stoga morati usredotočiti na poticanje žena u ruralnim područjima da uđu na tržište rada i ondje ostanu. Važna je sastavnica toga osiguravanje dostupnosti kvalitetnih ustanova za skrb o djeci u ruralnim područjima.

• Od ključne je važnosti da države članice daju prioritet ulaganjima u obrazovanje i osposobljavanje na području ruralnih zajednica jer stanovnici ruralnih područja nemaju ravnopravan pristup uslugama i infrastrukturi koje su dostupne u urbanim područjima, uključujući škole i širokopojasni internet velike brzine. Čini se da te razlike u životnim uvjetima i javnim uslugama između ruralnih i urbanih područja nepovoljno utječu na društveni kapital, pri čemu je vjerojatnije da će stanovnici ruralnih područja osjećati da središnje vlasti ne priznaju njihovu ulogu i ulogu njihovih zajednica.

Executive summary

Author(s):

Eurofound

Premošćivanje jaza između ruralnih i urbanih područja: rješavanje problema nejednakosti i osnaživanje zajednica

hrvatski (68.87 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.

Premošćivanje jaza između ruralnih i urbanih područja: rješavanje problema nejednakosti i osnaživanje zajednica

Key findings

Premošćivanje jaza između ruralnih i urbanih područja: rješavanje problema nejednakosti i osnaživanje zajednica

List of tables

List of figures

Share this page

Tell us what you think